DEUTSCH NINE launches NEW Motronic upgrade for 968
08-11-2008, 10:44 PM
#92
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
08-12-2008, 01:56 AM
#93
Rennlist Member
To call this chip unuseable in its current state to me is a little stretch, no? Its up to the individual to decide if they can live with CE or not. I would be more than happy to live with CEL for a chip that performs as well as this does. This is not to say I wouldn't want to see them to fix it if possible. If I was in the market for a chip and don't like getting CEL, I would wait and give them some time. They clearly mentioned that they would look into it after gauging interest.
When they initially offered the product, they were not aware of such an issue, so please give them a chance. I just tested the car on Sunday, Jeez!
I would hope people don't start bashing any attempts at developing products for our cars. What will that get us? Monopoly??
Raj
When they initially offered the product, they were not aware of such an issue, so please give them a chance. I just tested the car on Sunday, Jeez!
I would hope people don't start bashing any attempts at developing products for our cars. What will that get us? Monopoly??
Raj
08-12-2008, 09:20 AM
#96
Raj, see the post below from the junior site-you may want to show it to Paddock!
recent conversations reminded me that i forgot to mention that something else to consider is not merely how much power a chart shows you, but also the air/fuel charts - this is critical to long term running - it is easy to trick you into thinking you have power by fattening up low end mixture - this is a treacherous slope though, fraught with engine damage - it's an old trick, and one i have used myself to win races, but i always tore the engine down afterward, knowing full well that the fuel wash was an issue
we have already seen chips that are too fat down low, causing CEL problems - i've also smelled it in the oil on some cars - this could be partly due to the particular ECU on which it was developed - all ECUs are not created equal - a Euro spec is not the same as a US spec - a 92 is not even the same as a 93-95 - fuel formulas play in too - i don't know about the rest of the planet, but here in california, the fuels change with the seasons, resulting in changes in readings
that is why dyno testing needs to use the same model of ECU as the intended application, and on the same fuel
in my next set of dyno runs (not too far away now) i plan to show examples of just how much little things like the transaxle temp and engine heat soak can change the readings - this is complicated stuff - i've already seen as much as a 10 hp change from some of them, but i am looking forward to documenting some of these things, and setting some sort of "standard" by which future products can be tested
i'm just so sick of false claims or cherry picked unrepeatable runs, both good and bad, that are then published with the clear intention of either selling something, or inhibiting the sale of something - it just doesn't need to be that silly - that's what got me to do the shootout test to begin with, and why in speaking to all of the companies providing chips for the test, that i insisted that all chips be tested equally, with no reservations on the publishing of results
something else that has been often missed was exemplified to me when steve dinan told me that it isn't as important that his stuff produce the highest numbers in an isolated run, but rather that they were repeatable and consistent
certainly there is always room for improvement on anything, and i welcome anything new that is better - i myself have again changed, now to something that is showing over double what the average chip was making when i did my shootout test
however, as we push that envelope farther and farther, and we try to eek out tiny bits of power, it becomes even more important that testing be very carefully and completely done, and under controlled conditions - it becomes more expensive, taking all day to do the testing of just a couple of things, but it is essential to anything credible
recent conversations reminded me that i forgot to mention that something else to consider is not merely how much power a chart shows you, but also the air/fuel charts - this is critical to long term running - it is easy to trick you into thinking you have power by fattening up low end mixture - this is a treacherous slope though, fraught with engine damage - it's an old trick, and one i have used myself to win races, but i always tore the engine down afterward, knowing full well that the fuel wash was an issue
we have already seen chips that are too fat down low, causing CEL problems - i've also smelled it in the oil on some cars - this could be partly due to the particular ECU on which it was developed - all ECUs are not created equal - a Euro spec is not the same as a US spec - a 92 is not even the same as a 93-95 - fuel formulas play in too - i don't know about the rest of the planet, but here in california, the fuels change with the seasons, resulting in changes in readings
that is why dyno testing needs to use the same model of ECU as the intended application, and on the same fuel
in my next set of dyno runs (not too far away now) i plan to show examples of just how much little things like the transaxle temp and engine heat soak can change the readings - this is complicated stuff - i've already seen as much as a 10 hp change from some of them, but i am looking forward to documenting some of these things, and setting some sort of "standard" by which future products can be tested
i'm just so sick of false claims or cherry picked unrepeatable runs, both good and bad, that are then published with the clear intention of either selling something, or inhibiting the sale of something - it just doesn't need to be that silly - that's what got me to do the shootout test to begin with, and why in speaking to all of the companies providing chips for the test, that i insisted that all chips be tested equally, with no reservations on the publishing of results
something else that has been often missed was exemplified to me when steve dinan told me that it isn't as important that his stuff produce the highest numbers in an isolated run, but rather that they were repeatable and consistent
certainly there is always room for improvement on anything, and i welcome anything new that is better - i myself have again changed, now to something that is showing over double what the average chip was making when i did my shootout test
however, as we push that envelope farther and farther, and we try to eek out tiny bits of power, it becomes even more important that testing be very carefully and completely done, and under controlled conditions - it becomes more expensive, taking all day to do the testing of just a couple of things, but it is essential to anything credible
08-12-2008, 02:48 PM
#98
The only issue with the CEL is not so much for driver preferance, but some states will not pass a car for emissions if the CEL is lit. Having said that, it sounds like D9 has done extensive testing on their end to make their chip perform well, so something as small as getting the counts in the chip right should be a breeze for them. Raj, if you would need another car to do some testing on I might be able to provide one, as well as a spare DME for the testing.
Last edited by 968workaholic; 08-12-2008 at 02:52 PM. Reason: spelling
08-12-2008, 03:08 PM
#99
Rennlist Member
I would prefer to keep it the same car. As far as DME, you are welcome to stop by and run what you brung just like anyone else. I will let everyone know when the dyno test will take place.
Raj
Raj
08-14-2008, 11:05 AM
#100
Rennlist Member
Not much to add besides Steve and I swapped cars last night. His SY cab is running the Promax chip. I will let him share his preliminary experiences with D9 chip. I really enjoyed driving Steve's Cab, just gorgeous. We will try to do some acceleration runs over the weekend.
Raj
Raj
Last edited by RajDatta; 08-14-2008 at 12:15 PM. Reason: spelling
08-14-2008, 11:55 AM
#101
Three Wheelin'
After driving Raj's cab home last night and then to work this a.m., here's what I can initially feel:
1. Between 1.5 and 2.5k there is a harder pull than with the Promax chip.
2. The idle is just as smooth as with the Promax chip.
3. The hesitation when the engine's cold is gone.
We're going to do some back to back runs this weekend, and I'll have more to report then. Thanks Raj, for letting me drive your beautiful car!
Steve
1. Between 1.5 and 2.5k there is a harder pull than with the Promax chip.
2. The idle is just as smooth as with the Promax chip.
3. The hesitation when the engine's cold is gone.
We're going to do some back to back runs this weekend, and I'll have more to report then. Thanks Raj, for letting me drive your beautiful car!
Steve
08-14-2008, 07:22 PM
#103
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Kind of OT but I thought htis article by Denise McCluggage was appropriate with the discussion of the CEL
Two kinds of drivers ply our streets: those who can ignore the "check engine" light and those who cannot. Women are disproportionately represented in the latter group. They dread and detest the light and the apparent inability of anyone to effect an escape from the cycle of dealership "repair" and subsequent reappearance of those needling lighted words in the instrument panel.
Most men, on the other hand, after a few unsuccessful go-rounds with a service department, determine that the light is at fault, not whatever it is warning of, and they either pay no further attention or stick a piece of black tape over the offending light. Gone.
Why isn't this response equally common from female drivers? It's that word "engine" and its unconscious trappings. The engine is what makes a car a car, something mobile, not an upholstered shed deposited by the side of a road. Stranded. Men insufficiently understand the underlying fear that the word "stranded" holds for a female driver in this predatory world. Being stranded by a disabled engine can mean for a male driver inconvenience, missed meetings, annoyance, maybe outrage. The thought of being at risk from someone stopping to offer help does not come early to him. But it does, and with headlines, to a lone woman stranded by engine failure. Thus, "check engine" to her can be life-threatening.
"Check emissions controls" holds little fear for anyone. And that's why those words do not appear among the instruments. Who would bother? Yet that's essentially what the "check engine" light means. At length: "Something might be amiss with your emissions system, and you should have it looked at the next time you're in the shop."
But "check engine" is what someone chose to spell out in the automotive equivalent of the eternal light. It is what's causing two women I know of to dump their vehicles when the leases end because a dealer either didn't read the manufacturer's latest directive or has no technician capable of following instructions.
Any carmaker trying to create loyal buyers should be paying closer attention to that little light, its muddled communication of meaning and its ability to turn off owners because it can't turn itself off when appropriate. What value is your vaunted new technology in the face of this old-fashioned flaw?
Two kinds of drivers ply our streets: those who can ignore the "check engine" light and those who cannot. Women are disproportionately represented in the latter group. They dread and detest the light and the apparent inability of anyone to effect an escape from the cycle of dealership "repair" and subsequent reappearance of those needling lighted words in the instrument panel.
Most men, on the other hand, after a few unsuccessful go-rounds with a service department, determine that the light is at fault, not whatever it is warning of, and they either pay no further attention or stick a piece of black tape over the offending light. Gone.
Why isn't this response equally common from female drivers? It's that word "engine" and its unconscious trappings. The engine is what makes a car a car, something mobile, not an upholstered shed deposited by the side of a road. Stranded. Men insufficiently understand the underlying fear that the word "stranded" holds for a female driver in this predatory world. Being stranded by a disabled engine can mean for a male driver inconvenience, missed meetings, annoyance, maybe outrage. The thought of being at risk from someone stopping to offer help does not come early to him. But it does, and with headlines, to a lone woman stranded by engine failure. Thus, "check engine" to her can be life-threatening.
"Check emissions controls" holds little fear for anyone. And that's why those words do not appear among the instruments. Who would bother? Yet that's essentially what the "check engine" light means. At length: "Something might be amiss with your emissions system, and you should have it looked at the next time you're in the shop."
But "check engine" is what someone chose to spell out in the automotive equivalent of the eternal light. It is what's causing two women I know of to dump their vehicles when the leases end because a dealer either didn't read the manufacturer's latest directive or has no technician capable of following instructions.
Any carmaker trying to create loyal buyers should be paying closer attention to that little light, its muddled communication of meaning and its ability to turn off owners because it can't turn itself off when appropriate. What value is your vaunted new technology in the face of this old-fashioned flaw?
08-20-2008, 04:12 PM
#105
The only fair way to test these different 968 chips is to use the same car, same dyno and make various runs with the different chips.
So far we have available the following 968 chips:
-Porsche OEM
-RS Barn
-Pro Max
-Brand X (same tuner as D9 is using)
We are going to take the binary files from these chips, put them to Eprom emulator and dyno test them at the local chip maker who makes very good chips here (has done Motronic tuning professionally since 1988).
Don't know if D9 version is the same we have, but we will gladly accept all the different 968 binary codes you may have.
As the test mule we are going to use Jere's superb 968 CS, which is in superb condition and is quite low mileage car. Most likely we are going to make the test during September/October when we have suitable time.
So far we have available the following 968 chips:
-Porsche OEM
-RS Barn
-Pro Max
-Brand X (same tuner as D9 is using)
We are going to take the binary files from these chips, put them to Eprom emulator and dyno test them at the local chip maker who makes very good chips here (has done Motronic tuning professionally since 1988).
Don't know if D9 version is the same we have, but we will gladly accept all the different 968 binary codes you may have.
As the test mule we are going to use Jere's superb 968 CS, which is in superb condition and is quite low mileage car. Most likely we are going to make the test during September/October when we have suitable time.
Last edited by Olli Snellman; 08-20-2008 at 05:21 PM.