When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If you read and understood what's posted in the link (https://rennlist.com/forums/911-foru...-the-myth.html),
all that has been done is the very simple process of increasing the ignition timing.
This results in the margin of safety before the engine begins to ping/detonate being reduced
if the octane level being used isn't increased. This becomes especially problematic under
high temps/loads where the knock control system can no longer prevent pinging/detonation.
So to most it may appear that the "tuner" has really accomplished what Porsche wasn't able to,
but in reality it just another hyped performance scam, i.e. the engine's margin of safety
has been compromised for so-called performance. That's the point!!
Simple. Most people don't fall for the fear-mongering taking place in that thread.
A lot of auto manufacturers leave a marginal net of safety as far as fueling and ignition maps go. These chip tuners don't just bump up ignition timing and send off the chip to customers hoping for the best. They're tuned based on exhaust readings via Wideband, temp readings, and knock sensor readings.
I requested a chip to suit the Octane I always put in my car. I don't see how SW is scamming me. I am willing to pay for performance. Over a 3,300 mile journey accompanied by a non chipped C2, my economy was ~ 10% worse. I was carrying an extra 125kg so that wouldn't have helped.
BTW the dyno also logged AFR. The SW chip was slightly richer. Both ECU ran just under 12:1
They're tuned based on exhaust readings via Wideband, temp readings, and knock sensor readings.
Another scam! Once the AFRs are within 1-2 points of the optimum, which is the case for stock engines,
tweaking the AFRs has little to no effect on improving torque like what increasing ignition timing easily
does. Again, this was discussed here; https://rennlist.com/forums/911-foru...-the-myth.html
Bottom line: Most are easily duped by the typical hyperbole presented to sell "performance".
Why all the controversy...if people want to go ahead and spend money on improving actual performance, or the impression of improved performance, or just the appearance of improved performance...let them, it's their money and their personal enjoyment
Why all the controversy...if people want to go ahead and spend money on improving actual performance, or the impression of improved performance, or just the appearance of improved performance...let them, it's their money and their personal enjoyment
Totally agree! But it's always better for one to understand fully what one spends one's money on.
Loren, whatever it is you disagree with that 'tuners' do, you seem to be fighting a one man battle and/or failing to put your point across completely, because very few people seem to ever agree with you.
I am certainly no expert. But, the performance improvements people tend to be seeking (certainly on Rennlist) are increased engine power/torque at given engine speeds. Perhaps your definition of performance is different or you are seeking different things? It is possible to alter engine power and torque by mapping the car differently for fuel and ignition. Lots of people, including myself, run with a 'performance chip' (mine happens to be SW) but I've had others on many different cars. We generally do not feel scammed. If there is a margin of safety that has been eroded here then it has not affected me, or many others. In fact I have never heard of one single engine failure caused completely by any 'chip' on Rennlist.
JohnMcM has just posted definitive proof of the performance gains HE was seeking. He has now also moved on to a complete new ECU engineered over here in good old Blighty ;-) . He has reported significant improvements to his car from this. Is he a liar? Has he been duped or scammed?! I guess we're all on one big placebo trip!
Another scam! Once the AFRs are within 1-2 points of the optimum, which is the case for stock engines,
tweaking the AFRs has little to no effect on improving torque like what increasing ignition timing easily
does. Again, this was discussed here; https://rennlist.com/forums/911-foru...-the-myth.html
Bottom line: Most are easily duped by the typical hyperbole presented to sell "performance".
No, the only thing I gather from your opinion is that you lack any real gestation for how a car is actually "tuned."
Loren, whatever it is you disagree with that 'tuners' do, you seem to be fighting a one man battle and/or failing to put your point across completely, because very few people seem to ever agree with you.
I am certainly no expert. But, the performance improvements people tend to be seeking (certainly on Rennlist) are increased engine power/torque at given engine speeds. Perhaps your definition of performance is different or you are seeking different things? It is possible to alter engine power and torque by mapping the car differently for fuel and ignition. Lots of people, including myself, run with a 'performance chip' (mine happens to be SW) but I've had others on many different cars. We generally do not feel scammed. If there is a margin of safety that has been eroded here then it has not affected me, or many others. In fact I have never heard of one single engine failure caused completely by any 'chip' on Rennlist.
JohnMcM has just posted definitive proof of the performance gains HE was seeking. He has now also moved on to a complete new ECU engineered over here in good old Blighty ;-) . He has reported significant improvements to his car from this. Is he a liar? Has he been duped or scammed?! I guess we're all on one big placebo trip!
Peace out!
Again, you and others have missed the VERY basic point!
A modification, i.e. changing the ignition timing, to a stock engine which in turn requires
the use of a higher octane fuel, that Porsche could have easily required too,
to maintain the desired engine margin of safety can hardly be considered a real improvement.
And again, tweaking AFRs for a stock engine once the AFRs are within 1-2 points of the ideal
has NO significant effect!
Bottom line: Sorry you and others fail to understand the basics of what has been demonstrated
in the dyno tests.
Of course, adding a turbo also is no real performance mod as this will also reduce engine life no matter how good it is done and/or tuned. NOT!
Gee Loren, get a grip man, I think this has been proven times and times again that factory tunes are far from perfect. I guess 993 non-VRAM engines are inferior ro 964 regarding longevity because they have more power though mechanically being basically same engine lol.
Again, you and others have missed the VERY basic point!
A modification, i.e. changing the ignition timing, to a stock engine which in turn requires
the use of a higher octane fuel, that Porsche could have easily required too,
to maintain the desired engine margin of safety can hardly be considered a real improvement.
And again, tweaking AFRs for a stock engine once the AFRs are within 1-2 points of the ideal
has NO significant effect!
Bottom line: Sorry you and others fail to understand the basics of what has been demonstrated
in the dyno tests.
lol.... more proof you have no idea what you're even saying.
Seriously, GO READ how fuel trims, ignition tables, and even how different fuel octane all plays part in getting a safe tune on a car, in regard to making power. There's a reason people make more power with higher octane, but I have a feeling that reason is amiss to you.
An axiom of online forums is that everyone has an opinion that remains constant and the purpose of the forum is to express that opinion, but NOT to change anyone's position.....
Loren, I think perhaps you have missed the point in what I have said, or I am not being clear:
Originally Posted by StanUK951
Perhaps your definition of performance is different or you are seeking different things?
You state:
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
Again, you and others have missed the VERY basic point!
A modification, i.e. changing the ignition timing, to a stock engine which in turn requires the use of a higher octane fuel, that Porsche could have easily required too, to maintain the desired engine margin of safety can hardly be considered a real improvement.
I do not think any of us misunderstand this, even if we believed it to be true.
For your point to be correct you would have to give valid examples of engine failure caused by the reputable tuners we are talking about. Without this you cannot validate the 'margin of safety' comment you are relying on to say chip tuners are scamming us.
If I have asked a company to provide something for a price, and they provide it for that price - I do not feel scammed.
I requested a chip designed for 98RON fuel, as it is easily available in the UK. I have asked for something, and I have got it. If my ignition timing has been advanced to take advantage of the fuel I can easily obtain in the UK, so what?! If the advancing of the ignition timing was causing engine failures, then you would have a point, but without that happening, you just don't!
I could feel my car was quicker and on a dyno run last year with several other 964's my car produced 271bhp, a purported c. 20bhp improvement over stock (on a recently rebuilt to standard specification engine). The figures achieved for other cars on the day tended to suggest the rolling road being used was fairly accurate. Hence I do not feel scammed. The rolling road operator also commented the A/F ratios on my car were 'spot on' throughout the rev range.
My point is your definition of 'performance improvement' seems different to everyone else.
WE are improving the performance aspects of the cars WE want to. If WE wanted to make our cars perform better on the school run, maybe WE would put nice 16" wheels on with comfy tyres, improve the sound deadening, etc. etc. as this would improve that aspect of our cars performance. However, for the most part, Porsche buyers like to improve the performance aspects related to acceleration, braking, handling, etc.
If WE erode certain margins of safety, or narrow the performance of the car (making it less comfy for the school run, for example) in search of this goal, WE take that choice in full contemplation of the facts.
So please do not insult us by telling us we are being scammed or subject to the 'ultimate in hyperbole' (I'm sure if I google 'hyperbole' I will see your picture!). Interestingly, googling 'lorenfb' turns up quite a few hits in other forums where you are accused of trolling and causing arguments for the sake of argument!
Haha - excellent topic! I can see lorenfp's point but he seems to have walked into a mass-market trap. If you're engine design has to tolerate different grades of fuel in a global market then you standardise and build in a nice safety net. Sell units in every country. Count the change, not the lawsuits. Done
Now, *tuning* is about refining that safety net. Some test it real good, others just a little. So, i know in my country I can always get great fuel. So I reduce my safety net...but its still safe for the UK. I wouldnt be able to fill up Katmandu though...damn it! In the meantime, I'll just enjoy my faster car.
OK, I should also have prefaced some of my comments above and come clean, a little bit.
Some of you on here may know that a few of us in the UK have formed a 'collective' known as L9O. We are not a club, just a bunch of like minded individuals. Some of us (not me) have quite extensive backgrounds in engineering and ECU technology. We now have 75 members and we all recognised that we want to have a synergy with our cars from a highly focused and developed tuning chip. This will eventually be available commercially - which is why it is important to challenge comments such as the above.
Our chip, once finalised, will according to our own tech boffins, be the ultimate 964 chip. It will be designed to run on the new 102 octane fuel available at BP garages in the UK: http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/mo...st-octane-fuel
Quote from BP:
BP says that only 'tuned cars' will benefit from Ultimate 102's extra performance. It claims that in its tests with tuned vehicles, the fuel gave between 4 and 7.5 per cent more power than its regular 97 RON Ultimate Unleaded.
We believe that by adding this 7.5% improvement to the 10% already possible in normal chips (as shown above with my own dyno run) and by adding further improvements from a direct cold air induction kit as used on the GT3 but with a ducted cold air 'ram' pipe - we will get gains of 20-30%, which would equate to 325bhp on an otherwise standard 964. This kit would be inexpensive and designed for the benefit of the whole community.
01-29-2015, 09:57 PM
