Have to agree with Chad on this one. Chad has shared a wealth of information over the past two years to everyone. Two established Giac dealers advised Chad that it was no big deal to remove this code. Upon hearing that is was Chad's car both dealers told him they could not do anything to help. So as much as this has been labled a friendly shootout what happened clearly implies differently.

 

LOL but wait till you see the monkeytronic out-shift Dave Coleman!

 

2 more cents and I am done with this one. Those of you who know about programming, there is not just a simple "code" that needs to be removed. This requires a major portion of the program to be re written. (Chad’s states that this is "innocent open request to make a simple adjustment") If it is so friggin simple and why doesn’t Chads tuners figure it out. Why would Nissan want to help Honda????????????? Get over it already. This is the most ridiculous shoe stomping over the top form of "I cant get what I want so I will bad mouth the hell out of them and show them what type of a player I am." No disrespect Chad but I have heard enough about this. I will ask again, if you have 805 HP at less than 1.3 bar of boost, why would you want more?????

 

Todd,

The answer to that question is when the TBC shuts down at 1.3 bar, the wastegate also shuts down, creating an "overboost" condition in the ECU. Then the car ends up running in limp mode due to the self-protection mechanisms in the Motronic.

You have firsthand experience with this, because that is what happened with my car last weekend. This is why the car was down on power, so now it runs like Matt's car instead of the way it should be. Just kidding...

Great to meet you last weekend.

 

European Car is going on and on this month about the "Monster 996 Turbo" created by Racer's Group. They talk about the 1.6 boost, but after reading this thread I think we all know Racer's Group isn't capable of getting a real 1.6 bar boost (1.3 bar limitation).

This line in particular cracked me up:

"Few understand the complexities of a showroom-stock turbo let alone comprehend the wizardry required to make the car's ECU communicate with a new collection of components dedicated to extreme performance." According to Chad, the Racer's Group is not able to "make the car's ECU communicate with..." either since they've thus far been unsuccessful in eliminating the 1.3 bar nanny.

Anyway, I thought it was kinda weak that they went on and on about this "monster 996 turbo" while saying the end result was 550 hp and 425 lb-ft. LOTSA places are getting 550 hp out of 996 TTs and they actually manage to boost the torque in the process by more than a mere 10 lbs!

 

Well Racer's Group uses the UNICHIP don't they? So that piggyback system is able to "lie" to the computer so it might be true... I just don't like fact that the car's safety features are removed.

 

Yes RG uses the Unichip, but I think they no longer deal w/ it? I'm not sure completely, but I remember reading that they no longer deal w/ it. But it may just be that they have an outside location now and don't do the unichip tuning in house.

 

the article says it is unichip.

 

If Unichip is that great, why does Kevin Buckler's racing GT3-RS use the Motec?

 

Maybe they switched to the Unichip this year, and that's why Alex Job is smoking them.

Ok, that was a low blow... I suspect the real problem is lack of funding this year. Speed costs money (the old cliche), and while he wants to go fast, he's running short of funds... Also, Alex appears to be getting access to the factory's new go fast parts before others...

 

As I was saying I wouldn't want Unichip on my car

 

Todd@EVO

I am not really sure why you are asking that question. I believe you already know the answer. I feel like you are trying to belittle me. Maybe I'm wrong. I will answer your question.

My car with the 3.6L motor makes maximum torque at 4580 rpms and maximum hp at 7300 rpm's (without CO2 and N2O). There is a lot of room to play as my torque is still extremely strong as low as 3800 rpm's. My target is to run the car at 1.3 bar. To run a consistent 1.3, I will see a spike of approx. 1.35. Currently, if I run the car at 1.25 I will see a spike of 1.3 getting there. I am currently changing my motor output curve. Without the CO2 and N20 my rwt is approx. 608 ft/lbs. @ 4580 and it tapers off from there. With the CO2 and N20 I have the ability to raise the torque and hp as I wish. What I am doing is adding a little torque after 4580 and increasing it as the rpm's increase. My objective is to maintain 600 rwt from 4590 through 6800 rpm's. In other words I want an average torque of 600 foot pounds from 3800 through 6800 rpm's. This will drop my rwhp to about 630 max., however my acceleration will be somewhat like an air craft carrier plane launch. The CO2/N2O will fill in the dyno torque drops valleys and hopefully help with engine longevity.

With my intercoolers, induction air temperatures become a deficit after 1.3 bar. The 1.35 spike with a constant 1.3 is optimum with present set up.

Does that answer your question?

 

Not really. Your signature says 805 HP your explanation doesn’t help me understand the 805 HP. Sorry I am not belittling you just confused

 

Todd,

Forget the 805. Let's talk 681 rwhp@7300 rpm's and 661 rwt @ 4580 rpm's. . I do not need this much power at 7300 rpm's or 4580. I have a program that can pulse the N20 and control the CO2. It also can activate a second stage (or plume injector) on demand. I have found I can drop my peak hp and torque and fill in the torque after after 4580. This has a relationship to my charge air temperatures. The charge air temps become deficit returns when my boost gets over 1.3 bar. So I want to maximum boost at a constant 1.3.

I believe your dyno chart will peak torque somewhere between 3800 and 4500 rpm's and go down from there, with my system I will peak and hold. What I want to achieve is a lower maximum but a higher average rwt from approx 4000 through 6800 rpm's.

You must also keep in mind, I have four rwhp modes, roughly 526, 614, 630 and 681. What we are attempting to accomplish now is eliminating mode 3 and 4. Replacing it will a lower maximum but higher average power curve.

 

Todd/CJV

Both of you seem to be well respected on this board and I don't personally know either one of you. So a subjective opinion just based on this thread is that it would better serve you both if you took this debate/discussion offline.

IMHO of course... which may mean nothing to either of you..

Can't wait to see the results of the "shootout" though !!