Gains from ECU Mods

[MMiskoe]

Now here is a question - Since (currently) IT is strictly normally aspirated engines, how much (what percentage) can actually be gained simply by re-curving the map? I know the Miata's picked up about 4% on PEAK power by leaning out the upper part of the curve on some of the later 1.8's (1996 to 1997?). But on a system that measures MAF and provides fuel accordingly, how much is there to gain in this? (this excludes some of the old systems like Bosch D that has a fixed map and works off manifold vacuume which doesn't easily pick up on improvements to the rest of the motor, I think they really can make some gains by scrapping the OEM system & starting over)

With all the questions getting raised about if the ECU rule should get changed, I am curious what sorts of advantages are really being had, and by how many cars.

- what overall gains are made by starting from scratch?
- how many cars in IT can take advantage of an aftermarket system? I doubt that there is enough interest in the Wombat GT for someone like MOTEC to bother with it. BMW 325's & 2nd gen RX7s yes.
- what overall gains can be made w/ the current rules, but simply re-chipping/flashing the OEM system? Therefore what is the difference between this and a start from scratch system?

Lets here it, I'm curious.


Matt

[Andy Bettencourt]

Matt,

I hope other people will tell you what they have seen. I have seen the following (they may not represent best of breed but just my own eyes, both Dynojet):

Rotory: Well known Programmable ECU - 5 more peak whp, 10 more peak wtq and a general flattening of the TQ curve.

I have also seen that same set-up make 1 more peak whp and only 2 more ft/lbs on a well-built and tuned unit.

I hope to figure out how to get a Progammable unit to work on the Miata this winter. Bottom line, I can't give away any power in this class in a Miata.

Steve L from BBRacing should post, he just did some tuning on a 240SX...

AB

[SPiFF]

~6hp with a Hondata system on my ITS GSR.

[Gregg]

About 12 ft-lb tq, 10hp and a general flattening of the curves by re-programming the stock PM6 ECU of my CRX Si's D16a6 motor.

Edit: All work was done on the same Dynapak (http://www.dynapak.com) chassis dyno.

[jamsilvia]

Originally posted by SPiFF@Nov 20 2005, 08:14 PM
~6hp with a Hondata system on my ITS GSR.

66100


On my street version 240SX (same motor as the racecar - i.e. stock internals, but has cams installed) - there was a 13HP peak gain and 9 torque. The only change on the car (other than weather) was the ECU:

Before and after ECU dyno charts (http://www.negative-camber.org/jam149/projects/s14_105345/240dyno.html)

The ECU was a commonly available one for the Nissan's - a Jim Wolfe Technology N/A program.

Another advantage with the ECU in this case was a raise of the rev limiter. The S14 240's had a 500 RPM lower rev limiter. The ECU pushes the limit to around 7000 RPM like the earlier cars, and as you can see with the original chart, it was a needed bump as the new cams were just making peak power at the old rev limit.

Hope that's useful info for you,
joe

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

Good information, but not really a valid data point due to the cams.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 02:19 PM
Joe,

Good information, but not really a valid data point due to the cams.

66199

Why not valid if cams were there on both runs? I believe in looking at his data the percent of gains is about the same. The issue with te JWT program is it is still generic to what Clark (programmer at wolf) feels is correct. Without having somebody burning chips while at the dyno your not going to extract the best map for your car.

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

I said that because I saw that they were JWT cams and a JWT box. If nothing else, I would think the maps would be optimized for the cams, since they both come from the same vendor. Even if that's not the case, you can't say that the new box doesn't take advantage of the new cam profiles. Without knowing more about exactly what changed w/ the new cams (was it just lift? did duration and overlap change? are the lobe centers still the same?), you can't say the gains w/ the new box were just due to the new box.

I'll give you an example from the old Rabbit GTI days. You could put the bigger throttle body and the G-grind cam on, but if you didn't change the horrible 'toilet bowl' exhaust manifold, you would see little to no gains. But, if you used even a stock Rabbit dual-port manifold, you'd see the cam/t-body wake the car up. If you just looked at a dyno sheet w/ the cam/t-body, w/ the stock manifold, and then one w/ the dual-port manifold, you'd think that all the gains came from the manifold, and nothing from the cam/t-body.

[Knestis]

I can get up to 20 hp from this (http://cgi.ebay.com/MAX-HP-Rac-Chip-MAX-HP-For-VW-Volkswagen-Golf_W0QQitemZ8016698413QQcategoryZ33598QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem).

K

[jamsilvia]

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Nov 21 2005, 05:08 PM-->
I said that because I saw that they were JWT cams and a JWT box. If nothing else, I would think the maps would be optimized for the cams, since they both come from the same vendor.[/b]

The ECU that JWT offers is the same reguardless of the cam profiles. I actually ordered the ECU before the cams - but due to long waits on the JWT programming at the time, the cams came first. So when I ordered the ECU, I didn't even have planned to get the cams in there anytime soon!


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 05:08 PM
Even if that's not the case, you can't say that the new box doesn't take advantage of the new cam profiles. Without knowing more about exactly what changed w/ the new cams (was it just lift? did duration and overlap change? are the lobe centers still the same?), you can't say the gains w/ the new box were just due to the new box.

You do bring up a valid point. The engine WILL breathe better with the cams. So the ECU, even in a state of tune NOT specific to the cams, could make more HP automagically.

The cams, BTW, run the same lobe centers, but have a longer duration (hence more overlap) and more lift. However, the motor in this car is not built. There's no port matching, no building of the top end clearances. So while the cams let the engine breathe better - so do the tricks that you are allowed to do to an IT motor.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 05:08 PM
I&#39;ll give you an example from the old Rabbit GTI days. You could put the bigger throttle body and the G-grind cam on, but if you didn&#39;t change the horrible &#39;toilet bowl&#39; exhaust manifold, you would see little to no gains.

Note, that how much the engine can breathe is independant of the ECU. (edit: well at least in the case of non-VTEC/VANOS type motors, where the breating can be somewhat ECU controlled - but the 240 is not er....so technologically advanced!). In your example, however, you are pointing out gains due to increased flow on one side of the engine vs the other. These 2 variables, however, are NOT independent. Flow out affects flow in on the motor. And vice-versa. So it does make sense to see the results you stated.

As was pointed out, however, the dyno runs in my car were both with the same exact mechanicals. So although I agree with you that a cammed motor will most likely see more gains from an ECU than a stock motor, I don&#39;t think that it would be significantly different than a built motor (and actually, I&#39;d guess that a rebello built motor would see even better gains - even tho the ECU is not optimised to the build). I&#39;d also expect that a custom ECU program would see even more gains than the generic JWT item (that is programmed to be compatable with a large number of different states of tune).

joe

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by jamsilvia@Nov 22 2005, 02:29 PM
I actually ordered the ECU before the cams - but due to long waits on the JWT programming at the time, the cams came first. ...

So while the cams let the engine breathe better - so do the tricks that you are allowed to do to an IT motor.


joe

66278


Please... PLEASE Tell me that you are talking about a NOT-To-be-used-for-IT-Racing motor here... and that you are not referring to a CAMMED engine in your ITS S13... :blink:

[jamsilvia]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 22 2005, 10:09 AM
Please... PLEASE Tell me that you are talking about a NOT-To-be-used-for-IT-Racing motor here... and that you are not referring to a CAMMED engine in your ITS S13... :blink:

66287


BWHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Yes! - that dyno&#39;d motor is in my "track car" S14. It&#39;s too pretty to have the fenders knocked in with IT racing!

My S13 motor looks like this:

My s13 motor (http://www.omtay.org/gallery/clunks_motor)

It has...er...had 175k on it, and was never opened before it was "prepared" to the state you see it in the pics.

joe

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

I used the Rabbit GTI case as an example of how parts worked together. And while the JWT box may be the &#39;standard tune&#39;, I would think that they set it up to work w/ their cams. Gotta work off of same baseline when they&#39;re programming it.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 22 2005, 08:24 AM
Joe,

I used the Rabbit GTI case as an example of how parts worked together. And while the JWT box may be the &#39;standard tune&#39;, I would think that they set it up to work w/ their cams. Gotta work off of same baseline when they&#39;re programming it.

66292


Not the case.... ;)

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 19 2005, 11:37 PM
Matt,

I hope to figure out how to get a Progammable unit to work on the Miata this winter. Bottom line, I can&#39;t give away any power in this class in a Miata.

AB

66034


Andy, why is it hard to find a progammable ECU for a Miata, should be really strait foward or am I missing something?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 22 2005, 11:36 AM
Not the case.... ;)

66295


So please elaborate Joe. They code the ECU up to work better w/ stock cams? someone else&#39;s cams? an imaginary cam?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 22 2005, 12:47 PM
So please elaborate Joe. They code the ECU up to work better w/ stock cams? someone else&#39;s cams? an imaginary cam?

66337


Performance is not just a single horsepower number at wide open throttle. Throttle response, drivability and efficiency (maximum power to fuel ratio) are also among the true qualities that define performance. The original ECU program is limited by compromises made in these areas by the factory in the elusive attempt to satisfy "all the people all the time". POP or Performance Optimized Programming is the technology we use to unlock these compromises. POP is much more than just changing a few numbers in the memory maps of the control program. Without a thorough knowledge of the engine management control system and a skillful ability to optimize all areas of the programs inside, this extra performance is untouchable. Optimizing begins by addressing the fuel and ignition timing demands required for crisp response during throttle position changes. It requires that the actual memory maps be extended far enough to reach the high rpm and load limits of the higher capability of the engine. This can be critical to safe operation at higher output, since the stock maps are not designed with memory cells that address the higher loads and rpm (the stock program can only make a best guess at the needed fuel and ignition timing). Variable computer controlled cam timing is an innovation used on many Nissans, optimizing these cam timing points for load and rpm is a must for optimized performance. Once all of the detailed "housekeeping" work is finished, such as raising the rpm limiters and removing the speed limiters, the "maps" can be tuned to perfection. Many days of dynamometer and road testing are required to achieve the maximum safe performance level from the vehicle. Air/fuel ratios and ignition timing are constantly monitored throughout every load/rpm combination and new values are continually downloaded to the engine control unit and evaluated for optimum results. All of this information is then assembled into a final program which is installed and tested in every unit before you receive your upgrade package, making it a "plug and play" upgrade! Performance optimized programming is truly today&#39;s tuning tool for performance, offering a unique ability to "surgically tune" the engine without disturbing the light throttle and cruising modes of the original program. Tuning is done outside of these areas to maintain the original fuel economy, and smooth drivability, while maximizing performance where it really counts.

Here you go Bill try a little research next time. It ain&#39;t that hard to get. This is what you get when you order the wolf box for a stock car. They will do custom programming for a fee.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 22 2005, 12:47 PM
So please elaborate Joe. They code the ECU up to work better w/ stock cams? someone else&#39;s cams? an imaginary cam?

66337


I&#39;m elaborate a bit Bill. I&#39;m quite familiar with Wolf and have been there a few times and one of my really good friends works closely with them on a lot of stuff.

JWT&#39;s basic ECU remap is for a car with stock components and their POP Charger (cone filter with a huge machined adapter with a big venturi). Beyond that, they have remaps for a wide variety of things. It&#39;s pretty amazing the number of maps they have available, all optimized for the various components or very very similar set-ups.

So, yes it&#39;s possible to get a remapped ECU for an otherwise stock engine. They are pretty unique in the aftermarket ECU tuning world in breadth of their offerings (and not junk offerings either).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 22 2005, 01:56 PM
Andy, why is it hard to find a progammable ECU for a Miata, should be really strait foward or am I missing something?

66329


Making sure the options all fit in the stock housing.

[MMiskoe]

ECU tuning is a definte gain and one that is worth enough for people to after and have it be a competative gain. Didn&#39;t really need to ask that.

Now I should have posted my question differently.

What gains can be had w/ a completely built from scratch system (IE Motec) that are not availble by reprogramming/chipping the stock ECU?

What I am curious about is what is available through a completely custom designed system that is not available by re-working the existing system? IE for the guys that do go out and get the custom made system worth 10 years of entry fees, what do they gain that they couldn&#39;t get by simply reprogramming what they already had?

[mowog]

Not all ECUs can be reprogrammed. Try finding anyone who can custom program the ECU in a Contour. It may be similar to a ZX2, but it isn&#39;t the same, and the motor won&#39;t even start if you try to use a ZX2 ECU on it. I&#39;m sure there are other examples out there.

Can you readjust a carburettor for better tuning? YES. Without allowing ECU mods, can you tune a car without a carb? NO. Is that fair?

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by MMiskoe@Nov 23 2005, 03:13 PM
What gains can be had w/ a completely built from scratch system (IE Motec) that are not availble by reprogramming/chipping the stock ECU?

What I am curious about is what is available through a completely custom designed system that is not available by re-working the existing system? IE for the guys that do go out and get the custom made system worth 10 years of entry fees, what do they gain that they couldn&#39;t get by simply reprogramming what they already had?


And here we go again (no offense Matt).

Advantages of stand-alones are as follows:

More data points for finer resolution of curves and better management
Much faster processing
Typically has ability to data-log on-board
Easier to manipulate on-site for most platforms (reprogramming)
Availability to all platforms (unless there are space constraints)
Built to work in open loop
Lower overall cost if ECU platform has not yet been disassembled (code-wise)

Disadvantages:
Must be completely refit within new housing to meet rules
Must figure out starting point from scratch
More $$ initially
Easier to screw up if not done right (read: make engine blow up now)

Would you like some specifics?

Tip- Someone above mentioned about flatter curve. MUCH easier to achieve with aftermarket. Don&#39;t look at peak numbers, as they tell VERY little of the story.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 23 2005, 01:45 PM
Not all ECUs can be reprogrammed. Try finding anyone who can custom program the ECU in a Contour. It may be similar to a ZX2, but it isn&#39;t the same, and the motor won&#39;t even start if you try to use a ZX2 ECU on it. I&#39;m sure there are other examples out there.

Can you readjust a carburettor for better tuning? YES. Without allowing ECU mods, can you tune a car without a carb? NO. Is that fair?

66497

Chris, I bet I can find a crack for that box. It just kills me everytime somebody says it can&#39;t be done. It&#39;s an ECU code was written on the chips some how.


Contour 2.0L 1995-2000 PZL0 +13HP +16ft/lb
Contour 2.5L 170 HP 1995-2000 XXY4 +17HP +20ft/lb
Contour 2.5L SVT 200 HP 1998-20001 NUN1 +20HP +20ft/lb

Which car we working with. This is a company that makes a flashable chip for those cars. numbers look pretty good for a generic chipset.

[mowog]

Joe, please try. Many have tried, including a Ford engineer and a Visteon engineer. No one has been successful finding the existing map, and none have been able to locate the tools necessary to reflash the EEPROM. The specific ECU is HCA5.

Oh yeah, on a chassis dyno the gain from the ECU replacement was 5 horsepower. This was after several hours and assistance from a professional tuner.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 23 2005, 06:56 PM
Joe, please try. Many have tried, including a Ford engineer and a Visteon engineer. No one has been successful finding the existing map, and none have been able to locate the tools necessary to reflash the EEPROM. The specific ECU is HCA5.

Oh yeah, on a chassis dyno the gain from the ECU replacement was 5 horsepower. This was after several hours and assistance from a professional tuner.

66533

What year are we working with? I would be happy to talk to my guy. Need some data.

As far as engineers go, your trying to work with grownups.....that&#39;s the problem..lol

[mowog]

Yeah, that could be the problem :D .

The motor is 98/99 Contour/Mystique 2.0L. The number of ECUs available is somewhat long, this is the only one that can be used for our application.

We also checked on piggyback modules just for fun (wouldn&#39;t fit inside the box so wouldn&#39;t be legal - remember we have to run IT rules), and no one had anything for this ECU. In other words, after about 5 years of looking into this, everyone struck out. So good luck!

[spnkzss]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 23 2005, 03:45 PM
Not all ECUs can be reprogrammed. Try finding anyone who can custom program the ECU in a Contour. It may be similar to a ZX2, but it isn&#39;t the same, and the motor won&#39;t even start if you try to use a ZX2 ECU on it. I&#39;m sure there are other examples out there.

Can you readjust a carburettor for better tuning? YES. Without allowing ECU mods, can you tune a car without a carb? NO. Is that fair?

66497


Same for a 1990 Honda Civic DPFI. I can&#39;t even bump the rev limiter.

[stevel]

Originally posted by MMiskoe@Nov 23 2005, 07:13 PM
What gains can be had w/ a completely built from scratch system (IE Motec) that are not availble by reprogramming/chipping the stock ECU?

What I am curious about is what is available through a completely custom designed system that is not available by re-working the existing system? IE for the guys that do go out and get the custom made system worth 10 years of entry fees, what do they gain that they couldn&#39;t get by simply reprogramming what they already had?

66489


In my experience (which isn&#39;t as much as say Joe Harlan, but a good amount) the short answer is not much. Granted I&#39;m speaking in broad terms here but the gains from tuning a chipped ECU as opposed to a MOTEC on a typical IT car are going to be minimal. I would be surprised if the graphs looked that much different. Another thing on here that people key in on too much is peak numbers, area under the curve is way more important I think. Peak numbers can be deceiving, you may only gain 3 peak hp but may gain like 15whp in the middle of the rev range.

I tend to find that what you need to do is richen up the low end of the rev range and lean out the top end. I guess they richen up the top end so it doesn&#39;t pull so hard and you&#39;re not tempted to pull it to redline all the time, that and the safety factor of having it rich incase there&#39;s a problem. Seems to be pretty typical in the cars I&#39;ve tuned.

To me the advantage of the bells and whistles systems is it makes it that much easier to tune. And what I mean by that is the data you&#39;re getting back. Most of my experience is in tuning hondas and a lot is available, some even rival a good standalone. And the datalogging and feedback I get from the ecu makes tuning that much easier because I know whats going on. I can see all the engine parameters, exactly which datapoint the ecu is using at that moment, and the ability to record that and go back later. Not to mention some have an autotune feature. You plug in the A/F you want for the particular cells and just continue to do runs and the software tweaks it til you get there. I usually don&#39;t use that as I can usually get there quicker, but the feature is nice.

Now that I&#39;m working on Nissans here the tools utilizing the stock ECU are very sparse. I&#39;m just getting into and have finally got myself a CONSULT box (for datalogging) and will see how that helps me. But the editors just have the bare minimum and it makes tuning difficult and take longer. Now, if I had one of the AEM systems, I could have gotten a lot more out of it and done it much quicker. So, the extra cost of the bells and whistles can sometimes save you time in the end. I&#39;m going to struggle with the free editors out there for my S13, but i&#39;m not too psyched about it.

P.S. Joe Harlan, could you email me at steveluszcz [at] hotmail dot com when you get a chance. Thanks. I have some questions for you regarding Nissans.

steve

[Joe Harlan]

http://www.spmotorsports.com/contour_elec_chips.html

Chris, These guys are listing a superchips chip for that car. Is this bad information? Chrus I am not being a smart a** I really believe these things can all be cracked.

Stevel I will hook up with you nect week. I think you are close on the stand alone but there is way more than people think. Average HP wins races Peak HP wins dyno shows.

[chuck baader]

On several of the other boards, BMW ones I look at, quite a few people are going to Megasquirt, espically those who turbo motors. I know the unit will work with my sensors and fit in the constraints of the stock ECU box, so I wonder why the IT community has not been working with this cheap alternative to MOTEC? The latest version of MS will have the ability to tune each cylinder for timing and mixture in (I think) 100rpm incriments. Chuck

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 24 2005, 02:23 AM
http://www.spmotorsports.com/contour_elec_chips.html

Chris, These guys are listing a superchips chip for that car. Is this bad information? Chrus I am not being a smart a** I really believe these things can all be cracked.

Stevel I will hook up with you nect week. I think you are close on the stand alone but there is way more than people think. Average HP wins races Peak HP wins dyno shows.

66558

Joe,

Help Steve out - but not too much! I have to race against these freaking things!!!

Happy Thanksgiving!

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 24 2005, 08:01 AM
Joe,

Help Steve out - but not too much! I have to race against these freaking things!!!

Happy Thanksgiving!

AB

66564

Haha...Andy I just can&#39;t be held responsible for your taste in cars.

[mowog]

Joe, talked to them long ago, they don&#39;t have anything that will work with our ECU.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 24 2005, 09:34 AM
Joe, talked to them long ago, they don&#39;t have anything that will work with our ECU.

66577



Can you give me a specific application for the ECU you are using and maybe a part number. I&#39;ll see if I can get my hands on one to take apart.

[mowog]

It&#39;s the ECU from the 1998 Contour/Mystique 2.0L gas motor (vin 3), number 98-BB 12A650-AXF, code HCA5 (note the code is the critical information that needs to be matched, not the part number).

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by spnkzss@Nov 23 2005, 07:43 PM
Same for a 1990 Honda Civic DPFI. I can&#39;t even bump the rev limiter.

66541

http://www.autoserve.8m.com/StepByStep_OBD...tion_OBD_0.html (http://www.autoserve.8m.com/StepByStep_OBD0/Chip_Installation_OBD_0.html)

Try here first. Let me know what is special about your application. I cant think if a Honda out there beside the S2000 that doesn&#39;t have ECU support. In this case it looks like replacing a chip on the main board. We have to replace chips and sockets on the 240sx but it can be done.


Chris, Is this an english based ECU? And thanks I will see if I can get one of these to take apart.

[MMiskoe]

Thanks folks. I started this as a self serving fishing expedition and everyone&#39;s been quite helpful. I read and participated in the online survey about ECU rules, then realized that I wasn&#39;t sure I had made a well edjucated (sp?) vote. Not knowing what the differences were between modifying an OEM system vrs starting from scratch.

Now I think I know. I appreciate the input.

IMHO leave things be for a few years & the aftermarket will catch up and it will be cheaper to go w/ a completely open rule. Especially as cars get more complicated and include more non-racing features (Kirk&#39;s security problems come to mind).

[mowog]

Chris, Is this an english based ECU? And thanks I will see if I can get one of these to take apart.

No, this is a stock American 1998 Ford Contour 2.0L gas (vin 3) ECU. Readily available in junk yards throughout the US. I sent you a PM, as I&#39;m sure others aren&#39;t the slightest bit interested. The point remains, no every car&#39;s ECU can be reprogrammed, and some (most?) don&#39;t have the room for a piggyback module inside the stock case, assuming something is even available for their application.

So again I ask the general IT public, would it be fair to rescind the ECU rule when those with carbs and adjustable timing can make changes that boost performance?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 24 2005, 12:37 PM
Chris, Is this an english based ECU? And thanks I will see if I can get one of these to take apart.

No, this is a stock American 1998 Ford Contour 2.0L gas (vin 3) ECU. Readily available in junk yards throughout the US. I sent you a PM, as I&#39;m sure others aren&#39;t the slightest bit interested. The point remains, no every car&#39;s ECU can be reprogrammed, and some (most?) don&#39;t have the room for a piggyback module inside the stock case, assuming something is even available for their application.

So again I ask the general IT public, would it be fair to rescind the ECU rule when those with carbs and adjustable timing can make changes that boost performance?

66590


So again I say as long as that is condsidered in the classification of the car then yes. If it turnsout later that it can be modified then that should be taken into consideration.

What funny to me is when I was a low life automotive tech(kidding about lowlife) Ford had a lot of ECU&#39;s with UV erasable chips and they were removable from the factory board. I find it hard to believe that this type of mod could not be done to this ECU. I am gonna dig into this after the holiday.

[stevel]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 24 2005, 05:57 PM
http://www.autoserve.8m.com/StepByStep_OBD...tion_OBD_0.html (http://www.autoserve.8m.com/StepByStep_OBD0/Chip_Installation_OBD_0.html)

Try here first. Let me know what is special about your application. I cant think if a Honda out there beside the S2000 that doesn&#39;t have ECU support. In this case it looks like replacing a chip on the main board.


Joe,
You are pretty much right on. There is almost no stone left unturned for Honda ECU&#39;s in the last 15+ years. Though I don&#39;t know as much about the 88-91 cars as I do the later ones, I believe since he has a dpfi car he might have some unique problems. Most of the popular IT cars that can be easily chipped (the CRX Si and the Civic Si) from the same years had mpfi.

Spanky, I&#39;d be happy to help you out here. What model civic, engine code and ecu do you have? I would be surprised if I couldn&#39;t find something.

steve

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by stevel@Nov 24 2005, 01:20 PM
Joe,
You are pretty much right on. There is almost no stone left unturned for Honda ECU&#39;s in the last 15+ years. Though I don&#39;t know as much about the 88-91 cars as I do the later ones, I believe since he has a dpfi car he might have some unique problems. Most of the popular IT cars that can be easily chipped (the CRX Si and the Civic Si) from the same years had mpfi.

Spanky, I&#39;d be happy to help you out here. What model civic, engine code and ecu do you have? I would be surprised if I couldn&#39;t find something.

steve

66593


I am prety sure the DPFI is a 2 injector throttle body type that probably doesn&#39;t get major support but I find the insode of the boxes aren&#39;t much different.

[spnkzss]

Originally posted by stevel@Nov 24 2005, 03:20 PM
Joe,
You are pretty much right on. There is almost no stone left unturned for Honda ECU&#39;s in the last 15+ years. Though I don&#39;t know as much about the 88-91 cars as I do the later ones, I believe since he has a dpfi car he might have some unique problems. Most of the popular IT cars that can be easily chipped (the CRX Si and the Civic Si) from the same years had mpfi.

Spanky, I&#39;d be happy to help you out here. What model civic, engine code and ecu do you have? I would be surprised if I couldn&#39;t find something.

steve

66593


I looked at that site and the desoldering/soldering of chips doesn&#39;t scare me. As you said, the dpfi are unique. If I was multipoint this would be a mute point. The multipoint setups have plenty of options.

Steve, you have a PM. ANY help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 24 2005, 03:37 PM

......
So again I ask the general IT public, would it be fair to rescind the ECU rule when those with carbs and adjustable timing can make changes that boost performance?

66590


Keep in mind the history involved here...from the begining, carbed cars were classed taking into account the gains that carb tuning and ignition advancing would present. Also keep in mind that in many cases, those changes are rather rudimentry. While you might be able to gain power in one part of the curve, you lose it in another in lots of carbs that weren&#39;t designed with racing as their ultimate goal.

Then came ECUs. The cars were classed based on the assumption that the ECUs would remain stock. But certain cars showed overly impressive gains, and after much hand wringing, it was decided that they must be "chipping", and there is no way to police that.......sooooo... the rule was changed, with the intent to allow "chipping" or, where that wasn&#39;t possible, additional boards could be added to acheive the same ends....and to ensure that the changes were simple, they threw in the "fit&#39;s in the original case" clause.

So, now we have cars that are:

Carbed, and running jets and tweaked timing
(At the weights set under the presumption that they would jet the carb and tweak the timing)

or- (in some cases)

cars that are running complete standalone control systems.
(but are running at weights that were set presuming stock ECUs...no chip OR complete control system)

Is this the way it should be?

And, in answer to your specific question, obviously yes, it would be fair...in the cases where the weights were set under the "no chip" presumption.....

Ahhh, fine...but...how do we know which cars were, and which cars were not classed under the "no chips" presumption????

Well, we don&#39;t, and I can&#39;t imagine being able to determine that. I know a few, the ITA CRX is one, but anything short of knowing every car is too little. And on top of that, we have no way to know how much weight was added (or not added) in the initial classification to account for the gains (or lack of gains.)

So going back is veeeeerrrry hard.

Another reason the current ITAC has a large proposal for PCA adjustments before the CRB.

[zracre]

the re-chipping is neccesary for some cars to go over 108 mph...240sx comes to mind...and the rev limiters on some cars need to be adressed in the ecu...times a changin...electronics are advancing daily and we need to find a compromise that is in the best interest of the IT community. someone brought up megasquirt...a simple cheap system...im sure there will be more of that type soon for most cars...once we get away from trying to self police electronic gizmos we can look more for the obvious...

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 24 2005, 03:54 PM
What funny to me is when I was a low life automotive tech(kidding about lowlife) Ford had a lot of ECU&#39;s with UV erasable chips and they were removable from the factory board. I find it hard to believe that this type of mod could not be done to this ECU. I am gonna dig into this after the holiday.


Joe et al,

On non-OBD2 stuff it&#39;s not hard to do. The easier thing is putting in an EEPROM and making a way to bootstrap it in its regular position. Then you simply power the right pin and reburn in place.

The real problem with a lot of this stuff is getting decent communication to/from the ECU. With the stock ECU, you NEED to be able to see what the block-learns are doing so that you can determine what the computer is really trying to do. BIG advantage for open-loop based controls. It&#39;s one thing to change the program, but a significant difference to be able to see what effect the changes had and how the computer is attempting to deal with them.

For those who don&#39;t do this, I&#39;ll give you a scenario (for those who don&#39;t care, stop reading here).

You determine that you&#39;re, let&#39;s say, 10% rich at X rpm and Y load. So you go in and pull 10% of the fuel at that point. A few things may occur:

Bad-
You may not have enough resolution not enough data points) so changing this makes a lean condition somewhere else close by. The computer then adds fuel to this entire block of RPM/load points. You&#39;re back where you started at the point you looked at, back to fine at the lean point, and all the other close-by points are now even more rich.

Worse-
You might have been OK at part-throttle but the WOT enrichment put you rich. You now add even more fuel and the problem gets worse. See, if you&#39;re rich at part-throttle and the computer pulls fuel out, it will ignore that compensation at WOT *and* add the acceleration enrichment. If you&#39;re lean at part-throttle, it will ADD the compensation *and* the enrichment.

Or-
You manage to lean it out too much due to mixture pollution from near-by rich or lean points. You get a ping or two, and the computer pulls out timing advance *across the board* until it&#39;s ready to try again (this amount of time can be changed if you know how and where).

Worst-
You thin out the part-throttle fuel curves after playing with the acceleration enrichment, and now wind up lean at WOT at certain points, and BANG, stuff breaks.

The OE ECU is always trying to compensate to reach its own target, and that can change depending on anything from weather to driving style. You not only need to know the net result, but also you need to see and log how the computer is trying to "fix" things. This goes for ALL OEM ECU&#39;s of all generations.

So what do aftermarket units do? They jump when you say jump (even if you tell it to jump into a pit of fire...) with no arguements. Can you make an OE unit do this? Yeah, but you have to find all of the little things it already "knows" and change them.

Think of it like trying to teach someone to race when they already "know" more than you about driving... (I don&#39;t know ANYONE like that...) It&#39;s actually easier and faster to start with someone with no pretenses and no bad habits. All you instructors out there- imagine what it would be like if you told your student what to do and they did it every time with no arguement or hesitation... Unfortunately, you&#39;d also have to tell them what the steering wheel was for too... :P

But hey, I can probably get you better gas milage from the OEM ECU compared to a Motec... :023:

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 25 2005, 11:28 AM
So, now we have cars that are:

Carbed, and running jets and tweaked timing
(At the weights set under the presumption that they would jet the carb and tweak the timing)

or- (in some cases)

cars that are running complete standalone control systems.
(but are running at weights that were set presuming stock ECUs...no chip OR complete control system)



So I meant to ask youse guys...

What about the cars (and I think there&#39;s more than one) that are running a stock carb, but have a distributor with no provision for changing advance? There currently, if I read correctly, is no clause to deal with this.

ITCS D.1.a.6 talks about *fuel injected* cars specifically, and D.1.e requires the original distributor (which in most cases is too small to allow mods inside- since there never were weights or vac canisters...).

And I know the one car I&#39;m thinking of was classified before the ECU rule...

:rolleyes:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Nov 29 2005, 02:35 PM
So I meant to ask youse guys...

What about the cars (and I think there&#39;s more than one) that are running a stock carb, but have a distributor with no provision for changing advance? There currently, if I read correctly, is no clause to deal with this.

ITCS D.1.a.6 talks about *fuel injected* cars specifically, and D.1.e requires the original distributor (which in most cases is too small to allow mods inside- since there never were weights or vac canisters...).

And I know the one car I&#39;m thinking of was classified before the ECU rule...

:rolleyes:

66981
Whos cares. Pinning the weights is common and a vac advance unit is a drivability tool more than anything. The minor losses in the power curve from a fixed advance won&#39;t been seen by most race engines on the track. Keep in mind if you fix the timing at 36 degrees on a six you don&#39;t want to spend much time lugging it around.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 30 2005, 12:54 AM
Whos cares. Pinning the weights is common and a vac advance unit is a drivability tool more than anything. The minor losses in the power curve from a fixed advance won&#39;t been seen by most race engines on the track. Keep in mind if you fix the timing at 36 degrees on a six you don&#39;t want to spend much time lugging it around.

67023


But the point is the ECU guys get the advantage of tailoring fuel AND spark curves. An advantage also accessible to vacuum/mechanical advance distributor people. But those running a spark only computer are shut out. And of course all of this was affected by a post classification change for many cars. So as far as who cares? The guy who CAN&#39;T legally make the same adjustment that everyone else can. Meanwhile they see a select group that can take advantage of fuel and spark tuning than was never anticipated when those car was classed. Maybe not a huge deal but certainly an overlooked inequity in the rules. And you wonder why some of us could car less about motecs vs modified stock computers? <_<

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Nov 29 2005, 11:55 PM
But the point is the ECU guys get the advantage of tailoring fuel AND spark curves. An advantage also accessible to vacuum/mechanical advance distributor people. But those running a spark only computer are shut out. And of course all of this was affected by a post classification change for many cars. So as far as who cares? The guy who CAN&#39;T legally make the same adjustment that everyone else can. Meanwhile they see a select group that can take advantage of fuel and spark tuning than was never anticipated when those car was classed. Maybe not a huge deal but certainly an overlooked inequity in the rules. And you wonder why some of us could car less about motecs vs modified stock computers? <_<

67027


Matt, I would venture to say that the carb fixed dist system is very limited in numbers. Sometimes it is just up to the competitor to deal with poor design issues when they pick a car. The other choice is to pick a class for that car that allows those types of mods needed to correct those issues. I think you would be a little shocked at some of the timimg maps used in a performance engine and how close to fixed they are above 3000rpm.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 30 2005, 09:06 AM
Matt, I would venture to say that the carb fixed dist system is very limited in numbers. Sometimes it is just up to the competitor to deal with poor design issues when they pick a car. The other choice is to pick a class for that car that allows those types of mods needed to correct those issues. I think you would be a little shocked at some of the timimg maps used in a performance engine and how close to fixed they are above 3000rpm.

67034


Joe,

Having tuned some motors before, I wouldn&#39;t be all that shocked. :D But with all your experience with tuning EFI you should also know that driveability does matter in a race car and a fixed timing curve does cost a little in a game where .005 sec at every turn can make a difference.

I have no doubt it&#39;s a limited problem and have accepted it, but again don&#39;t expect me to have any sympathy for guys with an ECU that say they can&#39;t tune their car because no one has put in the development time to crack the ECU codes. At least they have a legal option to do so. Also, knowing this particular limitation is fine if you are extremely familiar with the rulebook before picking a car, but having been told timing is open and then finding out there is no legal way to adjust it is somewhat different.

Again, not my biggest concern and certainly not what keeps my car from the sharp end of the class, but it is an inequity in the rulebook, and you original comment of "WHO CARES" wasn&#39;t exactly friendly. Of course I could always propose a rule change, but I would hate to see how that would get twisted, provided the rule even gets approved when everyone remembers how screwed up the ECU policy has become. Who would want to open the door even more? :119:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Nov 30 2005, 10:10 AM
Joe,

Having tuned some motors before, I wouldn&#39;t be all that shocked. :D But with all your experience with tuning EFI you should also know that driveability does matter in a race car and a fixed timing curve does cost a little in a game where .005 sec at every turn can make a difference.

I have no doubt it&#39;s a limited problem and have accepted it, but again don&#39;t expect me to have any sympathy for guys with an ECU that say they can&#39;t tune their car because no one has put in the development time to crack the ECU codes. At least they have a legal option to do so. Also, knowing this particular limitation is fine if you are extremely familiar with the rulebook before picking a car, but having been told timing is open and then finding out there is no legal way to adjust it is somewhat different.

Again, not my biggest concern and certainly not what keeps my car from the sharp end of the class, but it is an inequity in the rulebook, and you original comment of "WHO CARES" wasn&#39;t exactly friendly. Of course I could always propose a rule change, but I would hate to see how that would get twisted, provided the rule even gets approved when everyone remembers how screwed up the ECU policy has become. Who would want to open the door even more? :119:

67046



Matt I think you and I are saying the same thing I think we are just kicking different rocks to get there. I don&#39;t care about one or the other as long as it is considered in the classification of the car, and should something change it should be reconsidered. I am also gonna say it again. Not all cars are race cars some cars were meant to car blue haored old ladies to the weekly bingo game and nothing more sure we could classify them but one of several things will happen.
Somebody will complain the cars is a POS< -----almost gauranteed
Somebody will ask for adjustment knowing the car was crap going in<-------see above
Somebody will think the ad-hoc was nuts for even considering it.
Or last but not least.
One will win the ARRC with a blue haired old lady driving it and the Adhoc will be in trouble again..... ;)

[Matt Rowe]

Joe, I&#39;m not sure I can argue with anything you just said. Unless you were trying to imply that my car shouldn&#39;t be a race car. Cause them&#39;s fight&#39;n words! :P

Of course, with all of this talk about re-"processing" all the IT cars and classes everything should be reanalyzed with the same criteria. That alone should go along way to getting everyone on close to the same playing field. The rest I&#39;m content to try and make with superior driving and car prep. What a concept!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Nov 30 2005, 06:50 PM
Joe, I&#39;m not sure I can argue with anything you just said. Unless you were trying to imply that my car shouldn&#39;t be a race car. Cause them&#39;s fight&#39;n words! :P

Of course, with all of this talk about re-"processing" all the IT cars and classes everything should be reanalyzed with the same criteria. That alone should go along way to getting everyone on close to the same playing field. The rest I&#39;m content to try and make with superior driving and car prep. What a concept!

67078

Haha, No I said not all cars should be IT race cars. I worked on your car once in race car trim. It was 1994 if I remember correct and it was a red IMSA GTU car, we did pretty well until getting knocked off by a back marker. Really trick stuff with a Chrysler ECU of all things....lol I think every cr out there can be raced I just don&#39;t think they all can be IT raced...... B)