ECU Reflashing
11-10-2006, 06:19 PM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECU Reflashing
Just reflashed ecu on my 2000 c2 tip. Initial results on dyno showed 10lbs/tqe & 10 hspw. increase. Car does seem to idle & accelerate alot smoother and stronger. I was told that both will increase as ecu adapts to new settings. Will have another dyno run in 2 weeks to check end results. Autoscope in Dallas(GIAC certified) did install.
11-10-2006, 06:48 PM
#3
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
jw996 that's about right on 91. If you use the V-flow with it you'll get about 18-20rwhp...
http://www.sharkwerks.com/products.php?pid=20
http://www.sharkwerks.com/products.php?pid=20
11-10-2006, 07:13 PM
#4
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Prince George's County, MD
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Welcome!
Originally Posted by jw996
Just reflashed ecu on my 2000 c2 tip. Initial results on dyno showed 10lbs/tqe & 10 hspw. increase. Car does seem to idle & accelerate alot smoother and stronger. I was told that both will increase as ecu adapts to new settings. Will have another dyno run in 2 weeks to check end results. Autoscope in Dallas(GIAC certified) did install.
11-18-2006, 09:06 PM
#5
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharky,
I've scheduled my year 2000 Porsche 996 to GIAC flash/chip, add Evoms V-Flow
and sport exhaust...Evoms claims a 25-30 HP gain and 18-20 TQ gain. Do you find that reallistic?
Thanks
I've scheduled my year 2000 Porsche 996 to GIAC flash/chip, add Evoms V-Flow
and sport exhaust...Evoms claims a 25-30 HP gain and 18-20 TQ gain. Do you find that reallistic?
Thanks
Originally Posted by sharkster
jw996 that's about right on 91. If you use the V-flow with it you'll get about 18-20rwhp...
http://www.sharkwerks.com/products.php?pid=20
http://www.sharkwerks.com/products.php?pid=20
11-18-2006, 09:28 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the EVO CAI will yield about 10 hp with or without extras. The MaxFlow exhaust will yield about 5 hp AFTER flash and CAI (they just works better the more you push them). The flash is a little harder to pin down, but since everyone boasts the same 13 hp on 91 octane, 25-30 hp is probably acurate. I hope you enjoy the added power!
11-19-2006, 01:01 AM
#7
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Elk Grove, California
Posts: 2,647
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Alex (Sharky) flashed mine and installed the EVO CAI along with headers/muffler and although I didn't do a before and after dyno, I can tell you that there is a big difference in performance. He does great work....and stands behind everything.
Trending Topics
11-19-2006, 11:48 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharky:
I work about 10 minutes from you and have always wanted to visit.
I have an 03 C4S X51 with a Powertech flash, the EVO CAI and MaxFlow mufflers (375hp).
I believe this setup is the most I can do without voiding the warranty (good until 2/09)
Is there anything else you can do for this car?
Or should I wait until the CPO expires and then add the EVO blower?
Ric
I work about 10 minutes from you and have always wanted to visit.
I have an 03 C4S X51 with a Powertech flash, the EVO CAI and MaxFlow mufflers (375hp).
I believe this setup is the most I can do without voiding the warranty (good until 2/09)
Is there anything else you can do for this car?
Or should I wait until the CPO expires and then add the EVO blower?
Ric
11-22-2006, 11:20 AM
#9
Is it really worth the posted (many times on Rennlist) ~ 10 hp max increase @ max RPM?????????
Especially, when one considers long term problems, e.g.OBDII. Same with all the
performance chips/flashing for the last 20 years, i.e. marginal benefit to cost ratio.
Don't think so!!
Especially, when one considers long term problems, e.g.OBDII. Same with all the
performance chips/flashing for the last 20 years, i.e. marginal benefit to cost ratio.
Don't think so!!
11-22-2006, 01:01 PM
#10
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you explain in more detail the long-term problems? If the ECU reflash is to eliminate the computer's ability on engine timing retardation based on fuel octane ratings, then what potential harm is there if you always use the proper fuel grade?
11-22-2006, 01:29 PM
#11
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Prince George's County, MD
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Do you have any current test? I noticed your test data is for a 993.
Also, how long is long term? I ask because I've put over 80k miles on a performance ecu program years ago. I had zero OBDII issues and passed all Emissions testing, even the old style testing where they collect exhaust fumes.
Also, how long is long term? I ask because I've put over 80k miles on a performance ecu program years ago. I had zero OBDII issues and passed all Emissions testing, even the old style testing where they collect exhaust fumes.
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
Is it really worth the posted (many times on Rennlist) ~ 10 hp max increase @ max RPM?????????
Especially, when one considers long term problems, e.g.OBDII. Same with all the
performance chips/flashing for the last 20 years, i.e. marginal benefit to cost ratio.
Don't think so!!
Especially, when one considers long term problems, e.g.OBDII. Same with all the
performance chips/flashing for the last 20 years, i.e. marginal benefit to cost ratio.
Don't think so!!
11-22-2006, 01:55 PM
#12
Originally Posted by Ucube
Can you explain in more detail the long-term problems? If the ECU reflash is to eliminate the computer's ability on engine timing retardation based on fuel octane ratings, then what potential harm is there if you always use the proper fuel grade?
11-22-2006, 04:03 PM
#13
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Ubermensch
If you were using enough octane at all times the ECU would never pull timing...so what would the point be?
Also, some of those posting should do a little research on the accuracy of static dynos to reflect real world performance. A small increase on a dyno may actually translate to a real world performance drop, which is exactly what usually happens with an ECU flash, if a proper, well-constructed INDEPENDENT test is done. And seat of the pants "dyno" testing is totally worthless. I could play a CD of a screaming Cup car over the audio system, and 9/10 blind observers would say the car was much faster, with better throttle response!
11-22-2006, 05:03 PM
#14
"If the ECU reflash is to eliminate the computer's ability on engine timing retardation based on fuel octane ratings, then what potential harm is there if you always use the proper fuel grade?"
Then what can potentially happen is that the engine can be damaged without knock control,
e.g. broken rings, damaged piston ring lands, all the result of detonation.
Also, using testers, e.g. PST2, one can determine the knock count and alert the dealer/repair
shop to excessive knocks the result of the "pushed" ignition timing. This would indicate that
the timing maps (all that's really changed on a re-flash) were potentially modified. Furthermore,
with the timing "pushed" with reduced knock control this usually results in having a less overall
advanced ignition timing, i.e. because the DME attempts to eliminate the knock by retarding
the timing, versus using stock Porsche maps. Thus, less overall torque & poorer mileage.
From the standpoint of OBDII, "playing with" the ignition timing can result in failing an emissions
test because of incomplete readiness codes, notwithstanding higher NOx levels & more "load"
on the CAT the result of more ignition advance.
Then what can potentially happen is that the engine can be damaged without knock control,
e.g. broken rings, damaged piston ring lands, all the result of detonation.
Also, using testers, e.g. PST2, one can determine the knock count and alert the dealer/repair
shop to excessive knocks the result of the "pushed" ignition timing. This would indicate that
the timing maps (all that's really changed on a re-flash) were potentially modified. Furthermore,
with the timing "pushed" with reduced knock control this usually results in having a less overall
advanced ignition timing, i.e. because the DME attempts to eliminate the knock by retarding
the timing, versus using stock Porsche maps. Thus, less overall torque & poorer mileage.
From the standpoint of OBDII, "playing with" the ignition timing can result in failing an emissions
test because of incomplete readiness codes, notwithstanding higher NOx levels & more "load"
on the CAT the result of more ignition advance.
11-22-2006, 11:34 PM
#15
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loren..Loren...Loren...with all due respect...this sounds like a lot of technical mumbo jumbo...too many people are doing reflashing and happy with the result...too many companies have done extensive R&D and offer reflashing...
don't spoil our quest for more HP & TQ....
My last Porsche 911 was reflashed and ran 250,000 miles before rebuild!
don't spoil our quest for more HP & TQ....
My last Porsche 911 was reflashed and ran 250,000 miles before rebuild!
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
"If the ECU reflash is to eliminate the computer's ability on engine timing retardation based on fuel octane ratings, then what potential harm is there if you always use the proper fuel grade?"
Then what can potentially happen is that the engine can be damaged without knock control,
e.g. broken rings, damaged piston ring lands, all the result of detonation.
Also, using testers, e.g. PST2, one can determine the knock count and alert the dealer/repair
shop to excessive knocks the result of the "pushed" ignition timing. This would indicate that
the timing maps (all that's really changed on a re-flash) were potentially modified. Furthermore,
with the timing "pushed" with reduced knock control this usually results in having a less overall
advanced ignition timing, i.e. because the DME attempts to eliminate the knock by retarding
the timing, versus using stock Porsche maps. Thus, less overall torque & poorer mileage.
From the standpoint of OBDII, "playing with" the ignition timing can result in failing an emissions
test because of incomplete readiness codes, notwithstanding higher NOx levels & more "load"
on the CAT the result of more ignition advance.
Then what can potentially happen is that the engine can be damaged without knock control,
e.g. broken rings, damaged piston ring lands, all the result of detonation.
Also, using testers, e.g. PST2, one can determine the knock count and alert the dealer/repair
shop to excessive knocks the result of the "pushed" ignition timing. This would indicate that
the timing maps (all that's really changed on a re-flash) were potentially modified. Furthermore,
with the timing "pushed" with reduced knock control this usually results in having a less overall
advanced ignition timing, i.e. because the DME attempts to eliminate the knock by retarding
the timing, versus using stock Porsche maps. Thus, less overall torque & poorer mileage.
From the standpoint of OBDII, "playing with" the ignition timing can result in failing an emissions
test because of incomplete readiness codes, notwithstanding higher NOx levels & more "load"
on the CAT the result of more ignition advance.