Performance Chip Problems
04-05-2004, 10:57 PM
#1
Race Car
Thread Starter
Performance Chip Problems
More 3.2 owners are reporting performance chip problems. Most chips
just advance the timing a few degrees, many also richen the fuel mixture
to enhance the performance "feel". Advancing the timing a few degrees
usually results in pinging on hot days. The latter of these usually results
in unacceptable smells such as the "rotten egg" smell. As I said many
times, there's always some tradeoff or downside to the performance
chips.
Here's a recent example taken form the Pelican Parts forum:
The link is;
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...hreadid=157038
Title of Thread: "3.2 smells kinda rich at idle"
"PO removed the CAT. I replaced the O2 sensor, which goes in the bypass pipe. Has Steve Wong chip. Car runs great, no flat spots, smooth idle. It's just that at idle it smells rich. My wife finds it annoying. Can the CO be adjusted without the CAT? BTW, In here in NY they do not do tailpipe testing.
Has anyone ever tampered with there anti tamper plug and tweaked the CO adjuster on the air Bosch air volume sensor?
__________________
1986 911 Coupe - Black (Named Inky)"
Here's the response from the chip supplier:
"When you remove the cat, it is normal to smell more of the exhaust, because the cat typically burns and hides almost all of it, including burning oil. It is pretty easy to adjust the idle with the CO adjuster as you found. Just remove the plug and turn the screw to adjust the idle mixture. Using a long 3mm hex wrench, turn counterclockwise to lean, clockwise to richen. Reading the voltage off the O2 sensor helps and adjusting it to average between 0.2 and 0.7 will get you to 14.7:1 stoichiometric."
Here's my response:
"Put the stock chip back in and test for the rich mixture smell.
To attempt to get improved performance, many chips over-richen
the mixture which many have reported on this forum.
Contrary to fact, most don't realize that the air flow meter adjustment
screw is only for the idle mixture and has NO affect off idle when driving.
Your engine will most likely still run rich when drivng.
There's always some tradeoff or headache associated with those
performance chips!"
just advance the timing a few degrees, many also richen the fuel mixture
to enhance the performance "feel". Advancing the timing a few degrees
usually results in pinging on hot days. The latter of these usually results
in unacceptable smells such as the "rotten egg" smell. As I said many
times, there's always some tradeoff or downside to the performance
chips.
Here's a recent example taken form the Pelican Parts forum:
The link is;
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...hreadid=157038
Title of Thread: "3.2 smells kinda rich at idle"
"PO removed the CAT. I replaced the O2 sensor, which goes in the bypass pipe. Has Steve Wong chip. Car runs great, no flat spots, smooth idle. It's just that at idle it smells rich. My wife finds it annoying. Can the CO be adjusted without the CAT? BTW, In here in NY they do not do tailpipe testing.
Has anyone ever tampered with there anti tamper plug and tweaked the CO adjuster on the air Bosch air volume sensor?
__________________
1986 911 Coupe - Black (Named Inky)"
Here's the response from the chip supplier:
"When you remove the cat, it is normal to smell more of the exhaust, because the cat typically burns and hides almost all of it, including burning oil. It is pretty easy to adjust the idle with the CO adjuster as you found. Just remove the plug and turn the screw to adjust the idle mixture. Using a long 3mm hex wrench, turn counterclockwise to lean, clockwise to richen. Reading the voltage off the O2 sensor helps and adjusting it to average between 0.2 and 0.7 will get you to 14.7:1 stoichiometric."
Here's my response:
"Put the stock chip back in and test for the rich mixture smell.
To attempt to get improved performance, many chips over-richen
the mixture which many have reported on this forum.
Contrary to fact, most don't realize that the air flow meter adjustment
screw is only for the idle mixture and has NO affect off idle when driving.
Your engine will most likely still run rich when drivng.
There's always some tradeoff or headache associated with those
performance chips!"
04-05-2004, 11:27 PM
#2
Rennlist Member
Same **** as before, copy a post and use that to make your point while ignoring all other posts that users have found that their care runs better. Last post like this from Loren was sent to the abyss. Hope this ends up there as well. 
60,000 chipped miles and running stronger than ever!
60,000 chipped miles and running stronger than ever!
04-05-2004, 11:29 PM
#3
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Mr. Chip ****, you conveniently left out the response from Ben Parish to your message on the Pelican Forum. Here it is:
"When I removed my cat I also found the idle exhaust to be very strong with the stock chip. When I changed chips(Steve W) the exhaust didn't smell any differnt so I adjusted the idle mixture quite a bit to get the exhaust within acceptable limits for me. As Steve (Wong) said, the cat burns off quite a bit of the odor. "
Nice try, loser!
JP
1987 Carrera Targa - 17K miles (Steve Wong Chip)
"When I removed my cat I also found the idle exhaust to be very strong with the stock chip. When I changed chips(Steve W) the exhaust didn't smell any differnt so I adjusted the idle mixture quite a bit to get the exhaust within acceptable limits for me. As Steve (Wong) said, the cat burns off quite a bit of the odor. "
Nice try, loser!
JP
1987 Carrera Targa - 17K miles (Steve Wong Chip)
04-06-2004, 12:32 AM
#4
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lorenfb,
Don't you have a life? Please get one 'cause I'm tired of seeing your self-serving, anti-chip BS.
My 84 is chipped and I just ordered a Steve Wong chip just to make your day!
I expect it by week's end. What business is it of yours anyway?
Probably the best thing is to totally ignore his posts and not even reply. Then he can't get his jollies off.
Don't you have a life? Please get one 'cause I'm tired of seeing your self-serving, anti-chip BS.
My 84 is chipped and I just ordered a Steve Wong chip just to make your day!
I expect it by week's end. What business is it of yours anyway?
Probably the best thing is to totally ignore his posts and not even reply. Then he can't get his jollies off.
Last edited by rbcsaver; 04-06-2004 at 05:25 PM.
04-06-2004, 02:12 AM
#5
Race Car
Thread Starter
"When I removed my cat I also found the idle exhaust to be very strong with the stock chip. When I changed chips(Steve W) the exhaust didn't smell any differnt so I adjusted the idle mixture quite a bit to get the exhaust within acceptable limits for me. As Steve (Wong) said, the cat burns off quite a bit of the odor. "
This different guy may have had a rich mixture to begin with and the chip made
no noticeable difference. The originator of the above thread, though, did have a
noticeable difference. So to him there was a problem which he was concerned about.
Some continue to ignore the reality and others would like to be informed of product
problems before they spend their money.
This different guy may have had a rich mixture to begin with and the chip made
no noticeable difference. The originator of the above thread, though, did have a
noticeable difference. So to him there was a problem which he was concerned about.
Some continue to ignore the reality and others would like to be informed of product
problems before they spend their money.
Last edited by Lorenfb; 04-06-2004 at 02:33 AM.
Our Savior from CHIPS
Trending Topics
04-06-2004, 01:13 PM
#8
Race Car
Thread Starter
As usual, great comments guys! They indicate your intelligence level and
how useful your testimonials are about performance chips. I guess that's
why your contributions to Rennlist are limited to what polish to use on
a Porsche.
how useful your testimonials are about performance chips. I guess that's
why your contributions to Rennlist are limited to what polish to use on
a Porsche.
04-06-2004, 02:05 PM
#9
Rennlist Member
Loren
I have continued to ask to see your testing on your car to prove your position on performance chips. This was not rhetorical. Nothing, Nada no response from you. Credibility, you lost that long ago. I have reported my EXPERIENCE with my car. I have not told anyone "look at what happened to this car or that car and inferring that users are ignorant and just stupid. Your the one that starts in with the mud slinging when you can't refute what someone says. You should stick with repairing motronic units and let the experts on oil give recommendations on what oil to use. Like maybe Porsche? So we will wait to see YOUR tests to show your supporting documentation on performance chips.No referrals to other posts or sites you have done this already, just your tests.
I have continued to ask to see your testing on your car to prove your position on performance chips. This was not rhetorical. Nothing, Nada no response from you. Credibility, you lost that long ago. I have reported my EXPERIENCE with my car. I have not told anyone "look at what happened to this car or that car and inferring that users are ignorant and just stupid. Your the one that starts in with the mud slinging when you can't refute what someone says. You should stick with repairing motronic units and let the experts on oil give recommendations on what oil to use. Like maybe Porsche? So we will wait to see YOUR tests to show your supporting documentation on performance chips.No referrals to other posts or sites you have done this already, just your tests.
04-06-2004, 02:19 PM
#10
Race Car
Thread Starter
There's one irrefutable fact that underlines my comments about performance chips
which doesn't require testing to prove:
Because the ignition timing is advanced in performance chips to provide the
enhanced performance "feel", the probability is greater that pinging will occur
by using a performance chip which could ultimately damage an engine long
term. I personally don't care to test chips in my car when there exists no
real significant benefit. Why risk it?
It's as simple as that!
which doesn't require testing to prove:
Because the ignition timing is advanced in performance chips to provide the
enhanced performance "feel", the probability is greater that pinging will occur
by using a performance chip which could ultimately damage an engine long
term. I personally don't care to test chips in my car when there exists no
real significant benefit. Why risk it?
It's as simple as that!
04-06-2004, 03:50 PM
#11
Loren,
Correct me if I'm wrong here. I thought the only difference between an '84 - '86 Carrera 3.2's producing 207 HP and the '87 - '89 Carrera 3.2's producing 217 HP was the chip.
If that is the case, wouldn't anyone who owns a '84 - '86 3.2 be able to gain about 10 HP by installing a performance chip and not really effect the longevity or the integrity of the engine.
Correct me if I'm wrong here. I thought the only difference between an '84 - '86 Carrera 3.2's producing 207 HP and the '87 - '89 Carrera 3.2's producing 217 HP was the chip.
If that is the case, wouldn't anyone who owns a '84 - '86 3.2 be able to gain about 10 HP by installing a performance chip and not really effect the longevity or the integrity of the engine.
04-06-2004, 04:02 PM
#12
Rennlist Member
Loren
You keep calling for everyone else to provide proof. When they do you find something that is wrong with it. Why should you not be held to your own standard of providing proof? You keep telling us something that you can't show us. I am only asking you to give us what testing you have done yourself, not what other sites, posts or manufactures have on this issue. If you can't do this, say so and be done with this issue. This testing is what you consider to be conclusive proof, testing that was done by you proving what you are saying. Just the tests, please
You keep calling for everyone else to provide proof. When they do you find something that is wrong with it. Why should you not be held to your own standard of providing proof? You keep telling us something that you can't show us. I am only asking you to give us what testing you have done yourself, not what other sites, posts or manufactures have on this issue. If you can't do this, say so and be done with this issue. This testing is what you consider to be conclusive proof, testing that was done by you proving what you are saying. Just the tests, please
04-06-2004, 05:32 PM
#13
I don't know about "feel", but my track times at Sebring (HOT climate)are faster and my car has been very reliable, being tracked for the past 2 years and 25,000 miles of daily commuting.
Last edited by agentpennypacker; 04-06-2004 at 06:27 PM.
04-07-2004, 12:07 AM
#14
Race Car
Thread Starter
If you update your DME ('84 thru '87) with a later stock Porsche chip ('88 thru '89)
you'll see an improvement (7 HP). In those later years Porsche also increased the
the octane requirement from 91 to 95 (per pg 0.2 of Porsche Shop Manual)
because of the timing advance of 3 to 4 degrees over the RPM range.
It should be obvious to all that more advanced timing yields more torque and
thus more corresponding HP at the cost of a higher octane requirement. There's
nothing new or "just found" HP that Porsche over-looked. Porsche decided that
the '88/'89 chip provided the adequate margin of safety with a 95 (or equivalent)
octane.
Advancing the timing beyond that of the '88/'89 reduces the pinging margin
without increased octane. Even with increased octane, pinging is still possible
under certain load conditions.
you'll see an improvement (7 HP). In those later years Porsche also increased the
the octane requirement from 91 to 95 (per pg 0.2 of Porsche Shop Manual)
because of the timing advance of 3 to 4 degrees over the RPM range.
It should be obvious to all that more advanced timing yields more torque and
thus more corresponding HP at the cost of a higher octane requirement. There's
nothing new or "just found" HP that Porsche over-looked. Porsche decided that
the '88/'89 chip provided the adequate margin of safety with a 95 (or equivalent)
octane.
Advancing the timing beyond that of the '88/'89 reduces the pinging margin
without increased octane. Even with increased octane, pinging is still possible
under certain load conditions.
04-07-2004, 09:37 AM
#15
Burning Brakes
Originally posted by Lorenfb
If you update your DME ('84 thru '87) with a later stock Porsche chip ('88 thru '89)
you'll see an improvement (7 HP). In those later years Porsche also increased the
the octane requirement from 91 to 95 (per pg 0.2 of Porsche Shop Manual)
because of the timing advance of 3 to 4 degrees over the RPM range.
It should be obvious to all that more advanced timing yields more torque and
thus more corresponding HP at the cost of a higher octane requirement. There's
nothing new or "just found" HP that Porsche over-looked. Porsche decided that
the '88/'89 chip provided the adequate margin of safety with a 95 (or equivalent)
octane.
Advancing the timing beyond that of the '88/'89 reduces the pinging margin
without increased octane. Even with increased octane, pinging is still possible
under certain load conditions.
If you update your DME ('84 thru '87) with a later stock Porsche chip ('88 thru '89)
you'll see an improvement (7 HP). In those later years Porsche also increased the
the octane requirement from 91 to 95 (per pg 0.2 of Porsche Shop Manual)
because of the timing advance of 3 to 4 degrees over the RPM range.
It should be obvious to all that more advanced timing yields more torque and
thus more corresponding HP at the cost of a higher octane requirement. There's
nothing new or "just found" HP that Porsche over-looked. Porsche decided that
the '88/'89 chip provided the adequate margin of safety with a 95 (or equivalent)
octane.
Advancing the timing beyond that of the '88/'89 reduces the pinging margin
without increased octane. Even with increased octane, pinging is still possible
under certain load conditions.