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