Open ECU rule and CIS

[BlueStreak]

"The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units."

My intent starting this thread is for us CIS guys to bounce around some ideas on how best to take advantage of the ECU rule.

A couple of points to consider:
True or False: CIS is a mechanical computer.
True or False: The new rule doesn't clarify mechanical vs. electrical.

So, IF CIS is a mechanical computer, where does the customization potential end? The fuel distributor is the mechanical computer. Is it legal to replace it with a home made unit?

Under the new rule, wouldn't updating CIS to CIS-E suddenly become legal? If so, would it be worth it?

An interesting page about the different CIS systems - done by a turbo guy, but still interesting:

http://home.comcast.net/~vwmikelvw/Tech/cise/cise.htmhttp://home.comcast.net/~vwmikelvw/Tech/cise/cise.htm

and another educational basic CIS explanation:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/CIS.html

um, what was the saying, wheee :eclipsee_steering:

[Greg Amy]

True or False: CIS is a mechanical computer.
True or False: The new rule doesn't clarify mechanical vs. electrical.[/b]
"Yes" on both counts.

Some things to try:
- Reshaping the fuel rod to cater the fuel flow to airflow;
- Reshaping the flapper valve to cater flapper movement to airflow;
- Reshaping the bowl to cater airflow.

It's not going to be anywhere near as easy as ECU tuning; in fact, it's going to be a lot of work. But, it can be done. In fact, I seem to recall someone in the 80's (was it the Hacker Brothers? Maybe Archer Brothers?) reshaping the pins in Showroom Stock (cheating in Showroom Stock??? Horrors!) Ask around in various ex-old-guard-SS V-dub circles, I'm sure there's a lot to learn...

[shwah]

The flapper valve and bowl are integral to the mass air flow sensor of the CIS system. Thus they cannot be modified.

While we are at it, would you also suggest that a carburetor is a mechanical computer?

[Greg Amy]

Chris, loosely speaking I'll give you that the bowl is a part of the air intake restriction (VERY loosely interpreted as a MAF, but as lose as a Vegas who...never mind..) But the flapper is part of the fuel system, affected by the air system and interfacing with the fuel pin to "meter" (whee...!!!) the fuel to the lines.

Now from your post on the Fastrack topic:



No way no how that plate can be modified or removed under current, or 2008 IT rules.

Now - you CAN use whatever computer you want to alter the resulting fuel flow from the system. Maybe control the differential pressure regulator of a CIS-E system to get optimum fueling in all conditions. I don't know CIS basic well enough to know if/what you could change controls wise...beyond the adjustable warmup regulator trick.[/b]
Ok, so you're saying you cannot modify or even affect the flapper...but that's what the control pressure does! The control pressure resists the upwards movement of the pin (otherwise it would shoot upwards uncontrollably); since the pin pushes down on the flapper, aren't you modifying the action of the flapper (and thus the "air fuel meter") but modifying the control pressure?

Isn't this fun? It's destined to get even better, I'd wager...

[shwah]

It's fun, but your wrong :P

Those components ARE a mass airflow sensor. Regardless of how they communicate with the fuel system (in this case mechanically), you can't modify the mass air flow sensor.

I didn't say you couldn't affect it, but you can't change it. You are allowed to modify fuel pressure already.

[BlueStreak]

While we are at it, would you also suggest that a carburetor is a mechanical computer?
[/b]

I think you just did :blink:

Seriously - someone (not me) WILL take it to that point. You can yank the fuel metering out of a carburetor, stick an injector (or four) in it, add a megasquirt, and voila, you'd be taking maximum advantage of the new ECU rule. Would it get protested? Uh, it better, because that's certainly not the spirit of the new rule, but I doubt CIS mods are either, and here I am looking for anything I can find for us CIS guys.

Back to my CIS questions,
I see your point on the bowl/flapper, but I can see this one easily winding up "in court".

Maybe it's time to scrap my CIS car and build a Megasquirt equipped A3 dub.

Maybe, with this rule, I can make the ITC New Beetle competitive!

[Greg Amy]

It's fun, but your wrong :P[/b]

And you're saying that the part that apparently "senses" the airflow - the flapper - cannot be modified in any way, presumably because it's a restriction to airflow, but yet you're saying that I can zero out the control pressure to a point where the flapper never even moves downwards (maybe not even at idle!) allowing a massive amount of airflow far above what the original design expected, and compromise that with a massively reshaped fuel distributor pin, but that's all right?

Ooookaaay....

But you are correct: this is gonna get real fun over the next few years. And what's even better? No one's ever gonna protest squat...

[shwah]

That is an interesting conversation peice, but since you do need to use that MAF to control your fuel flow, making it stick open might not return the best AFR. Maybe there is another way to control the fuel within the fuel distributor that I am not seeing on the CIS basic car, but that thing just won't run the way you described it.

EDIT - even with the massively reshaped fuel distributor pin, you need to allow enough motion to have a flapper position repeatable vs. airflow, and to allow enough 'resolution' in fueling to work for the racing rev range. Who knows maybe it could work. It would take a crap load of development.

[Greg Amy]

- Zero the control pressure. Flapper valve and fuel distributor pin go all the way vertically, maximizing airflow through the 'box and minimizing fuel flow restriction through the distributor and out to the injectors;
- Add a TPS and MAP;
- Add an ECU (ECUs and wiring are free) that takes in MAP, RPM, and TPS and controls the fuel system pressure based on a mapping of load versus RPM. Fuel flow changes with system pressure.
- If you're concerned about over-fueling, add in some limited control over the "control pressure" to limit the amount of fuel as desired, and cut off the bottom of the pin so that it never contacts the flapper valve (which would reduce airflow) and have the pin location opposed by a very light spring with a nut on the bottom (but don't touch the Holy Flapper "MAF"!)

Alternatively, given that the so-called "MAF" is now non-operational, simply remove the fuel control pin entirely, use the above fueling system, and delete the boot between the "MAF" and throttle body (rules specifically state you can remove them), maximize the airflow, and go to a complete TPS/MAP/RPM mapping system that adjusts fuel based on fuel system pressure (noting the ability to control fuel as described above.)

Once you start opening gaping holes in the rules, all it takes is a little creativity to begat a monster... - GA

[shwah]

Nice.

I expect the intake piping words to be correctd soon to get rid of the 'boot deletion' option, but I would protest that under the current rule anyway.

This is all well and good, but it is a lot harder to execute than to think up. We have been thinking long and hard about CIS based solutions for a production car I crew with for a few years, where a whole lot more goes than even this brave new IT world.

[rabbidmk1]

wow where have i been? Am I getting it right that we can now goto a standalone system for 2008???

[Sandro]

I was following Greg's idea perfectly until I saw this:

"On cars so equipped, the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified."

Doesn't that throw your plan out the window?

[rabbidmk1]

not sure... There are a few systems that would allow a MAF, but there are a couple other aspects that need to be researched before it could be done.

[TimM ITB]

OK, now that I am putting together my list of what I want to do the car over the winter, did I read this whole discussion topic correctly......that the ECU is completely open now?? Can someone, in a clear and easy to understand way, describe what happened in the GCR concerning this? I have an OBD I 1994 Golf and it used to be that I could work on the chip inside the existing housing of the ECU, but could not change any part of the wiring etc, correct? Now, if I have waded through the various posts correctly, we can do whatever we want to the computer management system of the car? Am I oversimplifying?

help........and didn't mean to hijack THIS thread, just trying to not start another multi-page deal.

thanks,

Tim M

[Greg Amy]

The point is, Chris - despite my over-reaching - it's a brave new world out there. "Thinking outside the box" is - literally - approved, encouraged, rewarded.

Thinking further, where does it say the "computer" (the fuel distributor) even has to stay on the "MAF" box? Relocate it entirely and have your way with it. Hell, you can even "modify" or "substitute" it such that you have an electrical feedback solenoid moving the pin instead of the flapper. The added ECU - with feedback from the new TPS, MAP, and RPM - controls its position within the fuel distributor.

The possibilities are seemingly endless.



"...MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified."

Doesn't that throw your plan out the window?[/b]
Nope. As Chris noted, I'm sure the ITAC is furiously re-writing rules as we speak (and should be thanking me that I'm saying this stuff publicly and not simply doing it) but if you removed that boot, the "MAF" is still operational, and responds to air flowing through it; I just simply choose not to run air through it.




Am I oversimplifying?[/b]
Nope. Grab the new Fastrack, Tim: ECUs are free, wiring in the engine compartment is free, and you can add TPS and MAP sensors.

Like I said: brave new world. - GA

[shwah]

Correctamundo. ECU rules in 2008 are more free than they were in 2007. You used to have to jam a standalone into the stock ecu box, and mate the stock wiring harness to it. Now you can run any ecu you like, can make a harness so it will work right and can add a MAP and TPS if your car does not have one (or use alternates if it does have). Still must use stock fuel injection components (unless otherwise allowed to change, such as fuel pressure regulator), and still must pull air through the stock air measuring device - regardless of how well a job Greg has done shredding the words there, that's what the rule is meant to say, now they just need to make the words more 'durable'.

So A2 and A3 Golfs now can run programmable engine management more easily than you could last year.

While this thinking outside the box is fun, the reality is that our cars are not fuel limited, and the reality is that the CIS mass airflow sensor is not a 'choke' in the system. You can put whatever management you want on these things, and the cam will still be a conservative profile, and the head will still flow a certain amount of air. I looked at the new rule and thought I would take advantage of it to replace all my old, scary looking CIS-E stuff with new, more easily obtained Digifant components and run a Megasquirt or SDS system, more for reliability sake than anything. However, instead I am letting other A2 racers do that, and looking for deals on spares for my CIS-E system. I really don't believe that I am giving up any power potential to a standalone car at this point. Of course if I learn this year that this is not true, I will certainly change course, but until that point I see no reason to change.

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

You've covered most of what I've been noodling on w.r.t. this one. I suspect that we'll shortly see a change in the rule wording that all air entering the engine must pass through said MAF/AFM/etc. Even so, I think that with enough development, what you have proposed could be made to work. It would be an interesting exercise to see just how much of a gain could be made.

I also see some somewhat easier (and probably much less costly) alternatives. Swap the fuel distributor, err, 'computer' out for one that flows more fuel. Say one from a 944 or a Volvo. Or just modify the existing one to meet the specs of the higher flowing one. That's probably where you'll see anybody that's interested in tweaking one of these cars going.

You would think after all that's gone on w/ rules over the past few years, that they would have figured out how to write them by now so that they actually addressed the desired issue.

[shwah]

But Bill, with these IT engines, the stock stuff can support something like 50% more power than any of us will make. Why bother switching over to a Volvo component? It would be a tough swap, as you would have to retain the VW mass air flow sensor, and mate it to the Volvo fuel distributor, and hope the calibration is right, or make it right with a bunch of development. It would be interesting to see an A1 racer throw some pressure sensors on the filter side and intake boot side of the MAF (basically put a few vacuum gauges there) and make some full throttle, or dyno runs to measure the pressure drop. My money says it is not a lot, and this is much ado about nothing.

To be honest I think those of us with CIS-E have had a gift in the rules for years because it is SO easy to get the fueling right for race conditions. This updated rule probably takes some of that advantage away. It is easy enough and works well enough that this is how the fueling was accomplished to reach the podium the last three years in GP, even though we had the leeway to do so much more in that class (of course now we are searching for alternative solutions, because if we move it up to F, it should bump into the limits of the CIS/CIS-E systems power potential in order to be competitive).

[Doc Bro]

OK, now that I am putting together my list of what I want to do the car over the winter, did I read this whole discussion topic correctly......that the ECU is completely open now?? Can someone, in a clear and easy to understand way, describe what happened in the GCR concerning this? I have an OBD I 1994 Golf and it used to be that I could work on the chip inside the existing housing of the ECU, but could not change any part of the wiring etc, correct? Now, if I have waded through the various posts correctly, we can do whatever we want to the computer management system of the car? Am I oversimplifying?

help........and didn't mean to hijack THIS thread, just trying to not start another multi-page deal.

thanks,

Tim M
[/b]


Tim,
You read it correctly. You can do what ever you'd like to your computer system...even run the whole thing on bird poop...just so long as you have your washer bottle you're good!!


Sorry I just could stop myself...

R

[Bill Miller]

But Bill, with these IT engines, the stock stuff can support something like 50% more power than any of us will make. Why bother switching over to a Volvo component? It would be a tough swap, as you would have to retain the VW mass air flow sensor, and mate it to the Volvo fuel distributor, and hope the calibration is right, or make it right with a bunch of development. It would be interesting to see an A1 racer throw some pressure sensors on the filter side and intake boot side of the MAF (basically put a few vacuum gauges there) and make some full throttle, or dyno runs to measure the pressure drop. My money says it is not a lot, and this is much ado about nothing.

To be honest I think those of us with CIS-E have had a gift in the rules for years because it is SO easy to get the fueling right for race conditions. This updated rule probably takes some of that advantage away. It is easy enough and works well enough that this is how the fueling was accomplished to reach the podium the last three years in GP, even though we had the leeway to do so much more in that class (of course now we are searching for alternative solutions, because if we move it up to F, it should bump into the limits of the CIS/CIS-E systems power potential in order to be competitive).
[/b]


That's interesting Chris, because several of the strong proponents of this new rule said that it didn't allow anyone to do anything new, that they couldn't do under the old rule. But hey, what do I know, I couldn't see the similarities between running a stock harness and sensors w/ an open harness and added sensors.

I am inclined to agree w/ you though, I don't know how much gain anyone would see w/ a modified CIS system. The limiting factor is the intake, can and the throttle body. You may see better mid-range performance (that whole 'area under the curve' thing), but you're not going to find 5-10 hp in it.

And there's really no incentive for anyone running an A1 to throw mad amounts of money at this, because those cars will never be able to run with a full-boogie A3. Look how many new ones came out of the woodwork when they dropped the weight.

[rabbidmk1]

Ok I have a question about replacing sensors with equivalent units.

My interpretation is that someone could replace the hall sensor and its wiring for one that worked in a similar fashion. So does that means a crank trigger could be installed?

[shwah]

That's interesting Chris, because several of the strong proponents of this new rule said that it didn't allow anyone to do anything new, that they couldn't do under the old rule. But hey, what do I know, I couldn't see the similarities between running a stock harness and sensors w/ an open harness and added sensors.

I am inclined to agree w/ you though, I don't know how much gain anyone would see w/ a modified CIS system. The limiting factor is the intake, can and the throttle body. You may see better mid-range performance (that whole 'area under the curve' thing), but you're not going to find 5-10 hp in it.

And there's really no incentive for anyone running an A1 to throw mad amounts of money at this, because those cars will never be able to run with a full-boogie A3. Look how many new ones came out of the woodwork when they dropped the weight.
[/b]


The 'creep' relative to the previous rule is in the sensor allowance, but even that could be overcome with a very high end system. So yes the capability was always there to make an electronic fuel injection system programable. My advantage has been that I could make my setup run much better with $10 in parts from Radio Shack, and that very few would invest 10k to truly optimize theirs. Now they are more likely to spend 500 - 1000 to do this, especially since there is a (false IMO) belief that very large power gains will be had.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I suspect some of the wording is being looked at. Believe-you-me that the 'computer' will most certainly be specified as an electronic unit and the AFM/MAF verbage will be defined more clearly.

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really.

[Gary L]

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really. [/b] Agree 100%, couldn't have said it better myself. :023:

[Doc Bro]

I suspect some of the wording is being looked at. Believe-you-me that the 'computer' will most certainly be specified as an electronic unit and the AFM/MAF verbage will be defined more clearly.

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really.
[/b]


Bravo Andy. The DADA-ism (Satre- French literary existentialism...) has hit an all time high. We can argue the definition of a shifter knob or "mechanical computer" (whatever that is) all day but are these intellectual Sunday paper word scrambles really heading the IT community in the direction that we want to go in. It's really easy to play King and lob smart bombs in from afar but being part of the solution takes leadership and commitment. I question some of the wording of the new rule as well and I question some of the dichotomies in the rulebook (ie washerbottles and fully open ECU's), but I realize these things take time, and revisions will be necessary. I also realize that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Therefore I tend to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

I find it so amusing that we banter and banter yet no one does the things they 'threaten' to do AND even if they do follow through no one protests. So my question is: Do some of us speak to hear ourselves speak or do we just do it for the typing practice? :lol:

R

[BlueStreak]

I suspect some of the wording is being looked at. Believe-you-me that the 'computer' will most certainly be specified as an electronic unit and the AFM/MAF verbage will be defined more clearly.

It's not a 'brave new world' unless you facilitate such sillyness. This 'culture' is exactly what we bitch and moan about yet seem to enocurage on this BB. Sad really.
[/b]

I greatly appreciate the work being done. I did not start this thread because I wanted to facilitate sillyness. I started this thread so that we could make sure the sillyness was accounted for in the verbage sooner, rather than later. ;)

The sooner everybody's happy with the verbage, the sooner I'll know how much damage the ECU rule does to those of us who don't have the option of using ECU's to improve our performance.


Thanks
Eddie

[Rabbit05]

Hey y'all,

So I am building this MKII (well after I get married in the spring :D ) , and now the rule change. Me and the guys have this plan for building this car and doing it right. My question(s) is this....

What stand alone system would be good for a MKII ? I heard of Megasquirt, I know nothing about it. Are there options to choose from ? Is it VW specific ? And is it that much better, than say, a chip for a Digifant car ?

And will this rule make the VW completely uncompetitive to ...lets say a Honda/Acura?


IE..is it worth it ?



John (down but not out) VanDenburgh

[BlueStreak]

To take full advantage of the ECU rule, sell the MKII and start with a MKIII.

[shwah]

I'll take a shot at answering the question:
Megasquirt is a 'brand' of owner programmable engine management system, which is inexpensive in dollars, but more expensive in time, as you need to build it yourself from a kit (although there are sources to buy pre-built systems). There are other commercial brands such as Simple Digital Systems, Electromotive, Haltech, Motec, and certainly more that I don't recall now. At the end of the day they make it easier to change fuel and timing maps based on engine conditions (load, speed, temperature, etc). With these systems, and the proper tuning tools (a chassis dyno and wideband O2 sensor, you should be able to optimize the fueling and timing of your engine. In basic terms it is a chip that you can program with a laptop, or handheld controller.

Any A2 car that wants to use such a system, needs to be put together with all of the OEM Digifant fuel injection hardware and airflow meter (about half of them were delivered this way), and any A3 car, regardless of year is legal to be run this way. All A3 cars have stock systems that support this type of modification.

Edit - some think this changes the game. They are simply in denial of the fact that cars have been running systems like this for several years, but it was very difficult and expensive (relative to the current rule). They also believe that it will magically provide significant power gains, despite the fact that it does not alter the airflow capability of the engine (you can also make the engine run better over a wider range of conditions, which is more important at higher hp levels and rwd IMO than fwd cars that can't spin the tires and are always at 100% load or 100% braking). I am not in that camp, and will be retaining my CIS-E system for now.

[BlueStreak]

Chris,
Do you think it would be worth it, and legal under the new rules, for me to upgrade to CIS-E?

[madrabbit15]

And there's really no incentive for anyone running an A1 to throw mad amounts of money at this, because those cars will never be able to run with a full-boogie A3. Look how many new ones came out of the woodwork when they dropped the weight.
[/b]

I disagree, the A1s in ITB with a 4.40 R&P can be very fast, especially with the new weight. They can turn the rpms because of the solid lifters. Sure the A3s were fast at the ARRC, but every class was running 1.5 seconds faster than previous years becasue of the new pavement. The last time I raced ITB several years ago at VIR, with 2130lb scirocco and a 4.40 r&p I was able to 2:24s. The CIS system was not even set up or tuned. Now with the new changes, who knows..........

Anyway, point is, I still think these cars can be competitive........


Derek

[Rabbit05]

Chris,
Thanks for the explanation, I am thinking maybe do the wait and see game. If there was a "for sure" significant power gain to be had, then I would try to install one when we get to that part of the build.


Has anyone gotten a rough estimate yet on the power gained ? I am not a technical mechanic by any means, but isnt there a certain point where you cant get any more air/fuel into the motor ? I am not sure I missed a section of the rule, but the injectors have to remain stock , correct ?




And is this the door opening for futher rule changes to increase the costs of racing ? Is the name of the class going to be changed to "Improved Prodution" or "Prodution Touring" ? I liked the idea of tossing a cage in a car a running it, stock motor rules and an " Improved " suspension.

yay...another reason to spend money :bash_1_:


(sorry for the rant)


John

[Bill Miller]

I disagree, the A1s in ITB with a 4.40 R&P can be very fast, especially with the new weight. They can turn the rpms because of the solid lifters. Sure the A3s were fast at the ARRC, but every class was running 1.5 seconds faster than previous years becasue of the new pavement. The last time I raced ITB several years ago at VIR, with 2130lb scirocco and a 4.40 r&p I was able to 2:24s. The CIS system was not even set up or tuned. Now with the new changes, who knows..........

Anyway, point is, I still think these cars can be competitive........
Derek
[/b]


Derek,

A couple of things.

=Several years ago, a 2130# ITB Scirocco would have had to run a 1.7 to be legal.
=A Rabbit GTI w/ a 4.40 R&P would have a top speed of 105-110 mph (assuming you could get it past 6000 rpm in 5th gear. That's assuming a 225/50/14 tire). Not sure if that's going to happen on 95-100 whp.
=While they may be able to turn the rpm's, there's not a whole lot of point to it, as they don't make any power North of 6k rpm, w/ the stock cam and only 9:1 compression. And, if you really want to twist them, you need the Alfa style lifters w/ the shims under the buckets. I've seen motors that have popped shims out because they were twisted to hard.
=If you can find one, a 4.40 R&P is going to set you back some serious coin. IIRC, that was a VWMS-only ratio. I know it was never offered in a stock 020 box. I'm sure that a custom one would be even more.

As I said before, they'll probably do ok on short, tight tracks, where the higher hp cars can't really stretch their legs, but put them on a wide open course, and they'll get their heads handed to them. That 4.40 R&P will run out of legs at a place like VIR. I ran a 4.20 in my old car, and there was not really anything left at the end of the front straight at Summit Point. Carrying more speed through 10 just made you run out that much sooner.

There's a reason that most of the fast guys that used to run one of these cars have moved on to something else.

[Campbell]

Bummer. I guess if you have a A1 VW you don't have much hope, not too motivating.

[jlinfert]

Bummer. I guess if you have a A1 VW you don't have much hope, not too motivating.
[/b]

On the contrary, a 1980 1.6 ITC Scirocco done right at 2040 lbs is a badass car. Gotta use a 4 speed (weight),use an adjustable WUR and every other trick you can that is allowed. 3.94R&P 13by 6's 225-45-13 hoosiers. It'll go like stink and turn very well, even stops acceptably.

[shwah]

Don't beleive the hype guys.

No fuel injection system will change the airflow capabilities of your motor - which defines the power capability. There are proven methods of properly adjusting the fueling for CIS and CIS-E systems to optimize the AFR. The rules allow you to run timing that suits your needs. There is no reason that you cannot reach the same power level with CIS as with a standalone system, within the restrictions of the IT rules.

A1 cars are at an advantage on smaller tracks, such as Blackhawk IMO. They are at a disadvantage at longer tracks such as Road America. The A3 has the advantage on the long tracks, and the A2 is in between in both cases. NONE of these differences are strong enough to decide results unless every aspect of car prep, setup and driver ability are equal. Any one of these cars can win at a given event when prepped, setup and driven well.

[Bill Miller]

Don't beleive the hype guys.

No fuel injection system will change the airflow capabilities of your motor - which defines the power capability. There are proven methods of properly adjusting the fueling for CIS and CIS-E systems to optimize the AFR. The rules allow you to run timing that suits your needs. There is no reason that you cannot reach the same power level with CIS as with a standalone system, within the restrictions of the IT rules.

A1 cars are at an advantage on smaller tracks, such as Blackhawk IMO. They are at a disadvantage at longer tracks such as Road America. The A3 has the advantage on the long tracks, and the A2 is in between in both cases. NONE of these differences are strong enough to decide results unless every aspect of car prep, setup and driver ability are equal. Any one of these cars can win at a given event when prepped, setup and driven well.
[/b]

Chris,

I agree that the A1 cars stand a chance on short, tight tracks. I don't know anything about Blackhawk, but I gave LRP and Beaver Run as examples. I'm not sure how you can say that the A1 cars are at a disadvantage on longer tracks, but could win given the right prep, setup and driver. That's only true if they're not up against an equally well prepped, setup, and driven A2 or A3. The A1 cars just don't stand a chance at any kind of horsepower track, given an A2 and A3 of equal prep/setup/skill.

[shwah]

Just suggesting that an ITB field rarely consists of all equally prepped, setup and driven cars, and that there is more performance variation in those factors than any between these cars.

[lateapex911]

Back online after my computer was stolen......

Too second what Andy said, if you are thinking of pushing the gray areas because you've spotted a loophole in the wording, think twice. Leaving the flapper out of the system and replacing the tube between it and the engine with "Air" won't fly. Modifying the mechanical "computer" is also gonna be a dead end. we'll fine tune the verbiage.

(I find it interesting how the thread called "open ECUs and CIS" has resulted in the Electronic Control Unit getting it's fuel rod and bellows modified....it's a bit of a stretch, eh?)

[msogren]

A computer has some kind of logic module, and recieves input from at least one sensor. IMHO. From what i read, you may modify the control pressure feed , and how it is fed, from the computer.
The flap door and fuel rod are part of the fuel system. All air is supposed to go thru the flap door.
MM

[AGR77]

:smilie_pokal: Hi Guys!
I found this forum seaching on the net.
I was lookin for a solution for the new computer rule. I race a 1992 2.0l 16v jetta in IT-A here on Puerto Rico.
My car have the MOTRONIC CSI . I know this sistem can be reprogramed with a chip. But everybody knows is not the same as a stand alone computer.
I have read all of your post looking for a answer for my quest to see what I can do to cheat the rule.
But it seems that there is no option. I even send an e-mail to scca about this rule and they told me that the only thing that I could change is the ECU. So that means that I an stock whith the CIS because the injectors can`t be changed.
But if any of you can give me any info on how to make this motronic sistem even better please email me.

Abraham Gomez
IT-A Jetta # 77
CCCPR / PRRRA

nitro4tec@hotmailcom

[Bildon]

I know this system can be reprogrammed with a chip. But everybody knows is not the same as a stand alone computer.[/b]

Well it should & can be.

Also Chris's repeated assertions here are spot on correct. The VW 8v is not fuel limited. Also, CIS is not the bottle neck. The lower intake runner and valves are. The CIS is capable of something like 170hp before you have to switch to a larger unit.

You'll make more power learning to do a "factory" 3 angle valve job than you will installing a MoTec.

[lateapex911]

Ahhh..the voice of reason.

You should post more often Bill.

[AGR77]

Hello !!
I know that the CIS sistem is good , I have a 1988 mk2 GTI 16v 2.0l, is turbo. I made it my self. I am runnin on 20 psi of boost whith this sistem.
Now I am trying to fine tune the cis for my IT-A Jetta.
If you guys have any info for upgradind the sistem I will apreciated!!!!

Puerto Rico Racing!!! :eclipsee_steering:

[shwah]

The system does not need upgrading. Just tune the air:fuel ratio properly in the rpm band you race in.

The easiest way is with a coolant temperature sensor based fuel enrichment device (a resistor in line with the cts). Go to a dyno, hook up a 0-5k pot in series with the sensor (use a switch or relay to jump around it when starting/idling/low load). Make some runs and turn the knob. You will find best power around 12.5-12.7 air/fuel in my experience.

If you want to monitor the system, also measure the dpr current when you do this. Whatever the current is at your 'good' setting, you can use that as a check in the field to see if things are still set where you want by measuring the dpr current at full load. Just mount a cheap-O ammeter to the dash and watch it down the straight.

There are more complex solutions, but this one works better than those that spend the extra time and money would like to admit.

[AGR77]

Hi guys!!!
Thanks SHWAH for the info. I will be taking advice about the air/fuel mixture when I go to the dyno with my car, and about putting a meter on the dash.
just to let yo know my engine runs around 14.5 air/fuel all the race, and I know that is very hot and I am loosing a lot of HP.
let you know when I take the car to the dyno how it went!!!

[shwah]

If you use a meter to monitor dpr current when racing, note that if the meter fails it will break the signal to the dpr. Plan to have an over ride switch in parallel to restore the signal path if this happens.

[GTIspirit]

Don't beleive the hype guys.

No fuel injection system will change the airflow capabilities of your motor - which defines the power capability. There are proven methods of properly adjusting the fueling for CIS and CIS-E systems to optimize the AFR. The rules allow you to run timing that suits your needs. There is no reason that you cannot reach the same power level with CIS as with a standalone system, within the restrictions of the IT rules.



I totally agree with Chris. CIS and CIS-E can flow plenty of fuel. CIS seems to be pretty robust, CIS-E seems to be finicky and has a bad rap. As long as the CIS-(E) system is in good working order there is no reason to change.

But, if you do want to change, I think a Megasquirt system that can control the CIS frequency valve or CIS-E differential pressure regulator would be the hot ticket. You could even use the CIS-E throttle plate potentiometer as a MAF sensor. It's not like fuel economy is a concern when racing, so why not spray fuel continuously and not have to worry about injection timing? Just optimize spark timing and AFR.

[AGomez77]

Hi guys!
I read all off this about the ecu and the cis-e.
But I have a question? Can the 50mm intake manifold on a 16v can be used?
because the rule says , The original, standard intake manifold shall be maintained.
Are you guys using it???

Abraham Gomez :eclipsee_steering:
Puerto Rico racing
GTI IT-A #77

[shwah]

No the 16v cannot use the European spec intake manifold.

[AGomez77]

No the 16v cannot use the European spec intake manifold.

thank you shwah for the info.
But some of my competition use it and I still win them.
Just wanted to make sure.

Now I am putting together a 88 1.8 16v GTI. Any recomendations?
http://http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=469225&op=8&o=all&view=all&subj=521076995&id=594740434

[shwah]

If they are racing with the Improved Touring rule set they are cheating. That is a pretty blatant cheat, as it is very obvious to see any time you glance at the car with the hood up.

[AGomez77]

If they are racing with the Improved Touring rule set they are cheating. That is a pretty blatant cheat, as it is very obvious to see any time you glance at the car with the hood up.

yes! I know but he is a bad driver. so I dont pay much attention to it.
for now I am working on my GTI to see if I have it ready for the summer.:eclipsee_steering:

[AGomez77]

Here`s some pic of the Jetta:smilie_pokal: I use to drive!!:eclipsee_steering:

[VWralley]

bringin this back up! wondering if anyone has taken advantage of the new ecu rules. I am intending to do it on my 90 gti, it may not offer a huge performance advantage, but i freaking hate digi2 more than anything in this life im pretty sure, so its a welcomed change for me! Simplicity and reliability is my main reason for making the change.

[markw]

Optimizing a standalone injection system can be very tedious and requires the patience of a saint. Without a dyno and a wide band 02 sensor system similar to the innovate, it would be doubtful that you could tune to optimimze the engine much beyond stock or even have worse driveability. There are so many simple ways CIS or Electronic fuel systems can be adjusted to add more fuel. As stated, until you can improve air flow you are not going to find more torque and hp with a stock cam, compression, and valve ports. I am opposed to even allowing standalone systems in IT. This rule could drive a wedge between the haves and the have nots. It sounds like the rule wording is a bit up in the air. I'd recommend holding off on buying a tuning a standalone system until the wording is cleared up.

[VWralley]

not sure if you are talking to me directly or just making point(which are totally valid), but personally, i found tuning a standalone not very difficult. i have done megasquirt conversions on about 15 cars, so for me it is not very tough to dial it in. the last 16v i tuned didnt make any more horsepower on the dyno with a pro tuner. so a dyno isnt necessary if you spend enough time with a wideband an a good long hill.

for me its more about getting rid of the stock 20 some odd year old wiring and getting rid of the headache of trying to figure out a stock setup, more than making more hp.

[pfcs]

I have done the homework to understand and edit full load DIGI II files and can provide a plug and play ECM for 8V Digifant apps that provides excellent results for legal engines with fully exploited airflow airflow gains. Contact me off line if intersted. Why swim upstream?
phil

[lateapex911]

I am opposed to even allowing standalone systems in IT.
Important point regarding personal opinion...

This rule could drive a wedge between the haves and the have nots.
Another opinion, and that's fine.

It sounds like the rule wording is a bit up in the air. I'd recommend holding off on buying a tuning a standalone system until the wording is cleared up.

Huh? Now a recommendation based on?? Where does THAT bit of info come from??

According to your source, when will the wording be "cleared up"??

[VWralley]

besides a few questions to be certain, and a few times reading it over, i thought it was worded pretty well really. but im new so that may not be saying much haha