Luis de Prat

FWIW, Euro spec cars do not have build date stickers so I have no way of knowing when the car was built aside from the VIN.

At any rate, the CEL is clearly an emissions control issue. Both cars (Euro spec MY 92 and Pitou's U.S. car) behaved identically with the 7700 ProMAX chip. It boils down to the "check engine" feature as an emissions control device.

flash968

really??? wow - that's odd - over here, we have a sticker with the GVWR and front and rear axle loads on it, as well as the build date

i wonder why they don't have them there - doesn't seem like it would cause them any grief

well, anyway - that's the deal on the multiple dmes in the same year, and obviosuly why this has been so confusing for everybody

Luis de Prat

Yes, really. In fact, "officially" my MY 1991 951 cab is a 1992 car because that was the year it was first registered in Switzerland.

No other stickers or identification labels other than my interpretation of the VIN would tell me otherwise.

flash968

that's funny - there is another guy over there in europe somewhere who has his 968 registered as a 91 because its sticker shows the build date

wacky stuff

Luis de Prat

If it's a reimported U.S. car with a sticker, you could register it that way. I did that with my U.S. spec S2 Cab. Euro cars, however, don't have these stickers, AFAIK.

flash968

i don't think this was, but i'm not sure - he was as surprised that we registered them by model year and not build as i was to hear that you don't even have your build date info

either way, this makes it a bit tougher to figure out which setup a particular 92 has, but by pulling the dme, it is clear

Luis de Prat

Update: Just heard from Pitou that he got the revised ProMAX chip, installed it in his U.S. spec 968 with 11/91 build date, and the CEL problem is gone.

We'll see how he likes it!

Damian in NJ

The revised chip in going in my car today, I'll post tonight about the CEL.

Damian in NJ

Way to go, Promax. No check engine light, and the thing is pulling like a train. With all the fog here I couldn't let it rip in high gears, but in second and third it feels great.

RajDatta

Told ya, you would love it. With this chip, one does not need dynocharts to prove how good it is. One drive and you know these guys did their homework.
Raj

flash968

never said it wasn't a good curve - never said you wouldn't feel the improvement - you will "feel" the improvement with ANY of the top 5 chips - only said it was second best - also only said that any differences would only be visible on dyno, or possibly a track - glad to hear the light issue is resolved - now we'll see how the curves have changed in the new test, and find out where it stacks up

BruceWard

It seems strange to me how the chip described as producing more horsepower and torque than the #1 chip but demoted to #2 due to the CEL issue does not have a shot at #1 now that the CEL issue is fixed?

Damian in NJ

Couple of things to consider.

1)No one can drive a 968 and feel two hp difference.
2)Any CA user will suffer from at least a two hp loss compared to owners in other states that have higher octane gas like 93 or 94 (NJ)
3)A chip that makes a couple of hp more in the 'Top Gun/Kenny Loggins/Danger Zone' to the right of the safe rev limits isn't a winner for me.
4)Wide open throttle dyno charts would help distinguish the top end of the chips performance, but a chip optimized for partial throttle maps will give the best day to day grunt.

flash968

all valid points

some other things to consider:

all chips will respond pretty equally to the octane drop, so that doesn't factor in - also, we checked all chips on 91, 93 and 95, so we got comparitive results - it was still second on the higher octane, though we published the results on 91 (by the way, the rest of the country will be down to 91 soon enough)-

the decision of which chip won was based on the amount of the curve that was less than the winner

the winner was also optimized for partial throttle and produces more torque at the bottom

all of this though is moot, since the chips need to be retested - it is entirely possible that the WOT curve is the same, but in leaning out the bottom to fix the CEL, the partial throttle must have suffered

i'm sure the new 7700 model is a good chip, based on the previous curve - i just want to see what changed before making any judgements - the 7100 will also be good for those who are afraid of the high revs and don't care about the last bit of extra power

RajDatta

What impressed me further about the ProMax chip is their customer service and comitment to building the best chip. How often do you get the developers themselves reply to your posts and concerns. I am pretty sure Speed 6 chip is developed by someone else besides the distributor.
We can post our issues and Andrew knew 1st hand what needed to be done to fix the problem. If the same situation arose the other way, I doubt we would see a fix so soon, if any.
This chip's seats of pants has the highest rants and raves and that itself makes it a winner. Sorry, but I can't be "programmed" into thinking a certain way by just ready a subjective article without any backings.
Raj