ECU mods

[planet6racing]

I don't see what is so bad about the current rule. It would be difficult to fit a complete aftermarket system in a standard PCM box with the adapter for the stock wiring harness. It can be done, but it would take a significant amount of time and money.

As for the vacuum line, I'll quote the saying around here. If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Eric R287]

Originally posted by Geo:
Also, I don't see how you can get a vacuum line into the ECU housing w/o modifying it.

Originally posted by oanglade:
Can you run it inside the box without modifying the box?

If that's what it comes down to I will think of something.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Eric R287:
If that's what it comes down to I will think of something.

well, fasteners are free how about running it it thru a hollow bolt.

running for cover
dick

[Geo]

Originally posted by Eric R287:
"As long as it fits in the OEM casing" I can safely fit a MAP sensor according to the rules. I can't use that sensor because I can't run a vacuum line to it? What good is having the ability to fit whatever is humanly possible into that box if you can't connect to it?

Damn. Ain't life a bitch?

The rule is not there to guarantee you can take advantage of it. It has limitations and if you can't take advantage of it due to the limitations, too bad, so sad.

Originally posted by Eric R287:
The rules talk a lot about unmodified wiring and connections, but nothing specific is mentioned about a stray vacuum line. Vacuum line ain't wirin'. How wrong am I?

Well, let's see.....

"Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing."

Modifying the housing doesn't fall into "within the orginal OEM ECU housing."

Unless there is an unused hole of sufficient size in your stock unmodified ECU housing to pass through a vacuum line, you're SOL.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Eric R287]

Looks like it's time to start tuning all over again using Alpha-N. Bye bye MAP.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by dickita15:
well, fasteners are free how about running it it thru a hollow bolt.

Dick, I thought of the exact same thing. Thought about posting it but didn't want to get flamed with the "serve no other purpose" clause. And then on another thread you have great big overkill tow hooks suggested (perhaps tongue in cheek?) which clearly serve another purpose (ballast).

Tow hooks are free...so are fasteners

[Knestis]

You don't for ONE second think that I was serious about 15-pound tow hooks, do you?

K

EDIT - Further, it doesn't make ANY difference how well a rule is written if people are going to play word games calling additional sensors "gauges" or using hollow bolts as vacuum lines.


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 17, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis:
You don't for ONE second think that I was serious about 15-pound tow hooks, do you?

K

EDIT - Further, it doesn't make ANY difference how well a rule is written if people are going to play word games calling additional sensors "gauges" or using hollow bolts as vacuum lines.


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 17, 2004).]

Welcome to the wonderful world of rules interpretation!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[tderonne]

Ok, I'll keep this going nowhere....

Please quote me the rule where ALL fasteners are free...

[dickita15]

my comment about the hollow bolt was somewhat tounge and cheek the original tow hook comment was not. while these type of debates drive some crazy, i do gain insight when they go to the extreme. it makes me think of possibilitys that i had not before considered. the "may not perform any other function rule" is a reasonablness standard. my bet is a 4 or 5 pound hook might pass and a 15 pound one might not, but kirk's posting also let me expand my thinking. the fact that you can buy a 15 pound hook makes a 4 pound one more reasonable.

dick

[Eric Parham]

(deleted double post)

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited March 18, 2004).]

[Eric Parham]

Please keep in mind that there are two people named "Eric" posting in this thread.

As far as I can tell, the ECU rule (1.a.6) does *not* actually say that the housing cannot be modified! I know, IIDSYCYC, etc., but maybe it (or another rule) DOES say we can! Bear with me...

What the ECU rule does say is that the "unmodified ... connection to the wiring harness" must be used. Thus, only the original unmodified wiring connection must be used, with the original external harness. Other words convey the intent that the housing cannot be enlarged for a bigger computer, but they do not specifically forbid acess holes and the like, as long as the computer would fit within the dimensions of the stock box.

The ignition rule (1.e), on the other hand, is relatively free (except for the requirement of a distributor, if it had one). Thus, vacuum lines and even wires may be added for the ignition (at least in the cases where the ignition was not originally handled by the same ECU as the fuel).

Some example cases may help:

Case A: Car came with a fuel controller/computer for fuel injection, but just a simple mechanical distributor for ignition.

Case B: Car came with fuel controller for fuel injection, and computer controlled ignition (with or without distributor), where the ignition computer was completely separate from the fuel computer.

Case C: Car came with fuel controller for fuel injection, and computer controlled ignition (with or without distributor), where the ignition computer was in the same box (or assembly of boxes?) with the fuel computer, but operated separately.

Case D: Car came with modern combined controller for fuel injection and ignition.

Case E: Car came as any of the above examples, but aftermarket ignition computer was added per rule 1.e.

Obviously, any computer that controlled fuel qualifies as an ECU. It is not as clear whether any computer that controlled ignition also qualifies as an ECU. If it does, many older cars currently have two ECUs (one for fuel and one for ignition). In all cases, the stock fuel computer box must be used, but does the stock ignition computer box also have to be used? I'd say that rule 1.e means no.

Now, if the stock ignition box does not have to be used, are we free to put the ignition control inside the same box as the fuel control? I would argue that the answer is yes, particularly where the stock ignition connector to the wiring harness is maintained (so you'd have both the stock fuel computer harness connection and the stock ignition computer harness connection mounted on a single stock computer box, usually with a cut access hole for the moved connector, but not always required.

I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage by preventing them from combining the control of ignition and fuel in a single unit.

As for my earlier post supporting adding a vacuum connection to the ECU box for the purposes of regulating fuel pressure, I believe that this is specifically allowed by the rule as currently written, especially since it does *not* recite that the box cannot have added access holes. If it was the intent of the rule not to allow any modifications to the housing, it could have easily required that the housing be "unmodified", which is not currently the case.

What's the solution? Either put the cat back in the bag (not likely), or completely free control of fuel and ignition.

The next problem with the ECU rule is that it allows much more than full tuning control of just fuel and ignition. Some cars have continously variable valve time (e.g., BMW E36 325i has VANOS), and others even have variable valve lift, all controlled by the same ECU.

If we're to allow full computer control of these systems, then, at a minimum, the corresponding specs for conventional cams would have to be freed to equal the playing field. Since, according to my best knowledge, I do not believe that any cars with variable cam lift have yet been classified in IT, I would suggest that they be prohibited for now so that the rules can catch up.

As for the variable valve timing cars that have already been allowed, one possibility is that we allow unlimited valve timing (only) for the rest of the field. Honestly, I can't think of another "simple" solution other than banning that type of technology in IT (perhaps by requiring disablement on cars already classed), FWIW.

[Knestis]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...it could have easily required that the housing be "unmodified", which is not currently the case. </font>

The fatal flaw in an otherwise good argument is that it is not necessary for the rules to say that something must specifically remain unmodified, for that requirement to be there. In my oft-repeated opinion, the single biggest mistake made in the IT rules was taken the first time something was specifically prohibited: The inference for many then became what you have presented - if it doesn't say you can't, you can. That is NOT correct since "Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein." Drilling a hole is an modification.

That said, you aren't going to get much argument from me on the bigger issues of technical equity that you present. The rules did NOT do a very good job of planning proactively for the incremental advance of technology.

K

[Bill Miller]

The rules did NOT do a very good job of planning proactively for the incremental advance of technology.

Boy Kirk, did you say a mouthful!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Eric Parham:


......I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage by preventing them from combining the control of ignition and fuel in a single unit.


What's the solution? Either put the cat back in the bag (not likely), or completely free control of fuel and ignition.

The next problem with the ECU rule is that it allows much more than full tuning control of just fuel and ignition. Some cars have continously variable valve time (e.g., BMW E36 325i has VANOS), and others even have variable valve lift, all controlled by the same ECU.

If we're to allow full computer control of these systems, then, at a minimum, the corresponding specs for conventional cams would have to be freed to equal the playing field......

As for the variable valve timing cars that have already been allowed, one possibility is that we allow unlimited valve timing (only) for the rest of the field. Honestly, I can't think of another "simple" solution other than banning that type of technology in IT (perhaps by requiring disablement on cars already classed), FWIW.

I agree with your logic in many ways, but you're introducing the term "intent" which can get thorny.

" I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage...."

Well, this is the defacto 'competition dajustment' that is the result of the "We have no way to police it so we'll allow it " ECU rule. The trouble with the rule has more to do with other procedures, more than it has to do with the rule itself.

Keep in mind that the CRB sets the weight of every car when it classifies that car, so as to make it competitive in it's class. Well, in a perfect world they do, but a lot can happen to screw that up. Look at ITS. The (2.8L?) E36 comes stock with abaout 189 Hp, at the crank, but in race trim, they're putting down about 217 at the wheels !!! Now the 944 (2.5L), on the other hand, comes stock with 145, but in full built race trim can barely make 160, I'm told. Two engines with .3L displacement difference between them, but 57 Hp difference at the wheels. What's up with that? Unfortunately, the CRB doesn't have Karnack (sp?) the Magnificent predicting the future for them.

Any car classified after the ECU rule (post ECU rule, or hereafter: PECU) was instituted should, as part of it's weight setting process, have research done to quantify probable Hp gains, based on variables such as variable valve timing and so on. Those classified before the rule (hereafter referred to as BECU) have gone on to star in threads here at IT.com, but not at the track!

Which brings up the next point. Your thoughts regarding the free allowance of cam timing are going to hit a huge snag when you factor in rotaries. How should they alter their cam timing? Or valve lift?

And cars already classified getting free cam timing would still not be equal to those with continuously adjustable systems.

I'm afraid that those rule changes will get mighty complicated mighty fast, and there will be a lot of sharp clawed cats to stuff back in the bag.

The solution, and one that will work into the unforseeable future, is PCAs.

In a perfect world, they wouldn't be needed, and I know alot of people think of them as a band aid, but it's extremely unlikely that all technologies can be accounted for in the original weight setting period, and that's obvious looking at some of the current situations.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 18, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Eric Parham:
As far as I can tell, the ECU rule (1.a.6) does *not* actually say that the housing cannot be modified!

Does it have to say "you cannot modify this part or you will be sent to the gulag?"(sp?)

Indeed it does specify exactly what/where modifications may be performed.

"Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing."

Again, all modifications must (emphasis mine - and the word must is a very important word in reading and interpreting the rules) be done within the original OEM ECU housing." Don't tell me that you'll just drill a hole from the inside. That would just be a stupid response.

There is nothing there which says you may modify the housing.

Furthermore, to add to Kirk's point, this rule and almost all the others fall within the heading "AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS." So, if it ain't in there, you can't do it.

I'm the first to look for a loophole. When people say IIDSYCYC, I look for where it says you specifically can and say "if it say you can, you bloody well can." It doesn't say that in this case.

And, as Jake said, intent does not enter in. Intent is something the rules makers must address when writing a rule. It should never be used for interpretation. Of course, if you find a clever loophole you run the risk of it being closed the following year so some clever loopholes can be expensive to undo.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[B Schley]

Good grief, why all the obsessing about the ECU? Spend all the brain power on things like getting the car really set up to handle. I'm sorry, I just lose it with all the technocrats screwing around with the computers. The engine rules are too restricted to allow for any gains through ECU mods. I agree with the earlier post air=HP. Even when you chip an ECU, there is a default code that the ECU's tend to fall into that take away any "gains". Thus endeth the rant.
--Bill

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I guess you weren't around when James Clay talked about the significant gains they got from the ECU on the BMW.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[lateapex911]

Yup, I was going to mention that.

The World Challenge (or Speed) cup guys with E36s I've talked with are big Motec fans. Don't bother showing up without it was their comment.

And as the E36 starts with what, 189, at the crank, and the ITS guys (reportedly) wind up with 217 at the wheels, something is going on! That's over a 50Hp gain!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 20, 2004).]

[adamjabaay]

you literally bumped a thread that was over 10 years old..... To say that?