My point is that reprogramming the eprom offers a much broader range of changes and is much more precise than a cut-and-try method of adjusting the spring tension.

BTW, if you guys believe that Porsche got everything right with the original eprom and their settings can not be improved, then why wouldn't you believe the same to be true of the spring tension?

J.P.,

I have a stock chip on my late production 86 3.2 which means the same chip that's on an 87 up to 89.

I went both ways on the tension, reducing, increasing, road testing over and over again until I settled on what I considered the best performance setting for my engine which just happened to be about 6 notches on the high spring tension side. But that's only an appoximation because every engine is different. You may feel that lowering the spring tension as Loren suggests is the way to go. Try it. I did and drove it that way for some time until I tried going the other way. There are no rules here, it's just a matter of finding the sweet spot and keeping it there. ( Can you have this much fun and freedom with a chip?)


I also have reindexed the pointer to match my GM multec injectors, something you will not need to do. But don't let me stop you if you feel so inclined. You could always put it back to it's original setting if you remembered to mark it first.

Wavey,

Porsche did not make the eproms or the air flow meters, Bosch did. It just doesnt make sense to add another level of complication when trying to optimize the performance envelope on an engine when there clearly is nothing wrong with the stock chip. Making too many changes at a time is asking for trouble.
With the air flow meter changes you are only making changes to the fuel map. With the chip you change both and risk detonation with over aggressive timing changes requiring premium fuel. By leaving my timing alone I can still burn regular without fear of detonation, get all the performance I want and still get 30 mpg on the road. Will a chip do that?

If we can play with ride height, camber, torsion bars, air fuel ratios, tire sizes etc., why not air flow meter settings?

Why would you want to take the fun out of owning and playing with your own car?

Cheers,

Joe

Loren, why don't you demand that this guy produce charts from multiple dyno runs to prove that what he is doing is really making an improvement? You know - so we can be sure he's not just relying on his "feelings". You do that for everyone who likes their Steve Wong chip.


That is HUGELY debateable and has pretty much been proven to be wrong.


I couldn't agree more, except I'd also include reprogramming the chip, way higher on the list than screwring with the AFM spring. There's much more performance to be found in the chip.

BTW, what's the big deal with running premium fuel in what is clearly a high performance car? Why would you go through all the cut-and-try BS with the AFM spring, then run cheap gas?

Why would I run premium if my engine is tuned to run regular without any problems? Besides the regular I use is not cheap anymore!

Remember, my engine is not chipped.


Cheers,

Joe

Sorry, since you were playing with your spring I assumed you were interested in better performance.

You actually do get better performance from regular if your engine is tuned for it, faster burn, more btu's than premium.

I have used premium many times and I can tell you from personal experience that there is no noticable performance advantage compared to regular.

Cheers,

Joe

Sure, but compare that to an engine that takes advantage of higher octane gas, by advancing the ignition within reasonable limits. That's one of the areas where Porsche left plenty of room for improvement in the original chip. Combine it with a performance exhaust system and there's no comparison.

If your goal is to make small changes and not spend any money, then the kind of tweaks you're talking about are fine. If your goal is to take advantage of the untapped performance and you don't mind spending a few bucks, then the chip and exhaust are the way to go.

I think we're talking about two different things.

"Sure, but compare that to an engine that takes advantage of higher octane gas, by advancing the ignition within reasonable limits. That's one of the areas where Porsche left plenty of room for improvement in the original chip." - Wavey -

Total B.S.!

You got totally sucked into the marketing hype. Don't feel bad, you' not alone in wasting $280. You need to buy one of those fuel aerators to make your car go faster too and it's much cheaper than $280. It's just like using; "Broadfoot intake, Magnecores"

You're a marketer's dream target consumer, i.e. one who believes anything he hears or reads.

Loren, since you've never answered the question when asked in many other threads, I will assume you've never driven a Carrera with a Steve Wong chip and a performance exhaust system. And since you've never answered the other frequently-asked question about trying to develop a performance chip and failing, and therefore having a huge chip on your own shoulder, I'll assume that's true.

PLEASE CORRECT THESE STATEMENTS HERE AND NOW IF THEY ARE WRONG.

The only BS in the multitude of chip threads is the biased lie you continue to spread. Please open your mind and educate yourself before spreading any more misinformation. Those of us who have real-world experience already know that you're full of it, but it's really wrong to mislead the newcomers.

Can we touch on the regular vs. premium burn and BTU rate; is it true that regular is better in both regards?? Gas in our area is laced with Ethanol which reduces BTU.
j.p.

Loren:

I'm "on-the-fence" with you and your responses....you have an amazing level of in depth knowledge on some issues...and then....."*some* of your responses just amaze me.

Why....for God's sake....would you say this is "BS" when this is EXACTLY what Porsche did in moving from the 84-86 Carrera's ( tuned for US grade 87 fuel) ...and moved onto the 87-89 Carrera's ( tuned to use US grade 91 fuel)? More aggressive chip tuning, as it were, to allow use of premium fuel octane, and get a few more ponies for it.

No BS at all....it all comes down to the level-of-agressiveness when doing this ( and I guess, from your persrpective..."who" makes the changes..the factory or others).

Wil

"Why....for God's sake....would you say this is "BS" when this is EXACTLY what Porsche did in moving from the 84-86 Carrera's ( tuned for US grade 87 fuel) ...and moved onto the 87-89 Carrera's ( tuned to use US grade 91 fuel)? More aggressive chip tuning, as it were, to allow use of premium fuel octane, and get a few more ponies for it." - Wil -

This is correct, but it is NOT a continous linear process which has unlimited potential.
It's true the Porsche was a little conserative with the early DMEs, i.e. It was the 1st
fully electronic ignition - advance cuve in firmware, so Porsche decided to "error"
on the less aggressive side of the advance curve. Later, as they had more field
experience, they advanced the ignition maps a little further. This evolution does
NOT imply that the ignition maps can be further advanced without problematic results.

As I've said many times, performance chips have been available for the 3.2 for the
last 15+ years, all with the same marginal results and problems, e.g. pinging, poor idling,
"holes" in the torque curve, & emissions (NOX) - advanced timing.

We're making progress, Doctor .......

Wil

Loren , let's also agree on something else.
1.) When Porsche went from the 84-85 programming...to the 87-89 programming, it wasn't because of a philosophical increase in understanding...it was because Porsche consciously chose to map the original chip for 87 fuel ( thinking that unleaded premium was unavailable in the US)...and later understood that indeed we did have unleaded premium available...and tuned accordingly.
2.) True...like most other things in life, as you increase operational efficiency...you march ever-closer to destructive failure ( therefore, agreed...this can't go on in linear fashion). Those who understand industrial centrifugal compressors understand that the closer you operate to a "surge line"...the more efficient you run...but go to far..and you're toast.
3.) changing maps to a bit more aggressive doesn't "follow" that you AUTOMATICALLY enter the "pinging zone". In that direction? Yes. Definitely hit upon it, as you say?.....No.

Wil

What a ridiculous comment - no one has ever made that claim! You're using hyperbole and argueing a moot point. Give it up.


THAT STATEMENT IS BLATANTLY FALSE! All chips are NOT the same. Steve Wong's chips are more conservative with maximum advance and rev limit than most other brands, and he works with the fuel maps across the range rather than just at full throttle. Weltmeister, Autothority and Europroducts allow over 30 degrees of maximum advance, whereas my Steve Wong chip allows 27.5 degrees. Autothority's chip allows 6920 rpms, my SW chip allows 200 rpm over the stock limit. My Carrera idles perfectly cold or hot, there is NO pinging, and there are definitely NO holes in the torque curve! With the converter installed my NOX levels are well within requirements (just had it tested).

You are basing your statements on outdated information. This has been proven to you many times with perfectly acceptable dyno charts, yet you persist. You may have been right as recently as 2 years ago, but things have changed. Given that you have yet again refused to answer the previous questions, we'll have to assume that you have never driven a Carrera with one of Steve's chips and therefore have no idea what you're talking about.

I personally couldn't give a $#!* what you think, but it's really wrong and unfair to purposely spread misinformation and mislead those who are seeking accurate, current information.

Just chiming in here with an honest question, I have an 84 Carrera with a stock soldered in chip. I want to use 87 Octane really bad. The 84 owner's manual says use 91. Costco only sells 87 or 93.

Ask any PCA guy, they'll tell you "do what the manual says"

According to some posts on this thread, my car is mapped for 87 octane. So, the Germans had this is mind.

True?????

The owners manual says 91 RON (research octane number) which is equivalent to 87 (R+M)/2 here in the US.


Cheers,

Joe

Keep in minmd that's their MINIMUM octane requirement.

Thanks!!!!

Made my day and my wallett!!!

"Steve Wong's chips are more conservative with maximum advance and rev limit than most other brands, and he works with the fuel maps across the range rather than just at full throttle." - Wavey -

SUCK IT UP!

"We'll have to assume that you have never driven a Carrera with one of Steve's chips and therefore have no idea what you're talking about." - Wavey -

What, are you the "pitch man" for this chip?

You don't have to justify your spending $280. Some people make mistakes in life!

Huh? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I present factual information and you say "Suck it up." ???


Yeah, I guess I am. And proud of it. So - you've never driven one have you? You're never going to answer that question, are you?


Right. Like your parents.

Nice comeback, Chip Nazi! (NO CHIP FOR YOU!!!)

hee, hee :D

Well Loren that might be true in your world. In my world the best money I've spent on my car has been a Steve W chip. The SW chip absolutley increased the performance, which includes idle smoothness and a VERY smooth linear torque curve, I have driven in 90°F plus weather, stuck in traffic, and have never heard nor felt any pinging. The car just runs better.

Call me unknowing or a sheep just following the rest of the flock, that would be BS. You don't know me so hold your negative comments please.

It is possible for a product to actually work....you, others nor myself have to agree. Just please don't berate us for our ideas. I know the difference between "seat of the pants" and the placebo effect. The damn thing works. Period

I have all the respect for your seemingly great knowledge of DME's and electronics. But I can't respect a "poor" attitude in this community.

Just my .02¢

Now back to the AFM spring tension mod, is it possible to reduce the tension and use a modified chip to complement each other, or is it best to just change one?
Any thoughts from the gallery?
Thanks,
J.P.

Point of Information
 

Loren has never answered the following question with a straight "yes" or "no" answer. His avoidance of the question will answer why he is so much against Steve Wong Chips. Hey Loren:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098848451.gif

Someone posted this...

"The owners manual says 91 RON (research octane number) which is equivalent to 87 (R+M)/2 here in the US. "

True....RON is typically rated "5 points" higher than the USA method ( R+M/2).

Euro premium , for example, is typically rated at 98 whereas US is typically rated at 92-93.....same.

Wil

Wil,

You can quote me anytime.

In 1987 the 930/21 (84-86 US 91 RON/87US octane) was replaced with the 930/25 engine G50 trans requiring 95 RON (91 US) octane which was still a step below premium, 98 RON (93 US) octane. ( Porsche 911 Story, Paul Frere)

Cheers,

Joe

Now back to the AFM spring tension mod, is it possible to reduce the tension and use a modified chip to complement each other, or is it best to just change one?
Any thoughts from the gallery?
Thanks,
J.P.

SO LOREN, WOULD THIS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING, WRITTEN BY OUR GRACIOUS HOST AND INCLUDED IN THE PELICAN CATALOG?

"Not just another performance chip for your 1984-89 911 Carrera! 911Chips' Steve Wong has spent hundreds of hours revising code and road testing to unleash new pockets of performance previously undiscovered. These chips are programmed with these three primary objectives in order of importance:

1. Reliability
2. Maximum performance, response, and power
3. Good fuel efficiency at cruise and light loads

Select between a 'stock' chip program or one specific for modified exhaust systems. All chips have a 100% satisfaction guarantee. For US cars only."

YET ANOTHER QUESTION YOU WILL NEVER ANSWER!

Cool it my friend, nothing is so simple. There ain't no performance "silver bullets" out there and never will be. If life fit the marketing hype we'd all be getting laid like crazy just by wearing Old Spice and driving an Oldsmobile.

I, too have used aftermarket chips. I repeat my previous caution on this thread.

Do not modify your 3.2 chip unless you follow-up (better yet - before and after the chip mod) such modification with an assessment of resultant AFRs. 3.2s engines are getting pretty long in the tooth. It would be unreasonable to expect that all of the multitude of variables that can contribute to AFRs (only one of which is chip) remain consistent with original factory values.

Not to be excessively alarmist, but not verifying AFR results is a bit like playing russian roulette with your engine.

My question, Joe, was addressed to Loren, and I'd still like an answer from him. Thanks for your input though. Next time I have the Carrera in the shop I'll make a point of having the AFR checked and post the results here.

And here's where the whole arguement began. No one has ever claimed that Steve's chips are "sliver bullets". We're just saying that they provide a nice improvement in power and especially in driveability, in a safe way and at a reasonable cost. It's not an extreme statement. And it's based on actually using Steve's chips, not lumping them in with all the other crap that was available in the past or may currently be available from other suppliers. If you haven't driven a Carrera with a Steve Wong chip and a performance exhaust you wouldn't understand that Steve's chips really are different.

Therefore, following your logic, ALL 3.2s should have their AFR checked, correct?

Yes - but... Chips must push one or more envelopes; be it octane, rev limiter, advance, or AFR. Thereby a chip will lever any inherent variances in the state of engine tune. You're modifying your car - you need to decide how much risk tolerance you have as well as how much AFR/rev limit/ping tolerance your engine has. Given the price tags associated with a bad decision - I would want to gather as much info as possible.

I'm not trying to exacerbate a fight here. One camp is saying such-and-such a chip sucks and a much larger camp is saying that such-and-such a chip tuner walks on water. Most of us want to boil things down to either absolutely good or absolutely bad.

Cover your butt man. Good for one car might just suck for the next car - through no fault of the chip tuner.

Wow! So what someone has to do is go down to the dyno, put car on dyno, run car. Pull old chip out, install new chip, put on dyno, run car.
It's as easy as that. Until then, no one will win this argument. Chips either work or they don't. I have a piggyback chip on the viper-did I just install it and say, "Wow, this thing really works!" No, we had a\f ratios, hp and torque curves to compare. After installing the new piggyback chip, car went on dyno, car was tuned, car runs an AFR of 11.8, and car has 762 hp at 5800 rpm. Before car had AFR of 12.7 and 728 hp. Does chip work? Yep! So someone get down to the dyno and prove some right or some wrong. Until then, "It's a mute point".

Actually, if you'll do a search you'll find that this has been proven over and over with Steve Wong's chips, as recently as about a month ago. The actual dyno charts get posted and you'd think that would be the end of it.

But then Loren chimes in and claims that the method is flawed, the data is flawed, the improvement isn't worth the cost, you'll blow your engine up, you have to run premium gas, it doesn't work as well with the stock exhaust, it's all BS, etc. etc. etc. We're on about Round 12 of this by my count. Goes on at Rennlist too.

I have no arguement with any of that. Cover your butt, your mileage may vary, etc.

On my 88 the factory sticker on the fuel lid has 91 octane minimum which is and has been used in the car. I guess the factory must have increased that from your 84 Curt, Evidently yours must have been the early factory chip for the 3.2 since Porsche upgraded their chips to the "58" designation later on with the 3.2's which required 91 octane. Also I am curious as to other than severe detonation which we can hear, how you could detect what Loren keeps telling us we can't hear? Why would you want to run 87 octane? And Porsche did change the chip from the "57" to "58" to be more agressive. My engine should have grenaded long ago (84,000 miles) due to what I hear you telling us, since it has been chipped since 1991. Currently have the SteveW and Autothority when I got the car. Have not had any problems with pinging at any temperature. The price difference here is about $4.00 more for a fillup with 87 octane. By the way Loren, I get 27 mpg cruising at 85 and have no pinging.

I'm not making any judgment calls. I have a 290$ chip from performance products sitting in a case now, and I figured I'd explain my situation.

I don't hang around these days much, and I haven't followed up.
I got a Weltmeister chip in 2000--not a Steve Wong chip.

The car did not ping for a long while with the chip and the right gas + booster. However, as the engine aged, the ping set in. The car runs hotter than it did, and it's just plain old with 205k miles. I still drive it almost every day--whereas the 91 just gets driven once in a while.

At some point, it just became a ping meister. It pinged no matter what once the temperature got above the bottom 1/3 mark.

I thought the engine was just trashed because no amount of booster seemed to help. As a last resort, I swapped back the old chip ( had to solder it back in as mine wasn't the removable kind, so it was something I did with caution ).

Anyway, with the old chip back in, I can put any kind of gas in it, and it runs without pinging even with 87, on hot days etc...but no, it does not have the same amount of pep as it did with the chip.

At 205 K that thing may be loaded with carbon deposits, which probably contribute to the pinging more than anything. The factory chip is conservatively programmed to allow for this. As with any kind of performance equipment, you don't want to make mods if the basics aren't up to snuff. And as I understand it, the chip you took out is a Performance Products chip - which almost certainly allows for more maximum advance than Steve's chips.

As been said here and many other times over the last 15+ years:

performance chips > advanced ignition (>3 deg,)> "feel better" responsiveness > pinging > sells with hype > gets removed after driver hears pinging

performance chips > advanced ignition (<=3 deg.) > no "feel better" responsiveness > no pinging > no sales or many iniitial returns

Note: With an operational O2 sensor, additional/mod fuel input has NO effect
in a steady state running engine, e.g. as on a dyno test.

Just ask the 911SC guys about advancing their distributors (same thing) and the results.
You don't hear them "twisting" distributors and raving. Its advance curve is basically
at near max. to avoid pinging as is the later 3.2's.

All the chip guys know/have discovered the same 3.2 chip tweaking in the last 15+ years:

Autothority 10+ yrs
Hypertech 10+ yrs no longer sells 3.2s
Weltmeister - developed by Dinan (BMW chips) 5+ yrs
G-Tech 5+ yrs
Andial 15+ yrs
Porsche/Bosch (Club Sport Chip)
& et al

So let's not fool others by saying that the above "heavy weights" couldn't "get it",
but new "street dyno" developments of the last year have made a major breakthrough.
Get real! That's the problem I've got.

Bottomline: A performance chip is a performance chip is a performance chip!
Accept the tradeoffs with the use of any. That's the reality.

"A performance chip is a performance chip is a performance chip!"

You couldn't be more wrong.

Loren, I've finally realized that you're hopeless. You've been all over the place in your many, many posts on the subject and you continually choose to ignore data that doesn't support your position. You refuse to ever look at the whole picture at one time. You refuse to acknowledge how Steve's chips are specifically different from the ones you list. In this last post you only address ignition advance and ignore all of the other variables. It's clear that you're stuck in your antiquated position and will never move forward.

And yet again, you completely ignore the same questions that we keep asking you:

1. Have you ever driven a Carrera with a performance exhaust and one of Steve's chips?

2. Are you currently or have you ever attempted to market your own chip, with little or no success?

3. Is Wayne lying to us in his Pelican catalog entry for Steve's chips?

If you will honestly answer these questions you might regain some credibility here.

I really don't understand your motivation; why do you keep lying about the substantial benefits and nearly nonexistent problems with Steve's chips? What's in it for you?

I know why I keep arguing with you. I can't tolerate the way you continue to disseminate false information to those who don't know any better. It's just wrong.

Noah, does your post imply that Loren has been drinking again? :>

Who invented Octane Ratings?
Why do we need Octane Ratings?
What fuel property does the Octane Rating measure?
Why are two ratings used to obtain the pump rating?
What does the Motor Octane rating measure?
What does the Research Octane rating measure?
Why is the difference called "sensitivity"?
What sort of engine is used to rate fuels?
How is the Octane rating determined?
What is the Octane Distribution of the fuel?
What is a "delta Research Octane number"?
How do other fuel properties affect octane?
Can higher octane fuels give me more power?
Does low octane fuel increase engine wear?
Can I mix different octane fuel grades?
What happens if I use the wrong octane fuel?
Can I tune the engine to use another octane fuel?
How can I increase the fuel octane?
Are aviation gasoline octane numbers comparable?
Can mothballs increase octane?
What is the Octane Number Requirement of a Vehicle?
What is the effect of Compression ratio?
What is the effect of changing the air-fuel ratio?
What is the effect of changing the ignition timing?
What is the effect of engine management systems?
What is the effect of temperature and load?
What is the effect of engine speed?
What is the effect of engine deposits?
What is the Road Octane Number of a Fuel?
What is the effect of air temperature?
What is the effect of altitude?
What is the effect of humidity?
What does water injection achieve?


http://www.r-t-o-l.com/laboratory/learning/faq1.htm#q17

-Joe