"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 ?"

The ignition is not affected by the O2 sensor, only the AFRs. If your engine is stock
and doesn't have an O2 sensor, the fuel mixture is only controlled by the temp
sensor and the AFM. As mentioned before, the AFR changes from stock on a stock
engine have very little effect versus changes to the timing, contrary to the
hyperbole posted.

Loren, have you any reason to think that the chips SW produces allow the engine to advance timing too far? Like first hand?

The reason I ask, is that with so many happy customers, and many reporting great improvements combined with reliability many years down the road, you would have thought that one of them would have a detonation problem by now. Or would have noticed a problem during a rebuild etc etc....

This is fuch'n rediculous...

UNSUBSCRIBE.....

That would be exactly the question I would have. Loren does have a point - there ain't no free lunch. But sometimes, the lunch is so cheap as to seem mostly free.

For example - back in the days when my car was new off the line, Audi was grinding up the rally world with a inline-5 turbo motor based on a diesel truck iron block. The boffins at Audi were wringing 1200HP out of that block with no modifications. This is the same block they used from 1980 through 1997 in their I5 turbo cars. Likewise, Audi overbuilt the motors on many of their turbo applications, allowing folks to double the horsepower the cars put down without making any changes to the internals of the motor, head or lower end. And these modified cars would run well over 100k miles like this.

For the 20V I5 turbo in the UrS6, nobody blinks at adding 150HP to the stock 227HP the car left the factory with. Slap on the right turbo, injectors and exhaust manifold, tell the software what the limits are, and you're approaching 400CHP. In fact, Porsche helped Audi do just that when the two companies teamed up to make the RS2 - in 1994 the fastest production car in the world.

The point is that for those folks who just add a chip to those 20V I5 turbomotors to get a "free" 50 HP (by raising the boost limit past the factory 14 psi to get 22psi), the additional stresses on a motor that Porsche thought good enough for 320HP as it sat seem a lot like a free lunch.

As the RoW got more "go" out of the Carrera motor, one might imagine that the motor has some built-in margin that can be explored safely - that is, we could push it 10% and not worry about damaging the motor in any way. If the motor were right on the edge of its full capability, then I might be swayed more by Loren's argument. Surely, the 3.2 in the Carrera is not so crazy-overbuilt like the 2.5 AAN in the UrS6. But I'm guessing there's margin to play with, and the SW chipsets stay well within that margin.

Wong offers that exact service. He'll go in to the dyno with you and custom-tailor the chip. But even if that's not viable for you (he's in Southern California), he can customize the chip to the particular engine/exhaust setup you're running.

that's a bit far from me :p it's a pretty cheap option so worth a try maybe.
964 3.6 with cams, flywheel and exhaust - i might whack it on a dyno before hand just for extra data to send

"Surely, the 3.2 in the Carrera is not so crazy-overbuilt like the 2.5 AAN in the UrS6. But I'm guessing there's margin to play with, and the SW chipsets stay well within that margin."

Just like the 911SC (same engine - shorter stroke) and all the previous 911s where
the timing has been 'pushed', right? Don't think so! Have you seen all the postings
from the 911SC guys about maintaining factory specs on timing? Few if any re-curve
the distributor for more advance for a street stock pre-911 3.2. It's only the 911 3.2
where Porsche was overly conservative on the timing, right?

"As the RoW got more "go" out of the Carrera motor"

Right, because better it had higher CRs. Hardly a good analogy.

Bottom line: And then take an anecdotal case (Audi) and apply it here. Come on!
"Guess" again.

Loren, can you comment on what I wrote in post #62? I'm interested to hear.

"can you comment on what I wrote in post #62? I'm interested to hear"

Read here, it's discussed fully:

Tests

I don't think I need to rehash what can easily be found with a search over thee past 9 years, but as Loren sells, or used to sell his own line of performance chips, do you think there might be any incentive there to trash talk everyone elses product? He won't deny it, because if he does, I'll post clear evidence here to everyone that proves the contrary.

See:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/260911-high-compression-pistons-performance-chips-2.html

Interesting reading.

So clearly table B is the Steve Wong chip, and I can see that at certain engine speeds using 20% throttle, the SW chip advances the timing to 44 degrees, which is 4 more than you say Porsche recommends.

So there are two questions.

1-Do we know that ignoring this recommendation is detrimental, is 40 really the number and is it that black and white?

2-Have you seen first hand, or has anyone else seen first hand, damage caused by detonation?

All I see so far is people claiming to use these chips for years and years with no adverse affects. Perhaps they are all wrong.

Looks like you guys have been arguing with Loren since I was a glint in the Milkman's eye !

Hi All,
realy glad to see that Steve W has responded to this thread, there is obvious history to this ongoing debate, when it comes down to it, for me at least, all i want is to be educated on whether the modified chips we use are safe, and the increased driveability we get is longterm reliable,with no ill effects, it is clear to me that there may be a conflict of interest that is causing some of the negativety here, but i also feel that there is a lot of nervous concern too.
Anthony.

the only info that has come from this thread that is really useful is the idea that the stock ecu from 1988 was better than the previous versions. is it really that much different than the previous versions?

Loren and his anti Steve Wong..it will destroy your engine..not legal for club racing...and other verbose engineering calamity's that have never happened anywhere to anybody. No documented data points.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DuBgNH9xc_...+star_trek.jpg

We have, and we've all taken similar approaches to the yutz as you are, trying to draw out facts as opposed to hyperbole and have all ended up in the face-palm per above.

You'll get nowhere with Loren, he's about as vapid as a 14 year old blond cheerleader with none of the personality. I've been running my '85 hard since May 2007 with a Wong chip set up for my rig, all I've ever seen was continuous improvement, and - surprise - nothing's blown up. Contrast that with the open source approach to doign business Steve has. That's how you build trust.

Loren's arguments are baseless with nothing to back it up, he's trying to argue the wetness factor of water.

And BTW Steve,

Thank you, once again.

"the only info that has come from this thread that is really useful is the idea that the stock ecu from 1988 was better than the previous versions"

That's it! At least one can read and not post a personal attack.

Yeahhhhhhhh.....still waiting Loren....facts, got any? Try to make them relevant this time....

Loren, can you comment on the two questions I had in post #71 ?