TeamSwift

Okay guys i just had my new chip (Toms II) dyno tested against the original toms chip. here are the results: An increase of about 2.5-3 hp and ft/lb's of torque throughout the entire rpm band. Its a straighter power band as well. the largest increase is about 7 ft/lbs of torque and about 5 hp at 4000 rpm. at the top end the total peak hp is up 2.5hp at about 7200 rpm. don't look passed 7200 rpm as the ignition got a little screwey and the readings are not very accurate. the chips were tested on an 89 gti with all your basic bolt ons, short ram intake, cultus intake manifold, cultus cams (same lift as stock just a tiny bit more duration), header and exhaust.

in the attached dyno graph the yellow and light blue curves (top lines) are the new toms II chip runs and the pink and purple (bottom lines) are the original toms/rally chip runs.

My new chips will be sold at $50.00 cdn plus shipping and i believe are well worth the money. pm me if your interested...

_________________
14.84 @ 93.89 with No ITB's, No standalone computer, No dog box, Stock MAF, Single TB and Street tires all in a complete mk2. not bad eh!

You have that backwards.

_________________
Contact 3tech: [email protected]

oops, sorry bout that...

_________________
14.84 @ 93.89 with No ITB's, No standalone computer, No dog box, Stock MAF, Single TB and Street tires all in a complete mk2. not bad eh!

I don't suppose you have the results from the same car and a stock ECU by any chance? That would sure be a good selling point, seeing how much you've gained over the original Toms Chip, i bet it looks waaay prettier than stock now Btw, still haven't gotten mine put in, i will be sure to let you know.

i thought i had a stock chip lying around but i didn't, regardless i'm sure its a significant gain over stock. give me some feedback when you get yours in.

Thank you for everyones interest so far

_________________
14.84 @ 93.89 with No ITB's, No standalone computer, No dog box, Stock MAF, Single TB and Street tires all in a complete mk2. not bad eh!

You should try testing YOUR chip that you have Against Tom's/Tom's II. I'd like to see what comes of that!!! I know people have dropped in your chip without cams and had good luck.

_________________
"One Of Three ORIGINAL (CERTIFIED) LNLC Co-Founders"
1991 Suzuki Swift GT.
1994 Suzuki Swift GT.
If my Swift was as fast as Tg or m's car I'd be famous...
My car is a trailer queen 'cause it's too slow to merge safely into traffic

i will be getting one of these for my 91.

_________________
HANSTECH
2001 suzuki swift GA. gutted,srd headers,straight piped,SRI,50mm tb,ported intake manifold,coolant bypass,3tech cam.
member of team

my gti has been dyno tested @ 95HP SAE.. @ wheels.. without chip, without intake mods, only decat pipe and cannon backbox..
now i see you dynograph with about the same power... are you guys doing something wrong orso?

put it this way...A cultus with 113hp crank hp which is about 98hp atw has different cams, 11.5:1 compression pistons, different intake manifold, 4-1 header and a reprogrammed ecu. Your trying to tell me that your car makes very close to the same amount of power as a cultus with no mods??? first i would ask what type of dyno did you use? second, higher than normal horsepower figures can easily be achieved by manipulating the parameters on the dyno software. I'm sorry there is no way your car is actually making that much power with no modifications, how can you meraculously explain a 10% hp increase without any mods, think about it. Here are two other guys that have been fooled by their dyno graphs. These are two dyno graphs from guys on the redlinegti.com site

Ruben
Mk3, G13b stock
119.40hp atw

Razel
NA Suzuki Swift GTI G13B with KN Filter
homemade 4,5" muffler
114.90hp atw

_________________
14.84 @ 93.89 with No ITB's, No standalone computer, No dog box, Stock MAF, Single TB and Street tires all in a complete mk2. not bad eh!

You can't compare results from different dynos.

_________________
Contact 3tech: [email protected]

I have to agree. When comparing* I always compare dynojet to dynojet and mustang to mustang. Even staying with same type can get different numbers depending on who's runnign it, temps, air pressure.... all that other fun stuff.


*Comparing is being used very loosely. Objectively looking at the data and taking it with a grain of salt. Dyno data is really only USEFUL to show changes to the same car on the same dyno.

What I've always said, its a tuning tool, and nothing more.

_________________
Contact 3tech: [email protected]

So I guess the big question I have is: What is the most recent/prevelant thought on percentage of drivetrain loss? 10? 15? 20?

can someone post the graph in jpg or png for my eMac?

_________________
looking for:
the time i mispent in my youth

daily driver: red 1991 Metro 3cyl 5sp, roof rack, 8 degree advance,
got 61 mpg combined on 14" tires but i prefer 12"

completed frame up restoration: black 1994 Swift GT 5sp -- like new ! 45mpg

i'll try to scan the graph in.. my car was measured on dynojet dyno.. must say, i think the guy ran in 3rd gear..

i didnt say i have no mods, just little mods.. like exhaust in 2.5 inch in the front to 2"in the back. Removed throttlebody warming further more just good ignition timing & fuel pressure..
some guys here in holland did 100hp @ wheels with just tuning fuel and ignition..
and he's on this forum as well.. rvengineering

now this is just funny

So doesn't that say something to you...?

If a car rated at 100hp at the crank is putting out a measured 100hp at the wheels with that little modification, it seems pretty obvious that your measurements aren't very accurate. Engine dynoes will often have a high level of precision... it will replicate the results over and over with very similar outcome... but a relatively low level of accuracy.

It's been said in this thread before, but comparing numbers from dyno to dyno is pretty much useless... especially when you have such a small margin of error (+/-5hp @ the wheels out of 100 hp means way more than +/-5 hp @ the wheels out of 300 hp). Dynos should be used primarily, if not SOLELY as a tuning tool, not as a horse power "rating" tool, and especially not if you're going to claim accuracy within 1 or 2 hp.

You need to use your head with these dyno numbers. If someone takes an engine that is rated at the crank at 100hp fresh from the factory, and then dynos that same engine with very little mods and tells you they got 100 hp at the wheels, that right there should tell you something is wrong with those numbers.

I'm also curious as to gear multiplication factors. Some run in 3rd, some in 4th. I cranked my 89.4hp in 4th at over 125mph on the dyno. I personally considered that a "goal achieved" with a first time effort on an unknown tune and 200k mile head.

so being named Reuben adds 40 rwhp
and adding K&N and homemade 4,5" muffler costs 5 hp
OH MY !

100 yrs before the dyno was invented
the con man sold "snake oil" to people and they felt gooooood.

_________________
looking for:
the time i mispent in my youth

daily driver: red 1991 Metro 3cyl 5sp, roof rack, 8 degree advance,
got 61 mpg combined on 14" tires but i prefer 12"

completed frame up restoration: black 1994 Swift GT 5sp -- like new ! 45mpg

I realize this thread is a bit cold, but i was browsing and had to pipe in... European spec gasoline is usually a much higher octane than ours is, perhaps this is the discrepancy? dont they run like 93 octane as their lowest grade?

No, its the same, its just classified differently.

_________________
Contact 3tech: [email protected]

RON= Research Octane Number
MON= Motor Octane Number

They were numbers taken when running fuel through two different research engines with different parameters.

(R+M)/2 is (RON+MON)/2

For example in Australia we use RON. The standard for 95 RON will have a minimum MON of 85 (same in Europe I believe). Therefore the (R+M)/2= 90

_________________
ET 13.138 at 120.2mph

I just installed the chip last weekend, I must say I really feel the power increase (didn't dyno or anything). But my first and secnd gear really pull verry nice!
Only con is that my CEL lits up... But on behalve of that I'm having a good experience with it

i just put my swift on the road today after sitting for a year
drove to toronto to pick up sandros chip
i previously had toms chip installed and it was a big difference from stock
and sandros chip is even a bigger difference from toms
car pulls A LOT harder and quicker
from about 4k to 8k+ much quicker than toms chip
runs a bit richer
idles very nicely at 900rpm with 340/210 cams

two tumbs up for this chip.

_________________
93 Swift GT White 3Tech cams, Sandro's chip, Lightned flywheel, Genie exhaust, Cultus header, Intrax springs.
08 Civic Wife's car

is there any way that this chip can be ordered online? can I see a weblink if available?

_________________
1994 Suzuki Swift GTi