88 Carrera dyno results! chip vs. no chip

[beepbeep]

Knock it off guys.

Chip does provide more power. Period.

[jpachard]

Rdane, How many races have you entered? How many have you won? Do you instruct? I do. If you were my mechanic and told me" I have something that will give you 10 more Hp and give you better shift points but don't bother" I would be finding a new mechanic. To address the driving aspect, of course more driving makes you better. How many days do you drive?? By your tone you seem to imply I don't drive and am trying to make up for it by Hp. In the past two years I have driven/raced at Moroso, Daytona, Sebring, Lime Rock Park, Watkins Glen, Mt. Tremblant, Road America and NHIS for a total of 52 days, 20 being race days. I can't think of a single track where having less Hp. would be a competitive advantage.
Your logic regarding less Hp is not as important in a low hp car is even more flawed. This is where it really matters!! Building and racing cars is quite simply a passion for performance. Every stone must be turned and every aspect of the car and driver must be looked at and improved within the scope of the rules. By changing my chip I have given myself another tool to help me succeed. For instance, eliminating a shift on No Name straight at LRP gives me more speed and more resources to take advantage of a passing opportunity. Simply put, you can't show up to a gun fight with a knife...

Cheers, James

[jakermc]

Originally posted by rdane
Portland and Seattle.
If you are telling me that 10 has made a difference I will still call BS, unless of course you are Mark Donahue or Jr. and they don't drive 250 hp cars last I heard.

In the group I track with between all the 3.0 SCs and the odd Carrera the lap times aren't definded by the differences in engines or HP they are definded by drivers. Tires and suspension and brakes make a difference....HP and torque...not 10 or either on the tracks here sorry.

Funny enough the worst 3.0 to dyno was also the fastest track car. Imagine that, the guy knows how to drive? Track or smack?

What group do you track with (i.e. experience level)? I would agre with most of what you say at the lower levels of experience and skill levels, but when you reach the advanced groups Hp will most certainly matter.

In lower run groups the drivers don't spend enough time driving a precise line so the Hp is wasted. It doesn't matter how much power you have on tap if the car is not balanced in the turn and you can't apply the throttle.

On the other hand, when you are talented enough for the most advanced run groups or become an instructor your lap times are typically within 0.5 seconds lap after lap. At this level, a little extra Hp and torque will help shave off the last few tenths or more. At this level, success is measures in tenths and each gain is significant.

rdane, you don't run in the higher run groups, do you? Would you mind posting your lap times for the tracks your frequent?

[zzwhm]

The cost of a chip is chump change in the pursuit of lower laps times. 10-15 hp could mean a second or more for an experienced driver.

Maybe we need a comparison of chips on the track?

[rdane]

yawn....

[Lorenfb]

Not only does the chip "feel" better on the street, but now it "feels" better on the
track too. As said by others, it's all about the driver and how the car handles,
given a good demanding track, e.g. Willow Springs or Laguna Seca, and Not
the typical Nascar oval track. The small HP change and the resulting lap time
are both in the "random noise level". Any good driver can make better lap time
improvements by just simple changes to corner entry and exits versus having
more HP in the straights, which probably contributed more to the time changes,
i.e. How do you replicate corner entry/exit for a chip comparison test?

We've now introduced more dependent variables that affect the outcome further
complicating a multi-variant analysis! It's O.K. to make subjective conclusions from
inadequate data, e.g. My car seems to run better. But to further infer objective
conclusions based on the subjective conclusions is invalid, e.g. My car has more
HP now because it seems like it., which has been the case here all along.

[Por_sha911]

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loren, why won't you answer the question?

[Stuttgart951]

Loren's got to have some sort of Email alert for when Steve posts...

Regardless... happy SteveW chip owner checking in. The engine characteristics are better in every respect post install.

109K miles and purs like a kitten.

Chip+cams+Borla =

[Wavey]

Link to poll, in case anyone is interested in the general concensus:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=178564

43 responses, 37 pro-Steve, 6 pro-Loren.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by sammyg2
Yep, a chip to chip comparison, except he says the numbers are bogus and doesn't believe them.
Now that's science

I'll stand by what I've posted. The 'numbers' displayed on the X/Y axis of a dyno graph are somewhat subjective (and based upon the internal algorithms of a particular dynamometer imo). That in itself does not invalidate a comparitive analysis between runs...(i.e. you're looking for the 'delta' differences between the hp & torque curves). The Mustang dyno is 'known' for its consistency between runs, and is highly regarded by engine tuners because of this. I'll be glad to email you my graphs and you can draw your own conclusions. By the way, I've got a pretty strong background in quantitative/statistical analysis, and fully realize that my results are not 'statistically valid', but I'll let the graphs speak for themselves, and you can interpret them as you wish. Off to the garage....

[jpachard]

Originally posted by Lorenfb
Not only does the chip "feel" better on the street, but now it "feels" better on the
track too. As said by others, it's all about the driver and how the car handles,
given a good demanding track, e.g. Willow Springs or Laguna Seca, and Not
the typical Nascar oval track. The small HP change and the resulting lap time
are both in the "random noise level". Any good driver can make better lap time
improvements by just simple changes to corner entry and exits versus having
more HP in the straights, which probably contributed more to the time changes,
i.e. How do you replicate corner entry/exit for a chip comparison test?

We've now introduced more dependent variables that affect the outcome further
complicating a multi-variant analysis! It's O.K. to make subjective conclusions from
inadequate data, e.g. My car seems to run better. But to further infer objective
conclusions based on the subjective conclusions is invalid, which has been the
case here all along.

Loren, What's your track experience?? You refer to oval tracks don't give good data. Please tell me what oval track I listed(Daytona is the closest but I ran the 24hr. configuration), are you truly that ignorant in regard to East Coast tracks?? I know you don't want to address the reduction in laptimes or improved shift points since you know it's the truth, thus the weak attempts to counter the argument. Also, you have skirted all my other posts in previous threads when I asked you a question or presented fact in a counter argument. Interesting to say the least...If data from the same dyno, same day with only a chip changed is not good enough for you, then what is?? If improved laptimes are not good enough, then please tell me what other form of measurement you feel is valid??

There are many different ways to skin a cat, no way is absolutely right or wrong. Just because it's not a way you would choose to do something doesn't make it wrong.

Chips require alot of work to get right, you are 100% correct about this. If one is willing to do the dyno work then improvement can be achieved.

Cheers, James

[Lorenfb]

"Chips require alot of work to get right, you are 100% correct about this. If one is willing to do the dyno work then improvement can be achieved. " - jpachard

So where's the dyno work for the chip development?

[jpachard]

Page 3 of this thread, about 1/2 way down...I have all the runs in run viewer format on my computer at work.

Cheers, James

[Lorenfb]

"Chips require alot of work to get right, you are 100% correct about this. If one is willing to do the dyno work then improvement can be achieved. " - jpachard

Dyno Work for Chip Development Defined -

1. locate a dyno
2. purchase a DME real time chip emulator
3. run the car on the dyno and download various fuel & ignition settings
4. at multiple RPMs find the max torque for optimum fuel & ignition settings
5. data log all the settings and A/F ratios
6. evaluate the data and determine the final EPROM values based on safety margins
to avoid engine damage, e.g. pinging & heat
7. program the EPROM
8. re-run the dyno to verify final torque values

It's simple, isn't it!

Chip Development is NOT -

1. guess at modifying fuel & ignition maps
2. program the EPROM
3. drive while monitoring A/F ratios
4. provide users with new EPROMs
5. ask for users' evaluations
6. go to step #1 (the endless "Do Loop")

[CarreraS2]

Originally posted by Por_sha911
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loren, why won't you answer the question?

I guess you won't answer the question?

You frankly come across as someone with a "chip" on his shoulder, or some other agenda. Answering the question will help your credibility. Constantly ignoring the question kills your credibility.

[Por_sha911]

Originally posted by Por_sha911
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loren, why won't you answer the question?

Loren, you have COMPLETELY DISQUALIFIED YOURSELF by refusing to answer the above question. I cannot accept your advice on chips if you have a hidden agenda. One of the measurement of correct scientific analysis is the that you cannot be biased. This is why when the tobacco companies for decades put out their own scientific tests to "prove" that cigarettes were not harmful no one would believe them because they knew that the tests were rigged. The whole thing was designed to achieve a certain result (sort of like the fellow that created a parabolic curve from just one data point to do his paper).
Why don't you either give us a simple, straight-forward answer? If my question is not true then you should have nothing to hide and your position on chips would then be reinforced. If my (Steve's) question is true, then admit that you cannot be an impartial judge and disqualify yourself as an impartial judge of the data.

This question is not going to go away. I promise. Every time you speak up on chips, someone (myself included is going to ask.

I have great respect for your technical knowledge. You have been a help to me many times on this board. I recently asked you to verify or refute an answer someone gave me concerning electronics because I know you know the stuff. Help me to have the same respect for you concerning chips.

[jakermc]

Por_sha911 - well said!

What kills me about Loren and rdane is the hyprocisy.

When SteveW says his chips improve performance, they demand data before they can accept this as truth. Without arguing whether or not the data presented here is enough, I agreee that asking for data appropriate. Data is how we change opinion into fact.

However, Loren has been asked to provide data about his background so that we can factor that into our personal decision as to whether we should accept his posts as opinion or fact. Knowing if a personal bias exists is relevant data. Loren refuses to provide this data but wants us to accept his opinion as fact without it.

Similarly, rdane has made statements about how lap times are or are not improved on a track. He presented these statements as facts when they appear to be uninformed opinions. When asked for data about his own track experience from which he formed his conclusions, again to help us decide if we are reading fact or opinion, we don't get a response.

Am I the only one who sees the hyprocrisy in this? I agree with Por_sha911, I complete discount your OPINIONS if you are not willing to fully disclose.

[rdane]

You know what I really love about the Internet? When someone can't actually prove their point they start in with personal attacks and take the subject off topic. In debate, you loose for that one, besides just looking foolish in public.

No hard data has been presented from a reliable, chip to chip test. One comment was made that chip to chip testing had been done, but then the dyno results are not posted. Then we have another guy who says there is no difference, chip to chip in his dyno testing, but his results aren't available either.

Then we get the seat of the pants guys who have determined that their chip has improved their lap times and their cars drive better on the street. No dyno results to make that comment of course, past "I feel faster, my lap times are down and it drives better".

So while the track hos think they have an answer I have yet to see it in print. Be sure to stop in while in the NW and we'll do some driving and compare lap times car to car. I'll stand by my opinons on what it takes to improve track times, even if that seems to disagree with our resident "professional" drivers on this thread.

The conversation about chips could have been about any chip. Steve W posted info I saw as bogus several days ago. I asked him about it in another thread and this topic, I believe was started to answer that question.

The guys that actually (engineers and statisticians) seem to know something about data collection have all said the data posted to this point has been corrupted data. I only know enough about a dyno that base line info is mandatory and I can read a graph. Bad baseline=bad info.

I have spent enough time running dynos that what you first might think is an improvement, really isn't any improvement if you ran out of power and torque 500rpm before that.
I just love the comments like, " my car now pulls through red line!". Said it myself. But the dyno shows the car actually stopped pulling eons ago. But then all that noise and the excitement of redline just tells you different doesn't it? Give them enough throttle and they'll spin into oblivion.

If every driver were so attuned to the engine's power bands their would be no need for mechnical dynos. I'll trust a dyno everytime before I'll take anyone's word for what their car will and won't do. Having made comparisons on the track of similar engines that were dyno'ed and have a base line, I have a bit of real world experience about just what 10 hp or 10 # of torque will do for you in a 250 hp car. Take the torque is my suggestion.

So while Steve W might well have an amazing chip and the best customer service in the industry that doesn't mean that the questions and objections to the posted info aren't valid.

What Loren does for a living or if he actually sells a performance chip himself (hard to believe since he seems to condemn all after market chips, which you guys seem to have missed) or what my skill level is on the track has nothing to do with bad data collection and nothing to do with misrepresentions on a product's performance.

I'll be the first to apologise when someone can produce a chip to chip test and post a realistic comparison of the numbers and not a skewed data collection favoring either chip.

If it were my product I would have long ago done just that with a bone stock Carrera and be telling guys like me to piss off by posting that data. Somehow that little bit of business acumen has been missed.

Let me know when someone bothers to make that comparison. Going to need a chip for my Motronic 3.4+ at some point. For now I'm going to go burn some 114.

[jakermc]

So the reason you won't answer is because its off-topic? If I start a new thread, will you answer?

Oh, and its not a debate. I don't come here to argue, I come here to learn. I'd like to learn from you but you haven't really said much to convince me you are an authority on the topic. Back up your assertions with fact and you'll convince others to listen to you. Afterall, isn't that what you've asked SteveW to do?

[jmarenas]

Here we go, some one should string em all together and bog down the entire internet with this topic. God Bless America, and freedom of speech. The woodward dream cruise round one for me today was AWSOME. Sorry just thinking about it again, will be heading out soon for round Two. Nice to see few 911's. I think it should be called VETTE cruise way too many vetts.