A Pelican asks "the question":

"Could/would you speak to this discussion of timing map advances? Fuel map alterations?"

The Pelican supplier responds:

"Well naturally I'm not going to give away my mappings, but I can tell you I learned first hand that these engines can't be forced to generate power outside their power band like some can by ramping up the timing. Fact is I found these engines aren't that fond of radical timing advances at all. It causes inconsistent behavior, and of course would ultimately cause premature wear of engine components."

The issue is then raised:

"Just out of curiousity...since the Steve Wong chips are so well known, tested, and proven, why would someone would go with an unknown quantity here?"

And then answered:

"At some point, I am positive that no Steve Wong, Autothority, nor any other chip existed. So once introduced, they were unknown. When I entered the 944/S/S2/51 market I was a complete unknown. People tried my products over well known vendors. Now, only a little over a year later I am considered a leader in that market and have products in over 500 944 series cars now. My next endeavor was the 3.2L 911 series. While my products may be an unknown for this community, my reputation of excellence in products and services spans the globe. Vendors such as Lindsey Racing, Paragon Products, and Pelican Parts carry my products. I guarantee my products, and I stand behind my every word and action. Your risk will be minimal in as much as modifying your car from factory configuration can allow. Your rewards are guaranteed, and your expense will be less than that of competitors."

And the product is here on Pelican Parts:

http://www.pelicanparts.com/cgi-bin/ksearch/PEL_search.cgi?command=show_part_page&please_wait= N&make=POR&model=911M&section=MISCLL&page=3&bookma rk=12&part_number=911MAX-8828911V10C

"Chips suck, case closed" - Lorenfb

well, this is one way to keep PP interesting.
Take out all the chip threads and cheaper parts threads and what's left?

Throw me some beads and I'll show you my EPROM

And another Pelicanite comments:

"Thanks for your reply, Russell. Am considering getting a chip but am leary of advanced timing maps. I find it interesting that you mention "only slight timing mods and focuss in fuel maps". That tells me that your chip is probably safer than most insofar as advanced timing curves. I find this attractive, as I'm worried about pinging (subaudible) /predetonation with no knock sensing. Obviously, your clientel speaks highly of the improved performance."

And then a Rennlister comments:

"Ah...just the kind of discussion that I was hoping for and I like what I hear."

That's great, isn't it? No "off-the-wall" comments, slams, or personal attacks.

Smoke and mirrors, kids, smoke and mirrors. (from the OP)

Loren has often dismissed aftermarket chips as nothing more than a placebo effect- The car "feels" faster, because money was spent, while no actual improvement is possible.

My experience is simple:

944 race car, ITS class. Came off the track, swapped the stock motronic box for one with an aftermarket chip (A 944's DME box can be swapped in a few minutes). Back out on track, lap times dropped by over 1.5 seconds, on a short, 1.2 mile track.

Same car, same tires, same driver (me), same atmospheric conditions, the only change was the DME box.

How is this possible?

Not to nit pick you dantilla (ok, I am nit picking) but the fact you knew the chip was switched did introduce some possible bias. You may have subconsciously felt that with the "newer or better" chip the car would perform better. This could have led to you driving more aggressively and have a lower time. Sort of a different version of a placebo effect.

If you had driven back to back without knowing the chip was changed that would be different. Not looking to pick a fight- just bringing up a point. Randomize it and double blind it and then we will know for sure.

erik

Dropping lap time by 1.5 seconds is nowhere near conclusive enough to say it was chip-related. It would have to be significantly more than that..my 2 cents.

Loren,

What do you think about this take on chip mods? (As to conservative timing map changes and moreso fuel map alterations?

Is there an acceptable timing advance (amount)? Can the fuel maps relate to pings/knocks?

Just asking.......

Best,

You do mean at WOT, 100% load, correct?

must be a slow day at the shop, eh?

However, it is almost comical. Maybe Loren is the smartest guy around here; he knows how to push the collective button and gets his kick out of doing it every once in a while: he mentions chips we all jump in a predictable way....:rolleyes:

rather than ban it how about just not reacting to it or even enjoy it. I'll break out a soda and popcorn and watch the show unfold. And if it comes to name calling it usually get real funny.....

In a way it reminds me of a Sarah Silverman standup

I'd still like to see a comparison of US vs ROW chips (maybe along with aftermarket chips A, B and C) ... Steve W has a small portion of this posted on his 911chips website, but I think it's a very partial map. It seems like useful data, is all ....

1.5 sec is a lot. A whole lot. If one could do any one mod and gain that, they would win a lot of races. The leaders of most races on most tracks are less than .5 sec apart per lap. If a race is 30 laps you do the math...

What are the differences (US vs. ROW)? And why/how?

Nope. I mean at partial throttle points.

Wouldn't they maintain the .5 seconds apart, regardless of the number of laps? Given the same speeds?

Just asking.........

10 laps @ 59.5 seconds = 595 seconds
10 laps @ 60 seconds = 600 seconds
In 10 laps they'd be 5 seconds apart.

10 laps @ 179.5 seconds = 1795 seconds
10 laps @ 180 seconds = 1800 seconds
In 10 laps they'd still be 5 seconds apart.

.5 second X # of laps = time between them.

These threads are indeed predictable in many ways- good point Ingo.

I think those who aren't sure whether or not to believe the chip tuning need to realize one thing that has been said over and over and over again. Despite Porsche being the performance-minded manufacturer they are, they still must develop an engine management system that has compromises necessary to allow the car to operate under varying conditions- weather, fuel quality, component wear,........ you name it, and still function properly. To say that Porsche hasn't left anything on the table is absurd in my opinion. They have to do so. That's where the tuners come in. They tweak the map values to take advantage of the "safety factor" left by the manufacturer.

I really don't understand how people can argue with dyno numbers. The proof is in the pudding. I'm not talking just Porsches here. There's articles in dozens of car publications that provide chip swaps or tuning data based on MEASURED horsepower and torque gains. What, is any and every article posted about this "magic" a lie? A conspiracy? A hoax? And yes, that performance gain comes at a cost (not only from the wallet) because nothing's free. There's always a trade off. Want more power? It's gonna cost you something.

What I like about the heated discussions on Pelican is that at least people for the most part attempt to stay on-point and discuss the issue at hand. That being, are custom chips crap or no crap. The sometimes wild tangency and misinformation on other forums is downright hilarious. I'll refrain from naming names, but I think it's pretty evident in the Rennlist link posted. :D

Personal attacks? You're the queen of them! Why not go somewhere where you have friends?

Oh, now I understand why you're here.

I purchased and installed a chip from Steve Wong last summer. Russell Berry sent me one of his chips free of charge when I responded to his post on Rennlist. There is a dyno here in town. I plan to put my car on it to test the stock, Wong and 911 Max Chips when the weather clears.