Ron,
First thanks for stirring the pot, as I came to realize several points about opening the ecu; however, this still doesn't change my opinion on the subject. It's just that cost containment isn't the only main reason for revising the rule. The philosophy of IT is that everything must remain togeather as an assembly, motors, carbs, intake manifolds, transmissions, all
except the motor ECU. With the ecu one must open the case remove the control boards and sodder in a new set of control boards that already correspond to a very advanced tunnable engine management system, such that sensor gains and impeadances may be tuned to use the factory wire harness and sensors. Secondly I say count yourself fortunate that you can use an alternate carb, in all honesty
I'd say restricting us to only using ecu's that can fit inside the stock computer case is equvallent to not allowing those of us with electonic FI to switch to a tunnable system(aka an alternate carburetor). How would you like it if you had to stay with the factory Hitatchi/Rochester/Solex/Motorcraft untunnable junk? Once you switched didn't you see a rise in HP? We who have post 1995 cars have systems that are designed to be untunnable. I say if we're not allowed an alternate ecu then you should be forced to return back to your original carburetor, after all what's good for the electronic FI cars should be good enough for the carbureted cars too, and while we're at it all distributor timming must remain at the stock setting, no timming advances, no adjusting the advance curve, nothing! It should all stay at the stock setting and sealed too.
James
[/b]
Bookmarks