Well I went to the dyno and I was a little disapointed. With the ski down it chip I pulled 341.2 hp and 369.6 torque. With a generic fastchip I pulled 353.7 hp and 376.5 torque. I e mailed Jessie with the results and he says that the 341 is actually better due to it making more power down low. I dont have a way to post these results (images) but if someone would be so kind to do it for me I could e-mail the sheets to them. Also I have a break down of the air fuel readings on Jesses chip but not on the generic chip.

 

Send them to me and I'll host them for you.

I'm sorry, I know Jessie is a great guy and he does a good job with chips, but until you look at the graphs there is no way to say that his is better. I know peak numbers don't tell the whole story, but c'mon. The generic chip makes more HP AND torque. You know the torque peak is below the horsepower peak, so that's more power down low at that point.

If his chip really does make more low end, but Ed's chip really does more power on the upper end, you need to combine them. That's the beauty of the computer, you can make it dynamic and change A/F vs RPM, as well as timing, etc. Do whatever Ed did to get the peak numbers and do whatever Jessie did to get the power down low.

There's no reason at all why you can't do that.

 

Can I assume you have an aftermarket catback on there? It's not in the sig.

I think Ed's numbers and your ET's are great. You have 40 ft-lb more torque than me due to the long tubes and the Meziere and maybe some in the Hot cam.

Was that Wood bridge Dyno? I liked that place.

 

Nathan, sent the scans. and thanks for offering to post them.

South Paw. I do have the factory mufflers and resanator but no cats at this time. I dont believe the factory hurts much on a LT1 The mufflers are listed as low restriction from the factory. Also seeing what others have posted such as Mr. Mojo. Who I believe went 1 mph faster with eliminaters, but had a slower et. If it was a L98 then I believe there is more to be gained. But hey, I could be wrong.

 

Very interesting. :lurk:

Take em both to the track and see which chip gives you a better time. :seeya

 

Cool, as soon my slow e-mail server sends that on to me I'll post them. I'll be very interested in looking at the graphs with your stock exhaust and such. We have the same setup on my friend Brian's car, sounds nice and queit at cruise but sounds nice when you lay on it.

 

Here's the Ed Wright Chip



Here's the Ski Down it Chip



Here's the A/F info



Sorry, but it really looks like Ed Wright has him beat clear across the board. His chip is just way too rich.

 

Were these runs on the same day?

 

Pretty clear that ski-down-it chip isn't controlling WOT AFR like Ed Wrights is.
Are you sure eevrything is was the same? Are you measuring HP and TQ the same way, ie SAE v Standard or Actual?

 

First run was on Jesse's chip, The next run was on the fast chip. Approximately 10min. in between runs. (enough to allow me to switch and cool a little) I hope jesse chimes in on this thread. If im doing something wrong on my end id like to know. I have a auto-xray that I can give readings with, It is going into closed loop and staying. Eventually I will have to put cats back on, but im afraid it will plug them up right now.
But I must say, even though it seems to be running rich, (readings, and a little black smoke) it idles better then I expected with the cam, and there are no misses , hesitations etc. Power wise I am very happy, but you know how it is, allways want more. :smash:


[Modified by 93 ragtop, 5:07 AM 4/27/2004]

 

[QUOTE

Was that Wood bridge Dyno? I liked that place.[/QUOTE]


Never been to woodbridge dyno. I to, have heard good things about them. This place is called Excessive Motorsports. They mainly do mustangs and lightning trucks. The owner seemed like a real nice guy. Said he used to be into corvettes in the late 80's and early 90's Did 3 pulls and air fuel readings for $75.00 It was one of the best deals in this area. I highly reccomend them.

 

93ragtop. Thanks for posting the results. I'm sorry that I did not see this post earlier and thanks for the heads up.

Ok. Before everyone gets the linch mob out, let me point out a few things. (1) Peak number on a dyno do not mean didly. 10hp or 10ft-lb swings can happen with changing DAs, fluids heating up, motor temp etc. Now lets get down to business and analyse these runs point to point.

I can't overlay the graphs where I am at now, or the discussion would be over with if we did that. So I will list my resutlts, then the other chips. At the end of the discussion, I think we will all agree which is better and which would accelerate and perform better. Ok lets get to it:

Torque Curves:
...........Ski Chip........Other Chip
2.5k.....165...............------
2.7k.....300...............140
3.0k.....340...............280
3.3k.....360...............330
3.6k.....369...............376

Hp Curves:

Hp Curves:
...........Ski Chip........Other Chip
2.7k.....180...............100
3.0k.....200...............160
3.5k.....250...............250
5.5k.....340...............340

Ok so there is the comparisons of the chips looking at important parts of the graph and the way I purposely design my chips. Let me as a few questions. What accelerates a car, and give you that WOW feeling? Torque. Is there any comparison in the two chips? Mine makes GOBS more torque in the <3.5k range, which is needed to get the car moving and set you back in the seat, and make your girlfriends scream :D THAT is what we like to see on these graphs.

Likewise with the HP curves, if you look at total area under the curve, I think it speaks for itself. 80 more HP at 2.7Krpm and 40 more HP at 3.0k rpm!!!! from that point on out it holds within a few Hp of the other curve. Also I can see that it is VERY possible the ski chip run was cut shy of the same RPM shutdown as the other chip. As you can see the Decel Fuel Cutoff kick in at the end with the graph going leaner, which is tell-tale of leaving off the gas. Also notice how smooth the curve is getting to that point. My bet is if you would have stayed in it longer to about 6.3k you would have seen higher than the other chips peak values. :yesnod:

At the end of the day, I have been doing this for quite a while and these gains you see in the comparison are nothing to sneeze at. 80 hp at one point, and 40hp in another! Torque that is unmatchable by 160ft-lbs down low. These are all reason why nearly every one of the people that I do chips for see very nice gains at the strip and are VERY happy with the way the car runs there-after.

In the grand scheme of things ask yourself what you are going to notice more, a 160ft-lbs more, or 10 hp at 6.0k rpm? ;) Also I will be taking bets which car accelerates quicker through the 1/4 and turns a better ET, with slicks of course since I know mine will blow the street tires clean off. :D

Good topic :cheers:

 

I would take the car to the track with both chips to see which performs better.

Lookign at the MPH form both in the 1/4 will show the HP of the car. and if you get 2 runs with similar 60ft it will be a good judge of which chip is better.

My one question is concerning the AFR. I would think Ed Wright's chip is a bit better on the AFR side, they both dip rich but Ski's goes to 10:1 AFR in my opinion that is really rich, I would not think you would want THAT much fuel

 

Jeff. Got the wiring harness thanks! Back to the topic at hand and to answer your question. Your question is what the *typical* thinking is....take a look at what happens when the AFR goes rich all of a sudden.....HP shoots up and I get my huge gain in power, right before peak torque. What do you think would happen if I help it at 12.8AFR? Bet the hp gain would not be there ;)

Trust me, I played with my 406 on the dyno quite a bit and there are some things for others to learn here in this discussion. However I hate to give away all my secrets :jester

 

Jesse,

As I pointed out earlier, the chip seems to run fine. My 2 concerns are, 1. running rich, is this going to plug my cats when I reinstall them or for that fact will it cause any other engine problems?ie. excessive cylinder wear etc. 2. In order to make a fair comparison, I need to get you to bump the rev. limiter. Its at factory setting (I believe 5800) and I would like to get it bumped to 6600 and then use the msd 6al to control revs.
I can do a fair comparison by going to a local 1/8 mile track and do back to back runs. The nice thing about this track is there is never more then 30 to 40 cars there on street test and tune nite. I believe the best test would be to let the car shift on its own. I have ET Streets and traction is not a problem.
I can test wed. may the 5th. If this sounds like a good plan to you, I can pull the chip out this evening, then express it to you along with the shipping money to cover return. Oh and for anyone doubting a 1/8 mile being long enough. I have 4.09 gears with a auto, and I am way into 3 by the end. (best has been around 92mph) :cheers:

 

While I agree that Jesse's chip has the Ed Wright chip beat hands down below +/- 3500 rpm, it may not ET quicker. It depends on the rear gear ratio and the shift RPM. Now off the line all that extra Jesse torque and HP will get you to 60' faster assuming adequate traction- once you shift the comparison might end. I know my car only see's less than 3500 rpm once per pass. My recovery rpm after a shift is higher than 3500.

For a one time chip burn its very good. I would definately lean in up just a bit so the cylinders arent getting washed down. As someone stated above, combine the below 3500 rpm Jesse chip with the above 3500 E.W. chip and youll have it all.

 

This guy is a f ing GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!
A legend in the making.........................

 

don't you have to consider the point in which the car reaches full throttle? b/c with my auto i know you had to be at the exact right point when you nailed it so it would not downshift, and anywhere under 3K rpms it would seem to me that it would def downshift.

just my $0.02......


[Modified by clemsonvette, 12:18 AM 4/28/2004]