Here's data from Bruce Anderson (Excellence Mag.) which indicates that 3.2 performance chip HP
improvements are in the noise level:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1093124331.gif

There's no hidden HP to be discovered that wasn't found by the above.

My web site is; www.systemsc.com . Check out the Dealers page and we'll let them be the judge of "who I am".

Loren - Thank you for disclosing yourself. I sincerely appreciate that. Have you ever attempted to create a modified chip yourself? If so, what did you see in the process? Honestly just trying to learn from your work.

The problem I see with your table is that it is limited to chips in a stock set-up. My personal belief is that while there may be little to gain from a chip in a stock set-up, there is something to gain from using a modified chip that is matched to a pacticular car's modified set-up.

Bruce Anderson, your source, appears to believe this himself in his book Performance Handbook. On page 149 and 150 he references tests by Gary Bohrman of Exclusive Mototcars and how he gained a 13% increase in Hp via external mods that included a customized chip. He goes on to say that these types of modifications have no effect on the engine's longevity and that they ofen improve the 'driveability' of the car.

SteveW's chips are custom programs. In his estimation, 90% of his customers have modified exhausts. The chart you presented doesn't do anything to suppport or refute that a chip can improve performance in a modified car. In my opinion, it seems logical that mapping the engine's program to work with a modification would have better results that that same modifiaction with an engine that thinks it is still in stock form. Bruce Anderson seems to think the same thing in his book.

Loren: Thank you for an answer. I apologize but I'm not sure I clearly understand what you are saying. Did you try and not succeed, or have you never tried since you tested chips created by others?

Rdane,
Interesting, you seem to contradict your first statement I quoted from your post by taking a cheap shot later on, If you have an issue with the way I do things then please call me on it by addressing me in person, not eluding to it.
I also said I would post results on Monday when I got them from my computer at work. Please refer to the Club Racing results to see my improvements(Watkins Glen year 2003 results vs. year 2004 results). What are your laptimes at the venues you frequent? Is there a public place where we can all view them? Also, I never disagreed with you regarding what it takes to improve laptimes, only that there are many more pieces to the puzzle that you don't seem to be aware of.

What class does your car run in?? Sounds to me like a GT 2 or GT 3 S or R car which would put you in the same class as a 2000 GT3-R for GT2 or a 993-RSR for GT 3. Are you on pace with these cars?

Cheers, James

Some how it seems a thread discussing the performance of a chip and the dyno info behind it has turned into how fast or often someone drives on the track.

But I also find it hard to believe a chip (even with the dyno's posted to date) made 7 seconds difference on one track. I would be more inclined to believe 25 days on the track over the last year would be a bigger influence on your times than a chip...any chip.

James you are obviously a serious Porsche owner and competitor (PCA instructor I assume) and you say your SW chip gave you a 7 second lap time drop on a 2.4 (or 3.4) mile track. How can I argue with that?

Never good to assume what others know. If a SW chip made 7 seconds difference in your times who am I to argue?

I don't know much more than what I read here on Pelican. If you dropped 7 seconds from a skill level that holds .05 seconds per lap that is one hell of a performance chip.

Cheers,
Dane

Loren?

Well, As promised, here is a screenshot of the dyno runs I did. The first one listed(run 4) was with the stock chip. The second(run 6) is with the new chip. Same day same dyno etc. I apologize for the poor quality but I couldn't figure out how to get the picture small enough(whoops, I just saw you can add any size image). http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1093301198.jpg

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. These runs were done with my own exhaust system and a cup airbox. Otherwise, the motor is stock.

Cheers, James

I think it has a great deal to do with the replacement of the cat with a Eurpean pre muffler. I had the same experience with my '81 911 SC. (Obviously no chip). With the stock cat set up, the car would allways sort of say at full throtle "if you want me to rev from 5000rpm to 6000 rpm I will, but give me a little time. When I replaced the cat with the Eurpean premufler, there was no delay and no labouring to achieve the higher RPM. It gave a much more reponsive car, and I got another 10mph on top speed.

Martin.
914-6GTR

wow! what a thread. I have heard views from both sides and infact purchased a rebuilt DME from Loren (which I am very happy with, thanks Loren!) I guess for me if you are happy with a chip you buy, great! If you think they are b/s, don't buy one! Am I missing something?

--James

Speaking of graphs, you might want to throw a disclaimer on yours, due credit to Bruce Anderson, of course, that it was penned a decade ago.

Technology comes a long way in ten years.

What you are missing is that Loren (who is knowledgable) feels compelled to push his anti-chip agenda on those that like the chips. As a result, the chip side feels compelled to fire back and the Chips Wars continue.

Loren: why do I have to ask so many times to get a straight answer from you?:

Have you ever attempted to create a modified chip yourself? If so, what did you see in the process? Honestly just trying to learn from your work. - Jakermc -

Originally posted by Lorenfb
Many have "played" with performance chips for 3.2s over the last 15 years with little gains as can be seen by the Bruce Andersen data. I've tested many, and given the problems, e.g. pinging, I'm not impressed. So as a result, given limited time, I have better uses for my time than to develop chips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loren: Thank you for an answer. I apologize but I'm not sure I clearly understand what you are saying. Did you try and not succeed, or have you never tried since you tested chips created by others?

"What you are missing is that Loren (who is knowledgable) feels compelled to push his anti-chip agenda on those that like the chips."

No this is incorrect! There is no anti-chip agenda, just the desire to present
an objective interpretation of the data, i.e. we now have realistic & useable
chip data. When claims are made, then they should be supported by data.
I'll challenge anything which has unsupported claims, e.g. MSD CDI unit, &
high power output alternators with "fail-safe" features.

When I see other ridiculous posts on forums, I'll usually provide comments
which many don't like hearing. Isn't that the purpose of a forum, or is it to
"jump on the bandwagon" as many do?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lorenfb
"What you are missing is that Loren (who is knowledgable) feels compelled to push his anti-chip agenda on those that like the chips." [QUOTE]

Read the question again Loren, he said: "I guess for me if you are happy with a chip you buy, great! If you think they are b/s, don't buy one! Am I missing something?"

Why can't you leave people alone that are happy with the chip? Why do you insist on trying to prove them wrong?

Also, you are still avoiding answering the question!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Lorenfb
Many have "played" with performance chips for 3.2s over the last 15 years with little gains as can be seen by the Bruce Andersen data. I've tested many, and given the problems, e.g. pinging, I'm not impressed. So as a result, given limited time, I have better uses for my time than to develop chips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loren: Thank you for an answer. I apologize but I'm not sure I clearly understand what you are saying. Did you try and not succeed, or have you never tried since you tested chips created by others?

The silence speaks volumes. The answer is clear enough.