I posted my dyno sheets in various configurations here http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/231489-more-kudos-steve-w-dyno-sheets.html

"To my understanding, a large part of the SW gain is from adjusted mixture at lower rpm."

That's the marketing hypebole! It's all in the 'pushed' timing beyond stock.
Besides, when operating before full throttle, the O2 sensor controls the AFRs
at Lambda = 1, unless the AFR is changed beyond its control which results
in an over rich/lean condition where torque/HP is lost.

Bottom line: It's incredible the amount of mis-info that exists out there,
and keeps getting posted.

That is how Microsoft became so popular... :D

sorely tempted by an SW chip, with all the positive feedback! at the end of the day though, i dislike the idea of a 'one size fits all' chip that just plugs in.
i think i'm going to stick my car on a dyno and get it tuned that way, or something.

Loren's still around? Wow. I thought you'd finally shriveled up and disappeared into that bitter nothing-ness that is your life.

For those of you who may not be as familiar with Loren's rantings of the past, try a simple litmus test - do a couple searches:

- Those that have something to say (good or bad) to say about Steve Wong,
- Those that have something to say (good or bad) about Loren.

Make your own decisions based on whatever results you get.

My challenge from 5 years ago still stands Loren, put up or shut - you've still failed to man up and resort to the same garbage. If all you can do is hurl insults at people who don't buy your BS, take the hint and disappear. Permanently this time.

Full disclosure - check my sig for what I drive. I wouldn't have any other chip.

"I thought you'd finally shriveled up and disappeared into that bitter nothing-ness that is your life."

Another personal attack, what's with some who have a problem with a different viewpoint?
Could it be that there are other possibilities for a better running 911 3.2 that one
hasn't considered? Or could be the that one has made a questionable purchase decision
in the past and doesn't want to hear the problematic issues that result from that decision?
And yes there are real issues even if some wish to ignore them.

The purpose of a forum is to present various viewpoints and discuss issues that can
potentially help others in solving problems and provide a better understanding of
an issue. If one is happy with their past decision, then let's not try and shutdown
a dialog that might be helpful to others in evaluating a future decision. Or is this
what the forum really is; "take the hint and disappear. Permanently this time"?

Either contribute or go away Loren. You've failed for years to throw anything but spitballs at Steve.

Still waiting....

Irony, thy name is Loren.

Loren - I have never come accross you before. This is not an attack. Relax.

You seem to know lots about engine managment and you obviously work in the field. You must have a wealth of knowledge on the topic.

Can you explain in laymans terms, the problems that come from using perfomance chips, specifically Steve Wong's chips. I'm interested to know where the problems lie and what you know that everyone else obviously doesnt.

Keep it simple, assume I don't know what a Lamda probe does, or AFR means, or even "too lean" or "too rich". Explaination please.

Asking advice from Loren about Steve Wong's chips is like asking a vegetarian what he likes about a huge T-bone steak....
At least talk with Steve as well.
Fact that nobody can deny (not even Loren) is that Steve has a lot of very satisfied customers.
I have yet to hear about or see an engine that has been destroyed due to one of Steve's chips.

I already bought from steve. Found him to be very helpful.

I'm just interested to hear Loren's point of view too.

"Can you explain in laymans terms, the problems that come from using perfomance chips,"

This has been discussed many times here on Pelican & Rennlist. But here's a repeat
of the essentials:

1. The 911 3.2 DME ECM controls the fuel and ignition based on engine temp,
engine load, and engine RPM.
2. To affect emissions, optimize fuel consumption and torque, an oxygen (O2) sensor is
used for feedback. Thus the fuel system operates closed loop, i.e. the fuel system
tweaks itself for overall optimization, until the fuel throttle (FT) switch closes. At that
point the system uses preset values. So for normal driving below (FT), the DME
ECM essentially 'tunes' itself. The Porsche factory provided values for FT which
are ideal when no major engine modifications are made, e.g. cams, CRs, etc.
3. The 911 3.2 ignition system operates without any feedback compared to the later
964/993 aircooled engines. Those engines use a knock control system to prevent
detonation by retarding the ignition advance for poor octane, heavy engine loads
(up hill climb), and a hot temperature day. So without knock control, ignition timing
must provide for a margin of safety to prevent detonation, a major problem for
the 911 3.2 limiting its tuning possibilities. Further limiting this engine, is the single
offset spark plug which facilitates detonation as compared to the 964/993 twin plugged
engines.

To achieve maximum torque (and then HP) on a normally aspirated engine,
the air fuel ratios (AFRs) need to be optimized as close to 12.6 as possible and the
ignition advanced as much as possible without detonation occurring. The AFRs
when operating not at FT are tweaked to about 14.7 by the O2 sensor which results
in basically the same torque as at 12.6 without compromising emissions. So with
the AFRs controlled by the O2 sensor, the only element left for tuning is to further
maximize the ignition advance, i.e. 'push' the timing, reducing the margin of safety
Porsche used. But because the 911 3.2 lacks knock control and still used a single
spark plug, this is problematic.

Then there's the problem of an emission test failure that many threads express concern
about. It's a well know fact the increased timing advance results in increased NOX
emissions. Given that states continue to tighten their emissions standards, in many
cases a 'performance' chip will result in a NOX value increase and close to the
maximum, further resulting in more 911 3.2s considered as 'Gross Polluters'.

So with more advanced timing comes more engine responsiveness, i.e. As with any
internal combustion engine since day one, at the expense of a reduced margin of safety
from detonation occurring. Because of this, one needs to use a higher octane (if available)
and be concerned about heavily loading the engine (hard acceleration) on hot days.
So when using a 'performance' chip, a trade-off is being made (knowingly or not) between
more responsiveness (that seat-of-the-pants feel) and the reduced margin of engine
safety before pinging/detonation occurs, which is sub-audible and not heard particularly
in a rear engine (and noisy) vehicle like the aircooled 911 3.2.

Even the 911SC (a basic 3.2 with a shorter stroke) with a very simple distributor adjustment
(13 mm wrench), the stock timing is not 'pushed', i.e. Read the posts from the 911SC guys
about maintaining stock factory timing. Isn't interesting that basically no prior 911 to the
3.2 has been so promoted/hyped to 'push' the timing for so-called' performance'? Could
one factor be allure and mystery that's presented about tuning and 'buried' in the chip?
My Nissan V6, which I don't value as I do my 911 3.2, has the timing advanced as little
as 3 degrees from stock. Yes, it's more responsive, but now it needs 89 octane and pings
on a hot day climbing a hill (405 north from the 101). Would that be acceptable for my
911 3.2 given its cost to repair? Don't think so! So, could one factor be the allure and
mystery that's presented about tuning and 'buried' in the chip, that makes for such
avid promotion and appeal?

For more info, read here; http://www.systemsc.com/tests.htm

Bottom line: Like that old saying: "There are no free rides in life".

Fair enough.

Thankyou for the expaination Loren. So your concern is undetected engine knock as a result of advancing the timing too far.

Do you feel that Steves chips advance the timing an unreasonable amount or is any amount too much for you?

Steve also strikes me as very knowlegable in this field. I assume he has considered this problem.

Anyone here been running a SW chip for a lengthy period of time? Like 5 - 10 years? Any problems?

Yes. And, no.

any one else?

I have, no issues at all.
granted I have not done the DME update that Loren has mentioned. that could be an interesting next step considering my DME has 25 years of use. I can imagine that soldering might be getting brittle by this point.

Five years and counting, no issues whatsoever.

any more any more.....?

One year with the SW chip on my 88 3.2. No problems. Much better driveabilty and idling. Steve's instructions also helped me to discover that the WOT microswitch was adjusted wrong and wasn't actuating. It was an easy adjustment. I haven't compared on a dyno. I don't hear any knocking but then I might not. I waited 5-6 years before buying the chip. Zero complaints about any actual problems and MANY compliments from users convinced me.

I suppose my 88 3.2 had the latest rev of the DME and EEPROM from the factory. I still noticed a solid improvement.

Hi loren,
my car being a ROW version dosent have a cat therefore there is no 02 senser,/Lambda probe fitted etc, so, what in your opinion was originaly controling emisions and therefore the correct fuel air ratio timing and advance to maintain maximum performance in my engine ?
Anthony.