THRASHER Differences ???

[TurboGeezer]

Need a little help from y'all that are familiar with the THRASHER chips (thanks in advance).................. here goes:

Is the 97 chip just like the 92 with a little more timing? boost?

Does the 97, therefore, adjust boost in all gears, like the 92??

What are the approximate boost levels for the 92? 97?

Does the 92 chip run the stock injectors static at WOT??

Does the 97 chip run the stock injectors static at WOT??

In other words, what are the detailed differences between the 92 chip and the 97 chip?? The 97 chip seems like it would be great to run with the boost turned down a tad on the street. When reaching the track, just put in some octane and turn up the boost.

I would ask Scott, but I heard that he was real "MEAN"

Just kidding...............Any help Scott ???

TG

 

[Razor]

The difference between the two basically is the amount of timing at WOT. The tables are the same for all the thrashers as far as timing cept the WOT slots. Which determine your octane requiremnet.

How much boost is a silly question..kinda..see the chip has no way of knowing what boost your running. This is an arbitrary number programmed in the fuel table for WOT. And the thrasher is an open loop chip at WOT which means it doesnt rely on O2 reading for its calibrations.

So if you run higher octane, you can benefit from the additional timing. If you dont..dont add timing since it brings its bad little brother Mr Knock

No it doesnt run the injectors static..unless the demand for the motor tells it needs more fuel..I have seen runs on my car at 120 percent when using the stock injectors..that was a 12.20 run... so it will make injectors static if the demand is there for fuel..

Lastly youll probably be faster running higher boost than higher timing..in other words..you can make more power at 23 PSI on a 92 chip using 100 octane vs 19 PSI on a 97 chip using 100 octane..these numbers I pulled out of my arse for demonstartion purposes..assumming turbo is efficient..

Makem sense

Hth

 

[TurboGeezer]

Just Wondering the Relative Numbers....

Thanks for the reply Razor. Yeah, I've actually been running these things for awhile (TR's) and burn my own chips................ I didn't mean for it to sound like I didn't understand chip, etc. basics. I am just looking for some relative numbers between the two chips. This will actually be an experiment on a friends GN and we will probably order both versions from Scott and do some testing. Here is the info. that I am working with so far on this one:

I remember seeing somewhere (Thrasher site, Scott post, etc.) that all STOCK INJECTOR Thrashers run the injectors static at WOT. I am just wondering if this applies to both the 92 & 97.

I know timing in the Thrashers is a "different" thing and cannot be directly compared to other chips.............but I am assuming that the 97 runs more of this stuff (ie like a 22* chip)........just wanted to confirm.

The boost tables and etc. on a thrasher seem to cause approximately the following settings (given a stock length wastegate actuator):

1st - 22psi
2nd - 19psi
3rd - 17psi
4th - 17psi

I am hoping on the 97 that this has not changed. On many race chips, the boost is set to something like 22psi for every gear at every RPM and just left that way (chip makers assume that you will only run a "race chip" at the track with max octane). Hopefully, the 97 will have a similar gradient, as this allows a little more flexibility to what we are trying to accomplish. I used the terms "adjust boost" just to describe this gradient. Unfortunately, you are right. There is no feedback loop for boost control on these vehicles.................too bad. Wouldn't that have been nice if Buick would have been able to create their own "electronic boost control" right in there own setup........dream on

Anyway, sorry I was a little unclear before. Perhaps this will shed some light on what I was really trying to get at...........Thanks.

TG

 

[Scott231]

OK, I am on vacation but have time to answer this. I am ASSUMING that you are talking about the stock injectored constant chips....

Originally posted by TurboGeezer
Is the 97 chip just like the 92 with a little more timing? boost?

Yes and No. The 97 chip was produced before the final "K" level software.

Does the 97, therefore, adjust boost in all gears, like the 92??

No. The 97 chip was produced before the final "K" level software. This is one of the features missing from the 97 chip.

What are the approximate boost levels for the 92? 97?

Depends on the length of your wastegate rod. But you'll see the most in first gear.

Does the 92 chip run the stock injectors static at WOT??

Yes -- the quote your refer to in your next post is from me...and I learned it from Tom Chou back when he was interested in turbo buicks. "The stock GM chip for stock injectors, runs the injectors static at WFO. Most of the early aftermarket chips that had altered fuel curves did nothing to the WOT performance, but simply starting the running of static operation sooner in the RPM band."..or something like that.

Does the 97 chip run the stock injectors static at WOT??

Yes.

In other words, what are the detailed differences between the 92 chip and the 97 chip??

More timing and less features with the 97 as it is based on the Z level software which is a precursor to the K level.

The 97 chip seems like it would be great to run with the boost turned down a tad on the street. When reaching the track, just put in some octane and turn up the boost.

That had been done by lots of people. This chip (97) is also quite popular with the alcohol injection people. 92 octane fuel, spray in some beer...and viola' - No detonation.

I would ask Scott, but I heard that he was real "MEAN"

Fsck you.

 

[TurboGeezer]

Thanks Scott........

Thanks for the reply Scott!! If you are answering questions while on vacation, then certainly all that they say about you cannot be true

Besides, I know that "FSCK you" is French for: " Gee I wish all TR people were as great as you"

TG

 

[TurboGeezer]

Hmmm.........Z or K ???

Scott,

I missed this before, but just now looked back at the list of available Thrashers and .....................

Originally posted by Scott231
I am ASSUMING that you are talking about the stock injectored constant chips.............

The 97 chip was produced before the final "K" level software. This is one of the features missing from the 97 chip.

From your list of available chips, it looks as if the STOCK INJECTOR 97 Chip has the "K" level software , but that the BLUETOP Chip (97) uses the "Z" level software...........

Hmm.........am I reading this right or is the stock injector 97 chip still not have all of the features of the 92 ??? It seems like perhaps the bluetop chip is the only one without all of the "K" features..............

TG

 

[TurboGeezer]

Anyone???

Can anyone elaborate on the "K" vs "Z" software question from above??? It looks like to me that the stock injectors get the latest "K" version and the bluetops get the older "Z" version.

Scott?? or Russ??

TG

 

[Scott231]

Re: Anyone???

Originally posted by TurboGeezer
Can anyone elaborate on the "K" vs "Z" software question from above?

The original programmer told me that the first 26 versions were labeled A-Z. When he kept on developing, he just restarted at "A" and by the time he got to "K" (the second time), it ws perfected in his eyes. As the the "Z" level chips are the 26th iteration of the Thrasher code and the "K" vrsions I sell are the 37th.

It looks like to me that the stock injectors get the latest "K" version and the bluetops get the older "Z" version.

No, all the stock injectors chips and all the bluetops are offered in the final K version, with one exception. The 97 bluetop chip which is missing some ofthe final features like BLM 128 lock, MAF 128 lock, gear dependent timng & boost control variances for 1st gear.

Incidently, Russ doesn't do Thrashers anymore

 

[Razor]

Strange.. I was under the assumption that static meant the injector was running at 100 percent duty cycle?

If so..this would be way too much fuel in a lot of applications and too little in others.

The BLM lock I do understand..the static thing has me a bit
becuase static and BLM lock are two different things..or am I in the wrong tree?

 

[Scott231]

Originally posted by Razor
Strange.. I was under the assumption that static meant the injector was running at 100 percent duty cycle?

If so..this would be way too much fuel in a lot of applications and too little in others.

The BLM lock I do understand..the static thing has me a bit
becuase static and BLM lock are two different things..or am I in the wrong tree?

Running the injectors static generally means 100% duty cycle at WOT...but you have to define the RPMs that are included in "WOT".

Yes, if you run the injectors static at idle, it will flood the motor.

A BLM lock (usually at 128) simply means the ECM will not give any more injector pulsewidth at any RPM based on O2 readings...but the pwm may change due to several other factors.