So what is being claimed here is AFR (air/fuel ratio) tuning is not important? Well folks, looks like another case of Loren trolling the forums to spam for business. If you really believe in what you post, why don’t you go to the Innovate Motorsports forums and tell the thousands of users there what a dumbasses they are for investing all that time, energy, and money with the instrumentation they are tuning their cars with?

Nothing worse than using nondescript data from unidentified sources and unknown factors to make a claim in your favor as something scientific. Why doesn’t he disclose what kind of car this is, what are the modifications, and who was doing the tuning and how? Have you ever been to a dyno in your life? If so show us what you did instead of pulling charts out of some else’s ass and posting that as your own.

Ok, let me guess, it wasn’t a 911 or any variant, but a home built turbocharged car of some sort, where boost pressures were experimented with, and Loren had nothing to do with the tuning as we all know he doesn’t know what he’s doing anyways. But if this were a normally aspirated engine our 3.2s, it is a complete FAIL. Neither of the runs of the AFR chart are done correctly! Why would anyone compare one bad result to another and claim that as conclusive?

Proper AFRs are just as important as optimal ignition timing to achieve optimal performance. For a normally aspirated motor such as ours, at full throttle, too lean such as 14.0 and the engine runs hot and can’t take much ignition advance loosing torque and HP overall. Too rich such as 11 or 12 and the excess fuel extinguishes the burn, reducing the peak combustion pressure and thus loosing overall torque and HP. As the chip tuner of target here, from tuning many 911s over the years, through hundreds of dyno runs each year, correctly optimizing the AFR makes half of the HP and torque gains over the stock programming. In certain rpms, it’s responsible for as much as 2/3rds of the gains. The remaining half is from ignition timing optimization. And you can't properly optimize timing if the AFRs are off for the very reason stated at the beginning of this paragraph.

Bottom line, go back to rebuilding alternators instead of posting on subjects you know nothing about. Nothing worse than disseminating bad information on an automotive forum as fact.

Steve, don't take the bait. We all know you have a great product and service.

don't shake your head too hard, i have trouble following your instructions that way.......

i am not expert to be sure, but the euro 3.0 & 3.2 had higher domed pistons that created the the higher compression. rothsport makes a repro of both euro pistions for new applications, which are legal in the spec class i compete in.. these are considered a "stock" according to the rules. http://rothsport-racing.com/Products/Engine/Internal-Components/Internal-Components-95mm-Pistons.htm

are the euro cams or timing different than the US cars, 3.0 & 3.2?

To further Steve's point, I am sure that all of us that have attended track events for more than a few years have most likely seen what happens when a guy shows up with a hot rodded Turbo that is too lean at higher RPMs. KaBaaaammmm!!!!

I am no expert, but I have seen the wreckage first hand. This is where an expert(like Steve) can save you a fortune.

My fault. I suggested different cams on the ROW models, but I may most likely be wrong. I know for fact the pistons are different.

Sanity has returned.

Thank you, Steve!!

Scott

The point is that Loren is claiming that somehow the chip advance can cause damage to the motor. Since that damage would be the result of pinging, and higher compression motors are more can also suffer damage from pinging, this is where the stock RoW motor and the chip-tuned U.S. motor share some similarities that Loren will not acknowledge.

If there is room on the 3.2 for higher compression, then there is room for more advance. Both explore the safe, reliable envelope of engine operation, without going outside of it. By claiming that advance is detrimental, while ignoring the higher compression motors the RoW got, Loren makes a case for just shutting the hell up.

Anyone that has done any amount of dyno proven tuning ,fuel injected or carbureted, will agree with this.

It's super important to turbo cars, let me tell you! Depending on application, the difference in even half a point (.5) is HUGE!!

Don't even need that my friend, an emulation systems plugged into between the stock chip and the board (along with a tuning program) will allow for multiple maps to be used

Like I said before I don't believe Porsche (A sports car company) left much on the table in terms of stock tuning, and like Loren mentioned before without knock detection advancing timing can be dangerous if proper octane levels aren't used, and being an AZ driver I worry about pre-det ALL the time haha

I think it you want to run a tune for higher octane gas it is best to use an emulation system that allows you to switch from a stock tune to a run a higher advance thats within safe specs for higher octane.... I would also do none of this without a wideband on my car as well

To me turbo cars are the only ones really worth hacking, as supporting mods will require vastly different maps, I hacked the Trionic 5 on my SAAB, and when I get around to slapping a turbo on the 911 I'll hack the motronic

Buuut Loren I think that this is something someone should research on their own. There are some gains to be had from a quality tune (not enough IMO to justify the cost), and people can make up their own mind and do their own research. unlike Loren I'm not a huge prick and I would NEVER put a company that has put R&D into chip development on blast cuz I don't agree with what they are selling. Voice your opinion if someone asks thats fine, but going out of your way to call out companies providing this service is strictly uncalled. They have not cheated you, they did not rip you off, they are trying to make an honest living providing a product they believe in.

Safe and Reliable mean different things to different folks. You seriously need someone with a lot of experience to "safely" extract more power.

But guys, at the end of the day, you ARE going a bit further than the factory envisioned.

Not a slam at all on Chip Tuning, just a warning to use a reliable tuner. It would appear that Steve has done enough that he can foresee any potential pitfalls.

This is making an assumption that the car was not purposefully detuned for emissions reasons.

I would argue that the U.S. got these lower-compression cars for exactly that reason from the very beginning.

Moving from the lower side of the envelope to the upper side in no way compromises the integrity of the system.

compression and AFR + timing are not the same thing....

I didn't see where anyone in this thread suggested they were....

Yeah, that's the way it used to be. The newer software comes with warnings about programing modes. - essentially warning 'don't brick your car. --it's more expensive than an iphone.'

I have yet to play with reprogramming anything, but the point is, systems are being mapped with more and more variables these days. ...the '80's Carrera chips have relatively few variables. -simple, by today's standards.

read the thread above mine.... You can't assume that because the US got lower compression meant that any timing or AFR ratios were changed...

Lower compression in my understanding was used simply over the fear of lower octane gas

Therefore the car was purposely de-tuned. Compression, AFR and advance are all inter-related, and the limits of each component changes with the octane rating of the fuel used.

My understanding was the car was de-tuned for emissions reasons, but detuning the car to save brain-dead Porsche owners from themselves at the gas station is a plausible alternative.

The bottom line remains, however.

"So what is being claimed here is AFR (air/fuel ratio) tuning is not important? Well folks, looks like another case of Loren trolling the forums to spam for business."

Another one that didn't fully read and understand what was posted. It was stated
that once the AFRs are within 1-2 points of the ideal of 12.6 (that's 10.6 to 14.6)
little to NO improvement in torque results and this was demonstrated in the the
second graph. Many claims to the contrary have been made over the years without
any supporting data. Well, now graphical data from a dyno run exists which indicates
the marginal effect of tweaking AFRs as compared to 'pushing' the timing. These data
have been lacking to refute the AFR tuning claims.

"Why doesn’t he disclose what kind of car this is, what are the modifications, and who was doing the tuning and how? Have you ever been to a dyno in your life? "

Again, it was stated that the car was a 911 3.2 and I was on the dyno making live
ignition and fuel map tweaks using an emulator to generate the map changes.
This was a simple tuning effort, that any high school auto shop student could do,
give the tools, as is the case for most tuning efforts these days. The goal of the
dyno tests was to determine the independent effects tweaking the ignition WOT
map and then separately tweaking the WOT fuel map.

The data presented basically corroborate what has been widely known and accepted
by those that have basic engine knowledge indicating that 'pushing' the ignition
timing once the AFRs are within a few points of the idea has the most significant
effect compared to tweaking the AFRs. This becomes apparent when one views
the standard graph of torque versus Lambda shown here:

Graphs

Bottom line: For the typical stock factory engine which in all cases has AFRs
close to the ideal, no significant improvements result for AFR tweaks versus
'pushing' the ignition timing and that's the essence of what the so-called
performance chip really does. It's that simple!

i'm taken my popcorn, 3.0 US, weber 40's to a race weekend at sears point, eerrr infineon, eerrr the raceway at sonoma tomorrow... rest assurred i will look in on these shenanigans as SOON as i get home..

good to see island checkin in here.... knew a suggestion to "have fun" would wake him from the deepest slumber....

loren, yes, we do have fun....;) although,,, not as much as you i reckon:D....

The main reason I don't have a chip in my car is that there isn't a knock sensor to tell me if things have gone awry... if Steve sold a reasonably priced one, I might change my mind about chips.

I mostly agree with what Loren says, though I do believe that altering A/F ratio can lead to the ability to further alter timing - in other words, leaving timing alone, altering A/F might not change power much, but altering A/F can allow greater timing advance than not altering A/F, which can then cause increased power over just bumping timing.

Not sure I buy the emissions argument - at WOT, the Porsche map ignores the O2 sensor and just runs a fixed program AFAIK, so specific emissions issues are sort of ignored at this point.

In the end, it's great that there are chip tuners for when I change my mind and want a chip. I don't quite get the out-of-the blue "soft attack" thing. But as long as the conversations are factual and civil, I'm interested. And if they turn nasty, I might still be entertained. Win-win :)

In the end, it's all sort of funny, because chip or no chip, I have no doubt any 2010 Chevy Malibu or Honda Accord with a V6 would smoke my 88 911 in the stop light grand prix ... and on track, I'm still at least 4 or 5 seconds short of needing more power.

This is true. However, when i put a wideband 02 sensor on my stock 3.2 i saw high 11's at full throttle at high RPM. It does not take a lot of dyno experience to understand that 11 AFRs are stealing real HP. The Aftermarket chip i tried next held the AFRs in the 13 flat range and the dyno loves that ***** !!! Been there too many times.

Good one bugermeister! It is kinda' funny, indeed,...there are many out there that will smoke the sheeit out of these 80's Carreras......although they might not "feel as good as the 911" while driving....it's a matter of tastes.....for the feel......

I'm up for adding a brand fuchin' new Carrera to the stable to fix that issue.a turbo to boot......Yeah,..I'll keep the "visceral" 911 in the stable...for the slower side.......but copping a good "feel", nonethe less...


Doyle

Link and TurboXS both sell one...and they aren't obscenely priced.

"However, when i put a wideband 02 sensor on my stock 3.2 i saw high 11's at full throttle at high RPM. It does not take a lot of dyno experience to understand that 11 AFRs are stealing real HP."

Really, then let's see the data to corroborate that claim. My graph indicates that
there's little to no effect, i.e. Just look at the graph! If you don't have the supporting
data, then buy some dyno time to prove it. That's what I did.

Loren, Why do you care if a guy feels like his car is faster? then good for him. Whether it is or not.. its his money.
I can tell you that adding EFI and tuning AFR's to ideal made NO difference in my SC seat of the pants. Recurving the Dizzy was a night and day difference.
So Loren is more right than wrong...

Manipulate timing and you rob from one end to give to the other. I dont believe that this will truly add any significant hp, but your car will run nice with timing and air/fuel ratios in check.

you obviously dont drive an 81-83 SC...

No I don't, but in all my years working on all types of cars I have only noticed a significantly improvement from timing adjustment when the car is noticeably out of tune.

I don't really have a dog in this fight owning a stock 84 3.2, but 40 years of on and off P car ownership and 30+ years in the automotive repair business I don't share the belief that the "factory" does everything perfect. I don't mean they detune for emissions or octane, they just don't know what they are doing or are way behind in some areas. So in saying that, I have no problem that there is room for improvement in their chip mapping as in so many more areas of these cars.

That is often true for cam timing. However, if you optimize ignition timing, you may pick up power somewhere without losing it anywhere. Usually, optimum ignition timing gives the air fuel in the cylinder an earlier spark, and that means more pressure on the piston sooner. Your gas is doing more work, because it is burning longer on the power stroke. You are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. You are optimizing cylinder pressure.

Steve Wong has dyno sheets to verify his claims. There is no question that Porsche left power on the table. This is how they got more power from the later Carreras.

I wouldn't exactly say that the gearing on a later Carrera was optimal either, but hey, the factory is always right. :rolleyes:

Was the OP responding to someone's question? Or did he just get up one morning and decide to write an epistle?

+1. Like exactly what they did in '87 with the chip maps to add 10 more stock hp. Custom chips with the calculated decisionb to run 93 octane can go a bit further.

Yep, but that morning was 8+ years ago :). For you newcomers, go back and read Loren's earlier posts both on Rennlist and here on Pelican if you care for real entertainment. Then roll the calender forward to today and make your own educated opinions about SW's expertise. I've had mine a long time...cost less than my brake pads, and imo that was/is some REALLY cheap, yet "safe" hp gains.

ps: Of course, if I don't run a higher octane, I risk predetonation, but I don't.

Loren,

1) Do you have a stock chip in your Ducati 996?


2) Is the 3.2 engine shown on your dyno charts stock? 7200 rpm seems really high for stock rod bolts!

I assure you that you can materially alter the timing on an 81-83 sc and not take performance from somewhere else.... has nothing to do with it being out of tune. It was SEVERELY detuned for emissions purposes. Dont believe me.. Call Barry Hershon at IEA and speak to him on this subject...He will forget more than you or I will ever know about Pre-89 porsche ingitions...

Ooops.

Busted! LOL

Loren, I listen to everything you say electronics wise (we all know you know a bunch), but this is wrong.

If that is the case, why did Mr. Bosch put a WOT switch on the Carrera 3.2's for example that ignores the oxygen sensor to provide AFR's in the 12's???

If there is no gains running a richer combustion at WOT over stoch, what is the point?

It was for power. High-12 to low-13 AFR's make more power than 14.7 AFR's.

I think the point is that yes you can get some marginal gains from performance tuning, but the cost can easily run into the thousands so not much bang for your buck if your car is running well to begin with.

No, he said there is little to no gains. If that was the case, why would every EFI system in the world ignore the oxygen sensor for WOT?

It is for peak power.

I really don't see the point of starting a thread like this, is there something going on in the back ground that we don't know about? Lots of pm's pissing people off, etc...
There isn't one person mentioned in the first post, but it's obvious based on all the other threads that this is somewhat directed at Steve and the people that bought his chips??
I mean who really cares, except Loren I guess, I really don't think that there are more than a handful of people on this board that have complained about Steve's chips, so give it a rest already.
Also, one can't start talking about turbo's in regards to this thread, that is a whole other subject when it comes to boost pressure, a/f, egt's, etc.

There is no engine management system on a CIS engine. In the days before EMS you had to mechanically adjust things instead of electrical adjustments. Lots left on the table with those engines. I see this thread is an attack on the chip industry though so no relevance on what I said anyway.