k911sc

at least loren is consistent. consistently an a$$.

Ottosvenice.com

I'll logged on somewhere else but had to response.

Yes, I've programmed in machine language (and many others)
when I worked for Rockwell Microelectronics designing microprocessors
and chips. I've also worked National Semi and Motorola as a
microprocessor apps engineer. I don't makeup things like others.
I've been in this business too many years.

You guys need to challenge others on their backgrounds and not
always accept at face value statements.


Have Fun
Loren
'88 3.2

KC911

So you actually programmed in '1's and '0's... or is your definition of 'machine language' different than mine? If you did, then my hat is off to you, and my follow-up question is 'Why'? Seriously, why program in '1's and '0's when there are better tools available. BTW, the Motorola 68000 was the microprocessor I was most familiar with at IBM, but NEVER was a program written in 'machine language'....but I AM willing to stand corrected on this (if you really did). Seriously Loren, 'Have a great weekend'! ...I'm just in 'one of those moods' this afternoon, and wanted to poke at ya !

Lorenfb

If you run Debug in MSDOS and disassemble the firmware in the DME EPROM,
you'll get the hexcode which is the machine language (microcode) of the Intel
8051 processor. If you want to make a patch (Jump) or an ignition setting, you
can easily change the hexcode (machine language) within Debug without having
to recompile the whole firmware.

So, with an EPROM programmer you can read the DME EPROMs and save to
a file. Load this file using Debug in MSDOS and you'll see the disassembled
firmware. You can also change the I.D.s which many do when they copy
and re-sell other chip makers' performance chips.

By the way, a little history:

Intel won the PC design versus the Motorola 6800 with IBM, because IBM
was able to invest in Intel (and got a board member) and protect their supply
of key microprocessors. The 6800 family was superior to the 88 family
for many reasons, e.g. relative addressing. You know, though, that IBM
has basically adopted the Motorola architecture as it makes chips for the
Apple computers. They may now be sole source suppliers to Apple.

Have Fun
Loren
'88 3.2

Lorenfb

To answer KC911's question:

My opening sentence;
"Changing code on PC using C++ or using an assembly language to enhance
software is a VERY poor analogy to performance tuning."

As I stated, there's really MUCH more involved to performance tuning than
just being able to modify/program a PC, e.g. tweak the O/S by 3rd party
addons, modify the O/S as with Linix, change an application (C++), or
just modify firmware by changing hexcode using MS/DOS Debug.

Have Fun
Loren
'88 3.2

Diamond Blue

Loren

Who really gives a **** how you program a chip. It's the end result of any product is what is important. What will it do for me. What you have done with electronics make no difference to what you know about chips. I have designed and installed computer networks, computers and all that goes along with for more than twenty years. And when it comes down to it, it is how the system works and what it will do for the users. Not the techno babble on what is better and why. Most businesses or individuals could care less how that is acheived as long as it runs fast and reliably. This drivel of how it is done becomes irrelevant, if the end result benefits the customer. Chips evidently benefit the people who use them or they would not sell. I still don't understand what investment you have in educating the world on performance chips. Explain to us why you know better than all the companies who make performance chips and Porsche for that matter, since they improved their product as well. Evidently Pelican Parts are now guilty of wasting our money since they sell 911chips product. Now its time for that long awaited beer

Amber Gramps

this isn't the thread I was thinking of but it makes my point very well. Heck, it's not even the same board....

kick7ca

I'm a natural skeptic, so forgive me, but I've read ALOT of these threads and basically what I'm reading is one very well respected expert, Loren, facing the butt dyno opinions of alot of chip customers.

Consider:
-Loren appears to have nothing to gain in these discussions. He is a highly respected expert, even by the resident guru Mr.Z
-Chip manufacturers have everything to gain in these discussions. Their posts must therefore be viewed as advertising.

I think more than anything people simply like to spend money on their cars. Chip manufacturers provide what people want; something to buy and install in their P-car in the expectation it will perform better.
The only certain result is that they accelerate differently after a chip. That difference being improved part throttle response which I think is no different than simply digging into the throttle more on a stock car.
Out of the box these were basically supercars already, durable supercars, so what's to be gained if you're going to increase the risk of detonation?

Amber Gramps

That is as funny as telling me that octane doesn't effect the throtle response. You guys can't be serious? I have driven over 500,000 miles in my life. Most of the miles have been in under powered and overloaded pickups and vans that loose alot of performance when you don't use the good gas. I can tell the differance between the two, maybe not when going with the flow of traffic, but when I am trying to get on the freeway at 80 and a semi is on my tail.
Loren is also a vendor here so your argument doesn't work. "automotive electronics" is kind of a dead giveaway....
Telling me that tuning an engine does not effect performance is also a joke. Why adjust the jets on a carb? If it runs at all it must be running at it's best? Nothing to be gained by adjusting? That is crazy....
Digging into the throttle a little more???? that's just funny.

Do we use the tires that came on the car? Have the tire been improved upon? Are todays tires safer? I think so, but I may be wrong. If tires can be improved then why not to chips? If technology isn't better today that yesterday, why design new cars? Why not just keep producing the old ones?

KC911

You should read some more and think about this a little more logically . I'll put my faith in Steve Weiner, Dave (@ TRE) and several others who have YEARS of reputable engine building experience yet arrive at different conclusions (with track times to back it up) than Loren. He's never actually analyzed a Steve Wong chip, and his "theoritical ivory tower" is just that. From what I understand, Loren used to sell "aftermarket" chips too...go figure? Loren has a great deal of earned respect when it comes to electronics and the DME...but I think you're the first to grant him that status when it comes to chips (other than himself I suppose). Most of the aforementioned experts are way to classy to lower themselves to Lorens' level on these threads, so you'll have to really search, but they're in there, trust me. To believe that a single stock chip with a "lowest common denominator" approach with regards to octane, exhausts, etc. will achieve optimal performance with say 93 octane & a sport exhaust is a bit short sighted imo. Do LOTS of reasearch, then make an informed opinion is my best advice.

kick7ca

Allow me to clarify my "digging into the throttle more" remark. I think this is a critical point.
I am suggesting that the rate of acceleration achieved in a chipped car at say 60% WOT can be achieved in stock car at say 85% WOT, while the rates of acceleration at 100% WOT are identical. So the difference is the chipped car needs less throttle for a given rate of acceleration but is still not faster overall.
I agree that it would make the car feel more jumpy by providing more power per increment of throttle at first, but the returns are diminishing and at WOT you're the same as stock again. So the unchipped car will be just as fast around a track, the driver will just be manipulating the throttle more.

kick7ca

I guess I'm looking to have all my reservations about chips quelled before I go and consider one. It just doens't seem like a firm conclusion has been made on them and there has to be a reason for that.

KC911

That's simply not true despite "the theory"

Amber Gramps

very good clarification. I have not claimed that my car is faster at WOT, but funner to drive getting there. In my car, on most drives, I really only use the first inch of throtle. I can't remember when more was needed. In fact, if we look back at the one year history of me owning my car, I purchased quite the dog. It took lots of changes to bring it out of it's funk and into the supercar that it is. For the most part the stock car in good working order is a fantastic car. the chip was added as just part of a package. I did the air filter and box cover, plug wires, rotor and cap, cat bypass, and have access to 100 octane pump gas. All the above helped in the improved drivability of the car. .....and the best part...the gas was a write-off.

KC911

If you have reservations, I'd keep it stock...seriously.