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...