I do have a vested interest in this as I have an older car that we are trying to adapt a new aftermarket ECU to. Without a full "modern" sensor suite, it's been a nightmare.

Bill, on thing on intent -- I have heard it stated repeatedly that one of the intents of opening up the ECU rule was to make it easier for all and to get rid of false "difficulties" like trying to stuff Motecs in stock ECU boxes.

By doing what we are doing now -- which is picking and choosing this sensor or that sensor (the MAP allowance is there because Megasquirt needed it to work) -- we haven't made it easier for all. RAther, we have created a whole new set of inequities.

I understand there may be unintended consequences of opening up the sensors. And I would like to hear a serious discussion about what they are. I certainly agree they could allow a competitor to increase the area under his hp/tq curve. But, we already have opened up that can of worms with open non-stock ECUs, and SOME (better) aftermarket sensors like the TPS and MAP (and now MAF) allowance.

At the end of the day, a motor's peak power is dependent on cams, compression, and architecture (CFM flow rates, etc.). Sensors are not going to improve that. The area under the curve? Yes, without doubt, but again, that horse is out of the barn.

There will be benefit to me in doing this, but at the same time, I really don't want someone else to have to spend what I spent (close to FIVE FIGURES) trying to make a "new" ECU work on a car that does not have a crank sensor, or a cam sensor or a wideband O2.