"Powerchip" for F355 - good or evil?
Discussion
www.nicksforzaferrari.com/355_power.pdf
Came across this interesting link... wondering what collective PH wisdom might be on the matter?
355 is no slouch, but extra power is always good!
Are there better/less risky alternatives to making a faster and torquier 355?
Came across this interesting link... wondering what collective PH wisdom might be on the matter?
355 is no slouch, but extra power is always good!
Are there better/less risky alternatives to making a faster and torquier 355?
I'v had a read of the attachment and IMHO I would say the claims are all realistic. I have done some dyno work and and more advance does give more power if the fuel octane rating is higher. The engine could run a bit hotter.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
fbloke said:
I'v had a read of the attachment and IMHO I would say the claims are all realistic. I have done some dyno work and and more advance does give more power if the fuel octane rating is higher. The engine could run a bit hotter.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
Are Euro cars set up the same as US cars out of the factory?
Our fuel is significantly higher octane than the US get - the attachment noted that one of the chips (the "top of the range one"
) was specifically for 93 octane fuel! Even our crap stuff is 95. I would guess the "boost" on a Euro car running 98 octane fuel may not be so great (assuming the factory use different maps for Euro cars).
murph7355 said:
fbloke said:
I'v had a read of the attachment and IMHO I would say the claims are all realistic. I have done some dyno work and and more advance does give more power if the fuel octane rating is higher. The engine could run a bit hotter.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
Are Euro cars set up the same as US cars out of the factory?
Our fuel is significantly higher octane than the US get - the attachment noted that one of the chips (the "top of the range one"
) was specifically for 93 octane fuel! Even our crap stuff is 95. I would guess the "boost" on a Euro car running 98 octane fuel may not be so great (assuming the factory use different maps for Euro cars).
Depends what octane figure you are talking about. AFAIK, the US use the PON system whereas we use the RON.
mattyboy101 said:
murph7355 said:
fbloke said:
I'v had a read of the attachment and IMHO I would say the claims are all realistic. I have done some dyno work and and more advance does give more power if the fuel octane rating is higher. The engine could run a bit hotter.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
They are not claiming a massive power increase but the figures are in the region I would expect.
Would I spend $2500 dollars for this ..... dont know . Its a matter of personal opinion.
Are Euro cars set up the same as US cars out of the factory?
Our fuel is significantly higher octane than the US get - the attachment noted that one of the chips (the "top of the range one"
) was specifically for 93 octane fuel! Even our crap stuff is 95. I would guess the "boost" on a Euro car running 98 octane fuel may not be so great (assuming the factory use different maps for Euro cars).
Depends what octane figure you are talking about. AFAIK, the US use the PON system whereas we use the RON.
Yep, this comes up over and over again - they use a different octane rating system.
Stand corrected and hang head in shame
www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMONPON.html
Still doubtful about these chips though...
www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMONPON.html
Still doubtful about these chips though...
Mmmmmm.....
Lets muddy the waters a bit more. If from the link I've just read 95 Ron is roughly equivalent to 91 PON and the Americans use PON ratings then there is nothing to be gained by tweeking the timing. It would be set right for our regular fuel (95 RON). But then if they rate 95.8 PON as equivalent to 100 RON weare back to an opportunity to tweek the timing safely and get a bt more power.
My experiance is based on a racing engine that was running 12:1 compression ratio 43 degrees of advance ( a lot )and using Supergreen (99 Ron I think) fuel. Then I couldnt get Supergreen any more so I used the best I could get (about 97 RON). Add that to temperature that day 32-35C and we melted a set of pistons in an engine that had run this configuratin for two years with no problems.
I fixed the problem by reducing the compression ratio by about .2 to 11.8 (grinding out the combustion chambers) and reducing the the advance by about 2 degress. The engine was then reliable again but it was not quite as "sweet"
Later on Optimax came on the market I started using that and I got the timing back to 43 degrees (99ish RON)and the engine got "sweeter" again.
I think the combination of reduced Octane and higher than usual ambient was the killer combination for my engine.
There are other devices that can affect the timing on an engine with a decent ECU.Ferrari 355 used Motronic 2.7 and later ones used Motrinic 5.2 these are or were state of the art.
I have seen a map for a modern 1600 Ford engine and it has upto 60 degrees of advance in the map (This is lots ,25-30 degrees is more realistic). HOWEVER this advance is modified dynamically based on the input from a knock sensor. The knock sensor is fundamentally a microphone linked to the ECU that can hear detonation and rapidly allow the ECU to tweek the timing to prevent further detonation.
I dont know if the 355 engine has one but I suspect that being a high performance state of the art engine it would have so the iginition map would be influenced by this. Just to add to the complexity I havent even mentioned Operating temperarue ,Lambda sensors and air fuel ratio which all influnce when the spark is fired.
Confused ....I am.
Bottom line , all production engines are mangad by the ECU to be safe so change the settings and yo could get a benefit but you would move closer to potential failure under extreme conditions.
Ken
PS Having said all that I am going to take my untweeked 355 out for a blast and fill it up with Vmax
Lets muddy the waters a bit more. If from the link I've just read 95 Ron is roughly equivalent to 91 PON and the Americans use PON ratings then there is nothing to be gained by tweeking the timing. It would be set right for our regular fuel (95 RON). But then if they rate 95.8 PON as equivalent to 100 RON weare back to an opportunity to tweek the timing safely and get a bt more power.
My experiance is based on a racing engine that was running 12:1 compression ratio 43 degrees of advance ( a lot )and using Supergreen (99 Ron I think) fuel. Then I couldnt get Supergreen any more so I used the best I could get (about 97 RON). Add that to temperature that day 32-35C and we melted a set of pistons in an engine that had run this configuratin for two years with no problems.
I fixed the problem by reducing the compression ratio by about .2 to 11.8 (grinding out the combustion chambers) and reducing the the advance by about 2 degress. The engine was then reliable again but it was not quite as "sweet"
Later on Optimax came on the market I started using that and I got the timing back to 43 degrees (99ish RON)and the engine got "sweeter" again.
I think the combination of reduced Octane and higher than usual ambient was the killer combination for my engine.
There are other devices that can affect the timing on an engine with a decent ECU.Ferrari 355 used Motronic 2.7 and later ones used Motrinic 5.2 these are or were state of the art.
I have seen a map for a modern 1600 Ford engine and it has upto 60 degrees of advance in the map (This is lots ,25-30 degrees is more realistic). HOWEVER this advance is modified dynamically based on the input from a knock sensor. The knock sensor is fundamentally a microphone linked to the ECU that can hear detonation and rapidly allow the ECU to tweek the timing to prevent further detonation.
I dont know if the 355 engine has one but I suspect that being a high performance state of the art engine it would have so the iginition map would be influenced by this. Just to add to the complexity I havent even mentioned Operating temperarue ,Lambda sensors and air fuel ratio which all influnce when the spark is fired.
Confused ....I am.
Bottom line , all production engines are mangad by the ECU to be safe so change the settings and yo could get a benefit but you would move closer to potential failure under extreme conditions.
Ken
PS Having said all that I am going to take my untweeked 355 out for a blast and fill it up with Vmax
Edited by fbloke on Sunday 14th January 10:55
fbloke said:
...Bottom line , all production engines are mangad by the ECU to be safe so change the settings and yo could get a benefit but you would move closer to potential failure under extreme conditions.
Ken
PS Having said all that I am going to take my untweeked 355 out for a blast and fill it up with Vmax
Ken
PS Having said all that I am going to take my untweeked 355 out for a blast and fill it up with Vmax
Indeed!
The key thing here is that the replacement cost for a 1600 Ford engine is peanuts (relatively). So play away and see what fun could be had.
But you're going to be looking at very serious costs if you mess around with a 355 engine and it goes badly - not only in the cost of sorting the engine out, but if you need to replace the engine, you're going to need to explain that at resale time and potentially take another hit.
For 20bhp or so it is, in my opinion, simply not worth it for a road car. The shapes of the power/torque curves do not change, so you still have the option of getting caught off-cam and floundering. And on a 350bhp+ engine, I can't see you noticing 5% or so on your power figure (if you do, you're probably not driving sensibly on public roads).
Often with these things people will tell you they categorically know there was a difference in power etc, even when the figures don't back this up. The lightening of your wallet often does funny things to your powers of recollection...
Have heard quite alot of stories re the different chip upgrades for various cars over the last 2 years or so.
IMHO be VERY careful who you let mess with your mapping, most have no idea how to properly map an engine. Unless the car is s/c or turbo charged then the gains will always be pretty small anyways. So I guess you have to way up the potential risk vs the hp gain.
For me, the moral here is that you get what you pay for with chip upgrades
IMHO be VERY careful who you let mess with your mapping, most have no idea how to properly map an engine. Unless the car is s/c or turbo charged then the gains will always be pretty small anyways. So I guess you have to way up the potential risk vs the hp gain.
For me, the moral here is that you get what you pay for with chip upgrades
I have a fair amount of experience on this issue.
There are substantial differences in the various "chip" brands. The main issue to be diligent over is to do with whether the chip upgrade is a downloaded file or custom calibrated ecu.
A downloaded file is a "hit and miss" affair because it will have been developed on someone elses car (probably in a different country or even continent), whereas a custom calibrated ecu means that the fuel and ignition parameters will be optimised on a dyno on your own car.
Even a custom calibrated ecu will only be as good as the person doing the job, so further diligence is required here.
The way we custom calibrate ecu's on the dyno is to gradually advance the ignition timing to MBT (the minimum basic timing where no further increase in tractive effort is recorded), and then optimise the air/fuel ratio. This provides a safe and effecive solution.
Hope this helps
There are substantial differences in the various "chip" brands. The main issue to be diligent over is to do with whether the chip upgrade is a downloaded file or custom calibrated ecu.
A downloaded file is a "hit and miss" affair because it will have been developed on someone elses car (probably in a different country or even continent), whereas a custom calibrated ecu means that the fuel and ignition parameters will be optimised on a dyno on your own car.
Even a custom calibrated ecu will only be as good as the person doing the job, so further diligence is required here.
The way we custom calibrate ecu's on the dyno is to gradually advance the ignition timing to MBT (the minimum basic timing where no further increase in tractive effort is recorded), and then optimise the air/fuel ratio. This provides a safe and effecive solution.
Hope this helps
pentoman said:
Purely on the issue of extracting more power...
Don't modern cars with knock sensors run pretty much up to the limit of 'knock' and therefore near to the limits of how much power you can obtain by changing ignition timing?
Don't modern cars with knock sensors run pretty much up to the limit of 'knock' and therefore near to the limits of how much power you can obtain by changing ignition timing?
Suprisingly enough, most cars have sufficient scope for a meaningful spark advance increase before the knock sensor activates (when using high octance fuel).
Another angle.
Look at the specific output of a 355. Well over 100bhp per litre. This is a lot for a 3.5 litre V8 (the BMW M5's V10 "only" manages 100bhp/litre and is a good decade newer - more if you consider the origins of the 355's V8).
Any gains you might get from messing with the ECUs are going to be small (these are not mass produced engines with wide open tolerances running ultra conservatively). Any downside is going to be huge.
Ask the vendor if (a) they will refund your costs if the car makes no more power, as tested independently, and (b) if they will warranty your engine against failure for 3yrs/60k miles...
Look at the specific output of a 355. Well over 100bhp per litre. This is a lot for a 3.5 litre V8 (the BMW M5's V10 "only" manages 100bhp/litre and is a good decade newer - more if you consider the origins of the 355's V8).
Any gains you might get from messing with the ECUs are going to be small (these are not mass produced engines with wide open tolerances running ultra conservatively). Any downside is going to be huge.
Ask the vendor if (a) they will refund your costs if the car makes no more power, as tested independently, and (b) if they will warranty your engine against failure for 3yrs/60k miles...
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff