buldogge
New member
Agreed... There are better choices (value wise) than Motec...let it out of the box since it already is allowed...what difference does it make again exactly?
Everyone is always worried about parity...letting it out of the box opens it up to a wider (cheaper) audience just as Andy jas alluded to above. ...ie $500-$1500 instead of $6k! Kinda opens the playing field a little don't you think???
Everyone is always worried about parity...letting it out of the box opens it up to a wider (cheaper) audience just as Andy jas alluded to above. ...ie $500-$1500 instead of $6k! Kinda opens the playing field a little don't you think???
Originally posted by Doc Bro@Jan 24 2006, 01:27 AM
Andy,
As you are very well aware I have a car that would greatly benefit from MOTEC or Megasquirt but I am totally opposed to the rule as written. If you're going to write MOTEC (PFM) in as accepteble then WHY cram it in the stock box? Let's let it exist as it is sold. I mean seriously if your going to run a PFM then it's obvious that the only thing a stock box does is disguise the PFM sytem.
Alowing it to exist on its own would make it more available to the masses (who could benefit from it) and free up other companies as options. I think that anyone who uses PFM has probably totally abandoned their stock ECU anyway so the only thing that the rule promotes is the stock box to harness plug. Why not write the rule to say that the sock connection must be preserved but the box can be abandoned?
This is not rules creep at this point....the creep ocurred by allowing the PFM in the first place. This would only allow more options and a better ability to use the BEST option for your application...not just the smallest.
The Megasquirt would be great cheaper alternative to MOTEC but it is physically larger and would be harder to implement as written. And by the way, I totally understand the thought process of keeping the stock box but the arguement still doesn't hold a lot of water.
I am proud of the fact that PFM would help me greatly and I am opposed to the rule as written.
R
[snapback]71796[/snapback]