Chis Ludwig: "See my post on the installation of aftermarket EMSs. In that thread NO ONE answered the direct question that was posed in the first post about why the double standard on allowing electrical modifications but making it harder than it needs to be to perform that modification. They'll allow you to go full bore on engine managment but make it more difficult and expensive to install it. And then we'll listen to people complain about it being hard and expensive and it shouldn't be allowed. Either allow the modification in it's simplest form or outlaw it all together is my theory."

Chris, I think no one responded because this topic had already been covered in another post and several people including me touched on the subject of your query. There is no intent to "make it hard" - the intent is to try to maintain the "stock" fiction of the IT class philosophy, with which I agree. Line drawing is always subjective but they settled on the harness. Frankly, I don't think they contemplated entire EMSs inside the box; they were thinking of chips, programming, etc. The error here is the words "or replace" in 17.1.4.D.1.a.6 not the restriction to use the OEM harness. Indeed, look at 17.1.4.D.1.s, which appears to be a redundant and inconsistent ECU rule that does NOT allow replacement of the ECU! I say "outlaw it all together."

As to the resistor, I suspect some people were trying to bootstrap the ability to add a resistor [where is that - not in my 2004 GCR?] into a feigned necessity to then modify the harness. And there you go. However, I think what they actually mean is that you cannot modify or replace the harness plugs at the ECU - you simply find the sensor wire in the harness and splice in the resistor. I did that w/ the water thermosensor.


------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis