Dimitry

I am seriously considering an ECU upgrade. I currently have a TT X-50 and wanted to ask the group the following:

1. I have heard many positives/pros for an ECU upgrade, but what are the negatives/cons?

2. Has anyone ever (a) experienced themselves or (b) heard of others experiencing actual mechanical problems or failure resulting from the extra horespower gain in the ECU upgrade?

I have an X-50 which is supposed to have beefed up transmission, gearing, maniford, etc. and was wondering what my risk of mechanical failure might be?

msindi

I just did the Upsolute on mine and so far so good!! Another TT could not keep up with me the other day on the highway in 5th gear.

rutz964C4

msindi

Are you finally keeping your upsolute?, did they solved the lag?

We are also planning to get it and I would like your opinion on it, the car is a 01 TT, right now with Fabspeeds quiet version and K&N filter.

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
ALEX

Dimitry

Has anyone heard of anyone that experienced mechanical problems resulting from the extra horsepower of the upgraded ECU? I can't help but wonder if this extra horsepower takes the car outside the designed tolerance ranges of the transmission, and other parts?

KPV

Although I may be wrong, (this was explained to me regarding the importation of motorcycles) it was my understanding that manufacturers that import vehicles to the US are required to meet a certain overall federal emissions ceiling restrictions for all of their imported cars combined in addition to the specific minimum requirements for each car separately. Accordingly, if a manufacturer can lean out their cars on an individual basis, the effect of the group is less. Essentially, by leaning out their cars, they produce less toxic emissions and can therefore import more cars.

As an example:

Company A produces a sports car that produces 10 emission units. The US government says Mr. Car Importer, all of your imported cars combined cannot produce more than 10,000 emission units. Company A is left with a maximum import ceiling of 1,000 cars.

Savvy Company B on the other hand decides to downgrade the performance of their cars to produce only 9 emission units each. They can therefore import 1,111 cars. They have therefore imported 111 more cars and increased their profit potential.

I don't see why it would be any different between cars and motorcycles, but then again, I am not sure.

In any case, if this is true (and the point of all this), the use of performance chips unlock potential that is already there. This is another reason why Euro cars have, or at least used to have, better performance specs than in the US. I understand euro emission restrictions are growing.

Whew!!

Again, these are just my opinions based upon my limited knowledge.

Trojan Man

KPV,

If that is indeed true, it is a most interesting and educating post. Thanks!

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

JasonAndreas

Running lean will reduce HC and CO emissions but increase NOx. What maybe ideal for reducing those emissions might not be ideal for generating power. That is why Motronics has a separate WOT setting. Running lean will also increase fuel mileage and more importantly for Porsche, reduce CAFE penalties.

Model Yr Date Penalty Paid
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1985 Jul-87 $1,253,580</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1986 Feb-89 $823,440</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1987 Jun-89 $948,480</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1988 May-90 $1,048,905</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1989 May-90 $1,875,125</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1990 Jul-91 $2,033,770</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1991 Feb-94 $1,871,470</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1992 Feb-94 $781,575</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1993 Oct-94 $668,500</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1994 Dec-96 $804,600</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1995 Dec-96 $1,949,520</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1996 Nov-98 $2,127,600</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1997 Nov-98 $2,525,820</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1998 Mar-00 $1,613,865</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">1999 Jul-00 $4,884,627</font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">

Dimitry

KPV and others,

I agree that chipping the car unlocks the car's true potential, but my point (and question) is that how do we know that the TT and TT X-50 are not ENGINEERED to be durable only with this "reduced potential?" In other words, if the standard chip produces 420 Hp and X-50 at 455 Hp, then why would Porsche engineer the car to handle much more? And if that is the case, then would chipping the car and increasing the HP by 50, 75, 100+ Hp be "overstraining" the engineering of the drivetrain, transmission and other mechanical parts?