Now that is an approach I can believe in, sort of. The question is, you can't be the first to do this after all this time. Haven't I read of some similar tests already done? But, what will this prove? You may be testing two different methods of tweaking w/o knowing which is better for engine life.

Nevertheless, subscribed.

I've had a SW chip for a few years and my car runs better, period. I noticed it immediately. I'm not saying it is faster or has more hp - just that it runs better. Hard to put it into words, but the driving experience is more enjoyable - the car runs like it should. Before the chip I always felt like the car wasn't tuned properly and I had to really push it to get that Porsche feeling. Now it's simply more responsive, more alive if you will. A subtle difference, but a difference.

Loren, I have no beef with you or your opinion - we all have them. But in all honesty, you come across as an ass. Grandma always said that you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar, you apparently cannot tell the difference. It's the bottle with the gooey stuff.

I have emailed Steve W. on a couple of occasions with various questions - absolutely a top notch retailer - I wish all business men were of his caliber.

As a first time reader of the "chip post wars", there are a lot girls here that are really holding on a litle too tight. The majority of the sour grapes in this thread seem to stem from past converstations...let it go. You're both pretty...

On topic: If you read Bruce Anderson's Perfomance Handbook, he recommends freeing up the exhaust flow before ever considering "Tuning the DME". Of course, the book was punlished in 1996. Could there have been sizable improvements or new discoveries since then?

Yeah, there are significant exhaust differences on the 3.2 vs. '74 and earlier. We all know that. The cars are pretty constipated when stock. Not much you can do in a smog state like CA w/o bolting and unbolting every 2 years. I think a Euro pre muffler is a start, but the whole balance of the system is still quite off. By the 993, things got much better as I see it.

Before you go passing judgement, take some time to read up on some history here. You'll see that Lori attacks people here on an all too regular basis, and people are simply tired of his crap. He is all too known for his "holier than thou" attitude, and narrow minded viewpoint.

So, we'll give you a pass, since, in your own words, you're new to this. Oh, and don't go asking any questions that would seem logical, or you'll become a target of his poison keyboard too.

When I made the decision to buy one of Steve Wong's chips, I did a lot of research on the board. I was not able to find a single post that showed dyno results from an unbiased third party. A lot of "seat of the pants" testimonials but no data. I want to determine whether the aftermarket chips produce any HP gains over the stock with real numbers.

Check the archives, there's five years worth... Somewhere in there, I dyno'd my car with a bunch of other Pelicans one day, and we all concluded that there was no discernable differences between the hp & torque numbers/curves on the graphs (although others may have different results). My car has a Fabspeed euro premuffler, GHL 1 in/1 out , and I always run 93 octane, so the SW chip was tuned for that combo. I performed 6 back to back dyno runs in 4th gear at WOT and swapped back and forth between stock & SW chip between each run. My conclusion, the dyno results for WOT runs show no discernable HP increases for MY car, but I simply wouldn't know how to "quantify" partial throttle maps other than with the butt dyno, track times, etc. I like my SW chip. Loren has his opinions, but they are contrary to many reputable professionals' "real world experiences" and for some reason he has taken this topic down to a juvenile level more times than I care to recall. Ban Loren? Hell no, he's very knowledgable despite his "agenda" and I appreciate his input. Although it does get old, he's coming around...now he's at least conceeding that the stock chips "can" be improved :)

If your '84 is still stock, then you will definitely see a hp increase if you go with a SW or a stock '87-89 chip. Porsche was even more conservative from '84-86 with the maps, then they "fixed" it :)

Milt,

Which method would be better for "engine life"? Or, better yet, what would be the "bones of contention" here? Are you speaking of radically advanced timing maps? Assuming this is the case, would you consider "mildly advanced timing maps" OK? (i.e.,: better for engine life?)

Apparently, the methods of "tuning" is something that's kept at "close bay" and not to be shared with the buyers. SO how is one to know?

Just asking...( and learning).

Best,

And who, exactly, would these "girls" or sour grapes be?

Finally made it over to SW's site for some great reads. He touches on some great points, with informative graphs,..a language I like to "speak"..
http://www.911chips.com/ignition.htm (IGNITION)

http://www.911chips.com/fuelmaps.html (FUEL)

I'm sure this is "old hat" to many here on this forum.... Sure helped me to better understand the processes at hand.

Thanks, Burg.

Best,

In reading some of the reviews on SW's website, I ran across Wavey's post/review. I must say that post reflects complete customization capabilties of SW's service, particularly for those that are a bit leary of higher ignition advances, rev limit increases,etc. This is way cool !!!

His post:

I asked Steve to keep the timing a little on the conservative side because I sometimes run the car in hot weather with the A/C on, and I didn't want any preignition issues. Many of the mass-produced chips run up to 33 degrees total advance, but we held this one to 29 degrees. Otherwise the timing is more advanced throughout the range, and the fuel maps are richer where needed. I also had him hold the stock RPM limit because I really don't spend a lot of time up around redline. Most of the chip manufacturers get higher horsepower numbers by raising the RPM limit.

Best,

At part throttle, the rules become fuzzy between what is, and what is not safe.

I'm not an expert on tuning and would never proclaim to be, but I've looked at it a little bit and from the sounds of it, the OP either knows a lot and is trying to scare everybody, or knows a little and thinks that he knows a lot.

For example, just because it's my car (Subaru Impreza WRX) and I have the ability to log all the engine parameters, if I did a WOT run, the max advance it would do under full boost, full throttle would be somewhere in the mid-20's, and that's at 6000 rpm. This is full throttle, full load, full boost with a learning ECU that does adjust for knock.

But, and this is the part that the OP really likes to point out, but without referencing the 100% load values, I also have a log of just cruising along at 75mph, top gear, guess what my timing is? 34 degrees of advance, more than double the advance at the same RPM as a WOT, 100% load run. Once again, I'll point out that I don't know much about tuning, but using this example I'm going to assume that the OP doesn't either. This is what my other car does, it's had this tune since very early '06 and runs like a champ. If there was detonation, the ECU would show it by lowering the Ignition Advance Multiplier value and raising the Knock Correction, and it doesn't.

My Subaru was tuned by one of the more respected Subaru tuners in the US, just for reference. When Doug says something, people listen. When the OP says something, people shouldn't.

I'm sure this 30 degree limit of advance is meant to mean at full throttle, when it's most dangerous, just that some people are taking it to mean any time the engine is in operation.

A little knowledge sometimes is a bad thing.

Thanks, richde.

My custom mapped S/W chip added 38hp at the flywheel, per dyno test.

I have a SW chip which was tuned to yield a consistent AFR through out the rpm range, but I'm having a hard time believing the above statement.

jp

Other than everybody's reliance on "Flywheel HP," which is theoretical, instead of Wheel HP, which is actual....you never know. What model was he referring to, what octane was it tuned for?

Dyno numbers are like Playboy centerfolds, they're nice to look at, but they don't mean much. It's the shape of the curve that matters most because dyno runs can't be compared to each other unless all the conditions were exactly alike, on the same physical dyno, with the exact same settings in the dyno software.

Personal experience with my other car showed that the learning ECU added 5 degrees more timing due to the change from questionable 91 to the approx 94 (98 RON?) available here, so...you never know.

These threads always leads to Steve W selling more chips:)

One way to prove it is to use a switch and have two chips in the car. That's what we did with Jack Olsen's 964-powered BB-II: One dyno run with the stock setting, flicked the switch and did another dyno run back to back. Nothing else was changed.

There was a 17HP difference. I call that CONCLUSIVE. Check here http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/130192-no-bad-days-performance-chip-first-impressions.html?highlight=dyno+chip for details....

The "Pepsi challenge" was quite funny! Also, nice to have knock sensors...

Best,

Maybe Wavey will chime in on his review....