Gee, how refreshing. Another totally positive and informative addition to the conversation. Do tell us more, would you please?

Honestly Loren your posts are difficult to read and interpret. I try to state my points clearly leaving no room for interpretation, but this response seems to indicate my context of sharing information is again somehow skewed.

Of course my product development goal is to sell product, that's a no brainer. My point was I share information with the community about what I do, and how I get to the final product. Most people in the past have expressed a great deal of appreciation for this. The further development of tools that the end user can use to tune their cars themselves without having to buy any more chips is what I consider to be my greatest breakthru in the context of the performance chip hyperbole you mention.

Bottom line is I came into this as a member of the community, not a vendor. Just as sick and tired of all the hype, high prices, and mis-information as every other member. I'm doing my best to change all that. That is my goal. I want better products for our cars at better prices, and I want everyone to have what I have. It's really that simple.

Regards,
Russell

Russell, your certainly welcome to try using logic and reason with him but many before you have tried and failed.

About the only thing positive you can say is that he is consistent in attitude.

Heh, well, there's something to be said for consistency I suppose...

Russell, I for one praise your efforts in trying to improve an already great piece of machinery. I probably know less than any of you on this site regarding the 911 but I recently purchased a chip and to say I was disappointed would be putting it mildly.

I guess I was expecting more. Maybe it was the particular chip. I would rather not say the Company that I bought it from but I would really like to give it another shot to see if I could improve my cars performance.

My car is an 85 911 Carrera Targa 3.2 stock engine other than the so called chip I bought.

Do you have any suggestions Russell for a poor guy trying to drive a rich mans car.

Thanks for your time and to this community of friends that has helped me to be able to drive my dream car and keep it on the road!!!

Daniel Womack
Booney1golf
85 Porsche 911 Carrera Targa - And I thought Golf was addicting.

Subscribed

Well that's the thing, in some cases in this market you have no idea what you're getting. Sad, but true. Some chip burners are just that, burners. They steal work from somebody else and sell it as their own.

When I go back to the dyno Wednesday I'm going to do some tinkering. I want to play with different airbox configurations. I'd really like to compare the stock muffler output to a highflow as well, but that's a lot of time to tie up on the dyno. When I get my own dyno, then I can do stuff like that and be able to tell you definitive answers about exactly what effects various changes make. What is worth while and what is not. If I spent all this time developing a chip, then got to the dyno and found I only made 2HP above stock, I would not sell that as a performance chip.

Anything that helps the engine breath better will help your performance. The 944S2 and 968 guys got 5hp on the dyno by drilling holes in the airbox. Sometimes simple things actually produce measureable performance gains. During testing I want to pull the stock airbox off and replace it with a different, more open filter system, just to see what it does. The dyno guy is gonna love me, and my checkbook...

I appreciate the support and well wishes from you guys, it truly means a lot.

Regards,
Russell

i can not wait to try out your 3.2 chip, wow that was fast! How is your new car after the long road trip. Ic must vouch for his chips. I was a long time 944t owner and had a lot of mods (injectors,turbo,maf,wg,exhaust,ect.) I went through dozens of chips and my car never ran right at all. I did not want to pay for the vitesse chips. I bought russell"s maf chip for my 944t and it was like a new car! finally no problems and I had perfect air fuel ratio. If you guys know 944t and how a difficut it is to get a modified one run right without a piggy back,then try his 911 chip if he can make a modified 944t run well a 3.2 should be great. I have heard that steve wong's chips are great but I am signing my self up for russell's

Russell's Carrera 3.2 chips are available at Pelican.

You can find these Carrera 3.2 chips here.

"pull the stock airbox off"

- those tests have been done -- Bruce Anderson summarized them = zilch

Russell,
thanks for all info. BTW - do you have a dyno, flow test or gathered info. of what additional air is taken in with a better flowing MAF at WOT and the higher rpm's where maybe the stock flap door becomes the "bottle neck" all other things being equal? This could be slightly off topic.. there may be other threads talking about the 3.2 intake system and where the long poles in the tent are located in terms of airflow.

In two weeks when my Scivision kit arrives I will be optimizing a chip for it on the dyno and releasing the MAF kit. I'll do the change on the dyno to show before/after pulls. The MAF kit will sell for 999.00 and can be mounted with the stock airbox or other routing of air.

Also, I'm going to take a leap of faith here. I priced the chips just like the other chips on the market, and I have substantial investment of money and time into this, buying the car and all. But one of my business points has always been best price, so today I decided that instead of going with the norm and pricing at 349.00 I'm going to go with a 299.00 retail price, and the promotion price will be 249.00. I will send Scott an email to update the website pricing here at Pelican.

Regards,
Russell

I have a question for you bright minds here on the Forum. Is the chip described in this thread comparable to Steve Wong's chip.

I have been reading so much about SW's chips over the last year or so and was looking forward to buying one soon. Then this thread started and of course I want to get as much bang for my buck as possible. :confused:

Just a question that I am not qualified to answer and was hoping some of you mechanic types would have some input on the subject.

Thanks to everyone on this Forum and this great Porsche Fraternity that I am honored to be part of.

Best regards,

Daniel Womack
Booney1golf
85 Porsche 911 Carrera Targa - And I thought Golf was addicting

www.amazingdreamtravel.com - Best Travel prices 80% of the Time!!!!!

Russell - glad to see your 911 work progressing! We 993 owners over on Rennlist have been anxiously awaiting something like this. There are a couple potential uses:

1. Ninemeister has custom heads that create a lot of power, but require custom tuning, which nearly nobody can do in the U.S.; and

2. Many of us are interested in TPC's supercharger but are put off by their 7th injector / piggyback ECU solution. We figure we should be able to simply use larger injectors and custom tune our ECU.

There will be some excited 993 owners if you get to that point!

p.s. here's an example of where people are looking for something like this.

I'm actually already planning a similar upgrade path for the 3.2L, haven't decided on a supercharger or small turbo, but planing is being done at this point.

As for the 993s, I will indeed get into these cars as well. It just takes time. Unfortunately I'm not rich, so I can't just go buy a 993 and get started. But that's what I did with the 3.2L series to kick it off, and now a month later have a product. 993 might take more than a month, much more there to deal with computer wise. But can indeed be done.

On that note, I recently incorporated and am actively seeking investors so that I can kick off much more development. I'm going to buy a dyno, lease a bay somewhere, and just do car after car so that this time next year I have 20 or so products on the shelf and as many more under development. So if you know anyone interested in investing in a performance tech company send them my way :)

Regards,
Russell

Russel, how big are the fuel and ignition maps on the motronic?

They vary from car to car, on this series the wide open throttle ignition map is 16 cells, fuel is 20, and both fuel/ign part throttle maps are 12x12. Part throttle is where you spend most of your time driving, yet most aftermarket chips I've seen on other cars tweak the wide open throttle maps and do nothing in the part throttle maps. I find this appauling, but just how it is. I've never seen another aftermarket chip for the 911 series, so I cannot comment on what others do in this market. I spend most of my tuning time in the part throttle maps, getting everything perfect, then just get what I can out of the WOT maps on the dyno, which in this case is 10RWHP, I'm impressed with it. But then again, I designed it, I'm a little biased...

Regards,
Russell

"I've never seen another aftermarket chip for the 911 series, so I cannot comment on what others do in this market."

A rather naive marketing approach, i.e. not understanding the competitve market
before & during product development. Thus, the final product might be a real YAWN!

Speaking of marketing approach. :rolleyes:

The whole idea seems like a pretty great concept to me.... if someone wants to fiddle around with their 3.2 on their own, now they can, as opposed to relying on the canned result of someone elses fiddling. Those that don't want to can leave whatever chip the factory (or PO) left in their motronic and drive along happily (my current plan, subject to change at my whim), or purchase someone elses results.... I fail to see what's not to like.

If nothing else, the ability to switch maps on the go enables direct comparison of different maps. I think it might be educational fun to actually see / drive the effect of changes to the ignition / fuel map, even if the final tuning stays the same. But, I'm a curious type....

The one thing I'd love to see added is an aftermarket knock sensor - not sure if such a thing is even feasible... but then an algorithm could illuminate a knock light and switch maps (or just dial timing back) if knock is detected, thus making tuning alterations a bit less risky, and permanently ending all dispute about chip tuning and its possible side effects. And wouldn't that be great?

Way to go Russel!