Request Comments - Allowing Backdating of ECU's Within Same Manufacturer

Request comments - pro and con - to allowing backdating of ECU's within same manufacturer.

I'm neither pro nor con yet. But on the surface, it seems that installations would be easier and probably cheaper. As these ECU's and electronic controls become more complex, the installations become more difficult. For instance, the new Honda... an older Honda ECU might make installation easier and less expensive.

I ran into this thought while installing an 08 R1 where I previously had an 06 R1 - to see if I could make the 08 engine run with the 06 throttle bodies (intake is free rule) and 06 ECU (ECU must remain stock). I ran into a frame structural interference issue with the 08 throttle bodies, and I am NOT cutting and rewelding a bunch of tubes (12 in all) to make this work. I made some throttle body extensions to raise the 08 type about 1" to clear the frame, but I don't like the integrity of the mount. So I am going to try to make the engine run with the older T/B's and electronics. I've also made up the 08 wiring harness and had the 08 ECU reflashed as the real route to go.

So... request thoughts - pro and con.

Rob:

In reading the ECU rule, it only says that "the stock ECU must be used". It does not state that the ECU has to match that particular engine. That may be what they wanted (?), but the wording used does not definitively preclude mixing and matching between years (and possibly even manufacturers).:D

Rob, sounds good to me. I can't think of any performance advantage someone could get from allowing this, and, as you say, it could make life easier for someone some day.

I just wonder if it's worth the hassle of pushing through a rule change when you don't know if anyone will ever use or need it.

If you submit it I'll send a letter of support (assuming no one comes up with a valid reason not to).

I am curious why they require the stock ECU. Don't you have to add a separate box to "fool" the stock ECU in any case? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just allow an aftermarket ECU? Or was the intent to reduce the cost of dyno development that some people might do?

Nathan

Well... I finally got spark using the 06 ECU and throttle bodies on the 08 R1, but it backfired so badly it caused the throttle bodies to jump right out of their mount!

When we wrote the rules, my interpretration of the ECU rule is that we meant that the ECU for the particular engine must remain stock. But the rule can clearly be interpreted differently (as Richard says), and the other guys who helped write the rules might have a different opinion. The intent was to keep costs down with dyno development and the real expensive ECU's like MOTEC. The problem is that we did not foresee the ability to reflash ECU's, which almost effectively now makes the ECU rule an open one. Last year, I wrote all that up (request for open ECU) and submitted it to the CRB and was turned down.

Rob
You may have a similar situation that we were in some time back.

For a short time I ran a 07/08 GSXR1000 engine with 05/06 throttle bodies and 05/06 ECU. I did this by removing the 07/08 intake cam and installing a 05/06 intake cam in the 07/08 engine. I had to do this because the two different generations of engine have their cam position sensors clocked slightly different. We had considered making an offset pin on the cam to make it think it was an earlier gen. cam.

We eventually switched out our wire harness and ecu and reinstalled the 07/08 cam. Didn't notice any degridation in performance....this mod. was all on the advice of Geo. Dean.

You may end up having a similar issue Rob. I'd ask George if there's something you can do to back date the engine to make it run on the 06 ECU and Throttle bodies.

Gary Hickman
Edge FB #76

Gary! Perfect!

First though, I'm getting an intermittent spark with the 06 ECU and T/B's that I never had a problem with before. The crank position sensor is the exact same unit and reads out fine in ohms. There are only two other sensors on the engine that really matter - coolant and camshaft position. Everything I've read says that the 06 and 08 exhaust cams are the same, and I know for sure that the sensor is the same too. And the coolant temp sensor should not be producing intermittent spark. I did find that the coils are different, so I have the 06 coils on it too.

Would a different exhaust cam position cause intermittent spark? I don't believe so.

ECU??? I did try to run the 08 coils with the 06 ECU - maybe I fried something...

But I'm glad I'm not the only one to try this scheme...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

I am curious why they require the stock ECU. Don't you have to add a separate box to "fool" the stock ECU in any case? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just allow an aftermarket ECU? Or was the intent to reduce the cost of dyno development that some people might do?

Nathan

---

Any aftermarket ECU is a recipe for disaster. They are expensive and they will be cheap compared to the cost of the dyno time.

The GSXR does not require any kind of separate box to fool the ECU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghickman

Rob
You may have a similar situation that we were in some time back.

For a short time I ran a 07/08 GSXR1000 engine with 05/06 throttle bodies and 05/06 ECU. I did this by removing the 07/08 intake cam and installing a 05/06 intake cam in the 07/08 engine. I had to do this because the two different generations of engine have their cam position sensors clocked slightly different. We had considered making an offset pin on the cam to make it think it was an earlier gen. cam.

---

I can't imagine how that could be legal. That's pretty far from stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobLav

The problem is that we did not foresee the ability to reflash ECU's, which almost effectively now makes the ECU rule an open one. Last year, I wrote all that up (request for open ECU) and submitted it to the CRB and was turned down.

---

Reflashing the ECU is nothing like installing a MOTEC.

The open ECU rule will kill this class. It is basically telling everyone at the front of the field, "**** you, go spend $15k on an ECU and dyno tuning or be happy to run 5th." It's a really bad idea. There is some real power to be had with enough time and money and a stand alone ECU. Then you get to go spend that money every time you update the engine. Why would anyone participate in this class then?

Brandon called tonight to talk about some new oil pans he was cutting. My response was to tell him that he should be cutting a bellhousing to put a zetec in his car. This ECU bull**** is going to be the death of FB. The rule is ok as written but needs a little bit of clarification to keep anyone from running a stand alone ECU that is just turned on by a stock ECU.

Rob, if budget is your big concern, get a 07-08 GSXR and run it off a stock ECU. You won't be down horsepower to anyone and you don't have to go down your own path. Pioneering a new engine installation is not going to be easy.

If anyone out there has an LD200 for sale, shoot a PM to me or Brandon.

Rob, you are in a better position than most. After this ECU non-sense kills the class, you can put in Fit or zetec and have a competitive car. I'm not sure how legal the frames of some of the other cars will be for other classes. I know they will need new bodywork.



Edit- After all of that ranting I forgot to address the topic. This would be the first step in a slippery slope of allowing in any ECU.

That $15K ECU is less money than a Zetec, bell, LD200, and new A-Arms!

I have to run to work. Thanks for the responses and support (Russ / Gary).

Only the first time, and you have something concrete to hold on to. Every time a new engine model goes in you have to spend that money again. It doesn't make sense. It takes this class from one of the cheapest in terms of engine run costs and makes it by far the most expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobLav

Request comments - pro and con - to allowing backdating of ECU's within same manufacturer.

---

Unintended consequences....maybe not immediately, but eventually someone will find an advantage in mixing and matching....even if it just makes it incredibly difficult to police traction control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Rob:

In reading the ECU rule, it only says that "the stock ECU must be used". It does not state that the ECU has to match that particular engine.

---

I beg to differ. If it said "a stock ECU must be used" I'd agree with you. But it says "THE stock ECU must be used".

As it turns out, Gary Hickman was right. The exhaust cam (ignition timing) notches are in different locations between the 06 and 08 cams. So all for naught... the 06 cam can not at all be used in the 08 head.

So back to Plan B and the 08 throttle bodies and ECU, which BTW, is reflashed to Yamaha YEC racing specs. I messed up somewhere on the wiring harness and have to figure it out.

Wren - with units such as the Bazaz (sp?) and logging a wideband lambda, dyno time is not so important anymore. Bazaz has a unit that will alter A/F ratio and self-program itself to optimize it. And I'll soon be logging lambda to alter the power commander. Live, at the track, dyno time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobLav

Wren - with units such as the Bazaz (sp?) and logging a wideband lambda, dyno time is not so important anymore. Bazaz has a unit that will alter A/F ratio and self-program itself to optimize it. And I'll soon be logging lambda to alter the power commander. Live, at the track, dyno time!

---

I'm familiar with the Bazzaz and what it claims to do. It's no MOTEC.

I've watched people waste a lot of time trying to use it's self tuning feature. Don't count on it.

I like Rob's plan. It is similar to what I was doing (or working on). Go to the dyno and see what AFR the engine likes with Power Commander tuning. Then monitor it with the data logger at the track. It seemed like a pretty inexpensive way to be pretty close to ideal AFR (after some experimenting).