I've got no problem with you Loren, I don't know you from Adam. You are certainly entitled to your own views and the right to express them on this forum. More power to you for being in the minority and having the gumption to speak your mind.

What I have the problem with is when the line is crossed and it gets personal between parties. You are certainly not the only guilty party on this forum. I don't agree with many of the responses on different threads but I don't get personal about it. Sure, there are times that I might sit at the keyboard and begin typing a smart-ass comment to take a cheap shot at someone, but I catch myself and delete. What good would bashing someone do? It just shows what a jerk I would be.

If the vast majority wants to remain uninformed and ignorant, just let us. Steve's chip helped my 3.2L, and his efforts will further help my 3.5L twin-plug in the near future. I respect your comments (most of them), even if I don't agree with them.

Ralph

Ok boys, I'm back from a long day and I can see this has turned into a pissing match, and I'm not surprised at all. However, lets get one thing clear here.

Loren, clarify to all of us in this forum what your motivation is in all of this. I believe rbcsaver once asked you on Rennlist a couple of times about your involvement in selling your own line of Porsche performance chips, a simple question which you've so far successful dodged. If you don't remember here is the thread:

84 Carrera and Steve Wong chip

I'll repost his question here, which perhaps you can clarify for us:


And repeated again:

Loren,

Same question I have for asked of you here months ago was to give us your tests on this subject. Have never seen anything from you yet! Still waiting.

The tests are definitive as to the increase given the changes (chip, premuffler)to the car. Most of us want to know what the increase is. What i don't understand is everyone has been asking for hard numbers and here they are. Now these are not right or they should have been done another way. The dyno was done the way the car was going to be used. The actual increase is documented by the dyno. Seems to me this is what was asked and here it is. Don't understand what the big deal is with testing with the cat on the car. The chip was optimized for use with a euro pre-muffler. Evidently the dyno is not solid enough proof. The cost of a premuffler and a chip is about $600-800 which nets a 15 rwh gain plus the drivability factor that a dyno will not capture. Seems to be a bargain though i am sure that will be up for debate as well. For those of you whom have not driven an upgraded (SteveW chip) 3.2 you need to try it then you will know why there are so many satisfied customers.

The problem is the test is *not* definitive...but obviously some people think it is. My only issue is to try and point out the difference between a proper controlled experiment and what amounts to anecdotal data. Yes, this was the same car on the same dyno (which is better than a lot of "dyno test" that have been offered up). But there are not multiple runs (which are required to give you some sense of statistical confidence) and multiple variables are changed.

I have no doubt that there is some chage from the chip, and there are many happy customers (which in the end, is the main issue). But this isn't proper science...

ROTFLMAO at the "definative tests".

You guys ever heard of doing a base line? Basic subject matter in Dyno 101.

I like my Steve Wong chip - but I have to add (and agree with others) that these tests are anything but "definative". Statistics 101. No base line, no control group. No valid sample group. Sorry.

Boy, this sure gets old thread after thread....

I've got to agree with Steve W. that I would much rather see independent testing of products rather than a mfgrs. self serving claims.

Then again I'm an(other) exceptionally satisfied Steve W. customer who's benefited from his support long after the sale. I really don't care what it shows on a dyno, I care what it drives like on the street and with all the times I've driven with the stock chip back in I much prefer the drivability with the SW chip. And frankly, that's all I'm concerned about!

Bill W.

Then may be Steve should stop posting bogus dyno comparisons.

All dyno tests you have seen in this post were performed by others. I'm just passing on the information for those who are interested. Want to see a more controlled dyno experiment of a) stock car b) stock with chip, and c) stock with chip and premuffler? Go to my website and look at some of the runs. The test in this post is only one of a series that one can use to gather as an statistical sample and compare it to how other cars have changed under similar conditions.

http://www.911chips.com/dyno.html

This is not rocket science. It doesn't take an engineer to use logic to analyze all the data posted and figure out what the chip contributed on it's own.

Basically if:

(Stock hp + chip + premuffler) = (total hp)

then:

(Stock + chip) = (total hp - premuffler)

The hp contribution of a premuffler only can be computed from the other comparison charts posted. Basically take the runs of the car with a premuffler, and calculate the difference when a cat is installed in it's place.

Premuffler gain = (premuffler curve) - (catalytic converter curve)

Premuffler vs cat runs are posted from a stock car and cars with chips, so there is no argument about that being a factor. With a chip or without, the difference is identical every time.

If you don't think chips work, don't buy them. This test was not intended to be a controlled experiment. The owner put all stock parts back on because of his upcoming California smog check, and thought it would be a good opportunity to do a clean A-B comparison. Believe it or not, out of every 100 chip orders, 90 of them are for cars with premufflers or some type of modified exhaust.

If you are looking for a no chip vs. chip only comparison, look at this 87 Carrera with headers and race mufflers, independently performed by the owner. Stock chips - red line, performance chip - blue lines.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1092931178.gif

How many runs done independently by how many owners does it take until the everyone is satisfied? Better yet, how many chip tuners have provided dyno information on their Porsche chips? I bet I could post 50 dyno runs from controlled tests on several 911s, and someone will alway scream blasphemy. Show me just one - please no manufacturer's askew 3D Excel graphs as printed in the Performance Products catalogs.




BTW, Loren I'm still waiting for your answer to this question:

Quote:

Loren, An honest, truthful answer please to the following question: Did you ever attempt to, or succeed in writing, re-writing, designing, (re)programming, your own after-market chips? Please no looking for "what is the meaning of is loop holes." I heard a rumor that you have been and are doing just that, but I figured I'd ask you for the truth. Yes, thank you, I'm "having tremendous Fun" with my 84 Carrera and the newly installed Steve Wong Chip . With 129,000 miles, it runs like a new car and I couldn't be happier. Thank You Steve Wong Now Loren, back to my questions and please don't you ever call me "brain dead again." regards __________________ Steve S.

I think you are 100% correct. I don't think you will ever satisfy everybody...

I would also like to add, and something that I have put in writing on several occasions -
That the Steve Wong chip that I purchased for my car had the biggest bang per buck out of ANY of the modifications that I have done. I have better throttle response, smoother idle, and increased gas mileage.

Let me explain this simply. A base line dyno needs to be done with a 100% stock car. Then you change nothing on the car (no tune up, no cat pipe, no quessing) but the chip and then you dyno the same car, same dyno, same day. Then you will actually have a comparison worth publishing.

I hate prolonging this thread, but I am continually amazed at the posters that need empirical data that chips work. :(

guys.

i didnt question the chip, more the "little" contribution swapping the premuff makes.

but my offer still stands, i'll pay for two dyno runs if steve supplies the chip.:D

pedantic? When people use words like "controlled" and "definitive", I feel compelled to offer my take, as I'm actually trained in setting up experiments and interpretting results. If you want to say "hey,here are a couple dyno results", then I have no problem...knock yourself out. But if you want to make broader claims, then imho there needs to be more rigor applied to the methods and interpretation.

Some of the runs on the website are more useful than the one posted at the beginning of this thread. The run on James Archard's car appears to show a before and after chip addition of about 17hp for a car with headers. The text seems to indicate that the only mod between the runs was the chip. If that is true then this is an excellent result when only changing one variable.

The second graph on the page shows a 5rwhp gain from the chip alone, and a further 1rwhp gain from swapping the cat for a pre-muffler. The runs were on different days, and 5rwhp is probably w/in the error of the dyno when including variablilty of ambient conditions from day to day.

The two charts from Carbcon performance show before and after for a catalyst swap to a premuffler showing a 7.5rwhp gain, but no information about what difference a chip made.

At the bottom of the page three runs were made on the same configuration with a variation between the high and low numbers of about 3rwhp. No before or after data. But this does demonstrate that at least with this dyno three runs done within 4 minutes of each other can vary by at least 3rwhp.

Quote:

This is not rocket science. It doesn't take an engineer to use logic to analyze all the data posted and figure out what the chip contributed on it's own. Basically if: (Stock hp + chip + premuffler) = (total hp) then: (Stock + chip) = (total hp - premuffler)

I am an engineer (registered mechanical engineer with the state of california) and this calculation is nonsense. You claim that the chips are programed for particular engine setups. If this is true then the chip will be more effective when used with that setup than they will when used on a different setup. So this simple addition/subtraction isn't valid. In fact you explain on one of those charts how adding the header only gave some improvements but that the stock chip limited the gains from the header. The math here isn't simple or linear. If it were we wouldn't need to bother with empirical data. Plus your data for the premuffler only is from a different car, on a different dyno in a different place, than your various data for a chip plus the cat-premuff swap.

I'm not arguing that your chips don't work. I'm also trying to be objective and impersonal. There is basically one set of dyno runs here and lots of anecdotal evidence that suggests that they do work. The other dyno runs don't prove anything specific about your chips.

If I had a carrera I would certainly consider one of your chips. I'm just trying to suggest that investment in some dyno time for controlled single variable comparisons would be excellent marketing. If you decide to do that and you want some suggestions from some people here about how to do this in a repeatable, verifiable, and believeable way, I'm sure you'll get tons of suggestions. Then we'll all gang up on any remaining detractors!

Aw geez.

A whole bunch of carrera owners post that they are very happy with the performance gains and driveability of their cars after installing the Steve W chip.
I haven't read from ANYONE who has posted that they installed one of Steve's chips and was unhappy with it, or that the chip didn't improve performance.

Are all these Carrera owners idiots or morons as Loren implies? Can they really be that stupid?
I don't think so.
I don't need no stinking data or base lines or whatever.
The testimonials of many, many satisfied customers and not a single negative (except for Loren, who I believe has alterior motives) tell me these chips work.

Enough with the arguments. Loren, go away. Your posts are full of *****.

This is simply not correct. You do not need to start with a 100% stock car to create a baseline. The vast majority of Steve's chips are installed in cars that have other mods done to them. The fact that Steve's chip improves or does not improve the performance from an otherwise 100% stock car would be irrelevant to nearly all of the installations.

To establish a baseline, you can start with any configuration. It does not have to be stock. You can then test the improvement for that particular configuration. If the test was done right with multiple samples, only one moving variable, controlled atmospheric conditions, etc. you could conclude that both the test and baseline were valid. You could not scientifically apply those results to other configurations, but you could draw an inference from the result.

By the way, there is also a way to conduct scientific tests with changes done to multiple variables through the use of linear regression but we'll save that lesson for another day.

I have frequently offered facts and figures(laptimes, dyno graphs etc.) to back up my results in regard to chipping. Every time I show this evidence Loren dissapears. Need I say more?

Cheers, James

with 2 data points?

I agree re:baseline...stock isn't required.

Bottom line is customer happiness. If they are, doesn't really matter what others think. I don't have a dog in the chip fight. My only kibitz is on the "quality" of the data and analysis.

No, not with two data points. Not with three either. Never said that.