Performance Tuning - The Myth -

[Steve W]

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.

[Tippy]

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

[juanbenae]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

OK, you're half-way there. The RoW cars have higher compression. Higher compression motors have draw-backs - ones in common with lower-compression motors that have more advance dialed in.

Hmmm, same motors (except the HC pistons), except one is dangerously (???) compromised by running more advance than what it ran coming from the factory.

That's a head-scratcher, for sure.

No. More like a head-shaker.

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?

[CCM911]

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.

[CCM911]

Originally Posted by car 311

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

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.

[winders]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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.

Sanity has returned.

Thank you, Steve!!

Scott

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by car 311

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. Welcome to Rothsport Racing - Engine Products

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

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.

[LJ851]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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.

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

[Hydrocket]

Originally Posted by Steve W

So what is being claimed here is AFR (air/fuel ratio) tuning is not important?

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

[mfyoung1086]

Originally Posted by HawgRyder

The one thing I find funny..or perhaps amusing..is that the "chips" themselves are less than $5.00 each to buy in bulk.
They are just programmed memory circuits.
The real secret is in what has been put into that memory...some have had a lot of time and effort... and the programmer is looking to receive payment for his/her work.
I would like to see a truly "programmable" chip come into the industry...one that had multiple settings...grocery getter/Dad's street/mild race/all out race .... sort of thing.
Or perhaps one that lets you choose your MPG (and you live with the performance it gives).
Ah the possibilities.
Bob

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.

[CCM911]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

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.

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.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by CCM911

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

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.

[mfyoung1086]

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

[Hydrocket]

Originally Posted by mfyoung1086

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

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

[island911]

Originally Posted by Lorenfb

.

There's no programming available thru the use of the Durametrics diagnostic software.
It's just basically an expanded OBDII capability for reading module data and resetting
fault codes. Even the factory PIWIS tester has no direct programming capability for
modifying maps...

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.

[mfyoung1086]

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

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by mfyoung1086

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.

[Lorenfb]

"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!

[juanbenae]

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....

[burgermeister]

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.