88 Carrera dyno results! chip vs. no chip

[Steve W]

Originally posted by banjomike

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.

As an engineer myself, then by your statement,

a) if the stock chip is so good, it would be the best chip for testing with the stock cat

B) a modified performance chip is the best match for the modified premuffler setup.

Well that's pretty much what was done, wasn't it? If the stock chip is so good for a stock car, then how do you explain the wide power discreptancy? Try telling us it all came from the premuffler - LOLs.

[Steve W]

Originally posted by nostatic
If you want a straight line with any hint of statistical information, you need at least 3 points.

Then again, in grad school I watched one of my colleagues draw a parabola using a single data point. And that point wasn't even the vertex.

And I believe that Homer prefers donuts to cornflakes

You may only have two data points in one study, but when you have data points from a variety of studies, you have enough statistical data to compute where the averages lie, enough to plot averages for three data points, from which you can attempt to compute a parabola.

[Steve W]

Hey, where's Loren???

[nostatic]

is that a smiley or frowny parabola? It makes a difference ya know...

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Steve W

Hey, where's Loren???

based on my sightings of Loren in the past.. He sometimes leaves for a few days.

[88 Club Sport]

I've lurked on this thread for a while but it's time for yet one other opinion.....mine

Clearly not everyone is a believer in Steve's chip. It seems that those that have it love it, those that don't have it, seem to question it's merits.....hmmm. Now, I'm no engineer and admit there are plenty on the board that understand this topic better than I do but, here's a few thoughts:

1. No one seems to question the 212 wheel / 249 engine hp that was attained. That was with a sport muff, pre muff, cone filter and chip. The ability to have heat, and only loose only 6-7 HP to a 5/8 header race setup is awesome in my book.

2. I'd prefer an owner's dyno run over the manufactures any day, especailly since I know this owner. Most companies "marketing" departments spin the truth.

3. The service I've received from Steve is 2nd to none. After 9 mos. or so of using his chip, I received an email from him telling me he had made some tweaks....he had found a few more hp and was I interested in trying it......... I almost fell off my chair.

I'm a believer. Thank you Steve.

[rdane]

This is simply not correct. You do not need to start with a 100% stock car to create a baseline.

Thanks but you missed the forest for the trees.

If you want to provide hard data as to what improvements were made by adding the SW chip you need to start with a base line on some chip and then retest with only the addition of the new SW chip.
(same dyno, yada yada)

No, you don't have to start with a 100% stock car. You can start with any car that uses a chip, any chip, as long as you get a base line to make your comparison to when you then change to the new SW the chip.

Like I said before, "it is simple, get a base line, change only the chip and retest". Post the results. How tough is that?

The majority here that are disagreeing because the results posted are skewed not because the chip is good or bad. Hard to tell either way till someone actually does some dyno work that can be varified.

Looks like you have 5 to 10 increase in hp and torque with a SW chip. But how about the hard data to prove it and then posting the differenece between overall improvements, peak improvement and AFRs.

A SW chip costs what? $280? More than enough to get all the dyno time needed locally to do what is required.

[Lorenfb]

rdane & others;

It's hopeless!

[Steve W]

Originally posted by rdane
Thanks but you missed the forest for the trees.

If you want to provide hard data as to what improvements were made by adding the SW chip you need to start with a base line on some chip and then retest with only the addition of the new SW chip.

No, you don't have to start with a 100% stock car. You can start with any car that uses a chip, any chip, as long as you get a base line to make your comparison to when you then change to the new SW the chip.

You can argue the methodology, but you can't deny the results. Anyways, that is exactly what was done here. Tell me what was wrong with this?

Red curve - headers, race muffler, stock chip
Blue curve - headers, race muffler, performance chip.



Same dyno, same day, same session, no tune ups or whatever in between.

[Steve W]

Originally posted by Lorenfb
rdane & others;

It's hopeless!

Ahh, I see Loren is back. Perhaps you can answer this question:

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.

Of course Confucious say: "better to keep your mouth shut and leave suspicion than to open it and confirm the truth"

[Wavey]

Originally posted by Steve W
[B Anyways, that is exactly what was done here. Tell me what was wrong with this?

Red curve - headers, race muffler, stock chip
Blue curve - headers, race muffler, performance chip.

Same dyno, same day, same session, no tune ups or whatever in between. [/B]

That's exactly what I've been wondering for the last 2 days. What's the problem? Red line = stock chip, blue line = your chip, no other changes. Thanks for posting the question, Steve. Anyone got an answer? LOREN?

[rdane]

Tom then took off the cat and replaced it with a Dansk premuffler, and replaced the stock chip with a standard 911Chips performance chip for 91 octane, the same chip that Pelican sells in their catalog.

This a change between dyno runs? yes or no?
Looks to be a yes to me.

Same dyno, same day, same session, no tune ups or whatever in between.

I asked you that 3 days ago thanks for finally answering.

Several people have actually commented how the power seems to rise endlessly out to the 6800 rpm rev limiter, as opposed to the stock chip which seems labored after 6200 rpm or so.

Dyno shows that is clearly BS since the chips drop off dramatically at 6200 or less so why repeat it?

This works out to a difference of 15 engine hp. What is interesting to note is the 22 rwhp gain at 6200 rpm

Why not take the differences of overall gains from the high of both chips? It would show what is really happening besides pushing the RPM top end out 200rpm with the SW chip. You get something like 5 to 7 hp and #s of torque. How do you want to split those numbers between a cat bypass and your chip?

Be nice if you would run a test on a stock Carrera too instead of a rare CS which may or may not be anything like the typical Carrera fuel map.

No big deal to me...I am still using CIS

I'll leave it to the engineers to sort this all out.

[jpachard]

Loren,
Steve posted my dyno results above. For the last time please tell me how the chip is hindering my performance. Please also feel free to check the Club Racing results this year vs. last. I picked up 7 sec. over my previous qualifying time at WGI in similar conditions on the same tires(Michelin Pilot Sport Cup). Steve's chip has given me a more powerful, driveable engine and the results speak for themselves.
As the late Ayrton Senna said "It's the whole package" that makes a winning car/driver. Every component of a car must be analysed and improved when possible.

Cheers, James

[nostatic]

the numbers highlighted on the plot don't tell an accurate story. As rdane pointed out, the peak is shifted by the chip. It isn't fair to pick an arbitrary rpm number and look at the difference there. You need to look at the absolute max from each, which is listed in the text giving a 10.5hp difference, although I don't know how many significant figures can be carried since there aren't multiple runs and there isn't information given for the typical std deviation/precision of the instrument. 0.1%? 1%? 5%?

[jakermc]

Originally posted by rdane
Thanks but you missed the forest for the trees.

If you want to provide hard data as to what improvements were made by adding the SW chip you need to start with a base line on some chip and then retest with only the addition of the new SW chip.
(same dyno, yada yada)

No, you don't have to start with a 100% stock car. You can start with any car that uses a chip, any chip, as long as you get a base line to make your comparison to when you then change to the new SW the chip.

Like I said before, "it is simple, get a base line, change only the chip and retest". Post the results. How tough is that?

The majority here that are disagreeing because the results posted are skewed not because the chip is good or bad. Hard to tell either way till someone actually does some dyno work that can be varified.

Looks like you have 5 to 10 increase in hp and torque with a SW chip. But how about the hard data to prove it and then posting the differenece between overall improvements, peak improvement and AFRs.

A SW chip costs what? $280? More than enough to get all the dyno time needed locally to do what is required.

No forest, no trees. I quoted you verbatim and pointed out a mistake you made. Now after seeing your own mistake you are working on revisionist history and again claiming everyone is wrong and you are right. It's sad, really.

[jpachard]

rdane,
These are my dyno graphs. No hardware was switched and this is on a stock Carrera motor save Cup airbox and my own custom exhaust. The graphs have the high numbers in the middle of the chart. The lower # on the graph line is at a set RPM.

Cheers, James

[rdane]

Now after seeing your own mistake you are working on revisionist history and again claiming everyone is wrong and you are right.

Mistake? Yes that was admitted, you don't need a 100% stock car. You just need a base line. Since were are talking about improvements of a performance chip I would have thought it was common sense to us a 100% stock car and then change out the chip but no....that is asking too much.

Right and wrong?

I just thought the info was misleading.

[TomTurtle]

Sorry I'm late to the thread, been too busy driving I guess.

Something possibly overlooked by Steve is that my previous chip (which Steve replaced with the current chip) yielded 241 at the flywheel last September (just before GAF) with the identical pre-muff/Borla setup. Now I'm getting 249; this tells me I'm getting at least 8 more hp from the new chip. Hows that for a data point?

Bottom line, (i) Steve's chip is a great product, (ii) he supports and upgrades his product with no extra charges (current chip is third version at no cost to me), (iii) he communicates in an outstanding manner and (iv) my CS goes like stink!

[Lorenfb]

"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."

- Jakermc -

Not true, many have just stock engines if by desire or state emissions requirements.
This has been stated by many on this forum too. So stock base improvement data are
of value. Most chip suppliers market their chips to stock applications.

Here's from the web site.

"Welcome to 911Chips - developer of custom_performance chips for the Porsche 911 Carrera that maximize the performance available from your car._ Chips are currently available for the Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 series from 84-89 and the Carrera 2/4 series from 90-94, and are custom configured to each customer's engine modifications and preferences._ Performance improvements quite dramatic, as horsepower and torque are_increased throughout the powerband from 2000 rpm to redline on the order of 6 to 8 percent._ Throttle response is also dramatically improved_as it changes the_stock Carrera's_lag_to one of an immediate response._ Owners are raving about the dramatic improvement in their car's character,_drivability, and power.__Come try one for yourself and experience what your Porsche is truly capable of.

84-86 911 stock
$280
stock engine configurations, Carrera 3.2 84-86"

So what's the implication of the above, if it doesn't include a stock engine?
Nor does it state that mods are required for chip benefits/improvements.

So what's the concern about base data and a "true" comparative analysis?
Is it that many are reluctant to accept the reality of the results?

[88-diamondblue]

Loren has now taken to copying and rambling about it. It's now beer thirty time and Loren is the only reluctant one to accept results of any kind.
This reminds me of a trip to Mardi Gras. I got to see all sort of baseline tests on how shirts come off. They are all different with the same result. I can try to explain to you what it was like but unless you were there you can't truely understand the atmoshere and feeling of the experience. There is more to a product than numbers and stats. Its about the experince and whether it feels better driving the car. Thats what this is about, the feel of it. I could show you pictures from Mardi Gras which look like great fun but without being there to experience Mardi Gras you miss what it's all about. Anyone who has attended will know this, others just get to see pictures and imagine. We can see the dyno #'s, aurgue about them, say they were done wrong but until you experience the feel of driving the car with these changes you can not know the overall change to the car. Now it is time for a cold one