How much diff between an N/A and Turbo?

[MikeP944]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
However, a 951 or Turbo-S can be modified far easier. Depends what you want.

I think dollar for dollar, the 951 is the best for the buck. It goes pretty quickly stock and can be easily modified to build big h.p. About $1,000 worth of upgrades in a 951 will put you right around 260-ish h.p. To get to the same level from an n/a 944 would probably cost several thousand. Even to get to that point from an S2 would be quite pricey.

First- Have you ever driven a N/A with a wilk chip? The performance change is huge, maybe not a lot of hp, but tons more usable torque down low and at $200 it is an amazing upgrade. That would be the first thing on my list of upgrades for anyone who has not purchased one.

Second - an S4 has a very conservatively rated 250hp stock and for $595 you can chip the ECU to get 300hp and 320 ft/lbs of torque. Because it is a twin turbo design there are tons of mods, some expensive, some not, but stock 0-60 is 5.5sec and with mods I've seen people claim 0-60's in the mid 4's. I love my 944, but I can only imagine the difference between an 80's 944 turbo and an 2000 S4 being like comparing a machete to a scalpel.

[bigyagi]

yes, i agree with the comment about european cars being faster. they dont have such draconian smogtest needs, and , generally this applies to all cars over there, they are downright tuned for maximum smoke! the drawback is that the engines dont last as long as their n.american counterparts.
as far as only an experienced driver getting the best out of a wilk chip, i'm confused by this one! the biggest difference i have found with this chip, is the amount of available torque from low revs, versus standard. we all know that the 944 series has no low end to talk of{s2 excepted from that statement}and this chip makes a huge difference to my car. being that not all cars are in the same state of tune, they will all differ somewhat, but at the end of the day, its torque that gets you going, that makes you leave the line. i have read ad nauseum all the reports about this and that/dyno/sotp etc. for my installation, it is night and day. i'm more than happy to let any nay-sayer test drive my car, to observe the difference between the two settings. if by chance, you get a chance to drive a car equipped with the dual chip, then try this test. standard setting, at 45 mph, then full throttle up to 80 mph {assuming you are on a loooong highway} observe your time. yes, how many would consider fifth gear accelleration with this car. now do the same in power prom position, and see the time difference. its amazing how much quicker it will be with just 1 hp difference, as many seem to think!
the amount of available torque from as low as 1500rpm with this chip, makes the standard setting feel like i'm driving a trabant!
no more waiting for torque at 3.5k, and especially relevant, no sooner does the torque/bhp come in at 3.5, then it starts to disappear at 5.5 k. the na{early} does start to run out of steam at 5.5k
so the other benefit of the chip, is that power/torque starts much earlier, and just builds steadily, with no hiccups/sudden surge/no disappearing act, right up to the redline. who would not want this??
as far as i'm concerned,for me, this is a great upgrade to the driveability of this car, and it is quicker than standard, which is very noticeable.

[nize]

Originally posted by MikeP944
First- Have you ever driven a N/A with a wilk chip? The performance change is huge, maybe not a lot of hp, but tons more usable torque down low and at $200 it is an amazing upgrade. That would be the first thing on my list of upgrades for anyone who has not purchased one.

how do you know this? do you have before/after dyno's with the wilk chip?

i keep hearing how the wilk chip is the best thing for 944's since sliced bread, but have yet to see a SINGLE before/after dyno to prove this.

not that i doubt it, i'm sure it's a great chip, but if you're going to claim it makes 'tons more usable torque down low' i'd like to see the proof.

[nize]

Originally posted by bigyagi
the biggest difference i have found with this chip, is the amount of available torque from low revs, versus standard.

if by chance, you get a chance to drive a car equipped with the dual chip, then try this test. standard setting, at 45 mph, then full throttle up to 80 mph {assuming you are on a loooong highway} observe your time. yes, how many would consider fifth gear accelleration with this car. now do the same in power prom position, and see the time difference. its amazing how much quicker it will be with just 1 hp difference, as many seem to think!

so the other benefit of the chip, is that power/torque starts much earlier, and just builds steadily, with no hiccups/sudden surge/no disappearing act, right up to the redline. who would not want this??

as far as i'm concerned,for me, this is a great upgrade to the driveability of this car, and it is quicker than standard, which is very noticeable.

again, got before/after dynos?

also, what exactly is the time difference for the 40-80 acceleration in fifth gear with/without the chip?

[bigyagi]

well, my car is available for anyone to try out the difference between the two settings. as i have previously stated, you can read all the dyno sheets you want, about any aftermarket add-on, eg: headers/filters etc. i prefer to use my money to buy things i want/need. if i want to read anything, i'll get a mag!
why should i publish my findings, and get all manner of nonsense directed back at me? thats why i invite anyone to try the real thing, and see for themsleve. BTW, would you be interested in posting your fifth gear times from 40 to 80 mph for your turbo? i'd be interested in seeing how the low compression pistons do from low revs, with no boost to start.
i would direct you to take a look at AFJuvat's revue of this chip. dont just take my word for it, take the time to read his write-up. i assume i'm correct in saying that he is a much respected member here, and has a well balanced outlook. being a mechanic, his words and experience are more meaningful and pertinant.

[nize]

the acceleration test for the turbo isn't 40-80, it's 60-100 in 5th gear. and it's been tested and documented many times over with various chips. you can find one of the many threads here;
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=104329&highlight=60-100

my current personal 60-100 time is 6.1 seconds.

on the flip side, i find it almost unbelievable that i can not find a SINGLE dyno test for the wilk's chip. hasn't ANYBODY tested this chip with empirical data? i'm not asking for YOUR dyno, i'm asking for ANY before/after dyno, and have yet to find a single one.

do you really think that dyno charts, air/fuel ratios, and torque graphs are 'nonsense'?

[MikeP944]

What does a dyno matter if the "seat of the pants" feel is much better and it makes the car a lot more fun to drive. I'll admit that I'd like to see a dyno also, not for proof that it works, but just to see what made such a difference in the drivability. Honestly, if the car lost hp and torque(I know it wouldn't) I wouldn't care because I could never go back to driving it stock.

[bigyagi]

yes, i agree mike. going back to stock is a disapointment.
i have seen a couple dyno's regarding this chip, and some say a couple hp, some say up to 20. hmm, thats very consistent,duh. like i said earlier, for MY car, there is a big difference and i certainly dont feel the need to visit a dyno shop, so that my brain can register this improvement, after reading it. its all about DRIVEABILITY!
i have driven all kinds of cars/motorcycles, for a long time, and can recognise, when something makes a difference, like this chip. i'm not one for bolting on a fart-can exhaust, and then because of the increased volume/noise, say, hey presto, my car is faster, because its louder!
as for the 60-100mph time for your turbo, yes thats great, i'm happy for you, but my point was the low end power of the na, from low revs,which is really bad. i have no doubt your turbo does not do much either at wot in fifth gear at 40mph, due to low compression pistons and little, or no boost. its all relative.
no chip/cam/header/filter on its own will work wonders,or double your hp/torque, but again, for my application, the increased available torque from low rpm, is easily far better than stock, by a wide margin, which translates to better driveability, and quicker pick-up.
i have no need to rev the head off the motor just to get going.
my last point, because i feel i'm flogging a dead horse here, is the throttle cam. ever wonder why so many people want to fit the aftermarket ones? major cause is the angled arm, which because of its shape means that for 1/2 pedal movement=1/4 throttle opening. not until the arm straightens out, do you get a 1:1 ratio, and its this movement that initially makes the car feel very underpowered. i'm not sure if i buy into the company line, that it was done to improve low speed driveability{wooo, so much power on tap}or more than likely, that the movement coincides with the torque spread coming around 3k, and giving the impression that the power? is coming on song.
one aspect of the new setting is the throttle settings are re-mapped, along with the fuel, and the pedal position is no longer governed by the trailing arm, that affects throttle position. its a 1:1 ratio at all times.
ok, i'm done. this subject has been flogged to death.
last advice to mike. drive your car, and enjoy the enhanced performance, dont read about it!

[ae1969]

There is a set of dyno sheets for FR's chips floating around (and you won't see gains as you would in a turbo 'obviously')...but in the early NA's it definitely cleans up some driveability issues.

....... and in regards to all the bench racing............ a slightly modified 80's 944 turbo..........will eat all other 80's porsche models without breaking a sweat..

[nize]

okay i've finally managed to find the dyno. thanks everyone.
FR wilk chip DYNO results

[CJFusco]

i am telling you, nize, the difference between a stock 944 and a PowerProm 944 is a BIG difference.

[nize]

Originally posted by MikeP944
What does a dyno matter if the "seat of the pants" feel is much better and it makes the car a lot more fun to drive.

because YOU claimed:

"The performance change is huge, maybe not a lot of hp, but tons more usable torque down low and at $200 it is an amazing upgrade."

and i just wanted to see empirical data. otherwise i'd just believe any ricer out there when they tell me that super-loud exhausts and vinly stickers give more HP.

[nize]

Originally posted by CJFusco
i am telling you, nize, the difference between a stock 944 and a PowerProm 944 is a BIG difference.

i believe you. i also believe that frwilk is an extremely talented tinkerer. in fact, i have so much respect for frwilk that i'm hoping he designs a chip for the turbo because i'd be the first to install one. i still wanted to see the dyno. i didn't think that was too much to ask but apparantly whenever someone brings up the 'where's the wilk chip dyno' question, five guys jump in and say 'who needs the dyno when the car's more drivable?'

now what's up with that?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Well, here's the obvious question - if Porsche could have done this, why didn't they? In other words, what sacrifice is being made to obtain the increases in the power band from 3,000 to 4,000? Is it simply trading safety factor by not retarding the timing as much, increasing fuel flow a bit, how? The thing with "upgrades" is moving the curve around a little is a good start, but operationally a good driver can simply adjust shifting patterns to keep the car "in the power band" more of the time. I still think side-by-side the two cars would be fairly evenly matched in the hands of competent drivers. I'd be curious to play with a set of Wilks, but it's rather pointless given the transformation the car is going through with the Callaway conversion and all. By the time I'm done, I'll likely be running a 951 DME / KLR anyway so minor chip upgrades don't make sense. I WOULD like to see and experience it for myself though.

I think the Wilks are a decent product but I just don't see the demand being very high - the people that would want Wilks are typically those that want more performance and if you want more performance (not just the feel of it, I'm talking actual substantial and quantifiable increases in tq/hp and reduced lap times) they'll end up going forced induction. I'm not bashing the product - those chips DO seem a helluva lot better than the junk ones out there that simply re-map the system and dump more fuel (which does little, if anything). They (I suspect) push mixture levels closer to optimum for power and either advance timing (or prevent premature retard of it). FWIW though, I imagine dollar-for-dollar you'd get better results out of running better fuel / toluene blends. :flamesuiton:

If I can find a set of Wilks for cheap (as in under 100 bucks) I'll get 'em just to play with until I get the Callaway stuff on. I'll even volunteer to do additional dyno tests.

[nize]

If I can find a set of Wilks for cheap (as in under 100 bucks) I'll get 'em just to play with until I get the Callaway stuff on. I'll even volunteer to do additional dyno tests.

i'm still interested in seeing a before/after wideband afr graph for the wilk chip. i'm still surprised i can't find a graph of this anywhere.

[CJFusco]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Well, here's the obvious question - if Porsche could have done this, why didn't they? .

EMISSIONS

[mambodave]

I have had both cars....The turbo is by far MUCH MUCH MUCH faster and fun to drive. Once you go Turbo, youll not go back to an NA. Night and Day....

Ive seen some nice S2's around for sale about the same price as a turbo though.

Hell...just go for it and buy my 911:-)

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I disagree. I still LOVE to drive my n/a. That point of view is a very snobbish attitude held by some 951 owners that have no respect for the lineage of their cars and as such, frankly don't deserve them IMO.

Typically the people with this attitude are no better than 911 guys that claim 944s (including turbos) aren't "real" Porsches. It's important to remember: without the 944 n/a or even the 924 - no 944 turbo. Also, these are people that typically have no appreciation for the superior HANDLING characteristics of these autos, they just get hooked on the turbo and don't care about anything else. They might as well drive Supras or Honda Civics, so long as they're turbocharged. Their appreciation stops at about that level. I'm not saying this is you, but as one that started with an n/a and still likes it AS an n/a (yes, it will be converted via the Callaway kit, but that's more a function of my desire to tinker / experiment / conduct R&D than any NEED for a turbo - I do have a 951. . . ) I have to say they are still excellent cars and most n/a guys love their 944s just as much as any turbo owner. It sucks that snobbish 951 guys have to make them feel "second class" by putting them down all the time and thinking "they're all that". I truly hate this divisive attitude among 944 owners - come on, let's all get along.


If all you care about is fast / turbo then get a 993.

[mambodave]

Dont get me wrong...IM not saying ANYTHING bad about the 944 na at all...

And even after having a 911, i think the 944 is a better car overall.

Its just really hard to go back to the na after having a turbo for me. I guess im a power junkie.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

That's fine. . . I just hear too many comments from 951 owners that are like "oh, an n/a. . . how cute" or "why bother with an n/a" or stuff like that. As long as you understand the role they had in (1) saving Porsche as a company and (2) allowing for the development of the 951/968 then fine. Heck, I even get a little PO-ed when I hear people trash talk the 924 calling them "gussied up VWs" and other unfair things. The 924 is certainly not in the same league as the 944 or 944 turbo, but still had a pivotal role in the history of water-cooled Porsches. To any that look down on them: remember, for every 924 you mock, there's a 993 twin turbo that looks at your 951 as an "insult" to the Porsche marquee. It isn't right by EITHER party and I'd just like to see us "all get along" regardless of model, ya' know? I'm an idealist I guess. . .