gran racing
Super Moderator
What happened to the ARRC engine we brought down to Atlanta but never installed?
Un-tunable ECU's
- Thread starter Joe Harlan
- Start date
What happened to the ARRC engine we brought down to Atlanta but never installed?
The compression ratio is too low on it. Recall that we were concerned about the compression on the ARRC engine in impound? That's because the build numbers he used on the new engine were actually too low; when we got the numbers in impound we thought the race engine was too high but it was the other way around. So, the new engine needs to have the head pulled and re-done.
Secondarily, that new engine has all new head parts (casting, valves, seats, guides, cams). We'd prefer to keep those parts aside for when the good used inventory is all gone.
Third, the ARRC engine is already apart and could use better sealing; we were getting low-90s on leakdown checks. So, may as well rebuild it while it's apart (and get a few more ponies out of it in the process...) - GA
One to add to the "oddball" list:Fiat X1/9 w/ Bosch L-Jetronic. Aside from gutting the ecu housing, replacing internals w/ Megasquirt, etc, then somehow making it all function through oem wiring harnesses...It may not be impossible, but it is definately financially unfeasible.
Joe Harlan
New member
Sorry guys both of those L-jet systems are plenty tunable inside the pre stuff it ECU rules. Both are a very good systems and with the ability to use any ignition in the factory distributor, you have what IT was all about. You may not like the flapper box but it works it is tunable and fits the catagory. Moms here is the deal I do this for a living if you want more information the shop is open 7 days a week. Once you are a customer you can challenge my tuning ability all day long. The rest of it is looking for an excuse to justify you own position. I had a hand in getting the weight adjusted on the 280 and i am plenty sure it can make the corresponding HP without the motec in the box.
Edit: It frustrates me that you trot out these old style systems that have easy factory adjustment and 95% of what you need to do is done with fuel pressure and manual ignition timing that is easily done by any kid with a timing lite and fuel pressure guage. Lets be real about this.
Edit: It frustrates me that you trot out these old style systems that have easy factory adjustment and 95% of what you need to do is done with fuel pressure and manual ignition timing that is easily done by any kid with a timing lite and fuel pressure guage. Lets be real about this.
Yeah Joe let's be real. I have no problem using the flapper box. Check the other thread, I am arguing to keep the flapper. But you and I know that the adjustment in the AFM is a broad over the entire rev range adjustment. Same as adding a resistor between the water temp switch and the harness, changes the mixture fron idle to WOT. Fuel pressure regulator with vacumn line could be tuned to up pressure at higher revs. If I have to, I'll make do. I'll tune for stoiciometric in my power band and live with a poor idle and lower RPM being off. Mean while you're happily tapping away at your bin files with your emulator, oh yeah that's fair. If you know the z so well, you know how they are all over the place through the rev range. You gonna reprogram my analog box? Even if you could, I couldn't afford your services. I'm a poor boy. But I'm also a computer tech and have twenty five years experience in the car biz before that. I've got a few aces up my sleeve no matter which way the rule goes. And to me, part of the challenge is building a legal winner within the rules by anybody's standards. See ya at the track
Joe Harlan
New member
Well at least you admit you can work with it. the fact is that if the genie is put back in the box your system will be easier to deal with than some others. I have worked with the Z system for years including turbo applications using it. I have 20+ years of L-jet experience with all kinds of cars. And as you say there is more than one way to skin the chicken.
Good luck
Oh yeah, I can work with it. But the subject of the thread was 'Un-tunable ECU's, Lets start a list of cars' and you started the thread. You asked for cars that had a ECU that couldn't be tuned. I gave you one, x1/9racer just gave you another. You didn't ask for cars that can't be tuned, you asked for ECUs that can't be tuned. And I'd bet the original intention was to make the point that your rechip /reflash rule was fair to everyone. Now you're saying 'well you can't reflash that old thing, but you'll be alright'
And that's my point exactly Joe. If you have your way, some will be allowed full control, others will have some control, and other will have none. I guess writing a rule that is fair for everyone is less important then guarding the original (unwritten) intention of the rule. You're desire to defend the intent and spirit of IT is chivalrous, and I'm sure the fact that you make a living in part by rechipping and reflashing ECUs (you said your services were available) and the fact that rechipping and reflashing is dificult and enigmatic for your average guy has nothing to do with why you want this rule. By the way, do any of the guys you race against have Motecs?
JoshS
New member
There's something to be said for car choice. Some cars are better choices than others. You can't expect the rules to equalize everything. The rules don't let cars with solid axles or struts somehow get double wishbone suspensions. If equality was the goal, then the rules would let RX-7s put in some custom independent rear suspension.
I just do not understand why you (the collective "you", not "mom'sZ" specifically) want equality for ECUs but not for other parts of the car. I don't think that this concept of "equality of opportunity" is really within the spirit of the IT rules.
But playing devil's advocate with my own argument, Andy Bettencourt did tell me once that classing mentality of "new replaces old" does not apply in IT. I suppose all of you with old cars are trying to protect your competitiveness against newer technology that came from the factory on newer cars. Is that it? If that's it, are you all ready to continue to spend money to improve your cars as newer technology gets added to IT? And do you recognize that if you give these same allowances to the new cars as well as the old, then it does nothing but raise the costs of preparation for ALL cars in the category?
Joe Harlan
New member
Actually I am an AEM dealer and I sell Motec as a side line. So the fact is I would make a boatload more money if this rule was to pass. I do burn chips for a couple of nissans but most have done all of that type of work for myself out of necessity because I could have never afforded to pay someone to do it for me and I cold never have afforded to by the others. You can take all the punk shots at me you like I make my argument based on history and back it up with a principled reason for my action. the fact is your ecu is not your problem the fact that you are unwilling to accept your system is easier to be tuned than the later stuff we are dealing with is your problem. This is my last response to you as you appear to want to make me the issue and I am tired of it.
Good valid point Josh. We all pick our horse, warts and all. I have two things to say in reply. First off, I picked my car very carefully. One of the top engine builders on the east coast told me he thought with the new reprocessed wieght and the open ECU 'this was the car to have'. Now my car is threatening to grow a wart. The rule has been in place for five years and even if some think open wasn't what was originally intended, ii is what the rule book said. The second thing is, it is impossible to make things completely even, but if the opportunity is there to make it more even, should we not?
Josh, you made the same arguement in the other thread and AB explained how suspension layout ect. is one of the criterion used in the 'process'
Look man here's my point. Stock ECUs only - fair for everyone, cars might need reprocessed. Open ECU w/ stock sensors - fair for everyone, helps guys with small stock box. Open ECU any harness or sensors - fair for everyone but some may go hog wild. rechip/reflash only - great for some, others get screwed
you pick
Joe, the reason I don't agree with your point of view has nothing to do with my car. You keep telling me that I can do what I need to do with what I have and I should feel lucky because a lot of other guys are a lot worst off. Well that is my issue. The rule is unfair for some guys as it stands (not me, my box is huge) The rule you suggest is unfair to some guys and benifits others. Taking away a guy's investment is unfair. (yeah yeah, I know, they were exploiting a loophole) We have an opportunity to write a rule that is fair for everyone. You don't think open ECUs are in the spirit of IT, fine, stock ECUs only.
If I was arguing for my own sake, I'd be pushing for open ECUs with any sensors and open wiring. I'd build a megasquirt for less then $300 in parts and I'm a computer whiz so I'd have no problem writing the open source code to do anything my diabolical little mind could dream up.
Hello Joe:
I have a 4AG powered Toyota Corolla, a 1985 GTS. After followinh your advice and contacting Technosquare they mentioned that I needed to bring the car to their location in California in order to tuned(burn chip in a try and error mode) the car.
For some of us that is really not an option. Is there a true plug-n-play ECU that could fit inside our original housing? I know of at least a few stand alone systems that could sell their product in a plug-n-play
application for just about any car (i.e. HYDRA EMS).
Thanks,
Renaultfool
New member
Renault Alliance, Encore, and GTA, 1983-1987. Three different ECU types, all Renix. I'm sure that someone could figure out how to rechip and tune anything, but at what cost? They would remain a low volume project for anyone, so high cost.
What you are suggesting really makes about as much sense as building a model ship in a bottle. Sure a few people might be able to do it that way, but most people may just want to build a model ship.
The open option would equalize out the cost for everyone and allow the rare oddball car to still see the front of the pack for a while.
I am not sure that we have not refocused the purpose of our interest from racing to technology. Sticking with the stock system, which cannot be verified at the track or Joe's or some other system, that cannot be checked at the track will not ever cure the feeling that someone is taking an advantage. The ability to police the technology has already passed us by, from the factory or Joe's. Let's police what we can measure, the mechanical parts, open the rest up and race.
Carl
What you are suggesting really makes about as much sense as building a model ship in a bottle. Sure a few people might be able to do it that way, but most people may just want to build a model ship.
The open option would equalize out the cost for everyone and allow the rare oddball car to still see the front of the pack for a while.
I am not sure that we have not refocused the purpose of our interest from racing to technology. Sticking with the stock system, which cannot be verified at the track or Joe's or some other system, that cannot be checked at the track will not ever cure the feeling that someone is taking an advantage. The ability to police the technology has already passed us by, from the factory or Joe's. Let's police what we can measure, the mechanical parts, open the rest up and race.
Carl