"I couldn't figure out why someone would lie about a dyno chart"

- petevb -

"Lie", and who are you to make an accusation like that? And you know which Porsche cars
I work on and for which Porsche independents and Porsche dealers I support daily, right?

Yes lie. I have owned a 3.2 carrera. I have seen plenty of dyno charts from that car and others, and they do not look like what you posted as "stock". You have been asked, directly, in this thread many times to explain the 225+ ft lbs at the wheels your dyno shows. You have not answered those simple, direct questions. Why not?

I realize you sell chips for a living, but if you're telling the truth then SWs 100k bet is a much easier way to make money.

I have not been on here for too long, but the first couple pages of this thread made me think that this Loren clown was trying to sell something. Glad to see I'm right.

Straight from his site....
When considering the replacement of a stock chip with a performance chip, dynamometer test results should be provided by the chip supplier of the "before and after" torque curves. Also, the "before and after" emissions levels should be provided, e.g. the CO and NOx levels. Without this data, evaluating and using a performance chip becomes much more of a gamble. Additionally, the replacement of stock fuel injection maps, e.g. a performance chip change, will usually require an increase in the octane.

Loren..grow up...stop throwing out half truths...start promoting your services in a professional manner instead of alienating potential customers with your abrasive nature. I, for one, can say emphatically if I ever need service on my DME, your company will never receive my business.

Oh it gets way better than that. He started the identical thread on Rennlist, and he's got guys buying stock chips from him:

"I've just ordered a stock chip from Loren...
Thanks for getting this out so quickly."

Rennlist Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Performance Tuning - The Myth -

"Here's the dyno graph where small changes (3-4 degrees) in the timing resulted
in significant torque changes:"

Read again! That's an actual 911 3.2 dyno graph which shows the effect of 'pushing' the
timing on ANY 911 whether stock or non-stock, i.e. it doesn't matter. The key point
is how significant changes in timing affect torque and how just a few degrees more
advance causes major torque improvements ('performance' tuning). That's the point!

The OP purpose wasn't to show what absolute 'performance' a 911 3.2 could produce,
but only how timing affects torque. Any 911 3.2 owner would discover the same results
with their stock or non-stock engine when run on a dyno by tweaking the timing a few
degrees over stock or non-stock. Obviously there's a limit to that, e.g. pinging, and
detonation, and how much additional octane is required to safely operate there.
Sorry most don't understand that after over 200 posts.

Did that many fail high school reading comprehension?

No wonder you can't quote- you'd need to actually respond to others questions.

Yes it's clear you claim it's stock other than tuned with race gas. And 225+ tq at the wheels with those specs is simply a fabrication with any reasonable dyno settings.

You repeatedly ignore or intentionally misinterpret direct questions. I will repeat one of them again:

If this is as you claim, why is it that you have not responded to Steve W's 100K challenge?

Speaking of reading comprehension, this is the 4th time this question has been asked in two pages. Answer it directly please?

So is this your way of admitting the car in question isn't actually stock? Never let the facts get in the way of making a good point?

225 Loren - do you accept the challenge?

Give it up guys...Loren is NEVER going to admit he is wrong...he is a type A personality...and can never admit defeat.
To do so would throw his whole world out of whack!
End the thread....let him wave in the breeze.
Bob

"wrong"

- HawgRyder -

It was you that helped finalize the conclusion of the OP
by posting the key graph that indicated the ineffectiveness
of AFR 'tuning'. You helped expose how some manipulate
data, i.e. add undefined values, to achieve one's end.

Thanks for the support and posting, Bob!

"In the areas of interest - near the maximum power point and the minimum fuel
consumption point - those curves are relatively flat. Even if the system can be
adjusted to deliver the perfect mixture (just at the point of maximum power),
the gain promises to be pretty small. There are no huge amounts of horsepower
to be unlocked there."

"Bosch Fuel Injection & Engine Management", Charles O. Probst, Chapter 7, pg 7,
ISBN D-8376-0300-5

Really?

What about understanding temp compensations for differing IAT and CHT temps?
What do you do about thermal run-away in a motor? How do you correct for this?

Simple? far from it to do these things correctly. Get these wrong and you melt a motor. I haven't heard any complaints about Steve Wong's work.

Bottom line is even the factory recognized the 3.2L maps where not optimal. They made incremental chip improvements from 84-89, why? Because they simply left power on the table as a safety margin in the early cars. What makes you so sure that the 89 chip is optimal? Have you actually ever tuned a 89 to confirm max torque under all conditions?

Finally, consider that most chip programming is done to accommodate modifications such as:
- exhaust
- intake
- cams
- ...
If you change any of these you really do need to re-tune. My personal 3.2L has many of these mods and the motor runs poorly with the 89 factory chip. But after a proper tune it wakes up. I can put either tune in the car and you can clearly tell the difference between the 2. Do not dismiss the need for re-tuning after major component changes.

Loren,

I find this post of yours most interesting, just a few years ago you keep saying that you can not improve output with a chip, but now you are changing your mind? So you actually have learned something, one can actually improve engine output, even the factory knew this! This is my last post in this thread, this is simply a waist of time. If you don't approve of chip tuning practices please leave those of us who do be. You keep poking in on many good tuning threads on this board and you are of no value to them. I actually tend to stay away from these threads because I just don't have the time to deal with your distractions. Think about how your actions effect members of this productive forum. We are all here as guests.

Not Loren. He's here as a vendor trying to sell something. If his selective reading and lack of straight responses didn't make that clear, his 24 links to his business site in 19 posts in this thread should.

He's also essentially admitting he's not being honest about his claims by refusing to answer the majority of direct questions or SWs challenge.

Really that hard up for money? Not impressed.

Loren, Im sure starter and alternator rebuilds would be just as profitable as old DME's. Perhaps then you wouldnt have as much time to Troll.

so, we now have "225 Loren" to go along with "9-iron Island"

Really, Loren, until you address the 225 issue and challenge, you're not going to have any credibility.

You can't just keep ignoring it.

Loren why do you keep referring to the "OP's" purpose behind the thread as if someone else started this pointless argument? You are the OP!

OP can be Original Poster or Original Post depending on the context used. Welcome to the internet.





The only thing I've learned reading this thread is there's a bunch of dickheads on this site.

Lame guys. I thought you were better than this. :rolleyes:

Try not to take this thread as typical. It really is an excellent forum with some well educated and knowledgeable contributors.

Loren, from what I understand, has been winding the rest of the board up for years, never backs up his claims, never answers direct questions, and seems intent on alienating a group of people who might otherwise have used his services at one point in time.

After all this time, you see great guys getting tired of it and biting. The threads on this board do not usually degenerate like this.