Conforti software - original Shark OBDII re-program VS. Shark Injector

[CaptainPlanet]

I see quite a bit of controversy concerning Conforti’s engine software upgrade, particularly when talking about the Injector. Before the Injector, you had to send away your car’s computer to get it Sharked with the software upgrade. Back then, Conforti’s software seemed to be equal in quality to Dinan’s engine software upgrade. Users of the original OBDII Sharked cars did not seem to complain of the adaptation ability to the driver’s style. The software stayed strong throughout the use of the car. But with the new Shark Injector, it seems there are mixed results. Some people notice a difference; others don’t feel any difference, and still others state that the software mellows out after a while and does not perform quite as well as it adapts to their driving style.

Is there truly a difference between the Injector and sending in the OBDII unit to Conforti to be re-programmed? Possibly, could it be that when sending away the OBDII unit for a week, the M3’s owner was forced to use a vehicle of lesser performance, and consequently when the re-programmed OBDII unit was back in the vehicle, they felt quite a difference because of not being able to drive the M3 for a week? With the Injector, the user can feel apparent results immediately.

For those of you who do own an injector and have felt the adaptation kick in and mellow out the car, does it help to re-inject the Conforti software again? Does it help to put back the original OEM software, drive for a while, then re-shark it again?

[Kevlar]

I could be wrong here but...

I believe if you send your OBD-II computer to JimC, you get the same software that you would get if you got the OBD-II Shark Injector. The shark injector is just a convinient way of doing it yourself.

As for adaptation... it depends on the car. Some cars adapt better than others due to running conditions of the engine and driver habits. With the JimC software, I noticed a consistent boost in power... but I also noticed that my MPG went down and the back of my car was covered in unburnt fuel. So I went to a dyno and had the car analyzed. With the JimC chip... the car was running a rish 11.8:1 air/fuel mixture above 4500rpm. I thought that was odd.

So I converted to the AA software instead. After back to back runs, I gained 2.5HP and 5.1ft-lbs of torque and the car ran a safe 13.0:1 - 13.5 above 4500rpm. My MPG went up by 3-4MPH and the back of my car is no longer covered in as much unburnt fuel.

Just my $0.02

[Kevlar]

There is a dyno chart at http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno that compares a car with the JimC Shark Injector vs an AA Chip

[dbruce]

My bet is that the Shark Injector allowed every Tom Dick and Harry to reprogram their M3.

Usually, the only people who mention results are those that have problems.

So many more reprogrammed M3's and many more opinions on how well it works (or doesn't).

[gschomi]

There are alot of SI owners who have had good results with it and there are others (like myself) who say it did not do anything or hurt performance. I did not gain any HP and lost torque and my MPG dropped. I removed the program and everything went back to normal. It does work great on OBD 1 cars though.

My .02 is spend the 400.00 on a CAI, short shifter, or guage kit. At least you will KNOW that they work.

[S--K]

Kevlar,

In a previous test you had run a stock M3 vs. a sharked M3 and there was hardly any difference. In another test
you run your M with CAI, JC Chip and AA exhaust vs. the same car with an AA Chip, the difference this time was only 2.5 HP. So does this mean that with a CAI and AA exhaust the AA chip is only good for 2.5 HP?

Nice dynos, my only suggestion would be to add graphs that show how much of a difference each mod makes standalone then add combos like how much do I get with AA Chip and exahust *on the same car* (I know it's harder to test on the same car but it make for a much more fair comparison.)

Thanks.

[Kevlar]

Originally posted by S--K
Kevlar,

In a previous test you had run a stock M3 vs. a sharked M3 and there was hardly any difference. In another test
you run your M with CAI, JC Chip and AA exhaust vs. the same car with an AA Chip, the difference this time was only 2.5 HP. So does this mean that with a CAI and AA exhaust the AA chip is only good for 2.5 HP?

Nope...

The test car was a car with a CAI and Exhaust.

On car 'A' ... the car put down 212/209 on the wheels with the JimC software.

On car 'B' ... the car put down 215/214 on the wheels with the AA software.

So the AA software made 3/5 more on the wheels with that car so equipped with the intake and exhaust. On the stock chip, I'm guessing it'd put down something like 205/203 on the wheels. Unfortunately we did not test the car with the stock programming. We should have, I know... but the day was running short and we ran outta time.

You idea about comparing cars individually is right on the money. However, sometimes it's just not possible. We try to compare the same cars when we can.

[S--K]

Do, I have to send my ECU to AA for their "chip"?

Can you speak on the OBDII's adaptation, is this true?Does adapation make the gains go away?

[aus]

Kevlar, how much is the AA OBDII software and how is it installed? Thanks.

[Kevlar]

Can you speak on the OBDII's adaptation, is this true?Does adapation make the gains go away?

OBDII adaptation is true... it's put there to help keep your engine running properly and in the best condition is can run it. It works both ways. You engine can adapter stronger or weaker... depends on a bunch of operating conditions of you engine.

I would only get the software if you already have an intake and/or exhaust. Software does nothing for WOT if you have the stock intake/exhaust setup. It does however help partial throttle power.

Do, I have to send my ECU to AA for their "chip"?

Yes

Kevlar, how much is the AA OBDII software and how is it installed? Thanks.

$400 installed. i love it. I had the shark injector in my car before. While I did see a boost in power, I also saw a lose of MPG and unburnt fuel all over the back of my car : . I have since upgraded to the AA software and I got a 3-4MPG increase. You can see the comparison of the two JC vs AA on the AA website.

[S--K]

Kevlar,

On your webpage it says your car can go 0-60 in 5.38
seconds and the 1/4 in 14.2. Was this at the track or
gtech'ed? What do you think accounts for the slow
1/4 time but the high trap speed of 100+ mph?

[Kevlar]

It was gteched. The gtech times are normally pretty close on the 1/4 mile times, but the trap speed is normally high since it takes 1/4 mile speed at that instant where on the track... the 1/4 speed is taken at two points and averaged.

I'm guessing the slow quarter mile time was attributed to a slow 2->3 shift or the amount of extra weight I was hauling around when I was doing the 1/4 mile testing.

I didn't have the forethought to take all my junk out of the car and run with a 1/4 tank of gas.