[Etnier]

This single-post thread leads to the results Flash obtained from dyno-testing the new proMax chips against the RacerX and a stock configuration. The thread is locked "to avoid another 7 page chip thread". It's very hard for me to see what would be bad about such a discussion, especially in a moderated, responsible forum. That a discussion of this might spark a lengthy and varied discussion is testament to the strong interest we all have in the topic. And, given that closing discussion down after a single post could well be construed as unfair censorship, I'm opening a discussion thread to discuss Flash's test, with a slightly-reduced reproduction of the dyno chart posted below. (I have a Speed6 Racer X chip in my car, by the way: bought it after learning the results of Bob's first test series. Very happy with it.)



One thing I'm going to toss into the pot here is this: Flash I sure appreciate the effort you've put into making this test happen: I know it involves a lot of work. But I'm a little surprised that you make such a point of what you see as the Speed6 chip's dominance in the test. I'm looking at the chart and it's hard to believe that the ProMax "B" chip isn't statistically all but even with the Speed6: just a few HP difference in this single-run comparison, only at the very top of the engine's capacity. Given that, why "RACER X WINS AGAIN!" and "the Racers X took over"? I would be the first to admit I don't read these charts much, but isn't that, while factually accurate, perhaps makiing more of the difference than is called for?



DISCUSS!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Silver BLT]

Etnier,

Ya just couldn't leave it alone. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> I knew somebody had to put up a post when I saw that Flash closed/locked his Dyno post. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/huh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> I too have the speed 6 chip and am Very happy with the performance upgrade it provided and would not change chips unless there was a Major difference in HP. I paid ~$160 for my chip and unless the Promax 7700B was much cheaper I don't think there is much difference between the two dyno "scores". (I agree with you)

Flash, You da man. Thanks for taking the time and $$$ to check out the new chip with a good comparo using a stock car and chip as a baseline.

It seems to me that this is like riding a dead horse, no matter how much you whip it, it won't go any further. Everyone knows a chip helps. Period. Promax did a good job in improving on their previous chip and its close to the Speed 6 chip. Lets burry this horse and try to find something else to up our HP, like cams...? I haven't seen anyones aftermarkets that are much better than stock. Seems like maybe we have come to the cemetary fence and the only gates are Supercharging or Turbocharging.

Rest in Peace,

Silver BLT

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Greimann]

I agree with you John, statistically these chips are dead even. Heck I still have my "vintage" Weltmeister chip and am fine with that.!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Darth Coupe]

Interesting test. Are the torque curves availible? Also, were the Promax chips the ROW or US versions? It would be interesting to see how the torque curves look compared to the HP plots to look at shift points and to also compare Promax ROW vs. US.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

they are not "dead even", but then the differences between ANY of the chips was only a horsepower here and there - the 2 horsepower difference between the Racer X and the Promax was actually one of the BIGGEST differences between any of them - the extra 200rpm hold of the peak is a HUGE advantage - the MUCH more gradual fall off is also a HUGE advantage



this is not to say that anybody should change their performance chip to this one - you won't really notice much of a difference, except way up at the top - the entire point was to determine which chip gave the best performance so that somebody could make an informed decision on a first purchase



that is now complete



i had eric close the thread because i think we have had enough chip threads - he agreed - i knew somebody would still nto be able to keep quiet about this topic (no poke intended at you john - it was going to be somebody)



you would have to really look carefully at the runs to be able to see the details, and then you have to approach it from the perspective of "here are 6 chips. which one should i buy to replace my stock chip?"



that answer is now abundantly clear - can we PLEASE let this die now and go have fun with the new found power?



p.s. - the air/fuel maps are all safe on all of the chips, and nearly identical - i will NOT be posting those, nor making them available, so please don't even ask



i'm now done testing chips - moving on to the exhaust now

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

uh, in that my car is slightly modified ( exhaust & intake ), the power peak of the racer X would be a bit higher than 6674rpm, right ? So it still makes sense to shift around 7100 ( 7060 IIRC ? ) rpm for max perf gain ?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the computer tells us to shift as close to redline as you can for maximum accelleration



the curve tells us, based on stock gearing to shift up at points near that too - figure it out based on how many rpms you drop, in a gear by gear basis, in order to stay at the peak power point after the shift

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

a side note about redline - these runs did not achieve the same redlines as we got on other cars - a number of factors can play into this - some are:



maximum compression (engine wear)

fuel energy content (we tested on 91 RON+MON/2)

intake temperature (an engine will achieve higher rpms in cooler temperatures)



this is why you CANNOT compare one set of runs to another that closely, and why we always establish a baseline any time we do any testing, and why we carefully monitor test conditions



this is a very time consuming process, and is not cheap - at a minimum of $150 an hour, i now have about 3 grand wrapped up in dyno time alone, let alone time for data analysis, my time, or anybody else's time who participated - this has been an investment of well over 10 grand



the information and conclusions have been posted - what you do with them is up to you - i really don't care which chip anybody uses - i have them all, have no alliance with anybody involved with the Racer X chip, and could choose to run any of them - i chose the one that makes the most power



that's all i was after when i started all of this - a very long and arduous road, to be sure - one full of accusations and second guessing on behalf of many - if i had to do it over again, perhaps i should have just kept this to myself for all the grief it has brought me



everyone have fun

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[968Z]

Up to about 6200 RPM, there is not a statistical difference between the chips. In fact, the ProMax 7700 chip appears to have a slight (and I mean slight!) advantage in the 3000 to 5500 RPM range where most of us drive (C'mon y'all - be honest!). I think what would be more relevant for those of us who don't push our cars past redline would be smog output for emmisions testing, and bottom line price with shipping. That being said, my Autowerks Racing performance chip works great, other than the inability to pass Georgia Emmisions. I think the single most relevant statement I've heard regarding an exceptional (almost rediculous) amount of debate and testing came from Flash. Its on a thread somewhere, but in effect he said power output between namebrand chips are about the same. So, if we aren't street racing or tracking, it brings us back to my original point: Emissions and cost.



My $0.02! <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the data table is a little clearer, and pretty much shows an even spread of ups and downs between them - one goes up the other goes down, and then it flips - i'm not publishing that data though without somebody paying for the time - i'm just not inclined to do somebody's homework for them for free, that they should have done themselves in the first place, and then let them capitalize on it - i've already done enough - i could have just disqualified promax right out of the gate, like the rest of the chips that threw the light - i only tested it because i trusted somebody else that it was safe - i made the comment that it showed potential - this turned out to be a pandora's box for me, resulting in having to arrange 2 more test days - the good news is that there is a second choice for people - based on other testing, the promax would fall in 3rd in performance, behind the Racer X and the Weltmeister, but is in first in lowest price- that's cool - no worries



i have always maintained that, if you already have any of the performance chips we tested (i can't speak to the others), don't bother changing - unless you are racing, AND your rules allow it, any difference is just not worth the money



not passing emmissions is a big red flag though - that's why we initally eliminated the promax, along with having eliminated other chips - they seem to have fixed the warning light though on the promax, and now it looks fine



everybody makes decisions based on different factors - for me, it was only performance - for others, it may be cost - for still others, it may be the advice and recommendation of a buddy



please remember that only the Weltmeister and a specific Autothority version are cleared four use in the early DME found in the very early 92s



in any event, have fun - they all work pretty darned well

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Darth Coupe]

I was just calculating torques and at first glance it would show that the Promax has more torque than the Speed-6 at max HP. But then things get confusing, as the graph shows the stated max HP and at what RPM in the block to the left. However if you look at the graph, the max HP spikes do not line up with the RPM scale. Now I am more confused. Were the two lines scewed in anyway for overlay? Flash, you said that max HP for the Speed-6 came on at 6800 RPM which is closer to what the spike shows on the graph but the listing in the upper left corner says 6674 RPM. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/blink.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/huh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

6800 was a typo - it's been fixed



on this day, with this car, the promax chips peaked at 6332 and 6506 - the racer x peaked at 6674



i'm not sure exactly what you are trying to find - you told me you were looking at this for a race car - that makes it simple - naturally you NEED everything you can get in that scenario, which would definitely include the extra top end the racer x provides

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Darth Coupe]

I am just looking for the max torque numbers at given RPMs and what the torque curves look like compared to each other. Typically, I shift at a point where I will be at max torque when the shifting is done. I am not really sold on either one of these thus far over other plans I have, however if I were to put one in I would want to know where max torque comes on and how much that torque is as HP is good, but torque is also very important. If there is just a little less peak HP but it has greater torque then I am inclinded to go that route. It starts getting into those cars with high HP and low torque kind of issues.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

ok - basic physics - torque and horsepower are the expressions of same thing, work or power - the difference is only the relationship to rpm - hence the formula i gave you



torque = (5252 x horsepower) / rpm



therefore, the thing to consider is the relationship of either to rpm - on the left half of the scale, differences are more clearly seen when shown in torque, and on the right it is more visible in horsepower



for a race car, you should be focused on horsepower above 5k up to redline, as you will not see anything below 5k for very long (if you do, you are driving too slowly) - whatever gives you the biggest longest high end curve is the best you can choose, because that is where you will be operating



in a street car, it isn't as critical, and low end torque numbers show more useful information - most people look at horsepower numbers though becasue it's easier to show peak point differences (favorite sales guy thing) and the numbers are generally bigger and more impressive



the relationship between the torque curves on this test is a parallel of the horsepower lines - they are almost identical except the racer x has a bit more for a bit longer up at the top - the lines are so close together though the rest of the time, that they could be the same line and differences are very hard to see - the horsepower chart moer clearly shows the differences



you should probably take a look at the equal length tube header that rsbarn is working up - that should give nice results up top, especially in conjunction with things like a chip

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Greimann]

[quote name='flash' date='Jul 1 2005, 02:33 PM']ok - basic physics - torque and horsepower are the expressions of same thing, work or power - the difference is only the relationship to rpm - hence the formula i gave you



torque = (5252 x horsepower) / rpm



[right][post="6689"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



To be more specific. Horspower is a function of torque and RPM. They are not the same thing.



You can put 150 LB-FT into torquing a crankshaft nut but you are not putting out any horsepower if the crank is not moving.



Torque is force, Horsepower is force over time.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[S_Cal968]

Flash,

Please don't think for a moment that your efforts are not appreciated. FWIW, I'd like to thank you, it was quite a task. Since this is a group of inquisitive members you must have expected questions from all angles. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/blink.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



I know you're a car guy from way back, so I was surprised that the emphasis was on horsepower instead of torque, [which is omitted?][?]. The first chart that came out [Jul.04] had both.

I always thought peak torque is a more valuable measurement - it's what gets you off the line or out of a corner. To say 200rpm & 3hp is better is debatable - it may not be useable. As you know when shifting, it's critical where the rpm drops to within the torque band. Being at a higher rpm is not necessarily better. If the driver can shift quickly, he may not need to wait for that extra 200 rpm and still drop in at peak torque. When going for all out top speed, 3hp may be more important.



I know opinions are like bellybuttons, yada yada... but FWIW, perhaps the P/Max is better in regards to value, based on price and street use. And, the Spd6 is better for peak HP @ a higher rpm, [which may be important to those that race].

Speed6 the the absolute winner - it depends....

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[NeedPorscheSpeed]

I am enjoying the discussion here. I have chips in my 944S2, 951 S, and a SMT-6 system for my heavily modded 951. Now, when the time comes to "upgrade" my 968's performance, I will be able to make an informed decision. Thanks very much, Flash, for your hard work on behalf of the 968 community. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> Cheers to you!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='NeedPorscheSpeed' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:25 PM']Flash, for your hard work on behalf of the 968 community.  <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />  Cheers to you!

[right][post="6716"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



I'll drink to that ! Could not agree more. And staggering expenses aside, I still can't figure out when TF he finds the time..

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

it seems there is just no escaping another long chip thread - just what does it take to get some people to see that there is a clear winner?



s cal - peak torque is valuable, but sustained torque is more important - in a street car, you want that sustained torque lower where you drive the most - in a race car you want it up high where yourun the engine - there is no rule about where it should be other than the specific needs of the application - in a race car, you will NEVER shift and drop into peak torque - that peak point happens WAY below any shift point - you're not waiting for that extra 200 rpm - it's still pulling up there, and it gets you to the peak horsepower point - if you shift earlier, you miss out on available power



i can't figure out how anybody can think the promax is better in any regard other than price - i said the torque curves parallel the horsepower curves, and they were just to blurry to show anything easily - that apparantly just wasn't goo enough - i also said that the racer x also held its torque longer at the end, and that otherwise they were all the same - the lines are blurred together almost the entire curve - the data shows them all chasing each other and trading places almost the whole run, until the last 1000 rpm or so, where the racer x again takes over - the bottom line is there is absolutely NO advantage other than price, of the promax - the Racer X chip does EVERYTHING the promax chip does, and MORE



so that some of you people can finally let go of the idea that somehow you are going to end up with a better chip by spending 15 bucks less, or try to rationalize a purchase that i told you was second best at the first test, and has been verified in every subsequent test to be at most second, and most recently looks like third, here is the torque chart too:

baselinethroughracerx_tq.pdf Size: 27.82 KB  Downloads: 213

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[S_Cal968]

it seems there is just no escaping another long chip thread

Hmmm, I thought this is what forums are for[?]. I'm sure most would agree this is an interesting topic and I'm glad there is a discussion. A subject with so many variables, there's bound to be thoughts & questions...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.