Uni -Chip Owners Only Discussion Thread......
#82
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Boutte, LA 70070
Age: 47
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
It's almost like you all want this project to fail now. Put your cars on a dyno and see what they run. Until then you really can't complain or comment without anything to back it up. It is only a piggyback computer. It isn't a magical horsepower modification.
The last thing that I want is for the project to fail. I paid $600+ for a product that said to produce X gains. It did not say that it will produce X gains once you spend more $ to get a dyno and custom tune. All I want is proof that I/we will get those proposed gains and I will be vary happy because we will have gotten what we paid for.
Will before and after runs using a G Tech work to determine any gains?
#84
Originally Posted by juice
The last thing that I want is for the project to fail. I paid $600+ for a product that said to produce X gains. It did not say that it will produce X gains once you spend more $ to get a dyno and custom tune. All I want is proof that I/we will get those proposed gains and I will be vary happy because we will have gotten what we paid for.
Will before and after runs using a G Tech work to determine any gains?
Will before and after runs using a G Tech work to determine any gains?
#85
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Boutte, LA 70070
Age: 47
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
G Tech is extremely inaccurate. I would not reccomend it as a primary tool. Possibly a secondary tool, but not exactly my 1st choice.
#86
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by polo
now if it happened to mrsteve then it will happen to me when I put the chip in.
I will be installing everything this weekend but won't be able to make it to a dyno til the weekend after..
If you are worried or concerned then don't install the chip and call Jack.. There's no need for all of us to sit here and go over the same points arguing back and forth.. Obviously if you have these concerns then you need to take it up a level because there's nothing this forum can help you with.
#88
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Boutte, LA 70070
Age: 47
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we post a list of the 30+ people that we part of this GB? Next to each name, each member can put a short comment about their status. That way we can have everyone's opinion. Right now, all we are hearing about is the poor results. Just a suggestion.
#89
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by juice
Right now, all we are hearing about is the poor results. Just a suggestion.
Just poor results? I guess you missed my 6 posts about the post-tuning impressions and the dyno graphs.
#91
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Boutte, LA 70070
Age: 47
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
Just poor results? I guess you missed my 6 posts about the post-tuning impressions and the dyno graphs.
No, I did not miss them. I have been paying close attention. But, your gains came after custome tuning. I call that, initially poor results, because out intentions were not to need custom tuning.
I am very happy that changes were made and that you were able to see the gains. I am just not convinced that your car is different than everyone elses.
I hope that I am wrong.
What do you think, sould i just put it in and see what happens?
#92
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by juice
What do you think, sould i just put it in and see what happens?
#93
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Juice I wouldn't do it if I was you.. You seem pretty hesitant about it.. i would wait for more dyno results before doing so.. Like Jack said there is a huge difference between "feeling" and "numbers"..
Once we get some more dynos, I may start a seperate page or something with results.. But a list of pages with opinions isn't helpful.. Only more clutter..
Once we get some more dynos, I may start a seperate page or something with results.. But a list of pages with opinions isn't helpful.. Only more clutter..
#95
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
The reason why Jonesi doesn't want you to install it right now is because you already have a bias in your head that the chip won't work as it is supposed to. So if you install the chip you will be more likely to say you feel no gains or even power loss. If you do install it, get a dyno done. 'Nuff said.
#97
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by mrsteve
G Tech is extremely inaccurate. I would not reccomend it as a primary tool. Possibly a secondary tool, but not exactly my 1st choice.
Well, if you use the Gtech Competition on a flat road -- no bumps and dead flat -- it can give you some pretty good accurate results..
It's a tool, and can be is very easy to use correctly and incorrectly.
If you don't know what’s going on, it can give silly results (we've seen this). OTOH, if you know what to look for, it will give pretty good results IF and ONLY IF the unit is used carefully and in controlled situations.
Even dynos are easy to screw up. We've seen a few.
Of course, nothing beats a dyno for repeated runs and testing. (no kidding)
#98
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by J.T.'s 3.2TL
G tech is pretty pointless IMO....Before and after dyno on the same day or track time will tell. I totally agree with your above statement however. I'm glad the 6 speed version never came to market... This mod just isn't for everybody.
Again, this is misinformation.
It's another tool that can be used to gather very useful relative information when used correctly.
I've talked about this, and the search engine has plenty of data about this.
If you go to the track and have a bad launch, your not going to know much.
If you go to the track and don't insure a good set of runs that include before mod and after mod, you are going to get 80 responses about what could and couldn't have happened at the track. How many times have we seen results that have varied all over the map during a single session?
If you use the Gtech, and especially use the Competition model on a dead flat road with no elevation changes, you have a chance of getting some good relative results.
Just because some people use the Gtech -- and other accelerometers -- and figure they now have an 6-axis inertial nav unit with GPS correction, doesn't mean that everyone is a clown when obtaining results. I'm sure a guideline could be setup to allow people to at least get a basic idea of gains and/or losses with a given change in equipment, gas, or configuration.
#99
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by juice
Why don't we post a list of the 30+ people that we part of this GB? Next to each name, each member can put a short comment about their status. That way we can have everyone's opinion. Right now, all we are hearing about is the poor results. Just a suggestion.
Good idea. Have the main group buy moderator (that isn't me) edit the thread to eliminate and redirect any non-relevant banter to a parallel thread.
There is one "common" thread though... And, these are my opinions:
1. All the results are not in.
2. It "seems" that an option to allow ANY competent dyno operator or techie to tune the unit would have been important along with a "lowered expectation" marketing strategy. IOW, the importance of telling people that the unit has the potential for nice gains or minimal gains depending on myriad factors. Water over the falls now...
3. More options are better than fewer options.
4. Let the buyer beware.
5. Jumping to conclusions is not going to be helpful. AS I mentioned, in an earlier thread, the guys at SCC had a lot of trouble getting a map to work that consistently made more power for them from one city to another. And, they did a lot of work WITH the chip makers *and* had tons of resources to figure out what was going on.
6. AS with anything new, some folks are going to get mixed results; if you experiment, you are going to end up paying money tinkering with an item that is messing with factory tables that were never made to be messed with. See how well you get a product into the market by telling your buyers about every possible thing that can go wrong. Tell me that you really think that people want to know every possible story that resulted in a failure -- or could result in minimal gains. IMO, this is a sure way to never get something going.
7. Some of the results are going to be "crazy" due to possible Q/A Q/C issues (Someone can get a dud – hey?). Don't be surprised to find one or more units with a bad crimp or bad part causing one or more members to have some really weird problems. I seem to recall some posts about people soldering connections to eliminate bad connector problems. (BTW, I’m not saying this is what’s happening, just something to consider.)
YMMV
#100
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by juice
Will before and after runs using a G Tech work to determine any gains?
While in a level location, turn it on and be sure it is reading close to 0.
Go out and find a nice flat area where you can make a pull in 3rd gear from 2k to redline.
Be sure to have the engine temps stable before doing the first run.
Hit the gas and have the passenger record the G values in 1k steps
The G values at these speeds should be a pretty accurate since there will be little squat. You might want to do several pulls at the same location in the same direction and the corresponding values. After all data is gathered, plot it in Excel.
BTW, don't expect larger changes, they may only be on the order 0.01 on the GTech. That small amount really requires the multiple runs in both set ups.
Just an idea...
#101
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by mrsteve
The reason why Jonesi doesn't want you to install it right now is because you already have a bias in your head that the chip won't work as it is supposed to. So if you install the chip you will be more likely to say you feel no gains or even power loss. If you do install it, get a dyno done. 'Nuff said.
#102
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by EricL
Good idea. Have the main group buy moderator (that isn't me) edit the thread to eliminate and redirect any non-relevant banter to a parallel thread.
#103
Audi S4 driver
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Forked River NJ
Age: 39
Posts: 2,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question .. How would it be possible to get a stock ecu\unichip dyno on the same day? Whether you do the chip run first then stock run, or vice versa, in both cases the second of the two runs won't have allowed for driving and letting the ECU adjust ..
Another thing I dont get in Jacks email is he says its impossible to feel gains at part throttle. However thats where I feel it the most! Honestly the chip feels strongest to me at half throttle through like 2nd and 3rd .. and I can feel quite a bit extra torque when accelerating at low RPM on the highway in 5th, especially in 4th. Weird that he says its impossible to be felt at those points.
So I guess my options are .. go get it dyno tuned at a unichip shop, if all is well, then fine, but if it needs to be further tuned then get it tuned by them and unichip will reimburse me 100$? Or.... I can just not get dynoed and hope that all is well and I'm not running too lean (which will be safe for the motor I'm assuming?)
Oh and .. is calling Jack the only way to find out if there is a local unichip shop?
I just want to see the gains I deserve with everything tuned to the best of its ability, and a safe a\f ratio.
Another thing I dont get in Jacks email is he says its impossible to feel gains at part throttle. However thats where I feel it the most! Honestly the chip feels strongest to me at half throttle through like 2nd and 3rd .. and I can feel quite a bit extra torque when accelerating at low RPM on the highway in 5th, especially in 4th. Weird that he says its impossible to be felt at those points.
So I guess my options are .. go get it dyno tuned at a unichip shop, if all is well, then fine, but if it needs to be further tuned then get it tuned by them and unichip will reimburse me 100$? Or.... I can just not get dynoed and hope that all is well and I'm not running too lean (which will be safe for the motor I'm assuming?)
Oh and .. is calling Jack the only way to find out if there is a local unichip shop?
I just want to see the gains I deserve with everything tuned to the best of its ability, and a safe a\f ratio.
#104
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I tried searching on their site for a local UniChip dealer and couldn't find anything so yes your best option is to call UniChip to find the local dealer..
#105
///M POWER
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 15,299
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ok, i called to set up some dyno dates...
the guy i was talking to was wonder why the hell we were using uni-chip to tune the cars and said its possible w/ the e-manage. i explained to him that e-man. hasnt worked on n/a applications for our cars, then went on to tell me that who ever was trying to tune the e-manage to our cars had no idea what they were doing. he is 100 percent confident he can tune the e-man to my car. the manage only costs 300+1 hour of tuning at 120 dollars. if the uni-chip dont work for me i will def try this route.
the guy i was talking to was wonder why the hell we were using uni-chip to tune the cars and said its possible w/ the e-manage. i explained to him that e-man. hasnt worked on n/a applications for our cars, then went on to tell me that who ever was trying to tune the e-manage to our cars had no idea what they were doing. he is 100 percent confident he can tune the e-man to my car. the manage only costs 300+1 hour of tuning at 120 dollars. if the uni-chip dont work for me i will def try this route.
#106
Just installed mine at work. Took between 15-25min. first start was slightly hesitant,then started right up and idled fine. Started it two more times just to check and everything is perfect, no cel light. It's like it was never installed even with my remote start. Will be taking for a ride at lunch and the ride home. I'll post review later tonight
#108
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
There's another guy Cory 02 that had his dyno'd and I'm trying to help him get the dynos posted.. So we'll start to see some actual data soon..
#109
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD
Age: 47
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by blader
One question .. How would it be possible to get a stock ecu\unichip dyno on the same day? Whether you do the chip run first then stock run, or vice versa, in both cases the second of the two runs won't have allowed for driving and letting the ECU adjust ..
#110
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by derelict
Blader this is EXACTLY what I have been thinking through this whole dyno/test process. With the "learning" time required by the ECU I don't see how you can ever do a same day (or even same week) compare.
#113
Revving at 9K...
Jack gave me a call yesterday afternoon, we had a long chat about what is going on with the first maybe 1/2 dozen people who have now received and installed the chip.
And I think Jack's email reply to Mrsteve is more than fair on their part, to take care of any problems the buyers might have with the product.
Think of it this way. Maybe Mrsteves car was a factory freak to begin with.. he's car already runs leaner than at least both Matt's and my car, hell my car pre-chipped with about the same mod produced a lot less power than his pre-chip dyno. I mean, don't we all already accepted the fact that sometimes one car from the factory will perform better than the rest or perhaps worse? Maybe he's stock ECU was a bit different?
G-Tech
IMO, even if the conditions weren't perfect (ie flat road etc..) I do think the result gain/loss will still answer the question about power gain. But not in the sense of exact HP/TQ, but more of a percentage gain. As long as the person using the GTECH be consistent about each run, its just simple mathmatics to calculate the percentage gain before and after the Chip. Although I'm not saying the % itself is accurate, but it will give us a good idea on if the Chip is helping or not.
And I think Jack's email reply to Mrsteve is more than fair on their part, to take care of any problems the buyers might have with the product.
Think of it this way. Maybe Mrsteves car was a factory freak to begin with.. he's car already runs leaner than at least both Matt's and my car, hell my car pre-chipped with about the same mod produced a lot less power than his pre-chip dyno. I mean, don't we all already accepted the fact that sometimes one car from the factory will perform better than the rest or perhaps worse? Maybe he's stock ECU was a bit different?
G-Tech
IMO, even if the conditions weren't perfect (ie flat road etc..) I do think the result gain/loss will still answer the question about power gain. But not in the sense of exact HP/TQ, but more of a percentage gain. As long as the person using the GTECH be consistent about each run, its just simple mathmatics to calculate the percentage gain before and after the Chip. Although I'm not saying the % itself is accurate, but it will give us a good idea on if the Chip is helping or not.
#114
Revving at 9K...
Am I reading this right? looks like his a/f is also about 14? but it does show some gains.. but I'm not sure which graph is for which dyno. (with or without chip)
#115
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by CLS2001_97124
Am I reading this right? looks like his a/f is also about 14? But it does show gains though.
Brian do you have jacks email address? I want to send him as much data as possible to help them out..
#116
Revving at 9K...
#117
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by CLS2001_97124
Am I reading this right? looks like his a/f is also about 14? but it does show some gains.. but I'm not sure which graph is for which dyno. (with or without chip)
Looks closer to 15:1 to me. Especially in Vtec. Running lean isn't that bad though... better gas mileage and cleaner for the environment too
Looks like your gains are similar to mine, I just put out more power. This could easily be explained by differences in dynos. What gear did you dyno in and was it a DynoJet?
#118
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Any dyno charts posted I will forward to Jack to provide them with all the data they could possibly need..
Cody 02 - Could you post your mods, location and any other pertinent info.. Thanks..!
Cody 02 - Could you post your mods, location and any other pertinent info.. Thanks..!
#119
Luvn' the S
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, the runs were made on a dynojet 244x I think was the model number, hot as hell and humid in there yesterday... 90+ degs. Summer time in Richmond VA.
The 210.97hp run was with the unichip and the 204.98 run was without. First run was with chip then I unhooked it and made two more runs without. The recorder lost info on the one run about 6200 rpms... might have been a little higher hp then noted. I didn't unhook the battery when I disconnected the unichip so ECU should retain all normal settings.
Absolutes are lower than I would like to seen but it was the differentials we needed for this unichip verification. There are gains through the whole band but the open loop A/F ratios with the chip are leaner than I think they should be. I'd like to talk it over with them. Not sure if the it the open loop A/F ratios were closer to factory that I might see even more gains and not be running the engine so lean.
The 210.97hp run was with the unichip and the 204.98 run was without. First run was with chip then I unhooked it and made two more runs without. The recorder lost info on the one run about 6200 rpms... might have been a little higher hp then noted. I didn't unhook the battery when I disconnected the unichip so ECU should retain all normal settings.
Absolutes are lower than I would like to seen but it was the differentials we needed for this unichip verification. There are gains through the whole band but the open loop A/F ratios with the chip are leaner than I think they should be. I'd like to talk it over with them. Not sure if the it the open loop A/F ratios were closer to factory that I might see even more gains and not be running the engine so lean.