Menu toggle

Augment Automotive.

Great to see a power curve on a forum! So many people claim various huge power gains through various means but the results are always subjective (it feels faster/more responsive etc) with promises to get to a rolling road and put up charts that never appear. I will try and post up curves for my 2.7 before fitting and after fitting the race cam from Augment. Originally tested at Superchips, the Porsche Club Motorsport appointed testing rolling road, at about 165BHP which was great in my view for a 90K motor. Weeps, yours will no doubt have been lower on account of the mileage, so great result from the Augtronic system and 85 Ethanol! Almost certainly 10+BHP up on original. Odd one about the 2.5 vs the 2.7 motors. Same cams and practically the same stated Orig BHP, and the 2.7 has larger valves. Talking to people that test cars a lot I understand that they have never seen a 2.5 motor produce more than 155BHP, kind of makes sense, could be that the 2.7 originally produced more power than Porsche claimed? With the race cam I managed 192BHP and a fellow competitor with the same setup but a fully rebuilt motor got a couple of BHP more. Can't recall what the torque figures were but will dig out the charts if possible.

With 192BHP I had to upgrade my injectors to S2 ones (803?) to achieve a good AFR so was interested in Roger's comment:

At Augment Automotive we felt that the performance of the standard engines left a little to be desired. Historically the 944 has not had many tuning options mainly down to the original injection system which is difficult to modify. (I've not heard or been told there's any issues with tuning the injection? Mines on stock 2.5 injectors and reached over 200bhp)

My standard injectors would not have been adequate for 190+BHP without running dangerously lean at the top end. Have you got power charts available for your car Roger? Wheel Torque and HP? Porsche Club Motorsport experience has shown that the way an operator comes off the power at the end of a test run makes a big difference to the apparent power. For 924/44 transmissions they consequently simply add 25kW (33 or so BHP) to the wheel power to ascertain flywheel power. Lots of people disagree, but that’s how they do it.

When we first ran the M62 supercharger with the standard crank pulley and an 80mm charger pulley (1.625:1 gearing) we only saw 2psi or so of boost but even that (with the race cam still in which with overlap isn’t the best for a boosted engine!) we got 202BHP. That would have made a great road car setup as it wouldn’t need an intercooler and would have great response from tickover and good torque. We needed more power so went for a smaller charger pulley to give 2:1 gearing. Needed to fit larger injectors again (Volvo). Got around 250lbft torque and 240BHP. But with that power from around 4000 to 6000 rpm, torque dropping as revs increased keeping power flat. That’s how I ran until the last event at Shelsley, for that we thought we might need more power to keep the 3.4 litre 911 at bay so upped the charger gearing to 2.1:1 and got peak torque around 272lbft and power of 267BHP flywheel estimated. With 228 at the wheels (so 261 in PCGB approach). Just found the chart for that so will have a go at uploading. Volvo injectors now on the limit and running leaner than I want at the top end, so need Turbo or other injectors now. I have never seen my exhaust glowing cherry-red before! Apparently quite normal on turbo setups.

That’s another benefit of the Augtronic setup, we can change injectors easily and do a "blanket” drop in injector times to get close to the correct AFR across the board. Can also use high impedance injectors which may mean I can find some OEM injectors that will fit the bill.
48831975383_04b3b1d361_z.jpg

 
Sprint924 said:
With the race cam I managed 192BHP and a fellow competitor with the same setup but a fully rebuilt motor got a couple of BHP more. Can't recall what the torque figures were but will dig out the charts if possible.

With 192BHP I had to upgrade my injectors to S2 ones (803?) to achieve a good AFR so was interested in Roger's comment:
(I've not heard or been told there's any issues with tuning the injection? Mines on stock 2.5 injectors and reached over 200bhp)

Have you got power charts available for your car Roger? Wheel Torque and HP?


Yes, I'll dig it out...

Here's a tech sheet when the car was finished as a Road car project in 2016 where the HP and Torque (Fly) is listed in increments....
http://924srr27l.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TEch-Spec-924srr27L-.pdf

R
 
The Original print out Graph from Ninemeister's RR, the first run of the day (approx. 10.30am) read 179bhp....
Final run around 7pm 205 bhp / 205 Ft lbs..

R

Download
 
Sprint924 said:
Do you have the wheel power and torque figures? Be good to see the assumed transmission losses.



Just this sheet is all I have......The Torque curve is on the graph

R
 
As you say some people run their Dyno and have different figures than others to work out the transmission losses, the best marker is always what you started and ended with, which was +26bhp
The car had an 2nd hand Ebay ECU not checked! and all the stock 924S 2.5 Ignition and fueling so it ran from the get go ........then the modifications from stock
(cylinder head porting, Honed Inlet manifold, Higher Camshaft duration and smaller exhaust ID tubing were all then subsequently "tuned" over 3/4 day to their optimum from 1000 - 6000rpm.

You mentioned " the way an operator comes off the power at the end of a test run makes a big difference to the apparent power."
This sounds almost an interesting almost contradiction of terms ! Please explain ?

Wayne @ Chipwizards took the car to the Rev Limiter (6350) before shutting off.

Also your explanation for the transmission Losses:
"For 924/44 transmissions they consequently simply add 25kW (33 or so BHP) to the wheel power to ascertain flywheel power. Lots of people disagree, but that’s how they do it."

Does this simply mean deduct 33bhp from the top line figure to find the wheel power? 172bhp in my case..

R
 
The way it was explained to me is that over many years of testing the circuit racing cars Porsche Club have seen big variations in the apparent transmission losses, and consequently apparent flywheel power, depending on how the operator lifts the throttle, dips the clutch, disengages gears or not. As a consequence they decided that the most reliable way to ascertain the engine (flywheel) power - and the most repeatable - is to take the definitive wheel power and add a standard value, which is different for different transmissions (25Kw in the case of 924/44). It obviously only applies at peak power. That's just how they do it and how they have decided is best. So, your last question, No. They ADD the standard transmission loss to the WHEEL power.
 
Sprint924 said:
The way it was explained to me is that over many years of testing the circuit racing cars Porsche Club have seen big variations in the apparent transmission losses, and consequently apparent flywheel power, depending on how the operator lifts the throttle, dips the clutch, disengages gears or not. As a consequence they decided that the most reliable way to ascertain the engine (flywheel) power - and the most repeatable - is to take the definitive wheel power and add a standard value, which is different for different transmissions (25Kw in the case of 924/44). It obviously only applies at peak power. That's just how they do it and how they have decided is best. So, your last question, No. They ADD the standard transmission loss to the WHEEL power.


Ok so this is also what AA adopted on their dyno for your car? and other (Non Porsche transaxle layout) car's have different figures EG: Civic Type R Transverse Engine / box FWD etc...


If a Dyno gives out figures at the flywheel (as mine did) this must already have a preset figure calculation which may be different to the 25kw is this what your thinking ?
I've no idea what this figure was, it could be higher or lower.




Either way getting back on thread the very first question was to the effect "AA electronics" are they any good / anyone fitted them etc...

My take is, I considered them all (ECU, Wasted spark, Camshaft, Injectors, AFM delete) before you had them (Approx 6 years ago) and was advised not to by several tuners / engineers / Race winners because firstly they will not produce more power and secondly for road use (at the time) the car will be far better for idling and driveability than an aftermarket system...

I even placed an Order for a Supercharged Kit (6 years ago) in October 2013 with AA but they never finished or produced it so I cancelled it after 1.5 years of waiting and then decided to not get anything at all from them. But went with the boys advice that have been tuning and racing these engines for 3+ decades (Current CSCC Future classics Champions with a 330bhp normally aspirated 968) and stuck with all the stock OE Bosch equipment and had this live mapped to suit the head and camshaft etc..The results were very surprising but supported what I'd been told that the OE system can be tuned very well if you know the right people that know what they are doing. None of the lightweight internals (Crank / Rods/Pistons/ Flywheel) produce more power, only the head and inlet work and camshaft with a very scrutinised tune have produced approx. 40bhp more than a stock 2.7 engine.

I'm not quite sure why but on the AA website it says (in regard to people that fit their plug and play ECU) etc. that they recommend the car is tuned by a Professional...…..!

So is the AA stuff any good ? I'm sure if you want to upgrade and faff About with lots of settings and parameters on a regular basis for road and more so for racing then it can do this just as any other standalone system could (Motec / DTA etc..) For most people on here are road users somne looking to make mods it's not in my opinion a bolt on instant guarenteed choice.

This is though mostly for Normally aspirated engines, as forced induction turbo or Super charging will of course require a lot more tweaking and this was too much faff for me at the time as my goal was a 200bhp per ton classic road car that didn't need constant adjustment, once it was done that was it.

So it could be driven anywhere in all conditions and all speeds including idling in traffic stuck in jams also spirited driving. Even 2 years after this had been achieved and the direction went to changing the car to a competitive Endurance Race car exactly the same system has been used for 3 rounds so far (Oulton / Silverstone & Donnington) with top 5 success from 16-18 in our class. It drives very crisp, pulls so well from as low as 2500rpm and doesn't need to be revved hard (no more than 6000rpm) it's that flexible and torquey @ Oulton Park only 3rd and 4th gear is used per lap.....

Talking of the Injectors your forced induction engine will need a lot more flow which could be why you've had to change them, unless you also did this for the stock 2.7 N/A >? but I've not
had or seen any issues with my stock 2.5 ones, or needed to change the pump pressure etc...It was as I've said all set up on a dyno once and it's never needed any additional changes / faffing or missed a beat since..

R


 

Ok so this is also what AA adopted on their dyno for your car? and other (Non Porsche transaxle layout) car's have different figures EG: Civic Type R Transverse Engine / box FWD etc...

No, it's not what Augment adopted, it's what Porsche Club do. So, when they have a car tested at Superchips Rolling Road they don't look at the calculated engine power but rather at the wheel power and then add the transmission loss. All cars will have different transmission drag losses. Ultimately it is the power put down on the road that is important. That's why I was asking if you had the wheel power curve.

If a Dyno gives out figures at the flywheel (as mine did) this must already have a preset figure calculation which may be different to the 25kw is this what your thinking ?
I've no idea what this figure was, it could be higher or lower.

No rolling road gives flywheel figures directly, only an engine dyno does that. Rolling roads measure the power at the wheels and then on the "run-down" the transmission losses are measured, then added to the wheel power figures to give a curve for engine power. It is the run-down stage that PCGB has found to be very variable.

But back to the original post. Been laboured enough I think. I and others have found Augment Automotive's ECU, cams, wasted spark ability, reliability and service excellent. You have found the original components satisfactory after a re-map of the ECU chip which is great for your application, but you still have 30+ year old components and many people have experienced problems with these failing. Currently there are used spares available, but they are becoming more expensive as supply diminishes, and the time will come when this won't be the case and more owners will need to turn to aftermarket solutions to keep their cars on the road; so I for one applaud the likes of Augment for taking the time and effort to produce products that plug into existing looms and allow us to keep our cars on the road!



 
924Srr27l said:
Ok so this is also what AA adopted on their dyno for your car? and other (Non Porsche transaxle layout) car's have different figures EG: Civic Type R Transverse Engine / box FWD etc...


These are the transmission losses that PCGB adopt for different cars (kW):
Cayman models - 33
964 / 993 / 996 / 997 / 991 models - 33
3.6 Carrera C2 (993) - 33
3.4 Carrera C2 (996) - 33
968CS -31
Boxster models - 31
928 models - 30
3.2 Carrera CS / SS - 30
924GT, 944 S2 - 30
911 1974 - 1984 - 29
Pre-74 911’s - 25
944 / 924 models - 25

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me in truth so please don't ask me to justify it! This is what is in our regs. My transmission with race oil in seems to lose (or use) more power than 25kW. But as noted above there are many variables that contribute to drag/losses.
 
Sprint924 said:
I and others have found Augment Automotive's ECU, cams, wasted spark ability, reliability and service excellent.

You have found the original components satisfactory after a re-map of the ECU chip which is great for your application, but you still have 30+ year old components and many people have experienced problems with these failing.





I wouldn't call the results of my engine to be satisfactory on OE components, a 105mm bore 2707cc Capacity (3.0 block - 2.5 951 Crank - 2.5 small valve cylinder head) all on stock 1980's 2.5 ECU / ignition & Fueling has produced an Outstanding achievement & increase in power comparable higher than your 2.7 N/a with (AA's Race cam / wasted spark / Trick ECU etc..) although you did say it had done some mileage? and also +40bhp up on the original 2.7 Production car.

Wayne @ chip wizards has a device to Emulate data obtained from the rolling road which is then burnt on to a Brand new chip and then installed, so it's not a case of the original chip being Re-mapped.
Not many / any? people can do this in the Uk including AA otherwise they'd advertise it!

R
 
924Srr27l said:
Wow! That's pretty strong. I thought originally that it was a PM to me but I see that you did actually post it on the forum!

Not sure what to say about that, though it does perhaps explain your apparent dislike of Augment Automotive's ECU.

May be worth reminding yourself on the PCGB Forum rules:

3.1 When using this forum, you agree not to:
3.1.1 Post insulting, threatening or defamatory material or material likely to cause undue annoyance, provocation, upset or embarrassment to any reasonable person.
3.1.2 Name companies, or individuals, in relation to accusations of malpractice, fraud or other criminal or civil offences.
3.1.3 Use the forums to harass anyone, including but not limited to posting personal or private information and images.
 
I have edited a couple of the above posts to comply with the aforementioned rules - which I have left in as a reminder.
 
Bit late to the party on this thread, i realise... I have an AA DME fitted to my turbo, which was an upgrade from a Rogue MAF unit and EBC. The car is way off standard, with a hybrid turbo, bigger injectors, Tial WG, and WBO2 to name but a few. My experience of the setup is road based, not having got around to taking it to the track yet. To date, my verdict is hugely positive, with driveability in particular being much improved over the Rogue unit - idle is solid, AFRs are consistent and safe, and the throttle based boost control transforms the car. I like it! Some would argue that it's not cheap but that's part of the choices we make. Tuning can be done yourself if you're savvy, or just take it to your favourite tuner if you're not - the nice thing is that there are guides and videos to show anyone how to operate the software. And finally, it is plug and play - no need to start rewiring the car. I know that there are lots of choices out there, but i'm happy with the AA setup.
 
starboard147 said:
And finally, it is plug and play - no need to start rewiring the car.


Yes good point, that's another Electrical component that can also fail and need replacing....
Some of the Engine bay Wiring on these looming towards 40 year old transaxles can get crispy!

R
 
starboard147 said:
Bit late to the party on this thread, i realise... I have an AA DME fitted to my turbo, which was an upgrade from a Rogue MAF unit and EBC. The car is way off standard, with a hybrid turbo, bigger injectors, Tial WG, and WBO2 to name but a few. My experience of the setup is road based, not having got around to taking it to the track yet. To date, my verdict is hugely positive, with driveability in particular being much improved over the Rogue unit - idle is solid, AFRs are consistent and safe, and the throttle based boost control transforms the car. I like it! Some would argue that it's not cheap but that's part of the choices we make. Tuning can be done yourself if you're savvy, or just take it to your favourite tuner if you're not - the nice thing is that there are guides and videos to show anyone how to operate the software. And finally, it is plug and play - no need to start rewiring the car. I know that there are lots of choices out there, but i'm happy with the AA setup.

hi mate , I’m really liking the sound of this . Is there any chance you could send me a link to where and how much these would set me back ect.
it’s prob my next mod I really need after I decide on a larger turbo , maff sensor and larger full exhaust system to complete my set up on my 944 turbo.
thanks
Daniel
 
Thankyou Paul ?? I shall have a look and give them a call one of these days so I know what my next stage is gonna set me back ????

ah if Only I was 20 again!!

thanks again ??
 

Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members

Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the Club, who shall have no liability in respect of them or the accuracy of the content. The Club assumes no responsibility for any effects arising from errors or omissions.

Porsche Club Great Britain gives no warranties, guarantees or assurances and makes no representations or recommendations regarding any goods or services advertised on this site. It is the responsibility of visitors to satisfy themselves that goods and/or services supplied by any advertiser are bona fide and in no instance can the Porsche Club Great Britain be held responsible.

When responding to advertisements please ensure that you satisfy yourself of any applicable call charges on numbers not prefixed by usual "landline" STD Codes. Information can be obtained from the operator or the white pages. Before giving out ANY information regarding cars, or any other items for sale, please satisfy yourself that any potential purchaser is bona fide.

Directors of the Board of Porsche Club GB, Club Office Staff, Register Secretaries and Regional Organisers are often requested by Club members to provide information on matters connected with their cars and other matters referred to in the Club Rules. Such information, advice and assistance provided by such persons is given in good faith and is based on the personal experience and knowledge of the individual concerned.

Neither Porsche Club GB, nor any of the aforementioned, shall be under any liability in respect of any such information, advice or assistance given to members. Members are advised to consult qualified specialists for information, advice and assistance on matters connected with their cars at all times.

Back
Top