Where did you hide the nozzles?
I didn't have to, they were factory installed. Of course they are only squirting oil on the pistons but they are there
Sounds good to me if they prove to work good I just didn't want to buy a reader and software/etc if someone here already has it.
It's said that the early production (94) cars had larger cylinder head ports. Not sure how that compares to what they used in the challenge cars or even what the power difference is but may be something to consider?
I have a reader...just need one chip to get an image as they should be identical side to side. My car also feels very strong (late '94 build). I think the cats play a large part as mine doesn't have them. I will be reworking my exhaust while it's apart to put high flow primary cats and gut the secondary pipe as right now it's backwards...
Pete, any interest in taking a look at these chips? Also you may want to consider replacing the y-pipe. The merge isn't the greatest (and has a divider plate) and the tubes slid into the cat section makes a big ridge that could be a slight restriction.
Sure, I can get an image off of one that we can dissect. Tim may be able to help as well, I'm still figuring out what is where on the maps.
I have a set of TPS chips for my 95 that I don't use. Bought them 10 years ago and not sure if they are even around anymore. If someone wants to look at them, I can send them to you.
Thanks, I'm not too concerned about copying them (unless someone else wants them, feel free). Just wanted to get an idea of what was changed before trying them. (or not)
FYI, I have a set of 348 TPS chips and when we compared them to the Spider set, well, really a Challenge set, they weren't that great in the output department. They did spin to 8000 rpm though. Between us Stooges we probably have 8 different chip sets. Who would have thought? I got to believe that there are more than a single version of the 355 2.7 chips. I have running in my car the best of the sets we dynoed on my car and they are supposed to be 1994 Spider chips that came in NOS ECU's - not out of a car. It turns out that the right and left were different (by comparing the data digitally) so we just burned 2 pairs. I have the A's in the car. Haven't tried the B's yet. I tell ya, this is a strange business. James the issue we were having on the 355's was pulling the rpm signal from the spark plug wire - simply too much interference. On the Dynapak, the tech tells the machine what its revving at some point, inputs the final drive ratio and it goes from there. At least that is how it appears. We couldn't get a decent and reliable reading off the Dynojet using the induction sensor. Getting the signal from somewhere else not affected by the cross talk is probably the answer but I couldn't tell you where.
Gotcha. That's a neat way of doing it. No option for that on a Dynojet that I'm aware of. I have 2 other options. Optical pickup which works directly off of the crank pulley with a piece of reflective tape, or much easier and still more reliable than the secondary induction pickup is the primary induction pickup. (I just don't really want to open the harness casing just for an rpm lead). Do any of the track guys run a wideband on their car? I would guess the effects are minimal but it's been said that at WOT 2.7 ignores maf inputs so how much does it lean out at higher speeds due to ram air effect? I'm guessing just a few tenths of a point and less than 5kpa manifold pressure but not sure. (I wouldn't want to run it on the ragged edge as far as air fuel on the dyno if it leans out significantly at speed)
Bob, I'll get the image off of them if you want to send them (or one) my way, then we can see the difference between stock, yours and the tubi chips.
Did you guys pull the plug wires out of the valve cover and try? Or try replacing one wire with a larger shielded one? If you had a wire with a straight lead on the plug end, it should work fine on a dyno.
