2008 GCR ONLINE!

The "sky is falling" crys about the open ECU have me scratching my head............ :blink:


This does not change anything except for the fact it is now less expensive. This isn't "all of the sudden" going to give guys with ECU's 10 more horse power. (I wish) I'm not going to make any changes to my ECU and I don't have any fear of not being competitive any more.

Anyone who thinks this is going to end IT, SCCA and the world as we know it need to go back and re-read the original thread, and read again, and again. It sounds like it's going to be just another excuse on why we're slow.............. :rolleyes:
 
Yep, it'll help.

More processing power, finer tuning, using a fully-mapped MAP/TPS system versus whatever crap the factory uses...it all makes a difference. Should we be so inclined, I'd estimate we could see "more" ponies and a wider torque band from the NX with a full-up MAP system...

Granted, you ain't gonna cram more air into the system, and you're stuck with the factory injectors, but the ability to optimize whatcha got can't be underestimated...
 
how much does ignition timing changes with a full done ecu impact the power or area under the curve?

my 1985-87 crx si has an ecu for the fuel injection but does not have the ability to adjust the timing like later FI cars. i set the timing manually and that is it, within the limits of the vacuum advance, etc.

but i would assume that at higher rpm's, the need to advance slightly more might be beneficial.

so for those of you that have done this, will the early FI cars leave some on the table or not? not like the carb'ed cars for sure.

how much is just the injector delivery gains vs. timing?

tia, tom
 
Couple points:

- This does nothing to the competitiveness of carbed cars. This technology has been legal for years. Now it is just cheaper to get for everyone. (If you take a HARD look at carbed cars and their ability to make 25% or more in 'process power', I think you will find that the vast majority of them overachieve to some extent) The GCR carb allowances are good.

- TR6 was a request to be RE-LISTED from way back when

- You can't GUT the wiring harness, you can modify or replace the wires. People with older cars should be thrilled

- Good catch on the old ECU rule still being ion there

- The factory MAF, AFM etc need to be left in place because they are stock airway restrictions, without them, the performance envelop has the potential to be raised vs. the old rule
 
Here's where the ugliness - and culture - comes in, Andy. I really, really considered simply taking advantage of such loopholes, but with a sense of fairness (and a sense of "auld lang syne" for the true spirit of the rules)...

- You can't GUT the system, you can modify or replace the wires.[/b]
Click to expand...

...with air. Remember, in today's culture, air is a material.

The factory MAF, AFM etc need to be left in place because they are stock airway restrictions...[/b]
Click to expand...
Where does it say that the air has to actually flow through them?

9.1.3.D.1.a.4 states, "All air entering the intake tract shall pass through the carburetor or fuel injection air inlet." Define "fuel injection air inlet"; sounds like a throttle body to me.

9.1.3.D.1.c states, "Air intake hoses, tubes, pipes, resonators, intake mufflers, housings, etc., located ahead of the carburetor/throttle body may be removed or substituted." This allows tubes between the throttle body and the MAF to be removed, or substituted... with air?

9.1.3.D.1.c further states, "...the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified." This, of course, now directly conflicts with the ECU rule, in that someone can replace the operational functionality of the MAF with a MAP sensor, and electrically ignore the MAF, thus making it "inoperable" and an allowed function.

Unless I'm missing something here, given we can make the MAF non-operable, and the tubes between the throttle body and the MAF can be changed/removed, where in the rules does it now say that air must pass through a MAF if so equipped? "If it says you can, you bloody well can!"

'Scuse me, Ms. Pandora's at the door...

P.S. "Air intake source shall be within the confines of the engine compartment or stock location" is in the rules twice, both in D.1.a.4 and D.1.c - GA
 
With respect to the sky is falling aspect, yes, I have watched cars with full on ECUs compete head to head with ancient carbed cars at the highest level. And I've seen it in more than one class.

As to the verbiage, it appears certain wording made it into print that shouldn't, and we'll take care of any typos and such.
 
Greg - where does it say you can remove the MAF/AFM from your intake system?

As far as the 'replace with air' stupidity, I am not even going to get into it.
 
Greg - where does it say you can remove the MAF/AFM from your intake system?[/b]
Click to expand...
Who said anything about removing it? It'll still be there, and probably even still plugged in, electrically. Just no hoses attached to it and the ECU will be ignoring it.

As far as the 'replace with air' stupidity, I am not even going to get into it.[/b]
Click to expand...
Hey, you know I'm with you, but... I'm just sayin' ::giles::
 
Who said anything about removing it? It'll still be there, and probably even still plugged in, electrically. Just no hoses attached to it and the ECU will be ignoring it. [/b]
Click to expand...

Show me your logic that eliminates the AFM/MAF from the intake system. You can modify or replace the components before and after the unit(s) - but if you remove them, you still have to stick your AFM/MAF directly to your TB...no? Having it dangling there on the premise that you have replaced the intermediary section with air is absolutly assinine and would NEVER get through a protest. It's not part of the culture. Can anyone think of a REAL example of this being acceptable or is it just interweb lore...

The point of it still being there and 'fuctional' is to make sure anything with flapper-doors and the like are not modifed in any way.
 
You know, the "replace with air" thing came from the RX-7 rear bushing situation, and somebody made a joke ..."Air is a material, I could replace it with air!". My car has very soft foam upper bushings that allow the trailing arms to move enough so the suspension doesn't bind...a unique Mazda problem that happens when you lower the rear.

I can not, in any situation, think that a protest wouldn't get laughed from existance by a steward if the defense was "I replaced those wires with air, sir".
 
Oooookay...you guys sound a lot like one particular fellow who was adamantly opposed to the concept of spherical bearings as suspension bushings... ::waving::

P.S. Is door screen "material"...? Can wires be replaced with Silly String...?
 
As was I, as you know.

SO lets assume that we take these rediculous items at face value. How would YOU write the rule to accomodate (eliminate) the tortured interpretations?

I can tell you that these types of things won't be tolerated in my patch, I suggest we make the 2008 season a year of 'weeding out the crap'.
 
How would YOU write the rule to accomodate (eliminate) the tortured interpretations?[/b]
Click to expand...
I can't, which is why I was one of the persons pretty much opposed to the ECU rule.

I suggest we make the 2008 season a year of 'weeding out the crap'.[/b]
Click to expand...
Well, that's a super idea, but now we're back to that "culture thing" again. We can't do it alone...
 
And as I have said before, the intake rules are another example of a disadvantage to carb'ed cars. Read literally, they allow air horns/devices to accelerate the flow of air into the intake track for FI cars, but not carb'ed cars.

Fortunately, I'm moving to EFI land.

That said, I do agree with Andy that older carb'ed cars see a lot of gain, perhaps more than an EFI car, in IT trim. I think the reason is context. Carb'ed cars are older, built at a time when emissions controls systems were crippling to power, and build tolerances were low. They REALLY benefit from an IT build/blueprint/balance/port match, while newer EFI motors do not, as much.
 
I had planned on changing my fuel injection system this winter if this rule came to be.

However instead I have decided that this will create a nice supply of affordable spares for my CIS-E system as others make that move.
 
I thought about going digi, I have the entire system at home in case I do change my mind. As for CIS-E, the way the rule was written allows me to test out a solution using MS that a buddy put together for one of his GRM challenge cars. With some minor rethinking I will test in late winter to see if I can actually make a better tunable fuel map for my CIS-E system. If not ill go with the MS digifart using MAP.
 
Guess what guys, the process used to spec the weight of injected cars assumes you can fit a full tilt booogie system in your stock box. This rule is to make it easier for you to actually do that...across the board.
[/b]
Click to expand...


This does nothing to the competitiveness of carbed cars.[/b]
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with both of these statements and this is exactly what divides our opinions.

Given the time period in which the "anything within stock box" rule was written and the fact that no current ITAC member was serving then, it is quite the ridiculous assumption to say that the current weights of fuel injected cars are based upon competitors installing aftermarket standalone engine management within the confines of the stock engine controller box. Keep in mind that this can't even be physically accomplished on some F.I. cars and 10 years has led to a lot of changes in technology.

Sure it was possible back then... Motec has been around since '86, but it was not mainstream affordable/accessible stuff then and it was physically larger in size. Like it or not, aftermarket engine management was never the intent of the rule... it was the byproduct of time, creativity, and a loose or poorly written rule. Subsequently the weights of fuel injected cars are not based upon it and I've yet to see something that would lead me to believe otherwise.

For 2008, fuel injected cars have been given a new level of preparation and the resale value of carb'd IT cars has fallen by 300% ;)

note: I could be 100% wrong on this, but I'll need to hear it from someone that worked on the original rule 10 years ago.
 
I strongly disagree with both of these statements and this is exactly what divides our opinions.

Given the time period in which the "anything within stock box" rule was written and the fact that no current ITAC member was serving then, it is quite the ridiculous assumption to say that the current weights of fuel injected cars are based upon competitors installing aftermarket standalone engine management within the confines of the stock engine controller box. Keep in mind that this can't even be physically accomplished on some F.I. cars and 10 years has led to a lot of changes in technology.

Sure it was possible back then... Motec has been around since '86, but it was not mainstream affordable/accessible stuff then and it was physically larger in size. Like it or not, aftermarket engine management was never the intent of the rule... it was the byproduct of time, creativity, and a loose or poorly written rule. Subsequently the weights of fuel injected cars are not based upon it and I've yet to see something that would lead me to believe otherwise.[/b]
Click to expand...

I will disacgree. The 'process' has only been in place for 3 or so years. The current ECU rule pre-dates said process so it most certainly was a factor in the development of the process fundamentals.

For 2008, fuel injected cars have been given a new level of preparation and the resale value of carb'd IT cars has fallen by 300% ;)

note: I could be 100% wrong on this, but I'll need to hear it from someone that worked on the original rule 10 years ago. [/b]
Click to expand...

The original intent of the rule has no affect on the rules in place when the process was developed. Frankly, as Jeff stated, carbed cars have a slight base advantage wrt process power as their stock hp rating tend to be artifically low when compared to modern-day examples. Pull off the old-tech smog crap, do an IT-spec build and uprate your carb(s) and jets and off to the races you go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top