ECUs....is it time?
- Thread starter lateapex911
- Start date
"Not within the philosophy of the class. Thank you for your input."
Let's not step into that quagmire of adding/subtracting weight penalties for specific modifications. Open ECUs - in as far as working within the existing limitations - are here to stay. Whether or not to allow ECU mods is not the issue at hand; what we're discussing here is how to make an existing rule more accessible to more people, all without allowing any more effective mods.
I'll say it, even though it's painful: if you want to step into that quicksand, go Production. - GA
Z3_GoCar
New member
Here's the misconception, the gains to be had with an OBDII car is simply what's avalible with a distributor bluprint and carb rejetting. The very function of OBDII is to be tamper resistant, only gutting the box and installing a MOTEC allows adjustment of mixture and spark. Otherwise you're stuck with a system that runs lean, and won't make any more power than stock. My system has like 10 or 12 programable points in it where you can adjust the injector pulse width. What winds up happening is they're bunched around the low to mid RPM range where the fuel curve in non-linear but when I'm running the car I'm pretty much in the linear band above 3500rpm, actually I can keep it in the 4500-6500 band pretty much all day long, it's just getting into that band when starting out where it becomes nice to have a decent working system. I drove the car once on the default setting, and it was too fat at idle dumping gas down into the oil, the vanos would kick in and it'd be way too lean and die out. Only when moving could I get through above that range and then it'd straghten out and run right. This is just to get the motor functional.
James
Ron Earp
Administrator
Not to start an agrument, but that isn't completely true ith respect to OBD-II being not highly modifiable. Might be true on the BMW OBD-II ECUs, but on my Lightning I've got complete spark and fuel control (and everything else like MAF transfer function, retard, and literally large numbers of parameters, some I have no clue about) in 100 RPM increments, using a hand held tuner and PC. Modify, change, download to tuner, then to truck. It is OBDII too, no check engine lights, and smooth sailing.
A lot of how tunable the car is will be related to the aftermarket size - lots of Lightnings being modified, so lots of options available. There are lots of OBD-II tuners with fantastic control for lots of other popular "performance" cars, but none in IT that I know of. As you say, I bet there isn't this sort of control for say, a 1989 Porsche 944 (OBD wasn't even around). Or a 2000 BMW 328i.
You'd definitely benefit from a Megasquirt, Wolf, Motec, Electromotive, etc. ECU it sounds like. As will a lot of other modern IT racers working with their newer cars.
JoshS
New member
I agree, this rule seems outdated and unnecessary added cost and complexity. I do agree with the desire to not add sensors, but eprodrx7 has a very good point. Just as I have a wheel speed sensor, and could readily have more than one - all of a sudden I can implement traction control!(Don't worry; while I have the capability, it ain't gonna happen on my CIS car!) But yeah, how can this be policed? Perhaps the existing rules are already sufficient to prevent this, even if catching cheating may be difficult? Maybe they would just need more teeth? Either way, the ECU case rule is outdated IMO...
[/b]
You can't implement traction control because your wheel speed sensor is disconnected at the wheel, right? The rules require it!
This bugs me a bit because I've just discovered that my new ITR car will REQUIRE custom software, or a whole ECU. The stock one will go into "limp-home" mode if I disconnect the wheel-speed sensors, or if I remove the cats, both of which will happen for any IT build. That's based on experts I've spoken to at this point -- the car isn't to that point. But I will try it just to make sure it's true.
If it is true though, that means that we're past the point of software being a nice go-fast part -- it's now become more like a cage -- gotta have it even to race at all.
JoshS
New member
There don't appear to be any off-the-shelf software kits that fix this particular problem. Why would there be? Standard stuff raises the rev limit, maybe remaps the timing ... certainly don't do anything with wheel-speed sensors, limp-home mode, etc.
It's going to have to be custom.
Z3_GoCar
New member
A simple reflash is not so simple. The one guy who's even close to modifying the program in Bosch / Siemens OBDII systems is Jim Conforti, and I'm not sure he can get the stock ECM to ignore the kind of faults that a disconnected CAT or wheel sensor will trigger. The probelm is that the program is Proprietary to Bosch/Siemens and they're not about to share the secrets, and it's designed to be tamper proof. Some ecm's require removal and being sent in to be reflashed like the Motronic M-42, and even then some months are not reflashable. So you send in your ecu to only find out that nothing can be done to it. Even if it is reflashable all that's really done is to remove the top speed limiter or maybe tweek the timing 2 degrees a sort of one size fits all approach. The shark won't make it ignore these kinds of faults, only a new standalone will do, now will or can it be stuffed into the stock housing?
James
James
lateapex911
Super Moderator
It seems like most of us here are actually in agreement. Odd. .....LOL.
Just to recenter it for a second, my proposal is to create a scenario that eliminates the need for certain cars to:
- Spend a fortune (or circumvent the rules) just to get the car on the track. (I know of one BMW owner who is a sharp guy and posts here, who spent a season in limp mode becuase he followed the rules and unhooked ALL his wheel sensors. Once he had one hoooked up, all was well...but he was illegal. None of us want that, it's a great example of how the current rule fails the category)
- Allow more subscribers to attain the performance level the process predicts they can acheive.
What I am NOT proposing is:
- A scenario that allows anyone to exceed the performace that is currently allowed,
- Or creates a legal way to perform illegal functions, like traction control.
Thats where this gets sticky. Of course, defacto traction control exists, and has undoubtably been used my a few now and in the past.
My thought about mandating the stock harness was that it seemed like a good middle ground. It allowed free control, resulting in easier and cheaper mods, but also made policing things like actual wheel sensor derived traction control easier.
Best of both worlds, in a way.
Of course, I'd let everyone have traction control if I knew they weren't running high compression pistons, ilegal aold air/ram air, cheater cams, big displacement, and all the other things I stumbled onto in the past......year.
Just to recenter it for a second, my proposal is to create a scenario that eliminates the need for certain cars to:
- Spend a fortune (or circumvent the rules) just to get the car on the track. (I know of one BMW owner who is a sharp guy and posts here, who spent a season in limp mode becuase he followed the rules and unhooked ALL his wheel sensors. Once he had one hoooked up, all was well...but he was illegal. None of us want that, it's a great example of how the current rule fails the category)
- Allow more subscribers to attain the performance level the process predicts they can acheive.
What I am NOT proposing is:
- A scenario that allows anyone to exceed the performace that is currently allowed,
- Or creates a legal way to perform illegal functions, like traction control.
Thats where this gets sticky. Of course, defacto traction control exists, and has undoubtably been used my a few now and in the past.
My thought about mandating the stock harness was that it seemed like a good middle ground. It allowed free control, resulting in easier and cheaper mods, but also made policing things like actual wheel sensor derived traction control easier.
Best of both worlds, in a way.
Of course, I'd let everyone have traction control if I knew they weren't running high compression pistons, ilegal aold air/ram air, cheater cams, big displacement, and all the other things I stumbled onto in the past......year.
Bill Miller
New member
Two words Greg, "unintended consequences'
James,
If you think having an on-the-fly adaptive fuel curve is the same as re-jetting a carb, there's not a whole lot of point in continuing this discussion.
The trick ECUs are all about optimizing the area under the curve.
dj10
New member
R,
I was @ Nelson Ledges for a National last year. Will Turner brought down a T2 M3 he was going to race. I missed the race but heard he had problems with the traction control of his OBDII M3. My point is what did he do to fix the problem? Have you tried contacting anyone? What do the World Challange & Grand Am teams do? The don't run traction control.I believe there are are ways around everything.
I'm also very happy to see a lot of us in agreement. Now since we got the ITAC's attention, let's get this worked out so everyone can benefit and get the rule changed.
I was @ Nelson Ledges for a National last year. Will Turner brought down a T2 M3 he was going to race. I missed the race but heard he had problems with the traction control of his OBDII M3. My point is what did he do to fix the problem? Have you tried contacting anyone? What do the World Challange & Grand Am teams do? The don't run traction control.I believe there are are ways around everything.
I'm also very happy to see a lot of us in agreement. Now since we got the ITAC's attention, let's get this worked out so everyone can benefit and get the rule changed.
grand am cup /prototype rules are on their website. grandam rules
you use a spec wire harness for all classes and only get 1. some classes have a spec ecu that gets enabled at the event.
you use a spec wire harness for all classes and only get 1. some classes have a spec ecu that gets enabled at the event.
dj10
New member
Rob, if you think of it, to me it's no big deal if you HAVE to run one sensor to make the damn thing work. You are not gaining and performance advantage from one sensor, now are you?
I'd like to know how much good performance software is out there for the OBDII's or is everyone chucking them in place of the EMS's? I believe your problem and others like it could be over come with the correct rule wording.dj
I think OBD2 programming varies from ECU to ECU. I know everything from the CIS-Motronic through the 2007 VW EFI systems have chips of various types out there. sure most of the street chips are still not enough for racing, but these guys already have the baseline mappings and the skills to tweak them more. But you can still find ways to get around that. From diods on the MAF, resistors on the temp sensors these are all common tricks to get more fuel out of OBD2 systems.
If your lucky like the 2001-2005 VW you can actually go into OBD2 and change an adaptation byte to permanently disable traction control (which if you have AXed one is more of a hindrence then a help on any given day.)
If your lucky like the 2001-2005 VW you can actually go into OBD2 and change an adaptation byte to permanently disable traction control (which if you have AXed one is more of a hindrence then a help on any given day.)
dj10
New member
Jake,
I hope you are not proposing to mandate the stock harness. We are getting back to the old rule somewhat. Would would need vast knowledge or money to have someone wire the EMS to make these things work with the stock harness. You are infact defeating the purpose of the rule change. All you need to do is limit what can and will be controled by the EMS. As with Rob's situation, go ahead and allow one sensor if that what he needs to make his system work. Just make sure the other 3 are not on the car or are completely disconnected. Mandating the OEM Harness is a step backwards. I'm sure we can figure out another way.
dj
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, at this point it's all fact finding.
Rob won't have a problem if he goes to a stand alone system, he won't need that sensor because the standalone doesn't need it...he's the master of his domain.
My thinking is that the mandate that we allow aftermarket systems for some, but not all is the big problem here. The "fit it in a box" is the arbitrary point...why have it?
From a rules writing standoint, I worry that allowing open harnesses means specifying what can and what can't be done. By requiring the stock harness and sensors, we can limit the extra verbiage, and the future reworking.
But maybe I'm wrong about that. IF the harness is open, how will we enforce what it is thats being done?
(and yes, I know....how do we enforce whats being done NOW!??...good point, LOL)
Someone take a crack at writing the rule. Gotta keep mass air flow sensors, etc, but allows alternate ECUs. Remember, when you write the rule, it should be forward thinking, but yet not allow any performance upgrades not already possible. The carb guys are watching, LOL.
Rob won't have a problem if he goes to a stand alone system, he won't need that sensor because the standalone doesn't need it...he's the master of his domain.
My thinking is that the mandate that we allow aftermarket systems for some, but not all is the big problem here. The "fit it in a box" is the arbitrary point...why have it?
From a rules writing standoint, I worry that allowing open harnesses means specifying what can and what can't be done. By requiring the stock harness and sensors, we can limit the extra verbiage, and the future reworking.
But maybe I'm wrong about that. IF the harness is open, how will we enforce what it is thats being done?
(and yes, I know....how do we enforce whats being done NOW!??...good point, LOL)
Someone take a crack at writing the rule. Gotta keep mass air flow sensors, etc, but allows alternate ECUs. Remember, when you write the rule, it should be forward thinking, but yet not allow any performance upgrades not already possible. The carb guys are watching, LOL.
Z3_GoCar
New member
Dan,
I can tell you what World Challenge does, ecu's are open. I've got a WC system from '01 custom engine wire harness was made by Tri-Point Engineering, who were an Electromotive dealer at the time, and Computer is Electromotive TECII, all it does is feed it fuel and spark based on the rpm, manifold pressure, and throttle position. When a trigger rpm is reached it activates a relay that switches the VANOS on from the single general purpose output. Alternatively, you could ground out the GPO and it would activate a secondary rev limit for launch control or to keep at the hot pit speed in say 3rd gear, you could do this with a MSD box too. With the stock ecm, no changes can be made to the fuel curve and only minor changes to the spark timing. Also, timming mod's are done in a one shot fits all mannor.
T2 has the same ecm stuffing rules as IT does, so I'm suprised that he's not stuffed the box on the M3. But then again is Turner a MOTEC dealer??
Bill,
Maybe you don't understand the lack of adjutability that we currently don't have unless we buy the one system that can be stuffed, and where is that system, where can we even buy it?? Someone who's good with tunning carbs should be able to replicate the kind of tunning that we desire but are unable to achieve legally.
James