| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 12:27 AM |
UTEC in STX
�
�
So I was up at my sponsor's place (Knowledge Performance) tonight kicking around some ideas as we tried to tune my POS Unichip. We got to talking about the UTEC, and IMO I think it is legal engine management so long as you do not use the boost control functions. Here is the reason for my argument:
1) It is not stand-alone management; it is a plug in controller just like the Unichip (I think it actually is based on the Unichip IIRC)
2) It is only controlling fuel and timing so long as you do not plug in the wire for boost control.
We broke out the factory service manual, and there is only one wire from the ECU that controls boost. We plugged in the full harness, but cut that wire and ran it direct so that the UTEC has no physical way to modify boost, regardless of what map was loaded. In this respect it is exactly like a Unichip, only it gives a ton more functionality. Thoughts?
One last question... If the UTEC was legal used in this fashion, could you use the launch control capability? It does not modify traction control (obviously as we have none), but cuts fuel or pulls timing at a set point to maintain rpm. It's still only modifying fuel and timing, which is allowed, but I'm thinking this may be a gray area as it is not specifically allowed anywhere.
Joel
P.S. Let's keep this discussion respectful as I know it is a sensitive subject.
1) It is not stand-alone management; it is a plug in controller just like the Unichip (I think it actually is based on the Unichip IIRC)
2) It is only controlling fuel and timing so long as you do not plug in the wire for boost control.
We broke out the factory service manual, and there is only one wire from the ECU that controls boost. We plugged in the full harness, but cut that wire and ran it direct so that the UTEC has no physical way to modify boost, regardless of what map was loaded. In this respect it is exactly like a Unichip, only it gives a ton more functionality. Thoughts?
One last question... If the UTEC was legal used in this fashion, could you use the launch control capability? It does not modify traction control (obviously as we have none), but cuts fuel or pulls timing at a set point to maintain rpm. It's still only modifying fuel and timing, which is allowed, but I'm thinking this may be a gray area as it is not specifically allowed anywhere.
Joel
P.S. Let's keep this discussion respectful as I know it is a sensitive subject.
| MNbiker | 12-15-2003 01:16 AM |
Joel,
IMHO it's going to take an appeal to truly determine whether the UTEC is considered legal. Even with boost control disabled, there are some issues with how UTEC controls timing. However, I think it's a 50/50 proposition whether UTEC would be ruled legal or not. XEDE is pretty much in the same boat, as far as I can tell.
I sure wish someone would push the envelope for us & force the SEB to make a clear-cur ruling, as it would be really nice to have a highly user-tunable box to work with. You volunteering?;)
-Steve
p.s. Even if launch control is legal (and it might be), I don't think it would be worth having. I've run with launch control & flat shift before on a drag car - it's useful for 1/4 mile races, but would be useless for Solo2 & only marginally helpful for ProSolo. It's also REALLY easy to blow an engine with Launch Control.
IMHO it's going to take an appeal to truly determine whether the UTEC is considered legal. Even with boost control disabled, there are some issues with how UTEC controls timing. However, I think it's a 50/50 proposition whether UTEC would be ruled legal or not. XEDE is pretty much in the same boat, as far as I can tell.
I sure wish someone would push the envelope for us & force the SEB to make a clear-cur ruling, as it would be really nice to have a highly user-tunable box to work with. You volunteering?;)
-Steve
p.s. Even if launch control is legal (and it might be), I don't think it would be worth having. I've run with launch control & flat shift before on a drag car - it's useful for 1/4 mile races, but would be useless for Solo2 & only marginally helpful for ProSolo. It's also REALLY easy to blow an engine with Launch Control.
| thechickencow | 12-15-2003 01:33 AM |
I think the launch control of the utec would be useful on some autox courses. I haven't specifically used it, but from talking with dwx he seems to like it when the course has a long enough straight section to start.
How much hp gain would one be able to get out of a utec without modifying boost on headers, uppipe, crank pulley, downpipe, high flow cat, straightpipe? 20hp? 40hp?
Jay
How much hp gain would one be able to get out of a utec without modifying boost on headers, uppipe, crank pulley, downpipe, high flow cat, straightpipe? 20hp? 40hp?
Jay
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 02:14 AM |
I was thinking in terms of Prosolos for the launch control, but lately we have had a number of starts at NTs and SEDIV events that would benefit from a consistently hard launch.
I'm not quite sure I follow you on the 50/50 UTEC ruling. Without the boost control it is a plug-in fuel and timing computer, which is specifically allowed by the rules. I think this is much less suspect than the ECUtek, which has the ability to control boost and is practically unenforcable. Unless the SCCA decides to purchase SW to read every form of reprogrammable ECU on every turbo car, there is no way to enforce the engine management. Bringing your own SW to a protest is not a solution as the machine used to test could also be tampered with. The computer and SW would have to be owned and operated by Impound. This is why I switched from the ECUtek to the Unichip.
For the record, I offered to settle this issue by protest on a few occasions. I have to drive 8 hours or more to the closest NT though, so I'm not going to make the trip just to fight a protest war. Maybe we could do something at the Pro in Atlanta (which I will be hosting) :)
I'm not quite sure I follow you on the 50/50 UTEC ruling. Without the boost control it is a plug-in fuel and timing computer, which is specifically allowed by the rules. I think this is much less suspect than the ECUtek, which has the ability to control boost and is practically unenforcable. Unless the SCCA decides to purchase SW to read every form of reprogrammable ECU on every turbo car, there is no way to enforce the engine management. Bringing your own SW to a protest is not a solution as the machine used to test could also be tampered with. The computer and SW would have to be owned and operated by Impound. This is why I switched from the ECUtek to the Unichip.
For the record, I offered to settle this issue by protest on a few occasions. I have to drive 8 hours or more to the closest NT though, so I'm not going to make the trip just to fight a protest war. Maybe we could do something at the Pro in Atlanta (which I will be hosting) :)
| Davenow | 12-15-2003 06:55 AM |
you are going to be protested, non stop. Anyone that knows anything or wants to do 2 min research on the WRX just has to look at the height of your passenger side floorboard to see that you have something in there and BAM you're protested. I am not even nationally competative and I would protest you if I was in STX and you beat me. its really easy to show a cut wire and still have it hooked up. Easy enough to show boost maps are zero'd out, but unless they know the UTEC, thats not going to convince them.
If you want engine management and dont want to cheat, have your ecu flashed and dont tell anyone, dont let them mark the ECU in any way and do the install PERFECT so it looks like no one has been down there. A timing and fuel flash is gonna give you, what? 10whp? Its not enough that you are going to be fast enough to raise eyebrows. and if they DO want to check, they will end up seeing that your boost maps are stock.
KC could probably answer this since he went UNICHIP for a reason (not sure what it was) but
Why not just run a dyno tuned SAFC???
You DO modify timing with it, as the engine will change timing on its own to go along with fueling. SO why not just skip the entire chance and use it? I am sure there is a good reason, can someone enlighten me? Because this is what I was going to do when I was going to run STX.
If you want engine management and dont want to cheat, have your ecu flashed and dont tell anyone, dont let them mark the ECU in any way and do the install PERFECT so it looks like no one has been down there. A timing and fuel flash is gonna give you, what? 10whp? Its not enough that you are going to be fast enough to raise eyebrows. and if they DO want to check, they will end up seeing that your boost maps are stock.
KC could probably answer this since he went UNICHIP for a reason (not sure what it was) but
Why not just run a dyno tuned SAFC???
You DO modify timing with it, as the engine will change timing on its own to go along with fueling. SO why not just skip the entire chance and use it? I am sure there is a good reason, can someone enlighten me? Because this is what I was going to do when I was going to run STX.
| Davenow | 12-15-2003 06:58 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by thechickencow [/i]
[B]]
How much hp gain would one be able to get out of a utec without modifying boost on headers, uppipe, crank pulley, downpipe, high flow cat, straightpipe? 20hp? 40hp?
Jay [/B][/QUOTE]
Considering that on a BONE STOCK WRX , the UTEC picks up like 30WHP and that is rasing boost to 16.5 PSI, I would think fuel/timing only would yeild in the area of 10WHP. Hardly worth the 1000 bucks and the dyno tune needed to get the power reliably. Why not use an SAFC? (see above post of mine, I would love to know why this isnt used)
[B]]
How much hp gain would one be able to get out of a utec without modifying boost on headers, uppipe, crank pulley, downpipe, high flow cat, straightpipe? 20hp? 40hp?
Jay [/B][/QUOTE]
Considering that on a BONE STOCK WRX , the UTEC picks up like 30WHP and that is rasing boost to 16.5 PSI, I would think fuel/timing only would yeild in the area of 10WHP. Hardly worth the 1000 bucks and the dyno tune needed to get the power reliably. Why not use an SAFC? (see above post of mine, I would love to know why this isnt used)
| KC | 12-15-2003 08:37 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Davenow[/i]
[B] KC could probably answer this since he went UNICHIP for a reason (not sure what it was) but
[/B][/QUOTE]
I went unichip for 1 day of a pro-solo. I pulled it for the 2nd day (Oscoda Pro). I'm going to run Stock ECU, no modifications next year too.
Where in line does the UTEC go? Does it go before or after the ECU?
The way the rules are written, it can only modify the signal GOING INTO the ECU, and cannot modify them once they exit the ECU. (Must be an uniterrupted/unmodified signal coming from the ECU to the sensor) The UTEC does both.
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal [B]coming from the sensor[/B] in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
Notice is doesn't say 'and going to'.
You could write to the SEB to ask that it be put in as it may just be some sloppy writing that left this hole. If you can indeed alter the signal from the ECU to the Sensor, then the rule should state that also.
[B] KC could probably answer this since he went UNICHIP for a reason (not sure what it was) but
[/B][/QUOTE]
I went unichip for 1 day of a pro-solo. I pulled it for the 2nd day (Oscoda Pro). I'm going to run Stock ECU, no modifications next year too.
Where in line does the UTEC go? Does it go before or after the ECU?
The way the rules are written, it can only modify the signal GOING INTO the ECU, and cannot modify them once they exit the ECU. (Must be an uniterrupted/unmodified signal coming from the ECU to the sensor) The UTEC does both.
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal [B]coming from the sensor[/B] in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
Notice is doesn't say 'and going to'.
You could write to the SEB to ask that it be put in as it may just be some sloppy writing that left this hole. If you can indeed alter the signal from the ECU to the Sensor, then the rule should state that also.
| angryfist | 12-15-2003 09:23 AM |
the UTEC is a half stand-alone / half piggyback system. even without the boost control, fuel is altered by voltage change (piggyback), but timing in the UTEC is standalone. it takes full control of timing and is not jsut altering the signal. therefor still making it illegal.
| MNbiker | 12-15-2003 09:29 AM |
KC pretty much summed up my reason for calling it a 50/50 proposition.
IMO - the main benefit for having something like UTEC, versus Unichip or a reflash, is for easy tuneability. This could buy you another 10whp with 100 octane or a bit more conservative map for daily driving. It also saves multiple trips to a tuner for minor tweaks.
-Steve
IMO - the main benefit for having something like UTEC, versus Unichip or a reflash, is for easy tuneability. This could buy you another 10whp with 100 octane or a bit more conservative map for daily driving. It also saves multiple trips to a tuner for minor tweaks.
-Steve
| AWMIII | 12-15-2003 09:42 AM |
Through very agressive timing tuning, the turbo can be made to spool sooner. So I would bet that a hp increase of 15-20 hp can be had though fuel and timing correction on race fuel. BUt, the real improvement is area under the curve. 8 or 9 psi at 2100 rpm would certainly make a car autox better. BUt the timing correction functions of the UTEC are definately not legal according to last year's stx rules.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 11:20 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]I went unichip for 1 day of a pro-solo. I pulled it for the 2nd day (Oscoda Pro). I'm going to run Stock ECU, no modifications next year too.
Where in line does the UTEC go? Does it go before or after the ECU?
The way the rules are written, it can only modify the signal GOING INTO the ECU, and cannot modify them once they exit the ECU. (Must be an uniterrupted/unmodified signal coming from the ECU to the sensor) The UTEC does both.
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal [B]coming from the sensor[/B] in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
Notice is doesn't say 'and going to'.
You could write to the SEB to ask that it be put in as it may just be some sloppy writing that left this hole. If you can indeed alter the signal from the ECU to the Sensor, then the rule should state that also. [/B][/QUOTE]
The UTEC has a harness that accepts all the signals that would originally come into the ECU, and a harness going out into the ECU. IMO, that it legal and it is the same setup as the Unichip wiring harness. By running the incoming boost signal straight to the ECU (bypassing the UTEC), that component is not a factor in the legality of the computer.
Can someone explain to me what is being altered after the ECU? As far as I can tell it is entirely before the ECU.
Joel
[B]I went unichip for 1 day of a pro-solo. I pulled it for the 2nd day (Oscoda Pro). I'm going to run Stock ECU, no modifications next year too.
Where in line does the UTEC go? Does it go before or after the ECU?
The way the rules are written, it can only modify the signal GOING INTO the ECU, and cannot modify them once they exit the ECU. (Must be an uniterrupted/unmodified signal coming from the ECU to the sensor) The UTEC does both.
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal [B]coming from the sensor[/B] in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
Notice is doesn't say 'and going to'.
You could write to the SEB to ask that it be put in as it may just be some sloppy writing that left this hole. If you can indeed alter the signal from the ECU to the Sensor, then the rule should state that also. [/B][/QUOTE]
The UTEC has a harness that accepts all the signals that would originally come into the ECU, and a harness going out into the ECU. IMO, that it legal and it is the same setup as the Unichip wiring harness. By running the incoming boost signal straight to the ECU (bypassing the UTEC), that component is not a factor in the legality of the computer.
Can someone explain to me what is being altered after the ECU? As far as I can tell it is entirely before the ECU.
Joel
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 11:20 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker[/i]
[B] KC pretty much summed up my reason for calling it a 50/50 proposition.
IMO - the main benefit for having something like UTEC, versus Unichip or a reflash, is for easy tuneability. This could buy you another 10whp with 100 octane or a bit more conservative map for daily driving. It also saves multiple trips to a tuner for minor tweaks.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Let's just say it's doing significantly more than 10 hp on 93 octane.
[B] KC pretty much summed up my reason for calling it a 50/50 proposition.
IMO - the main benefit for having something like UTEC, versus Unichip or a reflash, is for easy tuneability. This could buy you another 10whp with 100 octane or a bit more conservative map for daily driving. It also saves multiple trips to a tuner for minor tweaks.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Let's just say it's doing significantly more than 10 hp on 93 octane.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 11:23 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AWMIII[/i]
[B] Through very agressive timing tuning, the turbo can be made to spool sooner. So I would bet that a hp increase of 15-20 hp can be had though fuel and timing correction on race fuel. BUt, the real improvement is area under the curve. 8 or 9 psi at 2100 rpm would certainly make a car autox better. BUt the timing correction functions of the UTEC are definately not legal according to last year's stx rules. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. The difference between the other available engine management systems and this is that I can get on the dyno and precisely tune my car. The other options make me rely on getting a map from somewhere else that is effectively a best guess at fuel and timing, which in my experience have not been close. We tried to tune the Unichip last night, and it is very difficult and does not allow nearly the control that the UTEC does. We made 12 more HP in the change from the Unichip to the UTEC, and the Unichip was already an increase over stock.
[B] Through very agressive timing tuning, the turbo can be made to spool sooner. So I would bet that a hp increase of 15-20 hp can be had though fuel and timing correction on race fuel. BUt, the real improvement is area under the curve. 8 or 9 psi at 2100 rpm would certainly make a car autox better. BUt the timing correction functions of the UTEC are definately not legal according to last year's stx rules. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. The difference between the other available engine management systems and this is that I can get on the dyno and precisely tune my car. The other options make me rely on getting a map from somewhere else that is effectively a best guess at fuel and timing, which in my experience have not been close. We tried to tune the Unichip last night, and it is very difficult and does not allow nearly the control that the UTEC does. We made 12 more HP in the change from the Unichip to the UTEC, and the Unichip was already an increase over stock.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 11:28 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Davenow [/i]
[B]you are going to be protested, non stop. Anyone that knows anything or wants to do 2 min research on the WRX just has to look at the height of your passenger side floorboard to see that you have something in there and BAM you're protested. I am not even nationally competative and I would protest you if I was in STX and you beat me. its really easy to show a cut wire and still have it hooked up. Easy enough to show boost maps are zero'd out, but unless they know the UTEC, thats not going to convince them.
If you want engine management and dont want to cheat, have your ecu flashed and dont tell anyone, dont let them mark the ECU in any way and do the install PERFECT so it looks like no one has been down there. A timing and fuel flash is gonna give you, what? 10whp? Its not enough that you are going to be fast enough to raise eyebrows. and if they DO want to check, they will end up seeing that your boost maps are stock.
KC could probably answer this since he went UNICHIP for a reason (not sure what it was) but
Why not just run a dyno tuned SAFC???
You DO modify timing with it, as the engine will change timing on its own to go along with fueling. SO why not just skip the entire chance and use it? I am sure there is a good reason, can someone enlighten me? Because this is what I was going to do when I was going to run STX. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to hide anything. That's why I'm posting here to get it out in the open. I think it is a legal solution until I am convinced otherwise. I admit that my knowledge of the system is limited, but I know it lugs in before the ECU and that the only wire that controls boost is bypassed.
I'm confused about your statement that you can show a cut wire that is still hooked up. There is one wire that controls boost (according to the FSM), and this wire is feed directly into the ECU so the UTEC has no physical way to modify boost. I can show this in the FSM in a protest situation, and it will be the burden of the protestor to show how I magically hooked up a cut wire (unless I'm missing something that just doesn't make sense).
[B]you are going to be protested, non stop. Anyone that knows anything or wants to do 2 min research on the WRX just has to look at the height of your passenger side floorboard to see that you have something in there and BAM you're protested. I am not even nationally competative and I would protest you if I was in STX and you beat me. its really easy to show a cut wire and still have it hooked up. Easy enough to show boost maps are zero'd out, but unless they know the UTEC, thats not going to convince them.
If you want engine management and dont want to cheat, have your ecu flashed and dont tell anyone, dont let them mark the ECU in any way and do the install PERFECT so it looks like no one has been down there. A timing and fuel flash is gonna give you, what? 10whp? Its not enough that you are going to be fast enough to raise eyebrows. and if they DO want to check, they will end up seeing that your boost maps are stock.
KC could probably answer this since he went UNICHIP for a reason (not sure what it was) but
Why not just run a dyno tuned SAFC???
You DO modify timing with it, as the engine will change timing on its own to go along with fueling. SO why not just skip the entire chance and use it? I am sure there is a good reason, can someone enlighten me? Because this is what I was going to do when I was going to run STX. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to hide anything. That's why I'm posting here to get it out in the open. I think it is a legal solution until I am convinced otherwise. I admit that my knowledge of the system is limited, but I know it lugs in before the ECU and that the only wire that controls boost is bypassed.
I'm confused about your statement that you can show a cut wire that is still hooked up. There is one wire that controls boost (according to the FSM), and this wire is feed directly into the ECU so the UTEC has no physical way to modify boost. I can show this in the FSM in a protest situation, and it will be the burden of the protestor to show how I magically hooked up a cut wire (unless I'm missing something that just doesn't make sense).
| TheWRX | 12-15-2003 11:48 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER [/i]
[B]Can someone explain to me what is being altered after the ECU?[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't have all the technical details, but here are a few quotes from the TurboXS web site: "Complete ignition timing control - No need to worry about the factory ECU pulling timing anymore." "It acts as a stand alone system in that it gives you complete control over ignition timing and boost. Fuel control, however, is piggy-backed off the factory ECU."
This sounds different from what the Unichip does. For the reasons KC explained, I think the UTEC is clearly illegal for STX.
[B]Can someone explain to me what is being altered after the ECU?[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't have all the technical details, but here are a few quotes from the TurboXS web site: "Complete ignition timing control - No need to worry about the factory ECU pulling timing anymore." "It acts as a stand alone system in that it gives you complete control over ignition timing and boost. Fuel control, however, is piggy-backed off the factory ECU."
This sounds different from what the Unichip does. For the reasons KC explained, I think the UTEC is clearly illegal for STX.
| MNbiker | 12-15-2003 11:53 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER [/i]
[B]Let's just say it's doing significantly more than 10 hp on 93 octane. [/B][/QUOTE]
I meant 10whp by tuning for 100 octane, in addition to the 10-20whp that can be gained by optimizing fuel & timing for 93 octane.
-Steve
[B]Let's just say it's doing significantly more than 10 hp on 93 octane. [/B][/QUOTE]
I meant 10whp by tuning for 100 octane, in addition to the 10-20whp that can be gained by optimizing fuel & timing for 93 octane.
-Steve
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 12:13 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker[/i]
[B] I meant 10whp by tuning for 100 octane, in addition to the 10-20whp that can be gained by optimizing fuel & timing for 93 octane.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed
[B] I meant 10whp by tuning for 100 octane, in addition to the 10-20whp that can be gained by optimizing fuel & timing for 93 octane.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 12:17 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheWRX[/i]
[B] I don't have all the technical details, but here are a few quotes from the TurboXS web site: "Complete ignition timing control - No need to worry about the factory ECU pulling timing anymore." "It acts as a stand alone system in that it gives you complete control over ignition timing and boost. Fuel control, however, is piggy-backed off the factory ECU."
This sounds different from what the Unichip does. For the reasons KC explained, I think the UTEC is clearly illegal for STX. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually what the UTEC does for timing is to look at the crank sensor output and then send the signal to the ECU to fire based on it's own map. The ECU still fires the plugs, it's just that the UTEC has modified the signal coming from the crank sensor. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is still a plug and play controller between the sensor and the ECU. Without the ECU, the UTEC could not fire the plugs and therefore it is not stand alone (though it offers complete control of the timing map as if it were). Also, you have to understand that the UTEC does not touch any signal after the ECU; it plugs in just like the Unichip with a harness (sensors run into the Utec, output goes to ECU).
Am I missing something?
[B] I don't have all the technical details, but here are a few quotes from the TurboXS web site: "Complete ignition timing control - No need to worry about the factory ECU pulling timing anymore." "It acts as a stand alone system in that it gives you complete control over ignition timing and boost. Fuel control, however, is piggy-backed off the factory ECU."
This sounds different from what the Unichip does. For the reasons KC explained, I think the UTEC is clearly illegal for STX. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually what the UTEC does for timing is to look at the crank sensor output and then send the signal to the ECU to fire based on it's own map. The ECU still fires the plugs, it's just that the UTEC has modified the signal coming from the crank sensor. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is still a plug and play controller between the sensor and the ECU. Without the ECU, the UTEC could not fire the plugs and therefore it is not stand alone (though it offers complete control of the timing map as if it were). Also, you have to understand that the UTEC does not touch any signal after the ECU; it plugs in just like the Unichip with a harness (sensors run into the Utec, output goes to ECU).
Am I missing something?
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 12:21 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker[/i]
[B] I meant 10whp by tuning for 100 octane, in addition to the 10-20whp that can be gained by optimizing fuel & timing for 93 octane.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
As an FYI, part of the reason I like the UTEC is that I can do a 100 octane map and a 93 map, and switch between them using the new user controllable feature. I will probably also do a 91 map and a map to lean it out for highway cruising as it drinks gas right now. I think it can hold 4 maps or something like that. As the boost control line is physically bypassing the UTEC, it would not be illegal to change maps. It would just be a different timing and fueling map for different pump gas.
Joel
[B] I meant 10whp by tuning for 100 octane, in addition to the 10-20whp that can be gained by optimizing fuel & timing for 93 octane.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
As an FYI, part of the reason I like the UTEC is that I can do a 100 octane map and a 93 map, and switch between them using the new user controllable feature. I will probably also do a 91 map and a map to lean it out for highway cruising as it drinks gas right now. I think it can hold 4 maps or something like that. As the boost control line is physically bypassing the UTEC, it would not be illegal to change maps. It would just be a different timing and fueling map for different pump gas.
Joel
| KC | 12-15-2003 12:40 PM |
Ok, reading the install documentation, it is installed before the ECU only. I never took the time to read the instructions (never really interested in the product and was going by what some people discussed earlier), and now I (partially) understand. So I may have to stop saying that it alters the signal out of the ECU. :)
FYI: The UTEC instructions can be found here for EVERYONE to read... the more people that read them, the more understanding there can be about the product: [url]http://www.turboxs.com/_images/UTEC/UTEC%20User%20Manual%203.11.pdf[/url]
The way I read it is there's a way to switch maps but I haven't been able to find anything that says you can skip the boost line (yet... still looking). Everything I read in the manual reads as if it **has to be** hooked up.
Also, ignition timing... myself not being 'tuner knowlegable', what does "Ignition timing may be set at any point on factory adjustable distributor ignition systems. " mean as it applies to a WRX. (The quotes are part of the rules). I have no idea if the WRX has or doesn't have an 'adjustable distributor iginition system'. If it doesn't, I would read that you cannot adjust ignition timing.
Trying to learn here myself now. :)
FYI: The UTEC instructions can be found here for EVERYONE to read... the more people that read them, the more understanding there can be about the product: [url]http://www.turboxs.com/_images/UTEC/UTEC%20User%20Manual%203.11.pdf[/url]
The way I read it is there's a way to switch maps but I haven't been able to find anything that says you can skip the boost line (yet... still looking). Everything I read in the manual reads as if it **has to be** hooked up.
Also, ignition timing... myself not being 'tuner knowlegable', what does "Ignition timing may be set at any point on factory adjustable distributor ignition systems. " mean as it applies to a WRX. (The quotes are part of the rules). I have no idea if the WRX has or doesn't have an 'adjustable distributor iginition system'. If it doesn't, I would read that you cannot adjust ignition timing.
Trying to learn here myself now. :)
| Kha0S | 12-15-2003 01:10 PM |
The UTEC's ignition timing adjustment occurs after the ECU. It presents a resistance to the stock ECU's ignition drivers and has its own internal ignition driver lines.
As such, the only engine management systems that would be permitted to adjust timing according to that limit (that is, modifies sensor values only) is a system that modifies/replicates the crank-angle sensor value, such as the Unichip or XEDE.
Similarly, closed-loop switchover controllers (like the Vishnu EMI, J&S SafeGuard, etc.) would be illegal, as they influence the throttle position signal.
A unit like the GReddy e-Manage could be used without the ignition or injector harnesses, and it acts as a glorified, higher precision S-AFC.
/Andrew
As such, the only engine management systems that would be permitted to adjust timing according to that limit (that is, modifies sensor values only) is a system that modifies/replicates the crank-angle sensor value, such as the Unichip or XEDE.
Similarly, closed-loop switchover controllers (like the Vishnu EMI, J&S SafeGuard, etc.) would be illegal, as they influence the throttle position signal.
A unit like the GReddy e-Manage could be used without the ignition or injector harnesses, and it acts as a glorified, higher precision S-AFC.
/Andrew
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 01:34 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] The way I read it is there's a way to switch maps but I haven't been able to find anything that says you can skip the boost line (yet... still looking). Everything I read in the manual reads as if it **has to be** hooked up.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure that they write up anything in the instructions about skipping the boost control because 99% of their users will take advantage of that functionality. It's only the freaks like us that have to get around that issue. All we did was run the boost line directly into the ECU rather than through the UTEC, so it has no way to control it. It works just fine, btw, though I may be the first person to have ever tried it.
[B] The way I read it is there's a way to switch maps but I haven't been able to find anything that says you can skip the boost line (yet... still looking). Everything I read in the manual reads as if it **has to be** hooked up.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure that they write up anything in the instructions about skipping the boost control because 99% of their users will take advantage of that functionality. It's only the freaks like us that have to get around that issue. All we did was run the boost line directly into the ECU rather than through the UTEC, so it has no way to control it. It works just fine, btw, though I may be the first person to have ever tried it.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 01:42 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kha0S[/i]
[B] The UTEC's ignition timing adjustment occurs after the ECU. It presents a resistance to the stock ECU's ignition drivers and has its own internal ignition driver lines.
As such, the only engine management systems that would be permitted to adjust timing according to that limit (that is, modifies sensor values only) is a system that modifies/replicates the crank-angle sensor value, such as the Unichip or XEDE.
Similarly, closed-loop switchover controllers (like the Vishnu EMI, J&S SafeGuard, etc.) would be illegal, as they influence the throttle position signal.
A unit like the GReddy e-Manage could be used without the ignition or injector harnesses, and it acts as a glorified, higher precision S-AFC.
/Andrew [/B][/QUOTE]
How can the timing occur after the ECU if the UTEC only plugs in before the ECU? My understanding is that the UTEC reads the incoming signal from the crank position sensor, and sends the signal to fire the plugs to the ECU based on the timing map loaded in the UTEC. In any regard, there is nothing that physically plugs in after the ECU, so I'm confused by the few people here that have said the UTEC functions after the ECU or operates stand alone (which is clearly not the case as it would not work without the ECU). Again, my knowledge of the system is limited, so I'm just trying to understand.
[B] The UTEC's ignition timing adjustment occurs after the ECU. It presents a resistance to the stock ECU's ignition drivers and has its own internal ignition driver lines.
As such, the only engine management systems that would be permitted to adjust timing according to that limit (that is, modifies sensor values only) is a system that modifies/replicates the crank-angle sensor value, such as the Unichip or XEDE.
Similarly, closed-loop switchover controllers (like the Vishnu EMI, J&S SafeGuard, etc.) would be illegal, as they influence the throttle position signal.
A unit like the GReddy e-Manage could be used without the ignition or injector harnesses, and it acts as a glorified, higher precision S-AFC.
/Andrew [/B][/QUOTE]
How can the timing occur after the ECU if the UTEC only plugs in before the ECU? My understanding is that the UTEC reads the incoming signal from the crank position sensor, and sends the signal to fire the plugs to the ECU based on the timing map loaded in the UTEC. In any regard, there is nothing that physically plugs in after the ECU, so I'm confused by the few people here that have said the UTEC functions after the ECU or operates stand alone (which is clearly not the case as it would not work without the ECU). Again, my knowledge of the system is limited, so I'm just trying to understand.
| ChrisW | 12-15-2003 01:45 PM |
From the many threads posted on this forum, the boost control is built into the hardware, there is no way to disable it, same goes for the ignition control.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER[/i]
[B]It's only the freaks like us that have to get around that issue. All we did was run the boost line directly into the ECU rather than through the UTEC, so it has no way to control it. It works just fine, btw, though I may be the first person to have ever tried it. [/B][/QUOTE]
that's an interesting solution, but you still have the problems with the independant control of the ignition system.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER[/i]
[B]It's only the freaks like us that have to get around that issue. All we did was run the boost line directly into the ECU rather than through the UTEC, so it has no way to control it. It works just fine, btw, though I may be the first person to have ever tried it. [/B][/QUOTE]
that's an interesting solution, but you still have the problems with the independant control of the ignition system.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 01:47 PM |
Also, from the rule in question here:
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
Would it really matter _how_ the UTEC modifies timing so long as it does it before the ECU? I think we need to distinguish between the two. The UTEC cetainly has a clever way of fooling the ECU and taking control of timing, but so long as it does this from the sensors and to the ECU (not after), my reading is that it would be legal.
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
Would it really matter _how_ the UTEC modifies timing so long as it does it before the ECU? I think we need to distinguish between the two. The UTEC cetainly has a clever way of fooling the ECU and taking control of timing, but so long as it does this from the sensors and to the ECU (not after), my reading is that it would be legal.
| angryfist | 12-15-2003 01:49 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kha0S [/i]
A unit like the GReddy e-Manage could be used without the ignition or injector harnesses, and it acts as a glorified, higher precision S-AFC.
/Andrew [/B][/QUOTE]
you could use the emanage with all the harnesses and control timing and fuel as a piggyback unit. basically becoming a fuel timing computer without boost control.
A unit like the GReddy e-Manage could be used without the ignition or injector harnesses, and it acts as a glorified, higher precision S-AFC.
/Andrew [/B][/QUOTE]
you could use the emanage with all the harnesses and control timing and fuel as a piggyback unit. basically becoming a fuel timing computer without boost control.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 01:52 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW[/i]
[B] that's an interesting solution, but you still have the problems with the independant control of the ignition system. [/B][/QUOTE]
I guess that's what I need clarification on. I have been working with Knowledge Performance (who have been awesome, btw). They are dealers of TurboXS products, and Kevin has tuned more cars on the UTEC than I can imagine. When I discussed the timing issue with Kevin, what I came away with was that the UTEC modifies the signal from the crank position sensor and sends it to the ECU, which controls the actual firing of the plugs.
Maybe I can get Kevin to take a look at this thread and add his input...
[B] that's an interesting solution, but you still have the problems with the independant control of the ignition system. [/B][/QUOTE]
I guess that's what I need clarification on. I have been working with Knowledge Performance (who have been awesome, btw). They are dealers of TurboXS products, and Kevin has tuned more cars on the UTEC than I can imagine. When I discussed the timing issue with Kevin, what I came away with was that the UTEC modifies the signal from the crank position sensor and sends it to the ECU, which controls the actual firing of the plugs.
Maybe I can get Kevin to take a look at this thread and add his input...
| Knowledge Perf. | 12-15-2003 02:55 PM |
Ok I will throw in my two cents on how I feel about this and I no way am I a pro on autocross rules, though I spend a large majority of my time supporting these guys and their addictions. I just spoke with Nathan at TurboXs on this. The UTEC does use the sensors that the ecu uses to control ignition. Yes it does control timing on its own. But it also uses some other variables that are coming from the factory ecu to make its decisions on when to fire the coil even though it does fire the coil itself and not the ecu. In my opinion this should still be legal though. If you take for a perfect example it says that apex controllers are legal. If you put in a VAFC in a Honda and tune it you can see astronomical gains from switching the V-tech engagement point more so even than you may see from altering the fuel, and this is perfectly legal in every way if I am correct. Well at the point that the factory ecu says to engage V-tech the apex controller shows resistance to the factory ecu to make it think the V-tech is on just like the utec does to the factory WRX computers ignition drivers. Then it sends its own signal to the V-tech solenoid to engage V-tech either before or after the factory ecu would normally turn it on. That is what you would call full stand alone V-tech control and it some what is but it still uses some signals coming from the ecu as well as it is modifying a signal after the ecu. If that is legal which the rules say it is then the way the utec controls timing is done exactly the same way and should not be illegal as it is changing signals in the exact same fashion as the apex controller is. To further push this a Honda will vary its V-tech engagement depending on the criteria it is seeing in stock form and though every so slightly are the differences it is somewhat of a closed loop control it won't engage if its not warmed up and it won't engage if you are sitting still like in neutral and you just rev it up. But you put a apex controller it will engage at what ever rpm you tell it to no matter whether it is warm or cold and it will engage V-tech if you just rev it up while in neutral. It has taken full control of the V-tech.
| KC | 12-15-2003 03:25 PM |
Thanks for chiming in.
The rules are written the way they are to help level the playing field over all types of cars within a class.
In reading your post, it kind of re-affirms what some have been saying about the UTEC. The sticky point being, it can only modify a signal going to the ECU, not coming from the ECU:
[QUOTE]But it also uses some other variables that are [B]coming from the factory ecu[/B] to make its decisions on when to fire the coil even though it does fire the coil itself and not the ecu. In my opinion this should still be legal though. [/QUOTE]
Because the 17.10.E rule is written that the signal can only go one way (Sensor -> Piggyback -> ECU), that's the way its got to be. Since the rule doesn't say it can go ECU -> Piggyback -> Sensor, it means that it's not allowed.
VTEC has a separate line in the rules and since we don't have VTEC, it doesn't apply to us, nor this rule we are discussing. ;)
I think that may clear up the confusion.
--kC
The rules are written the way they are to help level the playing field over all types of cars within a class.
In reading your post, it kind of re-affirms what some have been saying about the UTEC. The sticky point being, it can only modify a signal going to the ECU, not coming from the ECU:
[QUOTE]But it also uses some other variables that are [B]coming from the factory ecu[/B] to make its decisions on when to fire the coil even though it does fire the coil itself and not the ecu. In my opinion this should still be legal though. [/QUOTE]
Because the 17.10.E rule is written that the signal can only go one way (Sensor -> Piggyback -> ECU), that's the way its got to be. Since the rule doesn't say it can go ECU -> Piggyback -> Sensor, it means that it's not allowed.
VTEC has a separate line in the rules and since we don't have VTEC, it doesn't apply to us, nor this rule we are discussing. ;)
I think that may clear up the confusion.
--kC
| John at J&S | 12-15-2003 03:28 PM |
TPS modifier
�
�
Our 1ch/2ch unit has an output pin to modify the TPS signal.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it.
| dowroa | 12-15-2003 03:38 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by John at J&S[/i]
[B] Our 1ch/2ch unit has an output pin to modify the TPS signal.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Does it matter if the unit has the ABILITY to do something or not?
Meaning, if it has the ability to have multiple maps (which I thought were illegal-- STX), change boost (illegal -- STX) -- does that make the piggyback illegal?
The reason I ask that is it would be hard to really prove if a piggy back is illegal or not, as someone could easily say ' Oh, I just dont have those pinouts connected."
Just curious and following the thread from afar :).
- dow
[B] Our 1ch/2ch unit has an output pin to modify the TPS signal.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Does it matter if the unit has the ABILITY to do something or not?
Meaning, if it has the ability to have multiple maps (which I thought were illegal-- STX), change boost (illegal -- STX) -- does that make the piggyback illegal?
The reason I ask that is it would be hard to really prove if a piggy back is illegal or not, as someone could easily say ' Oh, I just dont have those pinouts connected."
Just curious and following the thread from afar :).
- dow
| KC | 12-15-2003 03:38 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by John at J&S[/i]
[B] Our 1ch/2ch unit has an output pin to modify the TPS signal.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it. [/B][/QUOTE]And that's part of the problem in it's legality. It would be really simple to come in from a run, and disable it by 'just unplugging it'. That's part of the argument that many are having in SP about these modern chips in that it would be very difficult to police becuase they can be changed before the time the cars go into Impound. Some you would be able to hide the switch for multiple maps.
What they're trying to do is remove all temptation and/or probablility of misuse.
[B] Our 1ch/2ch unit has an output pin to modify the TPS signal.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it. [/B][/QUOTE]And that's part of the problem in it's legality. It would be really simple to come in from a run, and disable it by 'just unplugging it'. That's part of the argument that many are having in SP about these modern chips in that it would be very difficult to police becuase they can be changed before the time the cars go into Impound. Some you would be able to hide the switch for multiple maps.
What they're trying to do is remove all temptation and/or probablility of misuse.
| Kha0S | 12-15-2003 03:46 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER[/i]
[B] Also, from the rule in question here:
<snip>
Would it really matter _how_ the UTEC modifies timing so long as it does it before the ECU? I think we need to distinguish between the two. The UTEC cetainly has a clever way of fooling the ECU and taking control of timing, but so long as it does this from the sensors and to the ECU (not after), my reading is that it would be legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
By occurring [b]before[/b] the ECU and modifying a sensor->ECU signal, you will only be permitted to modify timing by modifying the crank angle sensor value before it goes into the ECU.
The UTEC modifies the ignition signals AFTER they have left the ECU, on their way to the ignition coils. This is [b]illegal[/b] by STX standards. Devices like the e-Manage behave similarly, by intercepting the individual coil ignition signals after the ECU, on their way to the coils. Devices like the Unichip, XEDE, and Apex'i S-ITC modify the crank angle sensor waveform to cause the ECU to trigger spark earlier or later in the crankshaft rotation by moving the sensor waveform to be out of phase with the real crank position.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by John at J&S[/i]
[B] Our 1ch/2ch unit has an output pin to modify the TPS signal.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Very true. I'm not trying to badmouth the J&S at all -- it's a phenomenal product. The sticking points for use of the J&S in an STX vehicle are the TPS issue (which is addressable as you said above), and the ignition modification (which occurs on the output side of the ECU).
Particularly, the J&S won't give you any more power than your ECU is pushing for, but it'll give you much safer power, and allow you to squeeze out a few more HP by tuning right up against the knock threshold on a per-cylinder basis. Since the J&S will retard spark on a per-cylinder basis, [b]after[/b] the ECU, it doesn't meet the letter of the rule.
/Andrew
[B] Also, from the rule in question here:
<snip>
Would it really matter _how_ the UTEC modifies timing so long as it does it before the ECU? I think we need to distinguish between the two. The UTEC cetainly has a clever way of fooling the ECU and taking control of timing, but so long as it does this from the sensors and to the ECU (not after), my reading is that it would be legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
By occurring [b]before[/b] the ECU and modifying a sensor->ECU signal, you will only be permitted to modify timing by modifying the crank angle sensor value before it goes into the ECU.
The UTEC modifies the ignition signals AFTER they have left the ECU, on their way to the ignition coils. This is [b]illegal[/b] by STX standards. Devices like the e-Manage behave similarly, by intercepting the individual coil ignition signals after the ECU, on their way to the coils. Devices like the Unichip, XEDE, and Apex'i S-ITC modify the crank angle sensor waveform to cause the ECU to trigger spark earlier or later in the crankshaft rotation by moving the sensor waveform to be out of phase with the real crank position.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by John at J&S[/i]
[B] Our 1ch/2ch unit has an output pin to modify the TPS signal.
If that's illegal, simply remove the wire from the connector, and don't use it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Very true. I'm not trying to badmouth the J&S at all -- it's a phenomenal product. The sticking points for use of the J&S in an STX vehicle are the TPS issue (which is addressable as you said above), and the ignition modification (which occurs on the output side of the ECU).
Particularly, the J&S won't give you any more power than your ECU is pushing for, but it'll give you much safer power, and allow you to squeeze out a few more HP by tuning right up against the knock threshold on a per-cylinder basis. Since the J&S will retard spark on a per-cylinder basis, [b]after[/b] the ECU, it doesn't meet the letter of the rule.
/Andrew
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 03:57 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Because the 17.10.E rule is written that the signal can only go one way (Sensor -> Piggyback -> ECU), that's the way its got to be. Since the rule doesn't say it can go ECU -> Piggyback -> Sensor, it means that it's not allowed.[/B][/QUOTE]
Does it really say that though? I'm not sure my reading of the rule is the same as yours. The rule stated again:
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
The UTEC does sit inline between the sensors and the ECU. The rule does not state which direction information must flow, only that the sensor output may be modified (remember we're not trying to communicate back to the crank position sensor, we're just changing that signal before it gets to the ECU). After talking to Kevin some more, the information that the UTEC is receiving from the ECU is stuff like boost level and throttle position. In this respect the ECU is not sending information to the piggyback which then modifies this information and sends an output. It simply needs to know the throttle, boost, etc to decide when to send information to the ECU.
If I understand the system corectly, an example would be that the UTEC only comes into play at throttle positions of 60% or greater. The ECU indicates to the UTEC that throttle is at 40%, so the UTEC sends no information (simply passes through info from the sensors). I floor the thing to 100% throttle, the UTEC wakes up and starts to modify the information coming from the sensors based on the map we loaded. It's just closed loop control; the UTEC has not modified a signal from the ECU. It looked at ECU feedback to determine the timing map, but it still sits "inline" between the ECU and the sensors.
Am I making sense here or have I overlooked something? I think we may have read too much into the rule. Essentially the argument that KC makes allows only open loop control methods, which I don't think is the intent. Of course, I could be dead wrong.
Joel
[B]Because the 17.10.E rule is written that the signal can only go one way (Sensor -> Piggyback -> ECU), that's the way its got to be. Since the rule doesn't say it can go ECU -> Piggyback -> Sensor, it means that it's not allowed.[/B][/QUOTE]
Does it really say that though? I'm not sure my reading of the rule is the same as yours. The rule stated again:
17.10.E (Soon to be 14.10.E):
Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
The UTEC does sit inline between the sensors and the ECU. The rule does not state which direction information must flow, only that the sensor output may be modified (remember we're not trying to communicate back to the crank position sensor, we're just changing that signal before it gets to the ECU). After talking to Kevin some more, the information that the UTEC is receiving from the ECU is stuff like boost level and throttle position. In this respect the ECU is not sending information to the piggyback which then modifies this information and sends an output. It simply needs to know the throttle, boost, etc to decide when to send information to the ECU.
If I understand the system corectly, an example would be that the UTEC only comes into play at throttle positions of 60% or greater. The ECU indicates to the UTEC that throttle is at 40%, so the UTEC sends no information (simply passes through info from the sensors). I floor the thing to 100% throttle, the UTEC wakes up and starts to modify the information coming from the sensors based on the map we loaded. It's just closed loop control; the UTEC has not modified a signal from the ECU. It looked at ECU feedback to determine the timing map, but it still sits "inline" between the ECU and the sensors.
Am I making sense here or have I overlooked something? I think we may have read too much into the rule. Essentially the argument that KC makes allows only open loop control methods, which I don't think is the intent. Of course, I could be dead wrong.
Joel
| Kha0S | 12-15-2003 04:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER[/i]
[B]
Am I making sense here or have I overlooked something? I think we may have read too much into the rule. Essentially the argument that KC makes allows only open loop control methods, which I don't think is the intent. Of course, I could be dead wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
You're overlooking the fact that there are two directions for information to flow on an ECM.
Sensor -> ECM
ECM -> Actuator
Sensors can include crank angle sensor, MAF, MAP, coolant temp, etc.
Actuators include fuel injectors, spark plugs, wastegate duty solenoids, etc.
The only signals on a WRX that can be reasonably modified and be considered to only affect fuel and timing, and only "before" the ECM in the control path, are the crankshaft position and mass air flow signals. Any other modified signals will change boost levels, or will occur [b]after[/b] the ECM.
That is, devices like the UTEC and e-Manage modify the ignition timing by modifying the signal from the ECM to the spark plug coils, and are illegal, as they occur [b]after[/b] the ECM. Devices like the Unichip modify ignition timing by phase-shifting the crank angle sensor value between the CAS and the ECM. This is legal because the modification is made [b]before[/b] the ECM.
I hope that clarifies it a bit for you.
/Andrew
[B]
Am I making sense here or have I overlooked something? I think we may have read too much into the rule. Essentially the argument that KC makes allows only open loop control methods, which I don't think is the intent. Of course, I could be dead wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
You're overlooking the fact that there are two directions for information to flow on an ECM.
Sensor -> ECM
ECM -> Actuator
Sensors can include crank angle sensor, MAF, MAP, coolant temp, etc.
Actuators include fuel injectors, spark plugs, wastegate duty solenoids, etc.
The only signals on a WRX that can be reasonably modified and be considered to only affect fuel and timing, and only "before" the ECM in the control path, are the crankshaft position and mass air flow signals. Any other modified signals will change boost levels, or will occur [b]after[/b] the ECM.
That is, devices like the UTEC and e-Manage modify the ignition timing by modifying the signal from the ECM to the spark plug coils, and are illegal, as they occur [b]after[/b] the ECM. Devices like the Unichip modify ignition timing by phase-shifting the crank angle sensor value between the CAS and the ECM. This is legal because the modification is made [b]before[/b] the ECM.
I hope that clarifies it a bit for you.
/Andrew
| KC | 12-15-2003 04:14 PM |
These components may alter the signal [B]coming from the sensor[/B] in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
I read that as one way operation that is only allowed to affect the ECU, not, as andrew said, the actuator.
--kC
I read that as one way operation that is only allowed to affect the ECU, not, as andrew said, the actuator.
--kC
| randy zimmer | 12-15-2003 04:29 PM |
Careful what you wish for guys. If you want the rules to allow something you want, they may allow things you don't, like a full on $10,000 engine management system.
If I were you, I'd ask more for a spending cap, like, "under $500 SRP piggyback ECU controller." because what they wrote in were probably $1.50 radio shack resistors. There's no way to know what'll be available in 5-10 years and once the rule is in, its hard to remove it.
rz
If I were you, I'd ask more for a spending cap, like, "under $500 SRP piggyback ECU controller." because what they wrote in were probably $1.50 radio shack resistors. There's no way to know what'll be available in 5-10 years and once the rule is in, its hard to remove it.
rz
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 04:35 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kha0S [/i]
[B]That is, devices like the UTEC and e-Manage modify the ignition timing by modifying the signal from the ECM to the spark plug coils, and are illegal, as they occur [b]after[/b] the ECM. Devices like the Unichip modify ignition timing by phase-shifting the crank angle sensor value between the CAS and the ECM. This is legal because the modification is made [b]before[/b] the ECM.[/B][/QUOTE]
Is this true of the UTEC? I'm seriously asking, because my understanding is that the UTEC is sending a modified signal to the ECU in any event, not modifying the ignition signal from the ECU. Sure, it is receiving throttle position and boost information from the ECU, but my understanding is that it does not take the ignition signal, modify it, and send it to the injectors but instead modifies the crank sensor information en route to the ECU.
[B]That is, devices like the UTEC and e-Manage modify the ignition timing by modifying the signal from the ECM to the spark plug coils, and are illegal, as they occur [b]after[/b] the ECM. Devices like the Unichip modify ignition timing by phase-shifting the crank angle sensor value between the CAS and the ECM. This is legal because the modification is made [b]before[/b] the ECM.[/B][/QUOTE]
Is this true of the UTEC? I'm seriously asking, because my understanding is that the UTEC is sending a modified signal to the ECU in any event, not modifying the ignition signal from the ECU. Sure, it is receiving throttle position and boost information from the ECU, but my understanding is that it does not take the ignition signal, modify it, and send it to the injectors but instead modifies the crank sensor information en route to the ECU.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 04:42 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] These components may alter the signal [B]coming from the sensor[/B] in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
I read that as one way operation that is only allowed to affect the ECU, not, as andrew said, the actuator.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Remember that we are not sending information back to the sensor, as there would be no reason to do so. We are still modifying the signal from the sensor before it arrives at the ECU. The feedback loop is not from the sensor but from the ECU, into the UTEC, back to the ECU. It would still be "inline" as information always flows in one direction from the sensor, but the ECU and UTEC "crosstalk" before the ECU operates the actuators.
[B] These components may alter the signal [B]coming from the sensor[/B] in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system.
I read that as one way operation that is only allowed to affect the ECU, not, as andrew said, the actuator.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Remember that we are not sending information back to the sensor, as there would be no reason to do so. We are still modifying the signal from the sensor before it arrives at the ECU. The feedback loop is not from the sensor but from the ECU, into the UTEC, back to the ECU. It would still be "inline" as information always flows in one direction from the sensor, but the ECU and UTEC "crosstalk" before the ECU operates the actuators.
| ChrisW | 12-15-2003 04:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER[/i]
[B] Is this true of the UTEC? I'm seriously asking, because my understanding is that the UTEC is sending a modified signal to the ECU in any event, not modifying the ignition signal from the ECU. Sure, it is receiving throttle position and boost information from the ECU, but my understanding is that it does not take the ignition signal, modify it, and send it to the injectors but instead modifies the crank sensor information en route to the ECU. [/B][/QUOTE]
Like others have said, the UTEC takes and modifies the ignition signal [i]after[/i] the ECU, thereby replacing the signal, not modifying it. It makes no difference if its done based upon a specidied RPM range, it is still replacing the ignition signal and taking complete control when it's within the specified RPM range. Hence it's illegal.
[B] Is this true of the UTEC? I'm seriously asking, because my understanding is that the UTEC is sending a modified signal to the ECU in any event, not modifying the ignition signal from the ECU. Sure, it is receiving throttle position and boost information from the ECU, but my understanding is that it does not take the ignition signal, modify it, and send it to the injectors but instead modifies the crank sensor information en route to the ECU. [/B][/QUOTE]
Like others have said, the UTEC takes and modifies the ignition signal [i]after[/i] the ECU, thereby replacing the signal, not modifying it. It makes no difference if its done based upon a specidied RPM range, it is still replacing the ignition signal and taking complete control when it's within the specified RPM range. Hence it's illegal.
| Kha0S | 12-15-2003 04:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER[/i]
[B] Is this true of the UTEC? I'm seriously asking, because my understanding is that the UTEC is sending a modified signal to the ECU in any event, not modifying the ignition signal from the ECU. Sure, it is receiving throttle position and boost information from the ECU, but my understanding is that it does not take the ignition signal, modify it, and send it to the injectors but instead modifies the crank sensor information en route to the ECU. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have said repeatedly that this is true of the UTEC.
The UTEC does not modify the crank angle sensor. TurboXS specifically markets the UTEC's standalone ignition drivers as a positive aspect of the system.
It only modifies ignition signals on the output side of the ECU.
/Andrew
[B] Is this true of the UTEC? I'm seriously asking, because my understanding is that the UTEC is sending a modified signal to the ECU in any event, not modifying the ignition signal from the ECU. Sure, it is receiving throttle position and boost information from the ECU, but my understanding is that it does not take the ignition signal, modify it, and send it to the injectors but instead modifies the crank sensor information en route to the ECU. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have said repeatedly that this is true of the UTEC.
The UTEC does not modify the crank angle sensor. TurboXS specifically markets the UTEC's standalone ignition drivers as a positive aspect of the system.
It only modifies ignition signals on the output side of the ECU.
/Andrew
| shifterkartracer | 12-15-2003 05:37 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kha0S [/i]
[B]I have said repeatedly that this is true of the UTEC.
The UTEC does not modify the crank angle sensor. TurboXS specifically markets the UTEC's standalone ignition drivers as a positive aspect of the system.
It only modifies ignition signals on the output side of the ECU.
/Andrew [/B][/QUOTE]
You have said this again and again but I don't hear too many others saying it. I don't blame him for soliciting other opinions. On just the prior page, after doing some research, KC said:
"Ok, reading the install documentation, it is installed before the ECU only. I never took the time to read the instructions (never really interested in the product and was going by what some people discussed earlier), and now I (partially) understand. So I may have to stop saying that it alters the signal out of the ECU. "
I'm still looking at the following quote from Knowledge to see if what he is saying agrees with Kha0s:
"Yes it does control timing on its own. But it also uses some other variables that are coming from the factory ecu to make its decisions on when to fire the coil even though it does fire the coil itself and not the ecu."
If it DOES fire the coil ITSELF than I think Knowledge is also saying that it is modifying the output from the ECU. I'd also say that the way the rule is written seems to only allow modifying the ECU inputs and not controlling the outputs (who knows if this was really their intent but it does seem to me to be the outcome of the way they've written this rule).
AUTOwrXER:
You contend that it only plugs into the input side of the ECU. How do you know this? Is there an "input" and "output" side to the harnesses on the ECU? (I've never pulled mine so I have no idea.) While I have seen harnesses on other (completely unrelated) things that have an input and output plug I've also seen some things have have multiple plugs that have input and output wires comingled. If you could show it only plugs into the input side I think you're golden.
Also, good idea on the boost control. People might feel uncomfortable with this solution but I say you've solved the problem that the rules present. I know I'm not worried about you switching wires between runs/impound.
Interesting discussion here. Keep the comments coming. I think a public discussion can only help in this kind of situation and I applaud AUTOwrXER being frank and honest about the changes he's made.
[B]I have said repeatedly that this is true of the UTEC.
The UTEC does not modify the crank angle sensor. TurboXS specifically markets the UTEC's standalone ignition drivers as a positive aspect of the system.
It only modifies ignition signals on the output side of the ECU.
/Andrew [/B][/QUOTE]
You have said this again and again but I don't hear too many others saying it. I don't blame him for soliciting other opinions. On just the prior page, after doing some research, KC said:
"Ok, reading the install documentation, it is installed before the ECU only. I never took the time to read the instructions (never really interested in the product and was going by what some people discussed earlier), and now I (partially) understand. So I may have to stop saying that it alters the signal out of the ECU. "
I'm still looking at the following quote from Knowledge to see if what he is saying agrees with Kha0s:
"Yes it does control timing on its own. But it also uses some other variables that are coming from the factory ecu to make its decisions on when to fire the coil even though it does fire the coil itself and not the ecu."
If it DOES fire the coil ITSELF than I think Knowledge is also saying that it is modifying the output from the ECU. I'd also say that the way the rule is written seems to only allow modifying the ECU inputs and not controlling the outputs (who knows if this was really their intent but it does seem to me to be the outcome of the way they've written this rule).
AUTOwrXER:
You contend that it only plugs into the input side of the ECU. How do you know this? Is there an "input" and "output" side to the harnesses on the ECU? (I've never pulled mine so I have no idea.) While I have seen harnesses on other (completely unrelated) things that have an input and output plug I've also seen some things have have multiple plugs that have input and output wires comingled. If you could show it only plugs into the input side I think you're golden.
Also, good idea on the boost control. People might feel uncomfortable with this solution but I say you've solved the problem that the rules present. I know I'm not worried about you switching wires between runs/impound.
Interesting discussion here. Keep the comments coming. I think a public discussion can only help in this kind of situation and I applaud AUTOwrXER being frank and honest about the changes he's made.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 05:55 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shifterkartracer [/i]
[B]
If it DOES fire the coil ITSELF than I think Knowledge is also saying that it is modifying the output from the ECU. I'd also say that the way the rule is written seems to only allow modifying the ECU inputs and not controlling the outputs (who knows if this was really their intent but it does seem to me to be the outcome of the way they've written this rule).
[/B][/QUOTE]
As I'm learning more about the UTEC, it sounds like it does have the ability to fire the plugs directly once the ECU feedback kicks it into gear. For example, my understanding is that for my setup at >60% throttle position the UTEC will fire the plugs directly. What I'm not clear on is if the UTEC is taking the ignition signal from the ECU and modifying it, or if the ECU feedback loop turns the UTEC on and the UTEC does the complete ignition control based on the crank sensor. IMO, that is a big difference even though it will accomplish the same thing. If it is the later, then I would maintain that it is legal. If it is the former, then it would appear to be illegal by the current wording and I would seek a clarification.
[B]
If it DOES fire the coil ITSELF than I think Knowledge is also saying that it is modifying the output from the ECU. I'd also say that the way the rule is written seems to only allow modifying the ECU inputs and not controlling the outputs (who knows if this was really their intent but it does seem to me to be the outcome of the way they've written this rule).
[/B][/QUOTE]
As I'm learning more about the UTEC, it sounds like it does have the ability to fire the plugs directly once the ECU feedback kicks it into gear. For example, my understanding is that for my setup at >60% throttle position the UTEC will fire the plugs directly. What I'm not clear on is if the UTEC is taking the ignition signal from the ECU and modifying it, or if the ECU feedback loop turns the UTEC on and the UTEC does the complete ignition control based on the crank sensor. IMO, that is a big difference even though it will accomplish the same thing. If it is the later, then I would maintain that it is legal. If it is the former, then it would appear to be illegal by the current wording and I would seek a clarification.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 06:01 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shifterkartracer [/i]
[B]AUTOwrXER:
You contend that it only plugs into the input side of the ECU. How do you know this? Is there an "input" and "output" side to the harnesses on the ECU? (I've never pulled mine so I have no idea.) While I have seen harnesses on other (completely unrelated) things that have an input and output plug I've also seen some things have have multiple plugs that have input and output wires comingled. If you could show it only plugs into the input side I think you're golden.[/B][/QUOTE]
I wish I could show that, but apparently I misunderstood. It is just like the plug and play harness on a Unichip, if you've ever seen that, but obviously there is two way communication going on as it gets the throttle position and boost level info from the ECU. I am confident based on the FSM diagrams that the boost is not an issue. It looks like the timing issue is the only point to be debated.
Thanks for the support. I know I'm throwing an idea out there that has been discussed before, but I think this is far from decided.
[B]AUTOwrXER:
You contend that it only plugs into the input side of the ECU. How do you know this? Is there an "input" and "output" side to the harnesses on the ECU? (I've never pulled mine so I have no idea.) While I have seen harnesses on other (completely unrelated) things that have an input and output plug I've also seen some things have have multiple plugs that have input and output wires comingled. If you could show it only plugs into the input side I think you're golden.[/B][/QUOTE]
I wish I could show that, but apparently I misunderstood. It is just like the plug and play harness on a Unichip, if you've ever seen that, but obviously there is two way communication going on as it gets the throttle position and boost level info from the ECU. I am confident based on the FSM diagrams that the boost is not an issue. It looks like the timing issue is the only point to be debated.
Thanks for the support. I know I'm throwing an idea out there that has been discussed before, but I think this is far from decided.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 06:07 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kha0S[/i]
[B] I have said repeatedly that this is true of the UTEC.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I overlooked your post above, and I now understand your position. If this is a true statement: "The UTEC modifies the ignition signals AFTER they have left the ECU, on their way to the ignition coils.", then I need to seek clarification.
[B] I have said repeatedly that this is true of the UTEC.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I overlooked your post above, and I now understand your position. If this is a true statement: "The UTEC modifies the ignition signals AFTER they have left the ECU, on their way to the ignition coils.", then I need to seek clarification.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 08:04 PM |
I just spoke to someone specifically about this issue, and I don't believe it is true that the UTEC alters the ignition signals from the ECU. This is my understanding:
The UTEC has it's own timing map (user loaded) that is triggered active by certain parameters. Outside of these parameters, the UTEC does not affect timing at all. Once the UTEC is triggered (let's say by throttle position, for example), the UTEC fires the plugs directly based on the map loaded for rpm, boost, and throttle position. It looks to the ECU for the boost, throttle position, and rpm information, but it controls the ignition directly rather than modifying a similar map from the ECU. In this sense it is getting feedback from the ECU, but not altering the the ECU's output.
I have emailed a member of the SEB for his opinion and possible clarification.
Joel
The UTEC has it's own timing map (user loaded) that is triggered active by certain parameters. Outside of these parameters, the UTEC does not affect timing at all. Once the UTEC is triggered (let's say by throttle position, for example), the UTEC fires the plugs directly based on the map loaded for rpm, boost, and throttle position. It looks to the ECU for the boost, throttle position, and rpm information, but it controls the ignition directly rather than modifying a similar map from the ECU. In this sense it is getting feedback from the ECU, but not altering the the ECU's output.
I have emailed a member of the SEB for his opinion and possible clarification.
Joel
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 08:15 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] And that's part of the problem in it's legality. It would be really simple to come in from a run, and disable it by 'just unplugging it'. That's part of the argument that many are having in SP about these modern chips in that it would be very difficult to police becuase they can be changed before the time the cars go into Impound. Some you would be able to hide the switch for multiple maps.
What they're trying to do is remove all temptation and/or probablility of misuse. [/B][/QUOTE]
In something like a new ECUtek flash, this is a very valid argument because you can quickly change maps which affect boost as well as timing and fuel. IMO there is an issue with the old style ECUtek with one map, which I have argued about in the past (curiously enough, many of those arguing against it are running it now). The Unichip, and in this case the bypassed UTEC, cannot modify boost. With the UTEC I would have to physicaly rewire the boost lead back into the harness, which isn't exactly something that could be done easily on the grid or impound. IMO, I'd rather run against a competitor that had that solution than one with an ECUtek that _may_ have a modified boost map but cannot be determined without the correct SW and a laptop handy.
[B] And that's part of the problem in it's legality. It would be really simple to come in from a run, and disable it by 'just unplugging it'. That's part of the argument that many are having in SP about these modern chips in that it would be very difficult to police becuase they can be changed before the time the cars go into Impound. Some you would be able to hide the switch for multiple maps.
What they're trying to do is remove all temptation and/or probablility of misuse. [/B][/QUOTE]
In something like a new ECUtek flash, this is a very valid argument because you can quickly change maps which affect boost as well as timing and fuel. IMO there is an issue with the old style ECUtek with one map, which I have argued about in the past (curiously enough, many of those arguing against it are running it now). The Unichip, and in this case the bypassed UTEC, cannot modify boost. With the UTEC I would have to physicaly rewire the boost lead back into the harness, which isn't exactly something that could be done easily on the grid or impound. IMO, I'd rather run against a competitor that had that solution than one with an ECUtek that _may_ have a modified boost map but cannot be determined without the correct SW and a laptop handy.
| shifterkartracer | 12-15-2003 09:44 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER [/i]
[B]I just spoke to someone specifically about this issue, and I don't believe it is true that the UTEC alters the ignition signals from the ECU. This is my understanding:
The UTEC has it's own timing map (user loaded) that is triggered active by certain parameters. Outside of these parameters, the UTEC does not affect timing at all. Once the UTEC is triggered (let's say by throttle position, for example), the UTEC fires the plugs directly based on the map loaded for rpm, boost, and throttle position. It looks to the ECU for the boost, throttle position, and rpm information, but it controls the ignition directly rather than modifying a similar map from the ECU. In this sense it is getting feedback from the ECU, but not altering the the ECU's output.
I have emailed a member of the SEB for his opinion and possible clarification.
Joel [/B][/QUOTE]
If this is the case I don't think it is within the rules in that it is not affecting the timing through the allowed modification of modifying the sensor inputs to the ECU. It may accomplish the same thing but not in a way allowed by the rule. Ask me again in 15 minutes and I'll probably change my mind though.;)
[B]I just spoke to someone specifically about this issue, and I don't believe it is true that the UTEC alters the ignition signals from the ECU. This is my understanding:
The UTEC has it's own timing map (user loaded) that is triggered active by certain parameters. Outside of these parameters, the UTEC does not affect timing at all. Once the UTEC is triggered (let's say by throttle position, for example), the UTEC fires the plugs directly based on the map loaded for rpm, boost, and throttle position. It looks to the ECU for the boost, throttle position, and rpm information, but it controls the ignition directly rather than modifying a similar map from the ECU. In this sense it is getting feedback from the ECU, but not altering the the ECU's output.
I have emailed a member of the SEB for his opinion and possible clarification.
Joel [/B][/QUOTE]
If this is the case I don't think it is within the rules in that it is not affecting the timing through the allowed modification of modifying the sensor inputs to the ECU. It may accomplish the same thing but not in a way allowed by the rule. Ask me again in 15 minutes and I'll probably change my mind though.;)
| angryfist | 12-15-2003 10:28 PM |
i never read this rule so indepth before. i believed before i got into this thread that any piggyback unit was allowed as long as it did not control boost. that is why i have been pursueing the greddy emanage as a solution. i finally got it working (i think) a few weeks ago but have not had time to tune it yet.
it was not until this thread that i reliezed that there was more to the rule than that of just standalone or piggyback. hopefully we can get this cleared up. i am a electrical engineer and have worked with some of the different piggyback and standalone units and will try to contribute as much help needed to clarify rules. i would like to stop wasting time on the emanage if it will not be stx legal.
i can see us argueing about this for months without getting too much results. i think we really need to come up with some type of consensus and email SEB and get clarification.
-Jason
it was not until this thread that i reliezed that there was more to the rule than that of just standalone or piggyback. hopefully we can get this cleared up. i am a electrical engineer and have worked with some of the different piggyback and standalone units and will try to contribute as much help needed to clarify rules. i would like to stop wasting time on the emanage if it will not be stx legal.
i can see us argueing about this for months without getting too much results. i think we really need to come up with some type of consensus and email SEB and get clarification.
-Jason
| MNbiker | 12-15-2003 10:52 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER [/i]
[B]In something like a new ECUtek flash, this is a very valid argument because you can quickly change maps which affect boost as well as timing and fuel. IMO there is an issue with the old style ECUtek with one map, which I have argued about in the past (curiously enough, many of those arguing against it are running it now). The Unichip, and in this case the bypassed UTEC, cannot modify boost. With the UTEC I would have to physicaly rewire the boost lead back into the harness, which isn't exactly something that could be done easily on the grid or impound. IMO, I'd rather run against a competitor that had that solution than one with an ECUtek that _may_ have a modified boost map but cannot be determined without the correct SW and a laptop handy. [/B][/QUOTE]
As for the V2 ECUtek reflashes, it's super easy to spot User Tune/Dual Map parameters with DeltaDash. I think you can count on a laptop with DeltaDash being readily available at National events, at least. I know I'll always have mine with me, as I've got nothing to hide.
-Steve
[B]In something like a new ECUtek flash, this is a very valid argument because you can quickly change maps which affect boost as well as timing and fuel. IMO there is an issue with the old style ECUtek with one map, which I have argued about in the past (curiously enough, many of those arguing against it are running it now). The Unichip, and in this case the bypassed UTEC, cannot modify boost. With the UTEC I would have to physicaly rewire the boost lead back into the harness, which isn't exactly something that could be done easily on the grid or impound. IMO, I'd rather run against a competitor that had that solution than one with an ECUtek that _may_ have a modified boost map but cannot be determined without the correct SW and a laptop handy. [/B][/QUOTE]
As for the V2 ECUtek reflashes, it's super easy to spot User Tune/Dual Map parameters with DeltaDash. I think you can count on a laptop with DeltaDash being readily available at National events, at least. I know I'll always have mine with me, as I've got nothing to hide.
-Steve
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 11:34 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker [/i]
[B]As for the V2 ECUtek reflashes, it's super easy to spot User Tune/Dual Map parameters with DeltaDash. I think you can count on a laptop with DeltaDash being readily available at National events, at least. I know I'll always have mine with me, as I've got nothing to hide.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Moving off topic here, but worth a mention...
I understand your position, but your computer is not admissable in a protest situation. Essentially your computer could be tampered with to make it look like someone was cheating even if they weren't. I'm not saying you would do it, but you could. For this reason, Impound would have to maintain the sw to test this and every other similar situation. As you can imagine, this is a can of worms. If they just hook up a boost gauge, you will loose every time as allowable mods will increase your boost.
Tom brought his laptop to the ProSolo Finale and tested a slew of WRXs. Had he found one to be illegal and protested it, what would have been the means of testing the car? At this point I think we're still on Impound's boost gauge.
[B]As for the V2 ECUtek reflashes, it's super easy to spot User Tune/Dual Map parameters with DeltaDash. I think you can count on a laptop with DeltaDash being readily available at National events, at least. I know I'll always have mine with me, as I've got nothing to hide.
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Moving off topic here, but worth a mention...
I understand your position, but your computer is not admissable in a protest situation. Essentially your computer could be tampered with to make it look like someone was cheating even if they weren't. I'm not saying you would do it, but you could. For this reason, Impound would have to maintain the sw to test this and every other similar situation. As you can imagine, this is a can of worms. If they just hook up a boost gauge, you will loose every time as allowable mods will increase your boost.
Tom brought his laptop to the ProSolo Finale and tested a slew of WRXs. Had he found one to be illegal and protested it, what would have been the means of testing the car? At this point I think we're still on Impound's boost gauge.
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2003 11:39 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shifterkartracer[/i]
[B] If this is the case I don't think it is within the rules in that it is not affecting the timing through the allowed modification of modifying the sensor inputs to the ECU. It may accomplish the same thing but not in a way allowed by the rule. Ask me again in 15 minutes and I'll probably change my mind though.;) [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm starting to lean in this direction as well as there is no specific allowance for direct control of the ignition. I'm trying to get SEB visibility into this, because I think there is a fine line here that they were walking in trying to keep stand-alone engine management illegal (as well it should be). The problem is that the rule as stated knocks out most every modern fuel and timing computer, and I doubt that's what the SEB is trying to do. My suggestion is to allow direct control of only fuel and timing functions, which will open up the options for us while still keeping stand-alone management illegal.
Joel
[B] If this is the case I don't think it is within the rules in that it is not affecting the timing through the allowed modification of modifying the sensor inputs to the ECU. It may accomplish the same thing but not in a way allowed by the rule. Ask me again in 15 minutes and I'll probably change my mind though.;) [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm starting to lean in this direction as well as there is no specific allowance for direct control of the ignition. I'm trying to get SEB visibility into this, because I think there is a fine line here that they were walking in trying to keep stand-alone engine management illegal (as well it should be). The problem is that the rule as stated knocks out most every modern fuel and timing computer, and I doubt that's what the SEB is trying to do. My suggestion is to allow direct control of only fuel and timing functions, which will open up the options for us while still keeping stand-alone management illegal.
Joel
| MNbiker | 12-16-2003 08:36 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AUTOwrXER [/i]
[B]Moving off topic here, but worth a mention...
I understand your position, but your computer is not admissable in a protest situation. Essentially your computer could be tampered with to make it look like someone was cheating even if they weren't. I'm not saying you would do it, but you could. For this reason, Impound would have to maintain the sw to test this and every other similar situation. As you can imagine, this is a can of worms. If they just hook up a boost gauge, you will loose every time as allowable mods will increase your boost.
Tom brought his laptop to the ProSolo Finale and tested a slew of WRXs. Had he found one to be illegal and protested it, what would have been the means of testing the car? At this point I think we're still on Impound's boost gauge. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I'd be fine with a boost gauge test, as my boost curve is well within the range of stock vehicles. As a matter of fact, I don't recall a single car Tom tested at Nationals that would have failed the "boost gauge" test. With [B]STX-legal[/B] mods, it doesn't appear most WRX's exhibit significant boost creep. If they do, I'd be suspicious of wastegate actuator setting changes (illegal) or an out-of-spec actuator (possibly illegal as well). Supposedly, a few downpipe designs can also cause boost spikes, but I've not seen it firsthand, and question the value of such spikes.
Interesting side note: as far as I'm aware, Subaru doesn't publish "stock" boost levels (they're not in the FSM, does anyone know if Service Bulletins have been issued on the subject?). Therefore, one school of thought would suggest the best way to obtain power for STX would be to:
A) sort through a bunch of wastegate solenoids, until you find one that provides higher than normal boost levels.
B) experiment with CAI's until you find one that leans out the mixture just enough.
C) don't use any form of engine management.
Back on the original topic - I personally don't have a problem with the UTEC, assuming all boost & wastegate duty cycle controls are disabled. It would be nice to get an SEB ruling once & for all on the timing control issue and the legality of disabling boost controls in a device capable of boost control. Then we'd know for sure whether UTEC, XEDE & EManage are considered legal. (Of course, then we wouldn't be able to debate the topic endlessly in the off-season! :p )
-Steve
[B]Moving off topic here, but worth a mention...
I understand your position, but your computer is not admissable in a protest situation. Essentially your computer could be tampered with to make it look like someone was cheating even if they weren't. I'm not saying you would do it, but you could. For this reason, Impound would have to maintain the sw to test this and every other similar situation. As you can imagine, this is a can of worms. If they just hook up a boost gauge, you will loose every time as allowable mods will increase your boost.
Tom brought his laptop to the ProSolo Finale and tested a slew of WRXs. Had he found one to be illegal and protested it, what would have been the means of testing the car? At this point I think we're still on Impound's boost gauge. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I'd be fine with a boost gauge test, as my boost curve is well within the range of stock vehicles. As a matter of fact, I don't recall a single car Tom tested at Nationals that would have failed the "boost gauge" test. With [B]STX-legal[/B] mods, it doesn't appear most WRX's exhibit significant boost creep. If they do, I'd be suspicious of wastegate actuator setting changes (illegal) or an out-of-spec actuator (possibly illegal as well). Supposedly, a few downpipe designs can also cause boost spikes, but I've not seen it firsthand, and question the value of such spikes.
Interesting side note: as far as I'm aware, Subaru doesn't publish "stock" boost levels (they're not in the FSM, does anyone know if Service Bulletins have been issued on the subject?). Therefore, one school of thought would suggest the best way to obtain power for STX would be to:
A) sort through a bunch of wastegate solenoids, until you find one that provides higher than normal boost levels.
B) experiment with CAI's until you find one that leans out the mixture just enough.
C) don't use any form of engine management.
Back on the original topic - I personally don't have a problem with the UTEC, assuming all boost & wastegate duty cycle controls are disabled. It would be nice to get an SEB ruling once & for all on the timing control issue and the legality of disabling boost controls in a device capable of boost control. Then we'd know for sure whether UTEC, XEDE & EManage are considered legal. (Of course, then we wouldn't be able to debate the topic endlessly in the off-season! :p )
-Steve
| KC | 12-16-2003 09:20 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker[/i]
[B] A) sort through a bunch of wastegate solenoids, until you find one that provides higher than normal boost levels.
B) experiment with CAI's until you find one that leans out the mixture just enough.
C) don't use any form of engine management.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I have 2 and 3 and I don't get a boost spike.
--kC
[B] A) sort through a bunch of wastegate solenoids, until you find one that provides higher than normal boost levels.
B) experiment with CAI's until you find one that leans out the mixture just enough.
C) don't use any form of engine management.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I have 2 and 3 and I don't get a boost spike.
--kC
| trhoppe | 12-16-2003 09:23 AM |
Sorry Joel :)
I did some research on the UTEC last year and had it clarified by an SEB member as well as Howard. Since the UTEC takes full control of the fuel injector firing parameters, its deemed illegal and does not qualify as a "piggyback". Like you guys were saying, its a 50/50 sort of thing.
Go ECUtek.
As far as boost testing. Testing with a boost gauge is completely ok IMHO. The deltadash was just a lot easier as it graphs it out for you instead of you having to record boost @ certain RPMs. If I would have found a car to be illegal, I would have presented my deltadash logs as a reason for the protest, but impound / chief of protest, would still have used their standardized boost gauge. Also, if you want to go far enough, the subaru computer that the dealerrships have can also show boost levels, and you could request that be used instead of a regular boost gauge.
-Tom
I did some research on the UTEC last year and had it clarified by an SEB member as well as Howard. Since the UTEC takes full control of the fuel injector firing parameters, its deemed illegal and does not qualify as a "piggyback". Like you guys were saying, its a 50/50 sort of thing.
Go ECUtek.
As far as boost testing. Testing with a boost gauge is completely ok IMHO. The deltadash was just a lot easier as it graphs it out for you instead of you having to record boost @ certain RPMs. If I would have found a car to be illegal, I would have presented my deltadash logs as a reason for the protest, but impound / chief of protest, would still have used their standardized boost gauge. Also, if you want to go far enough, the subaru computer that the dealerrships have can also show boost levels, and you could request that be used instead of a regular boost gauge.
-Tom
| Knowledge Perf. | 12-16-2003 12:00 PM |
[QUOTE]Since the UTEC takes full control of the fuel injector firing parameters, its deemed illegal and does not qualify as a "piggyback". [/QUOTE]
Actually Tom you are incorrect on that, the fuel is truly piggyback, as you punch in a minus or plus number for the utec to alter the MAF Voltage. It does not take full control of the fuel. Though the timing is somewhat controlled as a standalone that is the true question here. If the UTEC was illegal due to the way it controls fuel than every other piggyback should be illegal as it works like 98% of all fuel controllers due.
The real thing I think is unfair is the fact that the rule states that you can use piggyback's inside of the factory ecu case, between the ecu and sensors, etc. There are so many ways that certain car models can benefit greatly from these rules while others kind of get the shaft. Take the part about the being able to use it inside the stock case. Everyone knows you could use ecutek and reflash it. But unless you have the software for ecutek which is hard to get a hold of and hardly worth it IMO. Than you must pray that when you're reflash comes back it works if not try again. I don't recall ever seeing a car with an ecutek reflash be dead on unless it was A) Custom tuned by someone with the software, or B) run with a Utec or some other form of piggyback to correct it.
But then you take a Honda for example(and no one think I am picking on Hondas here I am a big Honda fanatic, you can ask Joel) but could use Hondata which has to be Legal as it is a piggyback that mounts within the ECU case as stated by the rules. Software is pretty readily available and can be custom tuned just as UTEC and can be set dead on with very great repeatability due to the fact that you can control the whole fuel and timing map. You can virtually control every aspect of the ecu's function and yet this is LEGAL? The way I read the rules it must be because the rule about being inside the case describes this to a tee.
I just think that these rules need to be modified or reclarified to make it fair for everyone. If you are going to allow piggybacks than fine if not than don't but the way the market is today it would take to much time and be a real PITA to try to separate them as to what�s legal and not cause as soon as you do somebody will make a new system to bend the rules. That�s why there are 10 billion different systems so people can get around the way the rules are and are not worded.
Actually Tom you are incorrect on that, the fuel is truly piggyback, as you punch in a minus or plus number for the utec to alter the MAF Voltage. It does not take full control of the fuel. Though the timing is somewhat controlled as a standalone that is the true question here. If the UTEC was illegal due to the way it controls fuel than every other piggyback should be illegal as it works like 98% of all fuel controllers due.
The real thing I think is unfair is the fact that the rule states that you can use piggyback's inside of the factory ecu case, between the ecu and sensors, etc. There are so many ways that certain car models can benefit greatly from these rules while others kind of get the shaft. Take the part about the being able to use it inside the stock case. Everyone knows you could use ecutek and reflash it. But unless you have the software for ecutek which is hard to get a hold of and hardly worth it IMO. Than you must pray that when you're reflash comes back it works if not try again. I don't recall ever seeing a car with an ecutek reflash be dead on unless it was A) Custom tuned by someone with the software, or B) run with a Utec or some other form of piggyback to correct it.
But then you take a Honda for example(and no one think I am picking on Hondas here I am a big Honda fanatic, you can ask Joel) but could use Hondata which has to be Legal as it is a piggyback that mounts within the ECU case as stated by the rules. Software is pretty readily available and can be custom tuned just as UTEC and can be set dead on with very great repeatability due to the fact that you can control the whole fuel and timing map. You can virtually control every aspect of the ecu's function and yet this is LEGAL? The way I read the rules it must be because the rule about being inside the case describes this to a tee.
I just think that these rules need to be modified or reclarified to make it fair for everyone. If you are going to allow piggybacks than fine if not than don't but the way the market is today it would take to much time and be a real PITA to try to separate them as to what�s legal and not cause as soon as you do somebody will make a new system to bend the rules. That�s why there are 10 billion different systems so people can get around the way the rules are and are not worded.
| trhoppe | 12-16-2003 12:09 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Knowledge Perf. [/i]
[B]Actually Tom you are incorrect on that, the fuel is truly piggyback, as you punch in a minus or plus number for the utec to alter the MAF Voltage. It does not take full control of the fuel. Though the timing is somewhat controlled as a standalone that is the true question here. [/QUOTE] Well, from the documentation that I received was that it controlled timing by firing the injectors itself rather then having the ECU do it, which is what I meant to say :)
The rules are unfair to some cars and fair to others. Its going to be that way and they will never make it fair and the same for all cars. One thing in stock class is that some cars can use crash bolts, as designated by the manufacturer. Toyota designates crash bolts, subaru doesnt. Not fair ;)
-Tom
[B]Actually Tom you are incorrect on that, the fuel is truly piggyback, as you punch in a minus or plus number for the utec to alter the MAF Voltage. It does not take full control of the fuel. Though the timing is somewhat controlled as a standalone that is the true question here. [/QUOTE] Well, from the documentation that I received was that it controlled timing by firing the injectors itself rather then having the ECU do it, which is what I meant to say :)
The rules are unfair to some cars and fair to others. Its going to be that way and they will never make it fair and the same for all cars. One thing in stock class is that some cars can use crash bolts, as designated by the manufacturer. Toyota designates crash bolts, subaru doesnt. Not fair ;)
-Tom
| Knowledge Perf. | 12-16-2003 01:34 PM |
I agree with you that the crash bolt thing sucks me and you talked about that when you were at the shop. That sucks but the way the rule is written at least I think its fair. Crash bolts are allowed. Not you can use crash bolts but only if they work this way. Just they are allowed or they aren�t. I may seem condescending when I say this but most of the people that make the rules generally don't know what the pieces they are allowing or disallowing fully do. I just think the rule should be that you either can or can�t use a piggyback. To allow this one and not another is unfair because some controllers give more of an advantage than others on certain cars as I have stated before. But for someone who has never seen what a simple controller like an VAFC can do for a car to say yeah that�s legal and then look at the Utec or Emanage or F-con V, etc. and say that�s not legal because its a stand alone is BS in opinion. The SCCA needs to reconsider these rules and maybe make a revision one way or the other but that is just bias to me. Maybe they need to see some examples of what these things can and can't do. I have plenty of dyno graphs showing what different cars do with all different kinds of controllers.
[QUOTE]Well, from the documentation that I received was that it controlled timing by firing the injectors itself rather then having the ECU do it[/QUOTE]
P.S. Tom I get what you are saying I think you are just wording it wrong and I didn't realize it at first. Yes the Utec does take over the ignition firing the Coil packs to control ignition, when you said injectors that threw me off.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
[QUOTE]Well, from the documentation that I received was that it controlled timing by firing the injectors itself rather then having the ECU do it[/QUOTE]
P.S. Tom I get what you are saying I think you are just wording it wrong and I didn't realize it at first. Yes the Utec does take over the ignition firing the Coil packs to control ignition, when you said injectors that threw me off.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
| trhoppe | 12-16-2003 02:54 PM |
[QUOTE].S. Tom I get what you are saying I think you are just wording it wrong and I didn't realize it at first. Yes the Utec does take over the ignition firing the Coil packs to control ignition, when you said injectors that threw me off.[/QUOTE]
Youre right.....sorry.....substiture "coil packs" for "injectors" and thats what I am trying to say....
I have to argue against this comment though. [QUOTE]I just think the rule should be that you either can or can�t use a piggyback. To allow this one and not another is unfair because some controllers give more of an advantage than others on certain cars as I have stated before. But for someone who has never seen what a simple controller like an VAFC can do for a car to say yeah that�s legal and then look at the Utec or Emanage or F-con V, etc. and say that�s not legal because its a stand alone is BS in opinion.[/QUOTE]
The rule does state that you can use ANY piggyback. "Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system." It is just worded very explicitly, because the word "piggyback" can be stretched. What they are describing in the rule, is a pure piggyback computer. The UTEC is not a pure piggyback computer, it has its own coil pack driver. That is not piggyback. The unichip along with the hondata IS a piggyback and you can use those. The unichip kinda blows, but there is nothing you can do about that other then develop one, like the hondata people did, that doesn't suck :)
In writing rules, you can't use words like "piggyback" computer, or "camber kit" :p The "camber kit" is a great example. The rules had to be rewritten this year to provide explicit dos and don'ts as you could build whatever the hell type of suspension you wanted, call it a "camber kit" and it would have been legal.
As far as the ECUtek goes. My "untuned" ECUtek that was guessed on by shiv has performed awesome. The car has not pinged once, runs cool EGTs to redline, and run acceptably rich on the deltadash road dyno. It also ran a [email�protected] with stock boost on a stock turbo ;)
-Tom
Youre right.....sorry.....substiture "coil packs" for "injectors" and thats what I am trying to say....
I have to argue against this comment though. [QUOTE]I just think the rule should be that you either can or can�t use a piggyback. To allow this one and not another is unfair because some controllers give more of an advantage than others on certain cars as I have stated before. But for someone who has never seen what a simple controller like an VAFC can do for a car to say yeah that�s legal and then look at the Utec or Emanage or F-con V, etc. and say that�s not legal because its a stand alone is BS in opinion.[/QUOTE]
The rule does state that you can use ANY piggyback. "Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system." It is just worded very explicitly, because the word "piggyback" can be stretched. What they are describing in the rule, is a pure piggyback computer. The UTEC is not a pure piggyback computer, it has its own coil pack driver. That is not piggyback. The unichip along with the hondata IS a piggyback and you can use those. The unichip kinda blows, but there is nothing you can do about that other then develop one, like the hondata people did, that doesn't suck :)
In writing rules, you can't use words like "piggyback" computer, or "camber kit" :p The "camber kit" is a great example. The rules had to be rewritten this year to provide explicit dos and don'ts as you could build whatever the hell type of suspension you wanted, call it a "camber kit" and it would have been legal.
As far as the ECUtek goes. My "untuned" ECUtek that was guessed on by shiv has performed awesome. The car has not pinged once, runs cool EGTs to redline, and run acceptably rich on the deltadash road dyno. It also ran a [email�protected] with stock boost on a stock turbo ;)
-Tom
| MNbiker | 12-16-2003 03:19 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B]It also ran a [email�protected] with stock boost on a stock turbo ;)
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you've got 1/4 mile bragging rights for an STX-legal car. :disco:
Guess I'll have to go beat that time one of these days, since I know you LOVE getting beat by grocery-getters!:devil:
-Steve
[B]It also ran a [email�protected] with stock boost on a stock turbo ;)
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you've got 1/4 mile bragging rights for an STX-legal car. :disco:
Guess I'll have to go beat that time one of these days, since I know you LOVE getting beat by grocery-getters!:devil:
-Steve
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét