phazed

If I was in your position at this stage, I would argue the point that as they haven’t achieved full repairs for what you had brought the car in for they should at the very least inspect the problem thoroughly and report on cost of repairs at no cost to you.

I’m assuming that they know what they are doing, (debatable going by the information that you have divulged). It is possible that they don’t know how to fix it, (possibly have mechanics who haven’t the skills or experience to understand and repair the mechanics of the roof) and possibly should have referred you to a roof specialist. As it is you need to strongly argue the points as you see them.

There is a strong possibility that they haven’t adjusted the new operating rods to their correct length. This is tricky to do and not straight forward if you haven’t done it before. If done incorrectly they will be fighting the mechanism giving you all sorts of problems.

Good luck and let us know how you get on.

11 hours ago, Patt said:

Alignment can also make quite the difference.

A car with more camber for the track and turn in will wander about way more on the straights.

I must add that my recent track set up geo and using my 1/3 worn Michelin road tyres don’t produce any tramlining 

53 minutes ago, Menoporsche said:

Could be that peak power hasn't changed but power curve is a lot flatter. That has been known with remaps.

Not yet remapped. Running on the 986 MAF tube but hopefully will be remapped with the 987 larger MAF tube soon. Get your point though.

At last took my modded S for a decent run today. Pulls like a train through the whole rev range as opposed to before where it was weak in the midrange.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it is running high 200’s bhp! Result…

3 hours ago, nelmo said:

Ordered new front tyres because ever since I changed the wheels and they came with a set of 245s on the front, the tramlining has been very bad. I'm hoping the move back to 235s will sort it out.

£268 for 2 Michelin PS5s is pretty good, I thought....

Also ordered oil and filter for my first oil change (in my ownership, not ever)...

Tramlining is probably caused by your existing tyres being worn. Tramlining is rarely noticeable with new tyres but as the tread wears and the tyre blocks are shorter, there is less flex with the tread, (but more grip on a dry road).

That’s why people think that the problem is solved when new tyres are fitted.

Saying that, some tyres are better than others due to tread pattern.

Thanks. Will check them out. 👍

I have the full s/s ToyoSport exhaust so should perform well with a remap.

Need to find someone who is not 250 miles away!

Trimmed 986 MAF tube slotted into 987 MAF tube. Snug fit and held in situ by 3 short self tappers so that 986 tube can be dispensed with in a few minutes if I go down the remap route. MAF orifice’s line up perfectly.

Agree with that. By comparison to the hardened 986 the RS60 feels sublime by comparison and definitely a little more powerful certainly in the lower and mid range, no doubt extra torque.

Saying that the 986 now should be a little lighter, more nimble and really sings at the top end, we shall see.

10 hours ago, T911UK said:

I call mine "Jeffrey"

Reminds me of, “Take him to the Greek!”

Completed my 74mm TB and 987 airbox install at last.

Installation problems aside at this point, very pleased and it goes like a rocket.

👍

As for running, very pleased with the outcome.

only managed about 10 miles as we had cinema tickets for this afternoon, (that’s what us work shy older people do!).

Genuinely more power throughout the rev range where it was flat in the middle before. Got a feeling that the ECU may still be adjusting but when you floor it now, I am not disappointed as I was in standard 3.2 guise.

Took my 987, 3.4 out last night and by comparison engine/power wise. It was so much better than a 3.2. I believe my RS 60 has a slightly larger throttle body than standard so it’s probably a little bit more powerful in that respect, but the 3.2 was flatter for 2/3 of the rev range and really comes on song after 5K. Now it is far more linear in power, it really sings!

Should have a chance for more of a run tomorrow and will report. 

Eureka problem solved.!

Eureka problem solved.!

986 tube inserted into 987 tube and Bob’s a good un!

2 hours ago, bally4563 said:

Thing is Peter you can put lip stick on a pig …. But it’s still a Pig 😂

So true. Was out this evening in the RS60. By comparison to my hardened 986 it is so comfortable, so smooth and generally such a brilliant drive!

I love it…

And more importantly, did you notice any great difference with the remap?

Thanks for that. Who did your remap?

I have been looking at so much!
 

I shall line the MAF tube with a sleeve as suggested and cut an aperture for the MAF. Tomorrow’s work…

Thanks.

986 MAF holder is 74mm int dia. 987 MAF holder is 80 mm in dia.

So if I sleeve the 987 MAF holder with say, a 20mm wide collar, is that all that is required?
 

Air flow will go through the 80mm MAF holder, be reduced through the 74mm collar, spill out into the larger 80mm tubing and go on into 74mm plenum. Is that it?

Thanks.

Just to recap. 
Use the 986 tube and car should run okay and hopefully should give a small hike in performance.

Use the 987 tube and a remap is required and would that give a performance upgrade over the 986 tube as above?
 

If so, who would remap considering I’m situated in Surrey. Also, what would be the approximate cost?

Now why didn’t anyone tell me! 🤔😁

Generally titted about most of the day and got slightly forward of nowhere …

Thanks for that. Looks like I overlooked the MAF tube reduction! Not in the garage atm so just asking what is the internal dia required? I assume the same as the 986 MAF tube? Is it ok to use the 986 MAF tube and then step up immediately to the larger tube before the TB?
 

Not in the garage now till Wednesday so will continue then.

At this point, I will order the MAF tomorrow. Just to confirm, I will quote this number.
Bosch, 0 280 218 055

Open to any other bright ideas!

yours desperately!

51 minutes ago, ½cwt said:

More air through large pipe even though MAF is set for a smaller pipe just over 18% more area so 18% more air going down a 74mm tube v 68mm tube.  But would a MAF for a 74mm tube give readings a 986 ECU can make sense of?

Missed this. There is quite a difference I agree. From memory, people who have done this upgrade, (if that is the correct word) have not had the engine remapped but there again I believe some have for very small gains. Is that correct?

If the above is true then can the standard ECU learn to deal with more air and add the correct amount of fuel given that it is more than just a few percentage change?