Carrera Chip Option

[tony9704]

Hello all,
Has anybody had any experience with this chip? There are a few renn-folk who rave about it. I know the Wong is a great chip, but this seems as though it may be a bit more linear with the power increase across the power band. The price is crazy low today. I found it interesting that it offers a control switch to change to different custom maps also. Might be nice as we are constantly upgrading our cars. What do you think?
www.maxhpkit.com/

[NewfieMZ3]

I am curious as well, I was considering the Steve Wong Chip..............also is the Cat Bypass really worth the effort/$$$

[spence88mph]

Probably best to PM Loren about this one and see which one he recommends.

[Wavey]

Ha! Loren won't be back here so I think we're safe.

I'm trying one right now, and posted a comparison on Rennlist last week. I can't get a clean link to the post, but it's at the end of a current Russell Berry Chip thread. Ed Hughes comments too.

EDIT - HERE'S THE LINK: http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/911-forum/521880-russell-berry-chip-finally-7.html#post6945835

[efhughes3]

I love Russell's design. I've been mixing 100 and 91 octane to meet the tune of the SW chip I've run for years now. Having a fallback position to a 91 octane tune is great. Russell's and Steve's maps are somewhat different with SW's coming on stronger as you get in the 4K range. Russell's feels stronger low, but maybe gives up some on top end. Nothing scientific here in my assessment. I think they are both great products.

Oh, the anti-theft and valet features could be handy for some.

[rberry951]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your kind words!

Regards,
Russell

[Zef]

Concerning performance chip....there's no option.

[NewfieMZ3]

Well I have been reading about this debate literally all day........my boss is off sick.............
What I have concluded is that RB and SW chips are both quite competent........but they are quite different. The SW chip is most effective in the 4000-4500 + range and would be very attractive to those who frequent the track....or outrun the law. The RB chip gives a better kick in the pants in the lower RPM range and would excite those people who spend most of their time sub 5000 RPM..........so it is a matter of driving style/usage of your vehicle.

One thing I do like about the RB chip is that they have a multi-board option which can hold up to 8 maps.......and changed on command by a remote wired switch to ECU. I just got off the phone with Russell and ordered one of these..........comes with the following settings 1) Stock Map 2) 91 Octane 3) 92 Octane 4) 93 Octane 5) Valet mode - not exactly sure what this is yet , and 6) No Start Mode - for added security. For $300

You can choose whatever maps you want.....I chose 91 & 93 as my options and he threw in the 92 setting for free as he figures our Canadian 93 gas may actually be 92...

I still have two open maps which can be programmed at any time........

So for my driving needs, and the great flexibility it offers I thought this was by far the better deal for me, with room to upgrade in the future without buying a new chip. You can also get the single chip for 91 or 93 Octane for $150........quite the deal in itself.

I'll give some feedback once installed....

[Wavey]

Glad we could help with your decision Newfie. The only thing I'd like to clarify is that, at least in my experience, the RB chip is not more powerful in the lower range, just smoother and a better idle. I think the SW chip produces more power/torque than the RB chip at any engine speed.

[tony9704]

I thought I had my mind made up until you said that!

[teamfee3]

Love my Steve Wong chip, it seems like it is the 3,500 + range where it really kicks, certainly 4,000+. I could see wanting more lower but I never need it unless in an AutoX. Day to day I like the SW. As for the cat bypass I went with the Maxspeed s/s off Ebay and it was cheap and easy. The down side is the noise, it makes the my car (with B&B exhaust) very loud, very loud, at least for day to day. I guess I see the application but I can't see worrying day to day about tanks of specific octane gas, if you are running cheap gas why get a performance chip.

[88-diamondblue]

My experience with the SW chip had been great. This is not to say Russell's chip is not I have not had one. So this is about my experience with the SW chip and customer service I have received. I have had a rich running issue since I did my rebuild and have been working with Steve to help me figure it out. He spent a lot of time on the phone and had emailed items to verify which I did. He didn't want to just reprogram the chip as he felt that there was something else causing it. He was right as I had timed my cams to the wrong mark and had them advanced to around 12 degrees. Set it up right and it is unbelievable. I am using an LM-2 tonight to check the afr's and see if Steve can get any more out of the engine. The price difference will be long forgotten.

The multi-chip option RB has is really great... I could see having a couple of different maps

[rberry951]

Originally Posted by teamfee3

I guess I see the application but I can't see worrying day to day about tanks of specific octane gas, if you are running cheap gas why get a performance chip.

If you never travel outside an area where you always have 93 octane available, there would be no need to ever have the 91 octane map. Though you may still want the valet and no-start maps. But people do tend to enjoy taking their cars on extended drives, which may indeed take you outside an area where 93 octane is available. If you went on a trip with the 93, ended up on empty in a town that only had 91, you'd want to drive back very gingerly... no fun...

Regards,
Russell

[NewfieMZ3]

Very good point Russell, in my region of the country I can only get 87, 89, or 91 Octane. So I regulary use 91. But if I travel to a region where 93/94 is readily available I obviously want the option to use mapping appropriate for that.

I really would like to hear to hear more hard core examples of the differences in the performance of the two chips. Are their horsepower gains with both? Where in the RPM range are they both most effective. What are the pros and cons of each?

Wavey, maybe you could weigh in here more based upon your experience.

[tony9704]

Yeah, bring it Wavey! We've only got until midnight tonight to make this important life decision! I have read elsewhere that the RB chip does make more power lower in the RPM range. This was appealing to me as I find Autocross to be a second gear gig where I find my RPMs fairly low at times coming out of a sharp corner. It would be nice to have the power in this band as I find my Carerra has more than enough power above 4000 RPMs. The other posts use terms like "low end grunt" "off the line". They don't seem to be referring to idle and throttle resonse. I expect that from both chips. (yes, there are only two in comparison here) Maybe your experience is different than others though. I trust your judgement.

[teamfee3]

Day to day, 91 vs. 93 octane gas, and I've run both, no difference of note for daily commuting. SW is defaulted to 91 and up with special request for 93. Again, running a chip that needs 93 octane and you might not have access sounds like a good scenario for a specialized chip that you can change, otherwise the SW plugs in and is OK 91+. I guess it depends on your application.

[Wavey]

I'm hardly an expert, just a guy who has tried both chips. I've run Steve's chip for maybe 5 years?, and Russell's for only a week. I was thoroughly happy with Steve's chip and only decided to try Russell's because of the sale price and the reviews I've read. This is completely subjective and seat-of-the-pants, but Steve's chip just feels more aggressive to me, and always feels like it's making a bit more torque than Russell's. But let me stress that the difference isn't a lot, just enough to be noticeable, and they both provide a definite bump over stock. I just returned from a 45 minute drive and I noticed that, while Russell's power delivery is very linear, if I'm cruising at say 3500 in 4th, and punch it, the power is there with both chips but Steve's pushes you into the seat a bit more, and it just feels like it can't wait for more throttle. I guess I'd say that Russell's is a bit more civilized, and Steve's is a bit more aggressive.

I don't think you'd be unhappy with either, it's just a matter of which is more suited to the kind of driving you primarily do. Hope that helps.

All that being said, here's what I posted on Rennlist:

Got my new chip from Russell earlier this week and installed it yesterday. Interesting differences from the Steve Wong chip, not sure which one I prefer yet.

Let me first say I need go through my AFM and adjust the wiper path, then I need to check the WOT switch, set the base AFR, idle speed, etc. So those corrections could change how either of these chips performs. My O2 sensor and CHT sensor both have less than 3K on them. I'm running a Dansk premuffler and a custom M&K GT3-style muffler. Also recently did a valve adjustment and plugs. I use 93 octane all the time.

Russell's chip immediately provided a smoother, more stable idle, and a little more pleasant driveablity in "normal" driving. Less exhaust smell wafting around too. It also takes a few more cranks to start (like less than a second longer). All of those point to a leaner condition, at least in the lower half of the RPM range, than the Wong chip.

In comparison, Steve's chip definitely seems richer at idle and lower speeds. The engine fires the instant you hit the switch, but it wants to load up a bit around town and needs it's throat cleared occasionally. Plus I get a definite rich smell blowing forward at stops. Idle hunts up and down a bit too. However it should be possible to adjust most of this out by resetting the AFR.

But from the midrange up, Steve's chip definitely pulls harder. At 3500 and up, it feels like more torque is there, right at a crack of the throttle, and it pulls stronger all the way to redline. Of course this is seat-of-the-pants, but I'd be surprised if a dyno didn't confirm it.

I'd definitely prefer Steve's chip for a track day. But I sure like Russell's for normal driving.

I think the next sensible step would be to reinstall Steve's chip and go through the AFR, then see if it's any better around town. Unless someone has a better idea Got a DE in 3 weeks so I'll try to find time to do that before, and report back.

[rberry951]

Originally Posted by NewfieMZ3

Very good point Russell, in my region of the country I can only get 87, 89, or 91 Octane. So I regulary use 91. But if I travel to a region where 93/94 is readily available I obviously want the option to use mapping appropriate for that.

I really would like to hear to hear more hard core examples of the differences in the performance of the two chips. Are their horsepower gains with both? Where in the RPM range are they both most effective. What are the pros and cons of each?

In development I spent over 30 hours on the dyno working on the top end, and 14,000 miles working on the part throttle and idle maps. The dyno chart I have shows a much flatter torque curve over stock, smooter delivery of power, and anywhere from 6-13Lbs of torque increase over stock. This was the 91 octane version, and it wasn't the final version of that. Unfortunately all the other dyno charts I had accumulated went away in a fire last April. But I'll be spending a lot of time at tracks that have dynos working on other projects, I'm sure I can get some more 911 dynos to show actual numbers. The bottom line is the gains are real and measureable. But I don't shoot for the highest peak numbers, I strive to deliver the best overall performance. That's not something you can illustrate on the dyno. But the products speak for themselves, and the community does a great job of providing unbiased opinion and testimony of their experiences.

Regards,
Russell

[paulgtr]

how about a chip for a set of ssi heat exchangers?

[NewfieMZ3]

placed my order today for the multi-board so I will give some feedback when installed. Looking forward to the chore.........and the first drive.