Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
Boy, are we seriously drifting off the range here...

Bill (Planet 6), I accept your thesis as reasonable, but I think it's flawed. As I noted above, if that was the intent of the rule then there would be no need for the notation within the ECU rules, as it's already specified in the opening paragraphs. This means one of three things: either the rule was poorly written (NO WAY!!!!), it's actually redundant to the opening paragraphs, or there were other reasons behind that rule.

I'm taking Door Three, Alex.

Andy comes out and states, in effect, the sensor have to be the same as stock. Josh states it's a matter of range (binary versus analog). Others above imply the sensor has to be the same physically. But let's take this logically; are you telling me that if you're using a MoTec or a HalTech, or a MegaSquirt, or whatever, that the sensors you're using to feed that beast - with the exception of TPS and MAP - must all be stock, using the stock voltages and stock ranges? So, you really believe that the intent of the rule as stated is that if you install a Haltech ECU into your car, you can ONLY use the stock sensors and add only a TPS and MAP? Be careful of your answers here.

Door Three basically says that the interpretation of the rule is to keep you from adding additional sensors to your car that, with the exception of TPS and MAP, were not original equipment. This would, for example, preclude you from adding a crank angle sensor. It does not, however, preclude you from replacing existing sensors (i.e., water temp, oil pressure, IAT, etc) with sensors that have the same function (e.g., measures water temp, measures oil pressure, measures intake air temperature) but may be reasonably different in terms of physical characteristics and characteristics of sensing. Thus, one can replace the OE water temp sensor with a Bosch sensor that measures within a different voltage range and/or possibly a wider range and/or tighter tolerances.

Thus, we go full-circle back to the wideband sensor issue. Given the allowance in the ECU rule for replacing a sensor with one that has "equivalency", and given that an O2 sensor's function is to sense the level of O2 in the system, and given that per Door Three we are OK with folks replacing other sensors with equivalent sensors but may have different ranges and/or tolerances, it is not a very large leap of faith to state that a wideband O2 sensor is an equivalent sensor in that it measures relative oxygen level yet it measures over a wider range with tighter tolerances.

To take a position contrary to this means that NO other sensors may be replaced with any parts other than what is described in the opening ITCS paragraphs (what Josh is stating) and thus:

- GCR/ITCS 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 last sentence is wholly redundant and confusing, thus we now expect the ITAC to immediately address this discrepancy by recommending this sentence to be stricken from the regulations entirely, and
- Anyone that is using sensors that do not meet the OE specifications of the parts as delivered with their vehicles is operating contrary to the rules and should immediately discontinue using them and re-adjust their Haltechs/MoTEC/Megasquirts to use OE sensors only. Furthermore, anyone whose car came stock with a MAP and TPS may only use those stock items; you may not replace them with ones more-compatible with your ECU (no allowance in the rule to replace, only "add").

Fun, huh?

Just to toss in more confusion, for those of you saying you can't add sensors other than a TPS and/or MAP, are you stating that adding a baro read solenoid or a temperature sensor - or any other kind of atmospheric measurement device - directly on the board of the ECU itself is illegal (and was thus illegal prior to the ECU rule being opened up)? If you say it's Ok to do so ONLY if it's on the board, why can't you do it as part of the "virtual ECU" (tm, Bill Miller) given that there's no physical or geographical limitations to what an ECU can be?

I know what you think the rules say. I know what you think the rules mean. But that ain't what they are...and if you think this is the only rule in the ITCS with this kind of clever ambiguity, well, you ain't readin'...

GA
And here's where I think your thesis is flawed Greg. I would contend that what is bolded is indeed the case. I really can't believe that you're arguing something like this from the position of what you believe the intent to be. And not that it really matters, but I believe the intent was to keep the stock sensors w/ stock ranges and voltages. The rationale that we were given for the allowance of open ECU's was that they were hard (impossible?) to police. The half-stepped it w/ the 'in the stock, unmodified housing' BS. So, my interpretation is, sure, go ahead and use whatever ECU that you want, but other than a TPS and a MAP, you have to use stock (or their equivalent) sensors, which to me, means stock ranges and voltages.

I think the rule is pretty clear in that respect. Replace OEM sensors w/ equivalent. To me, if it's got a different operating range, it's not equivalent. I really don't understand how people can argue that they are the same.

I know Andy used essentially your logic to add the vacuum line to his then 'stuff it in the stock housing' ECU. Hey, there's a MAP sensor on this thing, and since I'm allowed to stuff it in the box, I am allowed to use it. That means I can run the line to it. And since it wasn't an electrical connection (the rule at the time expressly stated that all electrical connections had to be made through the stock plug), it was wide open, so long as he didn't have to drill a hole in the housing to get it in. I didn't agree w/ it then, and I don't agree w/ it now, but Andy and I have agreed to disagree on the matter. My point is, just becasue you've got enhanced functionality w/ your new ECU doesn't mean you can change the characteristics of the sensors that feed it. I'll have to check again, but I think the language about changing resistance values was removed when the open ECUs were added. Regardless, even that language didn't let you change the sensors, it just let you add resistors.

Quote Originally Posted by seckrich
People are getting a little stupid in this thread. Back up and remember the conversations when the open ECU was proposed. One of the specific arguements to allow them was that only the high end units could be used in the box because they were capable of being linearized to stock sensors. It was argued that open ECU would allow lower priced units that used standard GM (Bosch) etc sensors. The rule specifically allowed a TPS to be added or replaced and Map to be added where none existed. The rule further states a list of sensors that must be stock and in stock location (MAF meter). IF it was meant to restrict the O2 sensor to stock it should be in that banned list with MAF. The rule further allows sensor plugs to be replaced. Why would you replace a plug for a stock sensor? You replace a plug for the allowed alternate. As it reads now it seems to be fair game. Love it or hate it that is what is written.
No Steve, what the rule says, is that you have to use an OEM MAF, any of the other sensors may be replaced w/ an aftermarket equivalent. Just because you don't have to use a stock NB O2 sensor, doesn't mean that you can open it up and use an aftermarket WB O2 sensor, you're limited to a stock or aftermarket NB O2 sensor.

As someone pointed out, if they weren't different and didn't so different things, nobody would ask to use a WB over a NB.

Quote Originally Posted by stevel
Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with WBO2 sensors from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally using the WBO2 sensor for an ecu input why *should* it be illegal for other cars to add a WBO2 sensor input to the ECU?

If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally use a WBO2 as an ecu input and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?

Also, there's the issue of being able to enforce and police this. I know on my WBO2 sensor, it has 2 outputs, either of which I can configure to be used as a Narrow-band signal. Good luck trying to prove/dis-prove someone claiming they are using there WBO2 configured for a narrow-band output going to the ecu.

If some cars can currently have WBO2 sensors and some can't, and all cars can have alternate ECU's, how is it fair to disallow for some but allow it for others?

NOTE: I don't care either way as I don't currently race in IT, just pointing out some info.

-s
Steve,

Look through the ITCS, you'll find plenty of cases where something is not allowed unless fitted as original equipment. That's just the way it is. As many have said over the years, you pick your car with all its warts. Just because Enzo Dumbledorf's Borgward XS came w/ a WB O2 sesnor, crank fired ignition, etc. stock, does not mean that you can slap that stuff in your Puddlebee. If that's the case, I want to be able to rip the CIS out of the Rabbit GTI and drop in a full MegaSquirt system. But thanks for playing.

And honestly Chuck, how can you in one breath say that two items are the same, then in the next say that one will do something in a given situation that the other one won't? I guess the appropriate line here is, all O2 sensors are not created equal!

One final thing to Andy et al, the cam shaft example was mine (Kirk acknowledged it), not Kirk's. No big deal, just don't want someone getting wrongly credited for something.

I do have to say though, the logic and the mindset at work here, is similar to what was used to push through open ECUs.