performance chip upgrade

[mikedev10]

ok guys, i have a '90 535i, and 93 octane available in chicagoland to me.

compare:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mdsylva/products.htm
to
http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=E34535

which chip should i go for??

also what is stock rev limit (i thought 6500) -
planning on doing my first track event (gingerman) this summer, any recommendations helpful. :)

[shogun]

I have never tried it, but is that statement true? For a '90 535i ?

Horsepower Gain
+ 43 @ 6250 RPM

Torque Gain
+ 21 @ 2000 RPM

New Rev Limit
6800 RPM
-------------------------------------
Unbelievable. Serious tuners offer for my 5 Ltr V12 M70 engine + 30 HP only from original 300 HP, and that is already a bit on the high side.
Or is the measurement method the key. In Europe they measure at the wheels, not what comes out of the engine shaft.

[Robin-535im]

Of all the seat-of-the-pants comparisons done here on this board, the EAT chip wins out. I've tried EAT and the Bav Auto, and would choose the EAT hands down. Mark also posts here and is a great resource for all things motronic. Plus, many of the board members are test monkeys for Mark's products so you know they are put through the ringer by E34 lovers.

I think Winfred tried the JC vs. EAT with a few trial runs in his 535 and shaved a few tenths off his 0-60 with the EAT over the JC.

[Tcdoe]

Might as well post my experiences here. I've had the EAT chip for about a week now. I already had a performance chip of unknown make before but after reading all the hype here I decided to go for the EAT, also the old chip ran a bit lean on high revs. The most notable difference is the raised revlimit (6250 -> 6800). Other than that the idle and revving is a bit smoother. But I also can't help feeling that some of that punch at around 4000rpm has been lost. I haven't measured any 0-60 times or dynoed it so I don't know if there really is any difference. As for the fuel economy, it seems to be the same as before because I've been flooring it most of the time. :)

All in all, I'm happy with EAT because of the raised revlimit and increased smoothness. I'll probably visit a dyno again in the near future, I'll update you then.

[Warren N.CA]

Wouldn't swap my EAT chip for anything ("89 535i, manual trans.)

[JonE]

I've been happy with my EAT chip, noticeable difference as stated above, better throttle response and 1-2 mpg better mileage. Didn't need the raised rev limit as mine is an automatic. I think if you talk to Mark, he may be able to create a version for you that would be optimized for the 93 octane. Usually 91 octane is required for the standard EAT chip. My stock m30 ran fine on 87 octane.

[Incantation]

get E.A.T

[Beez540]

I like my E.A.T. chip alot.

[bondheli]

How do you guys get the courage to test out the 6500 rev limit on such high mileage cars? My bimmer has 195,000 miles. If I broke 5k revs, I think my engine would explode!
Should I try it?

[mikemaster]

For the 535, I'd definitley get the EAT chip. LOTS of happy customers.

[Mobius]

Wouldn't swap my Jim Conforti chip for anything ('93 535i, manual trans.)Edited for me.

Does anyone here actually have a Jim C. chip?

[mikedev10]

thanks guys, looks like i'll go with eat - can more be squeezed out with 93 octane? is 65 6800 a safe rev limit? i have 143k miles, going to a race track (gingerman) and don't want to hurt her either, she is my daily driver for work !