ECUs....is it time?

[shwah]

I was looking at the 'alternate' fuel injection system for my Golf the other night (we can run CIS-E or Digifant electronic fuel injection). Noticing the small cross section of the Digi mass air flow sensor, the idea to allow alternate sensors floated in this thread came to mind. If this were allowed I would certainly convert to Digifant and find a reason to run an alternate MAF unit with much lower flow restriction, or run a speed density system swapping a MAP sensor for the MAF sensor.

So I guess I am more opposed to alternate sensors than I was before.

 

[stevel]

I've been saying all along that the intent of ODBII was to make engine management tamper-proof. Even before OBD, there was the old non-adjustable smog carburetors, you know the ones with the factory sealed adjustment screws What does OBDII do when you remove the cat? What about the post cat oxy sensor? These things are engineered, designed, and built as a system. They are fully integrated into how the car runs. Unless you were on the design team, and studied what would happen if??, there's no way to tell what the consequences of just willy-nilly unplugging things like post-cat oxygen sensors. Sometimes it's just benign, and sometimes it's really bad, it all depends on the system dynamics.


[/b]

Again, that's a blanket statement about OBDII. The BMW crowd may have it tough when it comes to OBDII, but that's certainly not true for all makes. There are plenty of OBDII cars out there with aftermarket options that allow full tuning of A/F and timing parameters and more. I know it doesn't have a whole lot to do with this discussion, but I just wanted to get it out there. OBDII is not tamper or "tune-proof" by any means. It all depends on the car you have. If you've got a ford or chevy (bad example i know, who wants to race those things ), you can pretty much control whatever you want in the ECU. Some of the Honda's have fully programmable options out there also.

For the record, I think solutions have become cheap enough and I think it's a great idea to open up the ECU. Hell, I say make the wiring unlimited too. As long as you don't have to alter the intake manifold (to get other gains) then I say let people replace all the sensor they want.

s

 

[dj10]

Relative to the other makes here that's not a bad price. But if you're paying $400 for a chipped ecu for a honda someone is really ripping you off. Using a stock chipped ECU is the way to go (for most apps i've had). No need to stuff anything in the case. Just plug the stock one back in. Can't get more reliable than a stock honda ECU! And $300 to tune it isn't a great price either. For hondas I do the whole thing for about half that total cost!

s [/b]

This is about engine management systems, not chipped ecu's. If you like your ecu, keep it. I'm sure you'll find out you can fine tune more with a EMS.

 

[Eagle7]

I was looking at the 'alternate' fuel injection system for my Golf the other night (we can run CIS-E or Digifant electronic fuel injection). Noticing the small cross section of the Digi mass air flow sensor, the idea to allow alternate sensors floated in this thread came to mind. If this were allowed I would certainly convert to Digifant and find a reason to run an alternate MAF unit with much lower flow restriction, or run a speed density system swapping a MAP sensor for the MAF sensor.

So I guess I am more opposed to alternate sensors than I was before.
[/b]

I hadn't heard this slant on it before. I had always assumed that we'd be required to make all intake air pass through the original unmodified air metering device. If your whizbang ECU doesn't need it, fine, don't use its output, but it still passes all the air through it. If you need a different sensor for your ECU, fine, add one, but keep that stock air metering device intact.

So, would it be a good or a bad idea to allow the removal of the stock air metering device?

 

[C. Ludwig]

I hadn't heard this slant on it before. I had always assumed that we'd be required to make all intake air pass through the original unmodified air metering device. If your whizbang ECU doesn't need it, fine, don't use its output, but it still passes all the air through it. If you need a different sensor for your ECU, fine, add one, but keep that stock air metering device intact.
[/b]

I agree 100%.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

That's the thing thought, I'm not talking about a system where you can just change the chip. The type of systems that I'm refering to require a software download. Imagine trying to install Mac based Word on a Windows system and you start to see the issue we're really dealing with. Now combine that with chassis differences that mean to make a maximum effort require in car dyno tuning, when there's maybe one guy in the US that has most of a system cracked and is holding that knoledge as proprietary as he's spent literally hundreds of hours cracking code that's held proprietary by the O.E. manufacture. What this one guy does offer is a software download that's a one size fits all approach, maybe it's matched to his trick intake system, or a cam swap kit, or even intake manifold, but what it isn't is matched to is your IT car. Now go ask any woman in your life if one-size-fits-all really fits. It's really more like one-size-fits-none, unless you stuff a new on the fly programable system in.

With my stand-alone I started to see this same kind of problem. You see the early TEC-II systems, which mine is, have a non-tunable chip. So you have to guess what parameters to start with, write, compile, and down-load the software code into the system, run it on the dyno to make measurements, rebuild the software with tweeked parameters, recompile and download and repeat. With this sytem I was looking at a 3-day effort and maybe $1500 just to dyno-tune. I cut this cost in half by changing out the prom to the newer on-the-fly programable one. Three days of on and off dyno effort became a couple of hours. I went from a system that was so rich that I had to change oil because of the fuel dumped into it and plugs lasted minutes before they were totally fouled, to one where I've just put three double race weekend on one set of plugs. Anyway, like I said before any relief will be appreciated.

James

 

[Eric Parham]

I was looking at the 'alternate' fuel injection system for my Golf the other night (we can run CIS-E or Digifant electronic fuel injection). Noticing the small cross section of the Digi mass air flow sensor, the idea to allow alternate sensors floated in this thread came to mind. If this were allowed I would certainly convert to Digifant and find a reason to run an alternate MAF unit with much lower flow restriction, or run a speed density system swapping a MAP sensor for the MAF sensor.
So I guess I am more opposed to alternate sensors than I was before.[/b]

Actually, you're quite lucky. Not only do you already have the two choices that you mentioned, but you can also use the California-only hotwire sensor with a different version of Digifant (BTW, this is the best way to go for your application, IMHO). So, now that you can use so many different sensors under the CURRENT rules, why not let others have an option too?

Obviously, some cars have it even better, though. For example, NOTHING measures the air before the intake manifold on many Japanese models. Their only limitation is already the throttle-body and hard parts. I think we should draw the line right there, at the stock throttle body, and allow removal/substitution/addition of ANY desired or needed air metering device.

I think carbuereted cars should be allowed to update/upgrade to electronic fuel injection too, should they so desire. Injectors could be allowed to be inserted into the manifold or disabled carb. The only thing I wouldn't do is allow direct injection into the combustion chamber (unless OEM), mainly for safety reasons.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Again, that's a blanket statement about OBDII. ..... OBDII is not tamper or "tune-proof" by any means. ....
s
[/b]

That's silly, the EPA/CARB madate is for the system to be tamper proof. No if's and or but's about it.

This is from a proposed California Senate Bill:

SB-1146

Pursuant to California's unique authority under the CAA to
establish its own vehicle emissions standards for new cars,
CARB revised its regulations for use in 1994 and later
model year cars to require the use of OBD II devices. To
address concerns about aftermarket tampering of the
computer chips in OBD systems, CARB's OBD II regulations
require the computer monitoring system to be tamper-proof
so that its computer-code operating parameters cannot be




SB 1146
Page
7

altered without specialized tools and procedures. (Title
13, CCR, Section 1968.1(d)(1993).) Thus, prior to selling
any new car or new car engine in California, automobile
manufacturers must obtain certification from CARB that the
car and engine comply with CARB's OBD II requirements.

Proponents of this bill contend that auto makers have used
the regulations and designed the OBD II systems in such a
way as to lock out competitors in the aftermarket parts
replacement market. Proponents of this bill thus seek to
persuade the Legislature to exercise its police powers to
compel the disclosure of specified information to enable
aftermarket parts manufacturers to build aftermarket parts
that are compatible with the OBD II systems.

And also this gem:

Anti-Tampering, some legaleese

Second, California has been certifying cars with OBD II systems since the 1994 model year. Until the 1997 revisions, each car sold with an OBD II system had to "employ proven methods to deter unauthorized reprogramming which may include copyrightable executable routines or other methods." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 1968.1(d) (1995). These cars contin- ue to carry OBDs equipped with methods to deter repro- gramming, notwithstanding repeal of the requirements. If, as petitioners contend, the Clean Air Act requires both California and EPA to implement regulations barring the installation of any anti-tampering mechanisms in their OBDs, then the state unlawfully required manufacturers to install copyrightable routines designed to deter reprogramming over four model years.

James

ps. Just because California stopped requiring copyrightable routines doesn't mean that copyrighted routines aren't still being used even to this day. Also, to reinterate this isn't just a BMW issue, Evo's, Impressa's, and Honda/Acura's, are practically open source, Great! just because they are doesn't mean everything is.

 

[shwah]

Actually, you're quite lucky. Not only do you already have the two choices that you mentioned, but you can also use the California-only hotwire sensor with a different version of Digifant (BTW, this is the best way to go for your application, IMHO). So, now that you can use so many different sensors under the CURRENT rules, why not let others have an option too?

Obviously, some cars have it even better, though. For example, NOTHING measures the air before the intake manifold on many Japanese models. Their only limitation is already the throttle-body and hard parts. I think we should draw the line right there, at the stock throttle body, and allow removal/substitution/addition of ANY desired or needed air metering device.

I think carbuereted cars should be allowed to update/upgrade to electronic fuel injection too, should they so desire. Injectors could be allowed to be inserted into the manifold or disabled carb. The only thing I wouldn't do is allow direct injection into the combustion chamber (unless OEM), mainly for safety reasons.
[/b]

I know about the California system.

I do think that we basically move way down the road towards Production class if we go to the point alluded to here - anything in front of the throttle body is OK as long as you keep the original type of fuel injection. I do not support going that far. There is a definite element of choosing the right car in Improved Touring. IMO that is part of the technical challenge, among many others, of building a competitve car.

 

[lateapex911]

Agreed. Any movement that I support will not have any changes to the parts on the car, which I feel should remain functional. (If your car came with a flapper box, it has to stay, and keep flapping, in the same exact fashion it did from the factory)

I am considering the issue of ignoring it's signal, lets call the signal "russian", and the allowance of say, a MAP sensor that outputs, lets say "english", so that a cheaper EMS system could be used, one that understands English, but not Russian.

But anything that allows a system that wasn't delivered from the factory is not going to fly in my book.

Again, if we go this route, the goal, in my mind, is to make it easier for more people to approach the performance levels that have been designed into the process, that are only attainable by a lucky or wealthy few now.

 

[JoshS]

I am far from an expert in this subject, but I can't just help but think that almost all of the variations of the original proposal suggested in this thread RAISE my costs, not lower them.

I think the "stock box" rule is a HUGE limitation, just because of the number of "piggyback" units available off-the-shelf for many cars that the current rule makes unavailable to IT racers.

But as soon as you allow alternate wiring, additional sensors, or replacement/removal/addition of "hard parts," that really shouts "expensive" to me. Yes, yes, yes, I know about this open-source programming system available. It still requires an expert to install it, and experts are expensive. Much more expensive than buying off-the-shelf components and plugging them in.

You all should go back to the simpler approach you'd been proposing. I feel like most of these suggestions really are a huge leap beyond what IT has always been, and I don't think that was your goal.

 

[Eric Parham]

Agreed. Any movement that I support will not have any changes to the parts on the car, which I feel should remain functional. (If your car came with a flapper box, it has to stay, and keep flapping, in the same exact fashion it did from the factory)

I am considering the issue of ignoring it's signal, lets call the signal "russian", and the allowance of say, a MAP sensor that outputs, lets say "english", so that a cheaper EMS system could be used, one that understands English, but not Russian.

But anything that allows a system that wasn't delivered from the factory is not going to fly in my book.

Again, if we go this route, the goal, in my mind, is to make it easier for more people to approach the performance levels that have been designed into the process, that are only attainable by a lucky or wealthy few now.[/b]

I think sensors and wiring should be free, but would support the above even if it required that "the stock air metering unit must be retained and all intake air must pass through it", or something like that. There's just one more minor problem to consider, if you do insist on that language. That problem is that certain air metering or measuring units actually operate in feedback, and even more will as time goes on. That is, the tension and/or opening angle and/or temperature of the "air metering device" may be controlled by the stock computer, either by a direct electronic actuator or in some cases by indirect means. If the stock computer isn't there anymore, I suspect that some of these units will be "flapping in the breeze", so to speak, and might require that a complicated new control output be provided to them for no good reason. Hence, I question not whether it's possible to do this, but whether that's really a desired outcome (unnecessary costs, etc.). YMMV.

Edit: Possible solution: "The stock air metering unit must be retained and all intake air must pass through it, but the air metering unit may be gutted of movable and/or electrical parts".

 

[Eagle7]

Edit: Possible solution: "The stock air metering unit must be retained and all intake air must pass through it, but the air metering unit may be gutted of movable and/or electrical parts".
[/b]

Well, my car has a spring loaded flapper door, so what you are proposing would lower the restriction on my intake, potentially allowing more air to pass. Is that what you intended?

 

[Eric Parham]

Well, my car has a spring loaded flapper door, so what you are proposing would lower the restriction on my intake, potentially allowing more air to pass. Is that what you intended?
[/b]

Yours and most existing airflow meters happen to be inherantly stable, and operate open-loop (passive) rather than in a feedback (active) mode. You could just disconnect the electrical connector and pull the air through it. This was the way it was designed so that cars could "limp home". I don't know the spring rate of your flapper valve spring, and probably neither does anyone else. Thus, any restriction from the flapper part is either negligible or unenforcible.

As I said, I'd prefer to do away with everything in front of the throttle body, but I think that keeping the airflow meter (with it's potentially restrictive i.d., etc.) is also a workable solution provided that we allow the movable or electrical parts to be removed, as desired. Note that it's also possible that gutting the flapper might actually cause more restriction due to turbulence, so it's not necessarily going to be an advantage either.

 

[dj10]

I am far from an expert in this subject, but I can't just help but think that almost all of the variations of the original proposal suggested in this thread RAISE my costs, not lower them.

I think the "stock box" rule is a HUGE limitation, just because of the number of "piggyback" units available off-the-shelf for many cars that the current rule makes unavailable to IT racers.

But as soon as you allow alternate wiring, additional sensors, or replacement/removal/addition of "hard parts," that really shouts "expensive" to me. Yes, yes, yes, I know about this open-source programming system available. It still requires an expert to install it, and experts are expensive. Much more expensive than buying off-the-shelf components and plugging them in.

You all should go back to the simpler approach you'd been proposing. I feel like most of these suggestions really are a huge leap beyond what IT has always been, and I don't think that was your goal.
[/b]

No one is forcing you to use optional sensors, use the one's you need to fine tune your car. You think this is expensive, deal with the current rule that only allows a ems stuffed in your ecu box and you have to use the factory wiring harness!!!!!!!! Now your talking BIG BUCKS. What everyone here is proposing is a way to fine tune your engine which will save you engine repairs, gas and will be evironmentally friendlier. The other option is use you stock ecu and that won't cost you anything.

 

[tnord]

What everyone here is proposing is a way to fine tune your engine which will save you engine repairs, gas and will be evironmentally friendlier. The other option is use you stock ecu and that won't cost you anything.
[/b]

that is not my intention at all; as these are irrelevant benefits. if you can't make a engine reliable it's your own fault, open ECU or not. environmentally friendly? seriously? if the EPA comes knocking on the front door of the SCCA and says "clean up or we're shutting you down," then fine, otherwise no need to mention it. saving $ on fuel? what's it going to do, give you 10.5mpg instead of 10? what's it cost you for a standalone EMS? $1000 minimum for parts and tuning? care to do the math on how long it will actually take to recoup those costs through fuel efficiency.

don't distract from the real issues. i may go back and read everything i missed over the last week or so, but somehow it seems the discussion has progressed to alowing any wiring, and any sensor you choose.....i'm not sure how i feel about that just yet.

 

[JoshS]

No one is forcing you to use optional sensors, use the one's you need to fine tune your car. You think this is expensive, deal with the current rule that only allows a ems stuffed in your ecu box and you have to use the factory wiring harness!!!!!!!! Now your talking BIG BUCKS. What everyone here is proposing is a way to fine tune your engine which will save you engine repairs, gas and will be evironmentally friendlier. The other option is use you stock ecu and that won't cost you anything.
[/b]

I'm not being selfish here, I'm thinking about what's best for the long-term life of the IT category. The goal, as I understand it, of refreshing the ECU rules is to help reduce costs without increasing the ultimate performance.

I'm just suggesting that the best way to do *that* is to find a way to allow any available off-the-shelf components, without essentially forcing anyone who wants to run at the front to take the most advantage of the rules by replacing all of the original stuff.

For me personally, I feel I pretty much have to stick with the stock ECU and just do some custom programming for it. the stock ECU does a LOT of stuff in this car. On the output side alone, the stock ECU controls the fuel injectors, the ignition coils, the throttle valve, the valve timing, the intake manifold valves, the coolant thermostat, the idle speed, and then a whole bunch of other things that don't matter at all for racing performance in IT trim (air pumps, cruise control, A/C, blah blah, blah).

I don't see how I can replace this thing and even get the car to start without a tremendous amount of expensive, custom, knowledge. It would be WAY more expensive than custom programming. So that's all I will be doing (and the only reason I need custom programming instead of off-the-shelf programming is that I need the computer to be willing to avoid limp mode when it doesn't have catalytic converters or wheel speed sensors).

And my car is 8 years old. Many newer cars are going to be even worse.

So anyway, none of this is about me ... I won't be doing anything other than changing programming. I truly believe that the best thing for IT in the future is to simply allow piggyback computers that use the factory wiring and sensors, but essentially removes the "stock box" requirement. The goal was to reduce costs, right?

I guess maybe as more and more IT cars are like mine, whatever gets decided won't matter. It will be SO expensive to take advantage of whatever rules you are all proposing now that everyone will ignore them and use their stock ECUs. But what I fear is that the rules will allow for something a little bit faster than off-the-shelf software or piggyback units but a LOT more expensive, both in parts and knowledge.

 

[Eric Parham]

So anyway, none of this is about me ... I won't be doing anything other than changing programming. I truly believe that the best thing for IT in the future is to simply allow piggyback computers that use the factory wiring and sensors, but essentially removes the "stock box" requirement. The goal was to reduce costs, right?[/b]

Right, the goal is to reduce costs for EVERYONE, including those whose cars didn't originally come with all the desired sensors (with wires leading into the box) and actuators that yours did. To paraphrase, aren't you saying that you don't happen to need to add any sensors or wiring since it's already there, so why should you agree to a rule that might let others catch up, right?

 

[C. Ludwig]

Some newer systems may operate in an inherantly unstable active mode (e.g., absolute emissions control may take precedence over limp mode for a perceived emissions malfunction). Thus, disconnecting a near-future flapper might cause it to close rather than open under the force of the incoming air, thereby stalling the engine if the original computer doesn't send it exactly the right signal to balance the incoming airflow. Such an active feedback-loop type meter is preferred because it's more sensitive over a wider range of airflows. All in all, I don't mind "giving" you whatever slight advantage gutting the flapper might provide in order to come up with a workable rule so newer cars can play too.
[/b]

There's nothing like that in place currently and your hypothesis holds no water. I can't think of a single new vehicle that currently uses the dated flapper door aparatus. It's a dated technology that has been surpassed by true mass air meters that have no moving parts. Not only is a MAF system potentially more accurate than the older systems but manufacturers want to remove just as much restriction in the air stream as you do. Flapper doors haven't been used in years for good reason and I highly doubt there will be a return.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

 

[Eric Parham]

Sorry, my mistake.