ECU Rules.....is it time? HELL YES!!!

You know, Phil, that's interesting, but lets not forget that most car guys who play with their cars have a laptop, and it's VERY common to see them at dyno days hacking away. Now, they might, or might not make better power, just like folks used to do dorking with their carbs....

A couple pages back a post was made to that effect, and it's a great point...younger generations are very comfortable hacking away with a laptop, but scratch their heads when faced with an emulsion tube. Ask Bob Dowie what it looks like when the tuners come to his shop to use the dyno.....
 
You know, Phil, that's interesting, but lets not forget that most car guys who play with their cars have a laptop, and it's VERY common to see them at dyno days hacking away. Now, they might, or might not make better power, just like folks used to do dorking with their carbs....

A couple pages back a post was made to that effect, and it's a great point...younger generations are very comfortable hacking away with a laptop, but scratch their heads when faced with an emulsion tube. Ask Bob Dowie what it looks like when the tuners come to his shop to use the dyno.....
[/b]
Click to expand...

Bulls**t argument Jake and you know it. Until you open IT up to wings 18" wheels and bling you are not likely to get one or two of those tuners in any division giving serious consideration to sports car racing. I am the biggest pusher of going after the youth car nuts but don't try to justify something you want to do with a false argument like that. I will also bet dollars to dimes most of these kids are tuning their stock ECU's with software they hacked and created on their own as part of the task of tuning. Hondata is oneof the best free editors on the net. I have 3 other versions for burning Nissan chip that were all down loaded and free from web pages. My burning equiptment cost me 100 bucks on e-bay and is very functional.
 
What if Option #1 was not 100% stock but allowed 'chips' and flashing? As long as the stock board, sensors and wiring harness were unmodified...that is as policable (even easier IMHO) than ANY internal engine allowance or restriction...bone stock is for sure not the right thing.
[/b]
Click to expand...

That certainly sounds like what was intended when the rule was originally changed.

If worded right, that solution would get my vote. I would be sorry for the folks who've already installed Motec, especially since they were probably the same folks who lost their RR shocks.
 
Oops. I am new to this posting stuff. Put me in the group that wants to open the rule.

I would propose that:

Any ECU be allowed, that cars originally equipped with MAP type systems be allowed to substiute sensors and wiring, and that cars originally equipped with Air mass type systems be allowed to convert to MAP systems with the addition of sensors and wiring required to make them work.

To keep this from getting "out of hand" restrict inlets to stock including requirement for cars originally equipped with air flow sensors to have all air go through the unmodified stock air flow meter.

This will limit maximum air intake to what was available stock, and all that the ECU can do is provide optimum fuel ratio for the amount of air entering. This already exists except as Jake has pointed out only if you can stuff the required ECU and sensors in the box.

Most of us can either program an ECU that comes with an instruction sheet or find a tuner familiar with the aftermaket systems, but not many have the savvy of guys like Phil ( pfcs49) who have figured out how to reprogram the stock ECU.

If only reflashes and chips are allowed only popular cars with aftermaket support will be able to use the option to upgrade.

As far as sensors etc. I can't speak for BMW, Mazda, NIssan, Honda, VW or many other brands but I know that the Volvo 142 TPS and MAP sensors are not compatible with any aftermarket ECU's. Therefore I believe that allowing sensor changes is a key to this rule being an equitable one.


Nat Wentworth

ITB #2 Volvo 142
 
"A couple pages back a post was made to that effect, and it's a great point...younger generations are very comfortable hacking away with a laptop, but scratch their heads when faced with an emulsion tube. Ask Bob Dowie what it looks like when the tuners come to his shop to use the dyno....."


Jake, most of those kids are probably editing files in the E=prom emulator socketed in the program-chip socket. Once a good tune is achieved, that program is burned/read into a chip which is then installed in the STOCK ECU-that;s the rule I want. PRETTY SIMPLE/QUITE POWERFUL

I'll bet he'll be scratching more than his head when he has to figure out how to rewire his wiring harness to use MegaSquirt! He'll have to elimintate the MAF wiring and create a harness to his MAP (pressure) sensor.
He'll need to create a harness (3wire) to his TPS (throttle position sensor) which many vehicles don't have.
And most newer vehicles (say 95^) incorporate the TPS into a throttle control module, which controls idle, which have at least 8 circuits to it and won't idle without it as well as having no idle adjustment! And if his sytem didn't have a TPS, what a little engineering problem to fabricate what's necc to install one that's reliable. (this signal is absolutely necc for speed/density system to work) What kind of injectors does he have? Are they peak and hold or whatchama call it?? Will they require ballasting?? Come on Jake, this is supposed to be so simple any kid can do it. What's the answer? And, oh yes, I almost forgot; he'll need to fabricate and siamese a harness to the 20 or so circuits to his new ECM, and hope they're all correct and understandable (how many color wires you got?) If this is a simple answer to the problem, I must be on drugs. Keep it simple Phil
 
Let me lay the ground work of my opinion first:

1) My IT car is carburetted.
2) I have developed and released engine calibrations for an OEM.
3) I believe that engine management should be open, including wiring and sensors, provided that no new intake airflow paths are created.
I say the first two of those things to implore that while I am biased in my opinion, it comes not from what will benefit me most, but being comfortable with the ones and zeros - it is NOT a black art to me.

My first point:

Maximum engine power is defined by airflow. PERIOD.

On normally aspirated cars, an ECU can do nothing more but make the most power possible out of that airflow. And yes, as pointed out, that includes flow through the throttle body AND flow through the idle air control valve.

So how does an ECU make the most of that airflow?

1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

That is it. Nothing more. These 3 things are being done to a considerable extent with the rules as written. Now of course, there are other things that can be done for smoother transitions, but honestly, running rich takes care of most of that (it just kills fuel economy).

I believe the time has come where it is more economical, in terms of $$$ and effort, to open up the ECU rule without creating ANY unfair advantage to the wealthy. In fact, I believe it will be a great equalizer, for two reasons:

First, OBDII is actually making it harder to tamper with the inputs/outputs without causing a 'limp home mode', due to many 'plausibility checks'.

Second, there are many different aftermarket ECUs, such as Haltech, Megasquirt, Motec, Morelli, electromotive, microtech, Edelbrock, Holley ... Not one will make any more power than the other on the same motor - and if it does, it will be no better than a header change.

Putting one of these systems onto an engine has GOT to be easier than deciphering all of the emissions stuff that is put on a modern vehicle, and tricking it into saying 'don't worry about the catalyst temperature, we want max power' - or having someone make a custom circuit board for us so we can stuff any of the above listed systems into an OEM housing. THAT is unfair, and only available to the 'haves'.

This technology, aftermarket ECMs, is the present, and it is actually quite basic. I believe allowing open ECMs will do more for the 'have-nots' than it does for the haves, because there are very affordable options out there - just like the way affordable DOT race tires have evolved. And yes, a basic, functional fuel system can be bought for the price of 2 sets of tires. Or a HANS device.

The largest opportunity for increased horsepower I see are for cars which currently use a vane-type mass air meter - removing these will increase the airflow. If we keep the rules the same, throttle body to exhaust port, there should not be any fear for a competitor that they will no longer be able to compete.
 
Nat-sorry to put this out cause I like you.
Two points: Volvos make plenty good power without needing special consideration-I know that, and you know I do.
I believe that you're running Megsquirt or some aftermarket speed density sytem in the new car; I'd like to know how that's currently legal in that, as you say, the Volvo MAP sensor won't work with any aftermarket system/you can't modify the existing sensor/you can't modify the case (to run a vacuum line into it)
I say this beacause I'm deeply concerned about the way the class is moving and expect you may have a vested interst in getting this changed. phil

Edit-I may be thinking of your SAAB. However, the leaglity problem still applies, same MAP sensor.
 
Nat-sorry to put this out cause I like you.
Two points: Volvos make plenty good power without needing special consideration-I know that, and you know I do.
I believe that you're running Megsquirt or some aftermarket speed density sytem in the new car; I'd like to know how that's currently legal in that, as you say, the Volvo MAP sensor won't work with any aftermarket system/you can't modify the existing sensor/you can't modify the case (to run a vacuum line into it)
I say this beacause I'm deeply concerned about the way the class is moving and expect you may have a vested interst in getting this changed. phil
[/b]
Click to expand...

Phil,

I think Nat's comments were a tad tongue in cheek. AFAIK, and I'm no expert, a 70's era Volvo 142 has neither a MAP or a TPS.

And damn, I go away for a couple of days, and this thread is another 5 pages. :birra:
 
I could have SWORN I was shooting the breeze with a Volvo guy, and we were talking ECUs...and I really thought I saw a stock vacuum line running to the ECU box...

So, if thats the case, he's good to go, right?
 
All D Jetronic EFI featured a MAP sensor that was an air-core transformer. The varying vacuum (Manifold Absolute Pressue) pulled a ferrite slug in and out of the core, changing the "Q" of the reluctor. No other ECM I know of can use this arrangement.
The throttle position sensor was a 10 step switch; the ECM counted the number of steps using a second directional cue (opening/closing). The main tuning "trick" on the Volvos for fueling is adjusting the fuel pressure-sorry to dissapoint all you high tech yuppies. phil
 
Phil, your post was full of "he'll need to"...and "He'll have to" and so on..

But keep in mind, this isn't a requirement..it's an option. He might not need to do anything, maybe his sytem can run fine as is, or with simple sensor and fule pressure mods. Or maybe he's lucky enough to have a good chip available. Or maybe he just pays someone and goes high end.

This is merely another option for folks who can't, for wahtever reason, avail themselves of the other options.

(Interesting contrast i posts between Youngrens and Phils.)
 
1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

That is it. Nothing more. [/b]
Click to expand...

What if you knew of cars that could adjust cam 'movement' with ECU tuning?
 
"So, if thats the case, he's good to go, right?"

Only if you let him out of the box. The box mustn't be modified (how to put a vacuum line into it?) and the new vacuum circuit isn't allowed.

"(Interesting contrast i posts between Youngrens and Phils.)" While what Youyngren says is true, applying it to IT doesn't follow. That's something I'd expect to find in GT or Prod. The guys an engineer. What's he doing with that mindset in IT? Let the beginners and weekend warriors have fun, learn racecraft, and mov up if they want to get very technical. phil
 
My first point:

Maximum engine power is defined by airflow. PERIOD.
[/b]
Click to expand...

awesome, lets all run an SIR and then give us a weight so that we're all on the same power/weight ratio. not sure what this has to do with ECUs though.

So how does an ECU make the most of that airflow?

1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

[/b]
Click to expand...

great. all 3 of these things can be done via reflash/chipped ECU. why do we need to change the whole fuggin system?

I believe the time has come where it is more economical, in terms of $$$ and effort, to open up the ECU rule without creating ANY unfair advantage to the wealthy. In fact, I believe it will be a great equalizer, for two reasons:
[/b]
Click to expand...

more economical than it used to be? yup. no unfair advantage to the wealthy? lies. wealthy ALWAYS have an unfair advantage. they'll just write a blank check to bimmerworld/speedsource, have them install and tune it. me, i'm going to sit there in my garage for a freakin month building my own wiring harness, then i'm going to spend another week at the dyno trying to play with the tune and learn the system on my own.

oh yeah, i'm one of those young whipper-snappers (26) who has essentially grown up with PCs. i don't want to fuck with this stuff. i think it'd be fun to learn, but it doesn't fit into the IT philosophy.
First, OBDII is actually making it harder to tamper with the inputs/outputs without causing a 'limp home mode', due to many 'plausibility checks'.

Second, there are many different aftermarket ECUs, such as Haltech, Megasquirt, Motec, Morelli, electromotive, microtech, Edelbrock, Holley ... Not one will make any more power than the other on the same motor - and if it does, it will be no better than a header change.
[/b]
Click to expand...

awesome, this will help the "P" classes be successful.

Putting one of these systems onto an engine has GOT to be easier than deciphering all of the emissions stuff that is put on a modern vehicle, and tricking it into saying 'don't worry about the catalyst temperature, we want max power' - or having someone make a custom circuit board for us so we can stuff any of the above listed systems into an OEM housing. THAT is unfair, and only available to the 'haves'.
[/b]
Click to expand...

wrong. putting one of these systems into a car is easier than me trying to crack the OEM software code imbedded in the ECU. but i'm not doing that, someone else is. i pay them $500 for their research, reflash my ECU and i'm done. you cannot legitimately make this comparison.

This technology, aftermarket ECMs, is the present, and it is actually quite basic. I believe allowing open ECMs will do more for the 'have-nots' than it does for the haves, because there are very affordable options out there - just like the way affordable DOT race tires have evolved. And yes, a basic, functional fuel system can be bought for the price of 2 sets of tires. Or a HANS device.
[/b]
Click to expand...

it has no place in IT. ask yourself, what contributed to the immediate success of SM? cheap cars that are fun to drive and easy to build. you can easily build an entire car start to finish in a weekend outside of the cage. opening up all this stuff makes things WAY more complicated.

i relate this issue as being similar to the argument for including the 99+ miatas in SM (only later did i learn that it was a done deal from day 1 and there's nothing we could do to stop it). some of the same arguments were made for that change that are being brought up here.

1) it will let in the newer cars
2) new technology is becoming affordable
3) we can write rules to make it all even

yeah, but why do we NEED it? tell me how this isn't a move toward prod/prepared? how does completely replacing a major system of the car help the class? i don't care a bit if we CAN make it even and fair, why do we need to make the change in the first place? for future cars? we'll see what happens when those cars come along, but right now, i'm not in favor of it.
 
Hey ITAC & CRB,

I hope someone does something about this ECU rule because there may be someone building a ITR car RIGHT NOW, for 2007, getting ready to plunk down mega bucks to stuff his stock ecu box with some high priced ems and using the 2007 IT rules to build it with. Just something to consider. :D So don't play paddie cakes to long.
 
Hey ITAC & CRB,

I hope someone does something about this ECU rule because there may be someone building a ITR car RIGHT NOW, for 2007, getting ready to plunk down mega bucks to stuff his stock ecu box with some high priced ems and using the 2007 IT rules to build it with. Just something to consider. :D So don't play paddie cakes to long.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Dan,

You won't see anything concrete for a few months unfortunately. Hopefully, this will hit the next Fast Track for member comment, the letters will roll in and then it will get sent to the CRB. Hopefully the CRB will act but since it's a rule change, it may have to go to the BoD and hit for 2008. I am not sure on that one but that is how I think any change will happen.

Remember, there are guys on the ITAC with active programmable units, guys with the money spent but not active yet (me), and guys with nothing in the works. While we would all like the change (if there is one) to happen immediatetly, I am not sure it can. Since my money is tied up already, I am going to continue my development, run 2007 with a programmable unit and act per the rules in 2008. I WISH I was in your shoes right now.
 
So how does an ECU make the most of that airflow?

1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

That is it. Nothing more. These 3 things are being done to a considerable extent with the rules as written. Now of course, there are other things that can be done for smoother transitions, but honestly, running rich takes care of most of that (it just kills fuel economy).
[/b]
Click to expand...

It's just not that simple, unfortunately. The factory ECU in my car does those things, plus it also varies the timing on both camshafts, keeps the engine at the perfect temperature at all times with an electronic thermostat, alters the air intake routing, etc. Sure, some of these things might be done in the name of economy or emissions, but still, replacing the stock ECU would require someone to be able to handle all of these things, not just a simple air/fuel ratio.

I say keep it simple. No hardware changes allowed, only software. The way to police it is to open up the box and compare components.
 
If the rule is reversed and only stock ECUs are permitted than what do you do with weight? From what I understand, the 'process' takes into account maximum power potential. Speaking from experience, modern OBD II cars - specifically BMWs - do benefit from stand alone programmable ECUs. Will all then have to be reevaluated and possibly adjusted? That would be a nightmare.

Installing a Motec or similiar is not terribly difficult - Especially in a car with a CAN bus. Wire, soldering iron and a good wiring diagram and you are all set. Leave yourself a good month and any reasonably talened and very patient person can do it. Perfect winter project.
 
All D Jetronic EFI featured a MAP sensor that was an air-core transformer. The varying vacuum (Manifold Absolute Pressue) pulled a ferrite slug in and out of the core, changing the "Q" of the reluctor. No other ECM I know of can use this arrangement.
The throttle position sensor was a 10 step switch; the ECM counted the number of steps using a second directional cue (opening/closing). The main tuning "trick" on the Volvos for fueling is adjusting the fuel pressure-sorry to dissapoint all you high tech yuppies. phil
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil, learn something new every day! :023:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top