Well it's true he has a right, but it's really getting old the poo that he's slinging around and turning this otherwise happy place upside down.
I admit that at first, when reading his threads, I was intrigued but it never goes anywhere with him but down. It's worse than the kellog a/c man because that guy just seems to want to help. Loren seems to just want to make a thread cause trouble.
I see no value in him anymore.

I tend to Agree.
However,and i am sure i am not alone here in thinking about Lorens posible motives.
Is he realy trying to save us all from ourselves ??? or is there something from past experiences that we are not aware of behind all this ?:confused:

A...

Because Loren is a troll. Why does Mr Wong need to be called out. I consider him an expert in his field and people that really know there stuff are hard to come by. He is one of the best sources available to the average guy out the trying to make performance upgrades to the 3.2 and still use the stock fuel management system. I would hate to see him lose business because of someones extremely biased opinion.

If you don't like what lorenfb is selling, then don't buy it. In other words, just don't post anything to agree or disagree with him on his threads. He also has this same thread on rennlist. Crazy! But very funny and entertaining as well. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat.gif

Furthermore, If you look at all the 3.2 podium finishers at your local track day, they're ALL running one of Steve's custom Chips!

Or it could just be one of Loren's rebuilt DME's???

I would not be in favor of banning Lorenfb.

While he simply states the same mantra over and over, he does not make personal attacks.
His posts are about chips and engine tuning- I've never seen him post something like:

"Steve is a Poopy-head!"

As long as the discussion remains technical, no reason to ban anyone.

On what basis should one "call out" SW? If he is making unsupported claims, then sure. But if the guy is making a quality product, and is upfront about what the limitations are, then what's the problem?

IOW, what do you think Steve is hiding that Loren is exposing?

If he would stick to the premise that there are some snake oil salesmen in the tuner market I could agree with him. But to specifically single out Steve Wong. is totally off base and should be challenged, He SHOULD BE BANNED FOR THAT. Mr Wong is one of the good guys, Mr Loren is not.

i just ordered a steve wong chip to better make use of the 98 octane fuel, based on the feedback here and elsewhere.
i'll put it on a dyno for my own curiosity, but at the end of the day they don't seem to make engines pop and at the price it's well worth a try!
:)

I have no dog in this fight, I do not use and would not use any aftermarket chip in my Carrera (that's just me).

But IMO, Loren is not winning this debate.

First, he has posted stuff that seems not credible, such as the dyno graph showing the 225 lb/ft 3.2. That graph does seem phony, or doctored.

Second, he concedes that a chip can increase hp and torque.

Third, and most important, while I understand that advancing timing can potentially lead to engine issues, I haven't seen any evidence from Loren that the SW chip (or any others) advances timing or changes anything else in a manner significant enough to cause damage or be a concern.

Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn't. It does seem like it depends on a lot of factors (the quality/octane of fuel used, the way the car is used, where the car is used, etc.) It seems like Loren is claiming the chip will increase HP and torque, but at the expense of shortened engine life, or a damaged engine, but I've not seen Loren produce any evidence to support that.

I think for the most part, it's an interesting debate. I don't think there is conclusive evidence on either side.

Here is a statement made by Loren in opening post in this thread:

"Furthermore, the hyperbole of tweaking the AFRs for added performance yields basically no performance improvement once the AFRs are within one to two points of the ideal AFR of 12.6. Thus, it's mis-leading to most to indicate that tweaking the AFRs will improve performance for a stock engine."

Anyone that has spent any time on a dyno tuning an engine knows this paragraph is bogus. First, an AFR of 12.6 is not ideal. Second, a 1 or 2 point change can make a significant difference in output.

The whole premise that Loren presented is off base.

Scott

I think his basic premise is that you can tweak chips to get HP and torque increases, but you do so at the risk of damaging the engine.

The AFR detail that you post about - I don't know who is right or wrong. But in following Loren's posts over the years, to me, as an outside observer, he has lost credibility over the years. Too many questions evaded, and too many statements that don't seem credible.

I think Loren is good at what he does (rebuilding stock electronic control modules), but that's a different field than modifying fuel and ignition maps. That seems somewhat beyond his area of expertise. But that's just my opinion, after carefully reading his posts for many years now.

One other thing: He says the modified chips "cut into the safety margin" built into the factory tuning.

I think that's probably true. By definition, it's probably true.

It seems like the issues is, does it cut into it enough to shorten engine life? Because by definition, a safety margin is just that - a margin.

Whether you are well into the safety margin, or close to (but not over) that margin, makes no difference to engine life. You are either in the safety margin, or you're not.

What I think he has failed to prove, or provide good evidence of, is that the chips reduce that safety margin to an extent that engine damage will occur.

I can get killed walking across the street too. Look, if this work is done by someone that knows what they are doing, like Steve Wong, then this is a stupid point to try and make. Why? Because it is not reality.

Scott

I don't think our host is wrong
 

I don't think our host is wrong on this one. This in my view sums this whole discussion up in a nutshell. But the arguments still amuse these 62 year old eyes. ;)http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat.gif

Wait five years, and see if they are still as much fun.

Respectfully...NO! I've learned a tremendous amount from Loren's posts over the years altough we have arrived at different conclusions. Here's a "blast from the past" thread where Loren made his "chips suck, case closed" debate. Notice there is another reputable tuner named "Steve W" who makes a comment on this thread. For anyone still running a stock '84-86 chip...do youself a favor and at least UPGRADE to a stock 87-89 version with the more aggressive maps. You won't regret it...YMMV.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/142766-3-2-performance-upgrades.html

I have a real basic 3.2 you guys can use for the 225 Dyno challenge :D

- gonna need beer in the morning if I read any more of this thread...hurts my brain -

A polarizing topic like this highlights the deficiencies of a bulletin board: It's hard to have a real good old fashioned argument online. For starters every response should have a colored background indicating in into which camp it falls:

- pro (green)
- contra (red)
- neutral (white)

Shades of colors would be even better so you sort by it quicker get to the fun parts. SmileWavy

In all the posts i have read on this topic, no one has thought to question or discuss why these motors, or any motor provides more power and torque by tweaking the parameters of the timing and AFR's.
Its not rocket science, it does so because you are making the motor more efficient, ie; if the motor produces more torque at certain RPM's with the timing advanced then that is the ideal setting for the timing at that paticular RPM, with the fuel provided, if a motor produces more power at a certain RPM with a timing adjustment and then an AFR adjustment to correspond, then those adjustments are the ideal parameters to aim for.
If on the other hand by pushing the timing at one paticular RPM improves power output, but at another RPM decreases it,continual adjustments have to be made again to bring things back into line, and so it goes on, this is where the skills of the tuner come into play, modern ECU's have much more indepth posibilities to fine tune all the necessary adjustments needed to maintain maximum performance with the fuel available at all times, our 25 year old cars have a somewhat more basic control module, but it still has the capability to be fine tuned.
So my final question is, if by fine tunning these motors we are in fact making them more efficient, why is this going to put the motor under more stress than it was designed for ?
Surely by running it less efficiently, it is going to stress things more in the long run as for one, your wasting the potential of the fuel's calorific value by not extracting its full potential, so you end up running it richer, to keep it cool, and causing premature wear in the process.
As i see it, If you over advance an engine it will give you less power, it wont keep giving you more power untill it destroys itself, detonation sets in because the timing and AFR's are wrong, and this would show up on a dyno as less power, who in their right mind would tune a car untill it did this ?
Just my ramblings.:)

Anthony.

Ant7, the reason you get more power from more advanced spark is that, if you look at a crank angle vs. cylinder pressure graph (this post has one midway through: http://www.evans-tuning.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=136&hilit=combustion%252C+igni tion+timing ... looks like a lot of info from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory & Practice", which I have a copy of ... someplace ...), you get a higher (and earlier starting) combustion pressure. The increased area in the diagram, which is basically your power gain, is all on the left side of the curve. Once combustion is complete, the expansion side of the curve looks pretty much the same. So the loads on the pistons, rings, & bearings do go up, and they go up much faster than the output torque of the engine. This may or may not be an issue depending on engine design (probably not with the metzger engines - the bottom end appears rather stout).

There were a couple of references to knock monitors in this thread (thanks to the posters!) - I will probably get myself one sooner or later, and once its operational, I might add a chip & see. Without knock control, I am too nervous getting rid of the cushion the factory installed.

And while there clearly is room for improvement, you do have to give Porsche credit - the power to displacement ratio for their engines was pretty darn good for their time, especially considering their longevity.

I have spent a lot of time at the dyno over the years. My experience has been that timing, while important, is secondary to AFR in terms of importance - as it relates to both engine performance and engine life.

It has been my experience that once a base timing curve has been established, tuning for AFR will invariably yield the best results - i.e. the smoothest, most linear curves. I have actually found this to be most visible when tuning carbureted engines with radical camshafts where the base jetting produced peaks and valleys along the power curve and how AFR adjustments - through the use of different emulsion tubes, main jets and air correctors - smoothed out those peaks and valleys resulting in a more shapely/linear power curve and (duh) more horsepower.

Now, I would like to note that some engines preferred 12:1 AFR and others preferred 13:1 - as evidenced by their sound, behavior, and power output - but none of them seem to enjoy 10:1. :)

All that said, however, it would be narrow-minded to think that any ONE thing is the "secret" to engine performance. Tuning engines is a balancing act...an exercise in compromise - all the changes directly affect one another and you have to look at big picture. Is timing important? Of course! Is it more important than AFR? I don't think so; and vice versa. Tuning engines for peak power tends to lead to disaster - i.e. short term gains at the expense of engine life. We try to tune for a power curve that - based on a great many variable criteria - will net the best results in terms of drivability and purpose.

Never lose sight of the big picture...

^ Well said. Optimum AFRs and max power with minimum timing, it sounds so easy to write it like that. But it is true.

ok, what about Atkinson cycle...

Just because it is in a graphic doesn't mean it is correct.....as Steve Wong's dyno sheets prove.

Scott

^^+1..

Hi Burgermeister,
Thanks for that, however, i am well aware of the basic function of the internal combustion process!:)
Sorry if a gave the wrong impresion with that last post, but that was not the point i was trying to get across.
I also take your point on a longer burn process having a higher risk factor on the pistons and rings etc, however, i was of the understanding that these engines were designed to maximise the full potential of the fuel that was available, So,,, by fine tuning the ECU parametrs ie; timing and AFR, all your doing is making more use of what is potentialy already there.
If on the other hand you are tuning for power that was way off from what the original desgn capability was' then thats a diffrent matter.

Anthony.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1340297503.gif

Thanks Hydrocket, as that further exemplifies the insignificance of tweaking the
AFRs when they're close to the ideal (12.6), as is the case for a stock 911 engine.

Loren,

It's a bogus chart. It's something someone like you probably came up with. All one has to do is look at real dyno results to see that chart is just plain wrong.

Scott

I've been away from here for about 3 years now, since keeping my business open through the recession took precedence over tinkering on my Porsche. Things are better now and I have got back to work on my car. Came back to the forum today and Loren is still grinding his axe with performance chips. Glad to know some things never change...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1340304666.jpg

"It has been my experience that once a base timing curve has been established, tuning for AFR will invariably yield the best results - i.e. the smoothest, most linear curves. I have actually found this to be most visible when tuning carbureted engines"

- Mr9146 (Marco - TLG Porsche) -

Maybe Marco can explain how it's possible to 'tune' a carb'ed engine (much less a CIS
or mechanical FI engine), i.e. tweak the torque over the RPM range with various loads
by varying the AFRs within a few points of whatever ideal AFR is desired, AND yield significant
torque/performance gains.

"It's a bogus chart. It's something someone like you probably came up with."

Sure, as it's in all the engine books, e.g. Bosch, "Combined Ignition and Fuel-Injection System
with Lambda Closed-Loop Control", pg 4, ISBN 1-85-226009-2, 1985.

Loren loves the books and charts and theories, you should come join us out here in the real wold .

Well, Bosch, et al, should be ashamed.....

Why? Because Peak power is not made at 12.6:1 on any engine I have seen on a dyno and I suspect most engines would have real problems if tuned to 15.4:1.

Scott

The Q should be; What engine does that chart correspond to?

That is, mixing dynamics influences the chemical kinetics . . which influences what delivery ratio works best for peak power or economy.

So, Loren is a troll for posting that unassigned graphic

winders is an idiot for saying "bogus."

And I'm an idiot for responding. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...s/a_frusty.gif

It is truly sad to see an obviously passionate person so engaged in activity that results into a net zero at best if not a negative in terms of adding value.

Brain chemistry is a strange and wonderful thing that causes people to respond in this way. That is the only thing I can chalk it up to, it clearly isn't rationally driven. Sure isn't motivated by economics, as has been stated in most threads this does nothing to build trust or patronage for services and products.

Can you imagine what would happen if you were engaged from a business perspective and had a difference of opinion!

Good luck

Just for clarity Loren didn't post it first. And I'm an idiot for pointing that out. ;)

Who said he did post it first??

Scott

That was my interpretation of post 196. Am I wrong?