Geez...start another thread if you wanna keep arguing this chip stuff. :)

So, if I do a dyno run in third gear, then fourth, I'm gonna get the same HP for both runs, assuming no correction by the operator?

That's my real question.

...and I'll admit I think I can spin that drum a little faster in third.

Hi Loren,

Thanks for the input. I don't think it is a matter of a "major player" finding a new "breakthrough" more then it is someone willing to invest the extra time necessary it takes to try and map people's cars to the extent of their mods, in some cases with multiple chips being sent back and forth and in extreme cases like mine actually spending the time mapping the motor on an individual basis. I think in instances like mine is where really good gains can be found due to the extra mechanical mods you mention that want/require extra fuel/timing and the motor can be made to run at optimum.

I believe that many of these other chip tuners could do the same thing if they wanted to, but our era of cars are no longer major players in the market and the tuners tend to focus on the latest models. I think that SteveW has worked hard to provide excellent results (better then what the other tuners have given us IMO) and deserves the niche he has carved out for himself. He still isn't going to get rich and retire selling 3.2L chips.

Granted, I wasn't employed at Andial in 1984 when the first 3.2L Carrera was introduced and by the time I started in 1988 the Carrera was at the end of its life cycle but I can tell you that there was never any special mapping done for a street customer THAT I NOTICED based on his mods EXCEPT for club racers that had higher compression and had access to race gas. This was then done on their engine dyno if the customer was willing to pay for it. The street chips were one size fits all and pretty much dependant on how many pins it had or for a particular DME unit.

I have read the Andial FAQ #2 you state many times before I even knew of the Pelican BBS and would agree with it to a certain point. Believe me, if my past posts/threads don't show it, I am a big Andial fan (like you seem to be in this instance) and have nothing but respect for them. The way I read it, that on a bone stock 3.2L, changing the chip with no other mods is good for a 5% gain at WOT, which is approx. 10 horsepower right? Okay, I believe that to be in the ballpark. Doesn't Steve Wong say something to that effect as well (I think 6%-8%) with 10-16 hp? Hardly outlandish claims in my opinion. Some individual cars may see 16, others 10, maybe others even less. Every car is a little different, especially after up to 20 years of driving. Wouldn't you agree?

It also says that a chip can also help with the added mechanical mods of polishing the intake plenums and running a "sport muffler". You may have seen other threads regarding Extrude Honing the plenums, on Andial's engine dyno this provided a 5-7 CRANK horsepower gain on the top end, not really all that much and many debate whether it is worth the expense on its own.

I think that it also has been shown in the past that just installing a rear muffler (not removing the heat exchangers/cat) provides "negligible" gains as well. As you know but others may not, Andial does things by the book (which is commendable BTW) and doesn't remove the cat for a street driven application. Making good, street legal horsepower is impressive and other then the headers I have tried to follow suit. The headers are run as much for the power increase as they are to help cool the motor (I am trying to get away from having to add additional oil cooling or at least delay it until summer, so far so good!).

Maybe you are confusing SteveW with other tuners out there that are claiming a 30% rwhp increase (according to the Andial FAQ) just by installation of a chip on a stock 3.2L. I haven't heard that from his mouth or seen it on his website. Arnold and Dieter used to get so upset when they saw these huge turbo horsepower claims in other companies Excellence/Pano ads. Arnold's favorite expression was "the first liar never has a chance". Isn't it ironic that Andial turbo motors were always underpowered according to the magazine hype but yet always seemed to finish first at the end of the day?

I also do not know if you are aware, but the chip that Andial sells is "one size fits all" which SteveW tried to point out in a different thread. The same chip that is installed in a stock or mild 3.2L is installed in a 3.4L or 3.5L twin-plug motor that have been extensively modified. Does this make sense?:confused: I know, my buddy Steve had an 3.2L Andial chip as well as one for his 3.4L twin-plug when he built it. The chips read identical. Maybe just a mix-up, but you have to wonder...He too states unequivocally that Steve W's chip is better then the Andial version, and he doesn't impress too easily. I get all excited looking at 12 red Magnecor wires, he just rolls his eyes and says keep working. My motor he helped build is nothing special either in his book, just like you stated your opinion was.

I also don't agree with Andial's statement that optimum air/fuel for max power is 14:1 (at least in my instance). Why, because our road side tuning doesn't support that claim. SteveW already knew the a/f ratio that he wanted to be at (but I am not disclosing it) but we tried a few different a/f combos just to show me. Say what you want, but I could feel the difference between 14:1 and where we ended up. The dyno runs also proved that correct, as max power and torque was not at 14:1 in my application.

I can't definitively say how much Steve's extra time spent mapping the motor on the road made on the dyno, but it certainly did help and I can't and won't discount it. The progressive increase in power/torque on the dyno after changes were made to the final peaks of 7 hp & 10 tq is also impressive IMO. That's an additional 3% all by itself that I wouldn't have gotten without his final tuning.

FWIW, my buddy Dwain at Vision doesn't see a whole lot of older cars like mine anymore but was impressed enough with Steve's improvements and the manner he went about deriving them that he asked if he could assist in the future with tuning both the Motec powered 993tt and Cup Car as well as other projects on the horizon. Steve freely admitted that he doesn't have OBD-II experience and has never looked at it too closely. Pity, he may have ended up with a good view from the pits at the 24 Hours...

Only 30 minutes to New Year's here on the West Coast, I better start paying attention to my wife.;)

Happy New Year to everyone and I look forward to continuing this discussion in 2005!:eek:

Ralph

Sorry Todd. Hopefully we can answer most of your questions and extend the topic some.

A correctly run dyno will give you the same info from 3rd or 4th. But when making comparisons the majority of Dynojet operators will typically use forth gear. That helps with long distance comparisons as well. I ran the same hook up for a 3rd gear run then 4th, then 3rd and then back to 4th..with no noticable differences between the 4 runs. Less than 1%. I suspect any more and I would have seen signifigant losses from the heat sink problem. (more heat less power)

But back to the chip discussion and dyno results and tuning.

I think we are talking apples and oranges here at times . Some truth on both sides of the discussion. Although get nasty enough and you get ignored. I know that feeling having a similar failing myself :)

This is Alex's '95 3.6 before and after a uni chip application. Car's like Ralph's 3.5 and the majority of the piece together 3.6 transplants are not what Porsche designed and wrote the OEM chips for. Obvious what the uni chip did here. No mirrors, no magic, same dyno over a three day period, just sound computer/ dyno tuning techniques.

End result...a "new" engine. But then its chip was pretty sick to start with. So it is easy to see the improvements here.


Red is before and blue is after. Gains on both HP and Torque after.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1104563793.jpg

Andial may well use the factory Motronic chip for their 3.7. If they are I would think they are leaving a lot of power on the table. But Andial knows more about that than I. I know they are conservative from their writings and my engine's performance...which they helped a great deal with BTW. They also offer a 12 month and 12000 mile warrenty on new engines. Might be why they are conservative on their street engine numbers.

My 3.4 is another engine doing more than anyone gave it credit for before it was built.

Loren says/implies a new chip or remaping of the old chip won't help Jacks 964 3.6. I have to disagee if from nothing else than Alex's "tune".

A quick look at any Porsche dyno sheet will show you a fairly smooth HP and torque curve if the dyno is done well and the engine in tune. Just like Ralph's in this graph. When I see runs like Jack's it is pretty obvious the engine could be in better tune. Red run is terrible. Blue is better but there is still room for improvement. That observation applies to any CIS 3.0, 3.2 motronic or motronic/varioram 3.6.

If Jack has the time, a before, during and end result same day dyno would be really enlightening. Bet it would resemble Alex's 3.6 before and after dynos above. I would also bet you would see a jump in power and torque just by being in better tune...much of which the chip defines in these cars.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1104424840.gif

Ralph, come up to Kirkland and I'll pay for your dyno runs and take ya to dinner!

Uh oh. Whether he realizes it or not, Loren may have a point here.

Regarding the dyno graphs of Alex's 3.6 chip which had detonation points before with the Cyntex - and after, with the Unichip customization....

I believe statistically we can ignore the detonation areas as well as the area just as detonation is ocurring and then as it is leaving, and compare the two graphs. They are virtually the same results if we 'take out' the engine detonation sections (one of the shop guys came flying out from a behind a closed door shouting "That thing is detonating") The engine timing was being reduced before the major dips and gradually increasing it after.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1104563793.jpg

That is to say, if the Cyntex chip did not cause the detonation on this engine the two graphs would be virtually the same. In fact, the Cyntex chip shows a tiny lead for the non detonation areas.

So it looks like not much of a gain was made with this chip customization.

BUT.......Loren, you cannot apply a blanket statement to ALL chip flashes and modification work. So many variables.......especially on an engine config such as Ralph's where stock or near stock systems are forced to work with much larger displacement! These 'chips' need custom work - as did the engine.

Alex REQUIRED this chip mod to fix a very sick Cyntex chip - but I don't think I'll be forking out the bucks for a Unichip.

Presenting another data point to think about.

The operator sets the inputs.... so as long as he doesn't cheat.... Yeah right. Want to talk about drive train loss percents of 0%???
Muhahahahaha!!!
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1104602687.jpg

I think that is a big jump Craig. First you don't know what caused the graph inconsistancy or detonation. We do know the C/C's tuning and the addition of the UNI chip fixed it.

As far as the Cenex chip being better? If the car doesn't run at peak power and is detonating I wouldn't call it better. Was it sick or is that a normal Cenex chip and the install is the problem.
The Uni chip overlay pulled more power and torgue from the engine.

As I said easy to talk apples and oranges.

Will you get better performance than Porsche originally designed from these engines in base form by changing chips? Not likely. (loren's and Andial's stance)

Can you write a chip to maximise the performance of the odd ball builds and less than stellar installs? Yes. (Steve and Ralph's situation, Andial's stance as well from their web site but not applied in their engine mods )

"This is Alex's '95 3.6 before and after a uni chip application."

The chip mod fixed the "holes", which were the problems, as Craig VERY accurately points out.
The key, though, is that little overall gain resulted, with any performance chip.

I agree that some tweaking MAY be required for unique engine mods, but very little.
This is usually with regard to the AFR (ideal @ 12.6, see my web site (www.systemsc.com
on Graphs page). (12.6 = 14.7 (Lambda=1) X .86) That's why most/all chip suppliers have
one version. Having multiple versions is a marketing gimmick.

Andial's mention of an AFM=14 was based on the ideal ratio for complete combustion.
As can be seen from the graphs, the torque is fairlly flat from 11.5 to 14 AFRs.
The timing usually is not affected by most mods with the exception of compression ratio,
e.g. Ralph's per his thread had to be retarded a little.

Given the above, that's probably why Andial didn't put a lot of effort into chip mods on their
conversions. The required small tweaking can easily be accomplished by adjusting the AFM or the
fuel pressure on the 3.2 or the 3.6 (964). Remember, 3.2 to 3.5 is less than a 10% change.
How much additional fuel is really required for the additional air? The AFM will compensate anyway,
until the AFM maxs near WOT.

Again, little can be gained with chip mods. Porsche did it's job right.
If you want to "push" the timing and always worry about pinging and
finding the right octane, then a little gain can result.

Alex & the 3.6 Unichip:
There is no doubt that the problem was fixed - that's a given.
Alex had to have this problem fixed - or broken rings or worse might have been the result down the line. At the very least he had one weird HP/TQ curve and a loss of both. I see this change as a 'problem fix'.

I don't believe its much of a jump of reason at all to say that there wasn't much improvement in this case. The graphs are virtually parallel all the way until the timing started retardation for the onset of detonation, and pulled back big time right on through the detonation itself and slowly came back 'on' as the detonation faded. I believe that most Cyntex chips do not exhibit this problem.

Now, the problem happened to lie in the heart of the power and torque ranges - there are several detonation areas at which the chip retarded timing - and thus *ultimate* (peak) HP & TQ was suppressed as a result.

Chips in general:
To be fair, thre is no doubt in my mind that Porsche chip maps are optimized for crap gas (worst case scenario at work here), and aftermarket chip maps (esp the reputable and later chip maps) are almost always an improvement. Whether it is 'worth it' $-wise -- is a subjective matter. If you use these chips and DO NOT have a knock sensor, you had better run premium gas 100% of the time.

"don't believe its much of a jump of reason at all to say that there wasn't much improvement in this case"

My comment was with regard to the overall performance chip improvement in general as seen by the many posts here and on Rennlist..

I think that we tend to search for concrete answers in all things, and the whole issue of 'chips' cannot be ansewered as a whole. We must take it on a case by case basis.

Ralph's engine
Alex's 3.6 engine
My engine (which I could not do a 'before' due to the drive block system)
Stock 3.2s

Are all different from each other.

agreed

Good discussion, once we all returned to being civil.:)

I'm sure we'll all go through the same gyrations in the future, just like it has been done countless times in the past!;)

EVEN IF the max gain to be had is simply 5% (per Andial's FAQ on a STOCK engine), that still represents 10 horsepower to have or not to have. Considering how much it costs to modify other components on the motor to get that same 10 horsepower, the purchase of a PROPERLY mapped chip still represents the greatest value to a Motronic 911 owner.

At the conservative 5% figure (assumed for a stock motor with NO mods) would have been 13 horsepower in my instance, not easily discounted as marginal IMO. I would rather have it then not, that is for sure! SteveW found 3% just on the dyno tuning of my motor from when we first pulled in.

FWIW, 12.6% also did not provide the optimum a/f ratio for power/torque in my instance. YRMV I guess and shows that every motor is different, something that SteveW readily admits. I don't think that you can place a blanket percentage increase on chip mods. Various motors in various states of tune respond to changes in various ways.

I still give kudos to SteveW for spending his free time to try and get people's motors as close to optimum as possible. Mine is not the first and will not be the last. It's much easier and faster if he can be there in person rather then people sending him their dyno data and chips back and forth in the mail until it gets optimized for their situation. If I were to contact other companies and ask the same request they would tell me to get lost and stop bothering them.

Ralph