Carburated IT Cars - Balancing the system

[Joe Harlan]

This is completely absurd, for any number of reasons already mentioned above...

That's a pretty damn big caviate, dude... The hp/torque potential was adjusted based on an optimized STOCK system... Now with the additional wiring and sensors that can be added, complete reprogramming of the injection sequencing, additional mapping, additional controls, etc... Ya... "nothing changes"...
[/b]

Haha, there must have been a complete redo of the redo after you left the ITAC....

[Z3_GoCar]

Then name one.

The map's already been changed, you'd allow that with a chip swap in the old system(maybe), if you've got a system's got hidden check-sums to prevent tamper then you can't. How about VANOS/VVTi/ect... Nope sorry the stock system already adjusts this, again if you're sytem is cracked you can change it too, if not then sorry..

Nope, nothing changes, the stock measuring orfice stays, the stock cams and lifters stays, the stock head and valves stays, the stock manifold stays. Do as you will to the fuel and timing maps(which btw you'd allow with the chip/software swap if you can and not everyone can) you're not getting any more hp or torque than you get air, or do you like to run with a 8:1 a/f ratio? Been there done that, got the black soot on the trailer.

Maybe I should take a cue from Joe, how many of these have you installed?

I have one, and I did ask about stuffing an ECU (not the system I installed) into the oem housing. My tunner never heard of it, the ECU stuff that is. There's no way I could stuff my current system into a stock housing as it's integral with the coil packs, which are open and allowed to be anywhere in the car, even off of the head as the stock motor has the coils mounted directly on the plugs. As for sensors, it's got one manifold pressure sensor, one narrow band O2 sensor(reading only 3cylinders), a particular timing tooth pattern, and fires the injectors and spark in pairs. Why is this system clearly not allowed in IT?? You're reason is as clear as the Mississippi river after the Missouri river floods in Spring.

James

[Banzai240]

Maybe I should take a cue from Joe, how many of these have you installed?

[/b]

That's funny... Since Joe happens to be my best friend... and I've been involved in installing several of these systems... Joe... How many has it been??? Also happen to be an EMBEDDED SOFTWARE Engineer, who minored in EE, and DESIGNED one as a class project in 2001 (didn't quite reach MOTEC status, however... :P )... Also am the former CHAIRMAN of the ITAC who has gone round and round about this topic for several years prior to this new rule... But I can't POSSIBLY have a clue...

And... once again, the justification in your argument for this new bad rule are the precedents set by the exising bad rule... PERFECT!

If you don&#39;t think that an open wiring harness, allowing the addition of MAP sensors, etc., is going to make a performance difference then I guess you can relax and save your money... No reason to upgrade... Right?? I&#39;m certain that Sunbelt, Rebello, and Bimmerworld aren&#39;t going to change a thing in what they do, right??? <_<

My thoughts on IT when I started on the ITAC was that it needed ONE major realignment to get things more in balance and correct misclassifications of the past, and then a series of SMALL adjustments or tweaks to get some inconsistencies in the rules corrected... I approached/would have approached the ECU rules the same way... They needed to have some wording REMOVED, adjusted, or otherwise re-authored, so as to put some of the genie back into the bottle... Blowing the rule wide open, was NOT an option... It&#39;s inconsistant with IT class philosophy, and BAD for the class...

... but what do I know...

[shwah]

Darin,

It sounds like you and Joe have plenty of empirical data to support your position on this matter. Why not share some of it and make your case. Is it because the monster gains are not present unless you make other changes to the system?

I want to see actual numbers of a car running programmable management with stock components.
I want to see actual numbers of a car making a measurable power gain running sequential vs. batch fire injection with stock components.
All of my experiences have been with modified engines - at minimum eliminating all oem intake piping and changing cams, at most adding a turbo system and changing compression. Obviously I have always seen large gains. These have also always been set up as batch fire, so I don&#39;t have empirical data to share there.

Let me qualify that 4 years ago, or whenever the ecu debacle began, I wish I was paying enough attention to try to stop it. This change was not correct for the class. However at this point today, I don&#39;t think it is reasonable to go back in time. I also don&#39;t think that open ECUs will really upset the apple cart.

[cherokee]

Me thinks, the Genie is out of the bottle guys and I doubt you are going to like what he does.

I would bet it will not be long before people want to replace injectors and all kinds of other bits short of TB&#39;s. And don&#39;t say it is against everything IT stands for, so was all this crap 6yrs ago.

Look where you are heading and you don&#39;t have to look far, I doubt you are going to like it.

I don&#39;t think this is a good idea, just like I did not think the other ECU rule changes where a good idea.

I also think that Joe is correct the bullet has left the gun god only knows how far it is going to go.

[shwah]

Sorry, I don&#39;t see any logical reason that this allowance will create a cry for open injectors, throttle bodies and the like, and if it did, I have no reason to believe that any requests would be honored.

People also want different bearings, hubs, brakes, cams, etc. etc. - however they don&#39;t get those things just by wanting them. There needs to be, and is some logic behind the changes that are made to our rule set. I wish the genie could be put back in the bottle, but I think that would do more harm than the propsed rule to the class at this time. This is the key point - we have been traveling along the 4th dimension for quite a ways since the original ECU rule change, and thus the situation is very different, with lots of fellow members taking advantage of the rule, AND with an increasing number of IT eligible cars requiring ECU replacement to function properly in IT legal trim.

I am all for maintaining the sanctity of the class, but I have not yet been convinced that the sky is falling on this one. The weird thing is that I honestly don&#39;t have much of a vested interest in this particular rule - I am just not comfortable with the over exagerated arguments being presented as cons to the proposed change. Logic and data, not what if&#39;s, and might be&#39;s might do a better job to convince me otherwise.

You missed the timeframe to fight open ECUs by a few years, that is not what this issue is about. This issue is allowing competitors to perform an allowed modification for a fraction of the investment, and allowing those that made the big investment to continue using their current systems.