Spec Miata Community   
search | help | calendar | games | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata » Modified ECU/Computer (Page 7)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 7 of 10 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  next » 
 
Author Topic: Modified ECU/Computer
Blake Clements Verified Driver Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: SW - Houston
Car #: 6
Year : 99, 96
Posts: 2262
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Blake Clements   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
Man... if I owned a junkyard or an engine building shop, I'd be loving this conversation! Between timing, fuel pressure and EMS's, there will be plenty of engines to be replaced/rebuilt as people push closer and closer to the edge in search of that elusive 0.5HP.

It's an interesting game, really. The powers that be allow us to seek parity with the 99's by pushing the 1.6's harder by giving us adjustable AFM's and modded cylinder heads. Meanwhile, engine reliability has gone down as speeds go up.

Then they decide that the 99's are just too reliable (junkyards and builders don't benefit from reliable cars!) and decide that we should be getting them grenade-lean and overtimed, as well.

Hey racers.... take another hit of crack. If we can get the 99's far enough out front and overstress the 1.6 a bit more, we can convince them to do 1.6 to 1.8 engine swaps....more dough for the PTB.

Step Right Up!

Maybe Jim can pass you the CRB hat and let your infinite wisdom fix all problems SCCA? Its attitudes and treatment like this that keeps anyone from wanting to participate in the volunteer work activities within the SCCA.

I'm sure Alison and the kids would like to spend more time with dad anyways.

You've gone a little overboard this time, Kent. Its not really funny anymore.

--------------------
Blake Clements

PhillipsRacePrep/SP Induction Systems/East Street Racing/MiataCage.com/Carbotech/WBR Graphics

www.blakeclements.com

seege Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NASA So Cal
Year : Thinking on that.... ok done 99
Posts: 82
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for seege     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Kent,

I don't remember Jim ever bringing up the 1.6 to 1.8 swap, which btw is the best solution to parity going forward!!! Can somebody tell me why not?

I'm not sure what's driving you conspiracy theory comments, but it IS pretty obvious who it's targeted toward.

-b

Why not? Because it's the death of a thousand cuts...the last one being the $7000 engine swap.
The 06's are coming, so don't think that having everyone update to the 99 motor and subframes will be the last word on parity...

Thanks for the hard work and keeping the conversation public Mr Drago.
-CJ

--------------------
-CJ Johnson

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Gang, this is NOT about Jim. I greatly appreciate the time and effort that he has put into the sport and the club and I have told him this to his face.

I never wanted a 'pro' motor. When I bought my 'pro' motor it was because my old motor was tired and I was told I'd need a 'pro' motor to keep up. The builder assured me it was legal and that the power came from good tolerances and great tuning. Little did I know the head was machined well beyond factory specs. The motor program I embarked brought me nothing but grief and outrageous costs.

I also never wanted an SP Induction 'air filter adapter'. I never wanted a fancy head. I never wanted 99 shock hats. I never wanted the FatCat fix for the 99 shocks hats. I never wanted open AFM's. I bought them all because it was what I was told I'd have to have to keep up. It didn't make the racing any more enjoyable. None of this has made the racing better.

Neither Jim Drago (who most seem to think this is about) nor the CRB or even the SCCA has done this to us. The SCCA is a club that responds to member input. We did it. I did it, you probably did too.

Two years ago, I stood up at the SCCA National Convention and spoke at the CRB Town Hall. I told those dedicated volunteers my feelings on the philosophy that SpecMiata should embrace:

NOTHING should be permitted that will make the cars faster or less reliable. The only upgrades that should be permitted should be those that reduce cost, improve reliability or safety. Performance should be adjusted through inexpensive means: weight and restrictor plates and the faster cars must always be slowed to match the slower car.

There was a big round of applause. It didn't help.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by seege:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Kent,

I don't remember Jim ever bringing up the 1.6 to 1.8 swap, which btw is the best solution to parity going forward!!! Can somebody tell me why not?

I'm not sure what's driving you conspiracy theory comments, but it IS pretty obvious who it's targeted toward.

-b

Why not? Because it's the death of a thousand cuts...the last one being the $7000 engine swap.
The 06's are coming, so don't think that having everyone update to the 99 motor and subframes will be the last word on parity...

Thanks for the hard work and keeping the conversation public Mr Drago.
-CJ

Who said the 06s are coming??? The 06 in SM requires another class, the cars are not even close. But whatever you want to think, that is still not a good reason why we can plan the upgrade over time. You probably haven't read what I keep (and will continue) to propose, a phased approach over 3-4 years. Want 5 or 6 years, fine, we can do it over the next 5 years... You can continue to race your 1.6 or choose to run a 1.8 with weight and rp penalties. What's the problem with that?

-bw

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

David de Regt Verified Driver
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 47/479
Year : 1992
Posts: 418
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

While I'm not sure I agree that it _has_ to happen, I'm curious why 1.6 owners aren't allowed to throw a 1.8 motor + MAF/airbox in their car and run under the 94-95 rules? Is there any fundamental difference in the chassis there? My understanding was that they are basically identical.

--------------------
My Spec Miata Build Sheet - Hope people find it useful
 -

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I'll answer for drago so nobody claims he is trying to sell parts... [Smash]

No reason David, just particulars to work out, i.e. electronics, RP, etc. It would be a fundamental shift in direction for SM, but certainly deserves more discussion.

-bw

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

David de Regt Verified Driver
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 47/479
Year : 1992
Posts: 418
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

What I'm saying is... Wouldn't it be identical to a 94 car to take a 90 car and throw a 1.8 motor + ECU + harness + MAF + airbox in? If so, why couldn't you then just run the car under the current 94 rules/RP?

--------------------
My Spec Miata Build Sheet - Hope people find it useful
 -

joeythepants
Junior Member

Posts: 9
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for joeythepants     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
What I'm saying is... Wouldn't it be identical to a 94 car to take a 90 car and throw a 1.8 motor + ECU + harness + MAF + airbox in? If so, why couldn't you then just run the car under the current 94 rules/RP?

You wouldn't even have to go that far:
http://flyinmiata.com/index.php?dept=67
200 bucks and done, Well not including the pro 1.8, the rest of the donor parts etc etc..

By allowing a megasquirt, afpr, and timing you would go border line Improved touring. Maybe just run that, Get yourself a header and go race.

With tons of rule changes, additions subtractions etc etc. You will scare away people.KEEP IT SIMPLE

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I have nothing constructive to add, I _just_ wanted to _try_ typing using _dashes_.

It's _fun_. [Big Grin] [Razz]

I'm ramping up for my 9th season of SM and y'all are scaring me away! [Eek!]

-Denny

MPR22
Member

Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92'
Posts: 296
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for MPR22     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
NOTHING should be permitted that will make the cars faster or less reliable. The only upgrades that should be permitted should be those that reduce cost, improve reliability or safety. Performance should be adjusted through inexpensive means: weight and restrictor plates and the faster cars must always be slowed to match the slower car.

There was a big round of applause. It didn't help.[/QB]

[thumbsup] Kent has it right. Does anyone think spending $5,000-$7,000 for 5-10 more HP makes the racing more enjoyable? If yes, then there are plenty of classes in both SCCA and NASA to make you happy. Keep the cost to compete lower and more people will race. Do I want to spend hours on the track getting faster just to come up short on HP/TQ, NO. Will I buy/build the pro engine someday to be able to compete, YES. But how many others will read this very thread and do something else because the percieved cost of competing is continually going up.

--------------------
Michael Ross

oem steve
Member

Region: South East
Car #: #92
Year : 91
Posts: 189
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for oem steve     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Hey Robert, I guess I wasn't sure of what opening up the timing and fuel pressure would do. But as I am to understand it this is the main reason that people are "tuning" [Big Grin] the ECU, would that be correct? So by allowing them to adjust timing and fuel would basically eliminate the need for a revved up ECU? please correct me if I'm wrong as I'am not a computer engineer thanks.

--------------------
email: standrewsexpress@bellsouth.net
visit us at http://www.standrewsexpress.com

Under powered and under driven

seege Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NASA So Cal
Year : Thinking on that.... ok done 99
Posts: 82
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for seege     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by MPR22:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
NOTHING should be permitted that will make the cars faster or less reliable. The only upgrades that should be permitted should be those that reduce cost, improve reliability or safety. Performance should be adjusted through inexpensive means: weight and restrictor plates and the faster cars must always be slowed to match the slower car.

There was a big round of applause. It didn't help.

[thumbsup] Kent has it right. Does anyone think spending $5,000-$7,000 for 5-10 more HP makes the racing more enjoyable? If yes, then there are plenty of classes in both SCCA and NASA to make you happy. Keep the cost to compete lower and more people will race. Do I want to spend hours on the track getting faster just to come up short on HP/TQ, NO. Will I buy/build the pro engine someday to be able to compete, YES. But how many others will read this very thread and do something else because the percieved cost of competing is continually going up. [/QB]
Well said gentlemen [Smash]

--------------------
-CJ Johnson

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

Posts: 574
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David Dewhurst     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

***I'm sure Dewhurst will join in.***

At least when I dump $hit on you it's not on this site. [nope] I hate those personal messages from the original JD. [yep]

--------------------
Have Fun [Wink]

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Mark de Regt Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: NWR/Oregon; ICSCC
Car #: 70
Year : 1991
Posts: 1111
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mark de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

What seems to have been lost in the long and tortured history of this thread is one simple fact: Nobody I know wants to increase the already escalating cost of racing generally, and racing in this class specifically.

But we see a problem, and are casting about for a solution.

If, in fact, the powers that be are ready, willing, and able to catch ECU-cheats, that's a good solution. But many of us doubt that that's the case, and are looking for a solution that's workable, unambiguous, and which doesn't involve the highly-unpleasant protest process. If we can reduce the disparity problem in the process, so much the better.

Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that there isn't a problem isn't a solution.

Mike C Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: WDCR - 042
Car #: 75
Year : 93 & 95 & 99
Posts: 3727
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike C   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The only way you will catch ECU cheats is with a protest. Get over it the SCCA is not going to police the class for you. The SMAC is working on a method to test ECU's. It will most likely be like cams, send the ECU or the device we hook to it to the SCCA for validation.

--------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
http://www.SHEETZ.com
The MEATHEAD Racing 2010 Calendar is up!!!!
www.MEATHEADRacing.com
SMAC Member
WDCR-SCCA SM Drivers Rep.
ALL OPINIONS ON RULES OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE JUST THAT, MY OPINIONS!

Brian Ghidinelli Verified Driver
Moonwalker

Region: SFR
Car #: 12
Year : 99
Posts: 267
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brian Ghidinelli   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Side-note re: the "unpleasant" aspect of protests. I support reinstating the SM compliance fee so we can have traveling enforcers to do the dirty work for us. I'd want to see them unannounced randomly at least twice a year (at least a regional AND a national). If nothing else, increased inspection will lead to the _perception_ of a more level playing field and both are relevant to the health of the class.

Mark de Regt Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: NWR/Oregon; ICSCC
Car #: 70
Year : 1991
Posts: 1111
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mark de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Mike C:
The only way you will catch ECU cheats is with a protest. Get over it the SCCA is not going to police the class for you. The SMAC is working on a method to test ECU's. It will most likely be like cams, send the ECU or the device we hook to it to the SCCA for validation.

Since I don't yet believe that the SCCA even can conclusively test ECUs in any way that will quickly and conclusively determine whether there's been tampering, and since I have not noticed in three years of mostly regional racing that the SCCA is vaguely ready, willing or able to police the class, I'd rather have a rule set that's easy to police.

I'd even more rather that the SCCA did something with all that money they've taken from me called "compliance fee" or some such rot, which, as far as I can tell, hasn't ever been used to improve compliance policing for the regional racer, but I'm not optimistic.

As long as my perception is that there's no effective way to police the present rules, I'll be whining about that fact, and advocating having rules we actually can have some confidence can and will be evenly enforced.

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by seege:
The 06's are coming, so don't think that having everyone update to the 99 motor and subframes will be the last word on parity...

The BOD will not make the ’06 legal until they get the word from ’99 builders that it is time to began refleecing the sheep.

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

cam Verified Driver
Cheap member

Region: southwest
Car #: 14
Year : 90
Posts: 739
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cam   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by MPR22:
... But how many others will read this very thread and do something else because the percieved cost of competing is continually going up.

You do not have to spend a lot to have a lot of fun, be fast enough, and develop your skills.

Just to clarify, I supported FatCat bump stops, they are a good idea but I have not purchased the kit. I supported allowing the 1.6 to upgrade to the 94+ Torsen but I still have my 90-93 clutch pack with fragile Ring and Pinion gears. I do not have a pro motor, (I did have a pro ART head that lasted one race weekend due to an unrelated alternator failure which lead to overheating the motor and ruining the head). All these items are nice to haves but are not required to have fun racing wheel to wheel. One of the great things about SM is that there is always someone on the track to race against. Just because someone says you need to spent $nnn to be competitive does not mean you really need to spend that much. I still am having a blast in my under prepared 1.6. My grins/$ ratio is very favorable and has allowed me to focus on driving while investing in better safety equipment. I see no problems allowing Fuel Pressure and Timing changes. The more highly prepped cars are achieving those results anyway, might as well make it legal for everyone. I also support opening up ECUs like ITx classes just because I do not see a way to protest them. But if FP and Timing gets you 80% there (according to other posts, I do not know that), then keep the stock ECU. IMHO, the cars are close already, the SMAC and other volunteers have done a great job and should be congratulated for there hard work and positive results.

Added: do not think I made my point very clear about allowing fuel pressure and timing changes. Since it is difficult to detect if one has modified ECU mappings and most of the tuning benefits of a modified ECU map can be achieved with adjusting fuel pressure and timing, then why not allow one to legally adjust FP and timing. The FP and Timing modifications are relatively inexpensive and defects the whole sneaky business of cheated up ECUs by providing most of the benefits in a legal fashion. One would not “have” to have an adjustable FP and Timing, rather it is a legal option for everyone like the FatCat bump stops.

[ 02-23-2010, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: cam ]

--------------------
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
~Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
~Thomas Jefferson

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by seege:
The 06's are coming, so don't think that having everyone update to the 99 motor and subframes will be the last word on parity...

The BOD will not make the ’06 legal until they get the word from ’99 builders that it is time to began refleecing the sheep.
[butthead] [nope]

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Charles, I agree with you. I also supported allowing the 1.6L cars upgrading to the 99 rear gear for reliability reasons. It's not a performance upgrade, it's a cost-effective upgrade.

The problem I have with the FP/Timing modifications versus an ECU/EMS approach is two-fold. It makes the cars faster and less reliable. Neither of which improves the class.

I'm starting to think the right approach is to REQUIRE an adjustable regulator and spec a pressure above the factory minimum (say... 65psig?) that keeps the motors from making much power or being air/fuel time bombs. This would meet all of the desired criteria and might prove easy to enforce. The last thing we need is to allow the continued tinkering with the 99's in search of more power. It wasn't beneficial when it happened to the 1.6 cars and it won't be again. Why does the CRB not understand this??

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

David de Regt Verified Driver
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 47/479
Year : 1992
Posts: 418
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

--------------------
My Spec Miata Build Sheet - Hope people find it useful
 -

davew Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: chicago
Car #: 72 and ?
Year : 90 and 90
Posts: 1051
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for davew   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR. The '06s are NOT coming. Mazda knows this, SCCA knows this, CRB knows this, SMAC knows this. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. Now you know this!!!!!!!!!!!


Dave

--------------------
Advanced Autosports, The Midwests leader in Spec Miata Service, Parts and Rentals
608-313-1230
Authorised Spec Miata service center
www.advanced-autosports.com

JIM DANIELS
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by davew:
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR. The '06s are NOT coming. Mazda knows this, SCCA knows this, CRB knows this, SMAC knows this. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. Now you know this!!!!!!!!!!!


Dave

Except at the ARRC......

That is EXACTLY what they said about the '99.

Ara, chime in.......

[Big Grin] [duck]

Blake Clements Verified Driver Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: SW - Houston
Car #: 6
Year : 99, 96
Posts: 2262
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Blake Clements   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

And if the pumps start going south, the pressure is going to change too. Leave the factory range with adjustable pressure and timing for all cars.

Blake

--------------------
Blake Clements

PhillipsRacePrep/SP Induction Systems/East Street Racing/MiataCage.com/Carbotech/WBR Graphics

www.blakeclements.com

pat slattery Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: cincy
Car #: 79
Year : 92
Posts: 1495
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat slattery     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
quote:
Originally posted by davew:
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR. The '06s are NOT coming. Mazda knows this, SCCA knows this, CRB knows this, SMAC knows this. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. Now you know this!!!!!!!!!!!


Dave

That is EXACTLY what they said about the '99.

Ara, chime in.......

[Big Grin]

JD your forgetting the part about if it did, it wouldn't be an overdog [yep]

Pat

--------------------
keeping the faith for the 1.6

Arrow Karts

JIM DANIELS
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
quote:
Originally posted by davew:
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR. The '06s are NOT coming. Mazda knows this, SCCA knows this, CRB knows this, SMAC knows this. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. Now you know this!!!!!!!!!!!


Dave

That is EXACTLY what they said about the '99.

Ara, chime in.......

[Big Grin]

JD your forgetting the part about if it did, it wouldn't be an overdog [yep]

Pat

OUCH [Wink]

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

That number was out of my... but you get the point. Let's NOT allow the 99's to take advantage of the lower end of the FSM fuel pressure range to make more power at the expense of reliability. It is not in the class interest to add power to the 99's. Period.

Are you talking about adding a resistor to the MAF line because there is not an AFM in the NB's?

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

And if the pumps start going south, the pressure is going to change too. Leave the factory range with adjustable pressure and timing for all cars.

Blake

There is no advantage to the class in letting the unadjustable cars trick the ECU into more timing. It makes more power and reduces reliability. The only ones who benefit are those who sell motors.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

David de Regt Verified Driver
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 47/479
Year : 1992
Posts: 418
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

No, sorry, I meant that the 1.6s will respond to the required AFPR bump you're talking about by doing the above. You can just stiffen up the wheel/change the wiper/etc. and lean it the hell out, which also has the side effect of adding a bunch of timing. Then the motors will really be knifeedge. [Frown]

I don't know how the NBs would respond, but I'm sure that MAF resistor/O2 sensor/Temp sensor (IAT and CTS) cheats would go way up. No one wants to run their car in the black smoke region. [Smile]

--------------------
My Spec Miata Build Sheet - Hope people find it useful
 -

Blake Clements Verified Driver Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: SW - Houston
Car #: 6
Year : 99, 96
Posts: 2262
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Blake Clements   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

And if the pumps start going south, the pressure is going to change too. Leave the factory range with adjustable pressure and timing for all cars.

Blake

There is no advantage to the class in letting the unadjustable cars trick the ECU into more timing. It makes more power and reduces reliability. The only ones who benefit are those who sell motors.
Uh, yes there is. If you missed it during your rampage and preaching, it eliminates and negates the need for those costly bogus ECU's? Isn't that also the whole point in allowing FP to be adjusted?

Blake

--------------------
Blake Clements

PhillipsRacePrep/SP Induction Systems/East Street Racing/MiataCage.com/Carbotech/WBR Graphics

www.blakeclements.com

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

And if the pumps start going south, the pressure is going to change too. Leave the factory range with adjustable pressure and timing for all cars.

Blake

There is no advantage to the class in letting the unadjustable cars trick the ECU into more timing. It makes more power and reduces reliability. The only ones who benefit are those who sell motors.
Uh, yes there is. If you missed it during your rampage and preaching, it eliminates and negates the need for those costly bogus ECU's? Isn't that also the whole point in allowing FP to be adjusted?

Blake

Wow, Blake.... I guess I missed the point where we decided that whether it was bogus cheated up ECU's or bogus cheated up FPRs and crank sensors, the 99's NEEDED more leanness and timing to improve the class. Someone please explain why this improves the racing....

Even if leaning/advancing timing the 99 WAS good for reliability, screwing up the FPR or the crank sensor seems to be absolutely the most stupid way of doing it.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

David de Regt Verified Driver
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 47/479
Year : 1992
Posts: 418
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Kent, I think the point is that the high end/top 99 cars are already getting the advantage via one method or another (either extensive parts binning or cheating) and we're trying to bring the other 99s into parity with the top guys without making them resort to cheating.

--------------------
My Spec Miata Build Sheet - Hope people find it useful
 -

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
No, sorry, I meant that the 1.6s will respond to the required AFPR bump you're talking about by doing the above. You can just stiffen up the wheel/change the wiper/etc. and lean it the hell out, which also has the side effect of adding a bunch of timing. Then the motors will really be knifeedge. [Frown]

I don't know how the NBs would respond, but I'm sure that MAF resistor/O2 sensor/Temp sensor (IAT and CTS) cheats would go way up. No one wants to run their car in the black smoke region. [Smile]

I'm not aware that people are cheating up the FPR's on the early cars... guess I should try it. [Smile]

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

Mr ED
Member

Region: lonestar
Car #: 11
Year : 90
Posts: 166
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mr ED     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

And if the pumps start going south, the pressure is going to change too. Leave the factory range with adjustable pressure and timing for all cars.

Blake

There is no advantage to the class in letting the unadjustable cars trick the ECU into more timing. It makes more power and reduces reliability. The only ones who benefit are those who sell motors.
Kent,
I disagree, dont seem to recall selling any motors cause they leaned out too much. I do remember loosing money helping those fried 1.6 motors with too much timg and not enough fuel. [banghead]

--------------------
Old enough to know better, still young enough not to care!
ww.gilfusracing.com

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent, I think the point is that the high end/top 99 cars are already getting the advantage via one method or another (either extensive parts binning or cheating) and we're trying to bring the other 99s into parity with the top guys without making them resort to cheating.

Ah... then we have a fix for that.
1. Set a minimum fuel pressure above the point where cars go leaner than Mazda intended at redline. The midpoint of the FSM range might be the right place to set the minimum. You can either replace your FPR with a new one or get an adjustable one, but you have to meet a higher than FSM minimum. FP is easy to tech on the 99s. This is a nice safe way to keep the cars reliable and limit cheating.
2. A spec, sealed, SCCA Enterprises ECU with grid swaps.
3. Aggressive detection of altered timing. Drago says he has a sure-fire means of detecting timing cheats. I believe him.
4. Detection of harness cheats by OBDII logging/VOM checks as Drago and I talked about in Vegas.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Mr ED:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent: If you bump the pressure up that much people will just lean the AFM out and add so much timing that the motors will truly be time bombs. [Frown]

And if the pumps start going south, the pressure is going to change too. Leave the factory range with adjustable pressure and timing for all cars.

Blake

There is no advantage to the class in letting the unadjustable cars trick the ECU into more timing. It makes more power and reduces reliability. The only ones who benefit are those who sell motors.
Kent,
I disagree, dont seem to recall selling any motors cause they leaned out too much. I do remember loosing money helping those fried 1.6 motors with too much timg and not enough fuel. [banghead]

Ed, maybe we are saying the same thing. The proposal seems to be that we should allow the 99 cars to lower their FP to the factory minimum of ~54 PSIG in order to lean them out at the top end at WOT AND allow them to wallow out the crank trigger (or make a bracket) to allow them to get more advance. This is a recipe for:
1. More power
2. Less reliability

Ed, you are certainly the expert here, not me. Maybe I have it backwards.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

David de Regt Verified Driver
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 47/479
Year : 1992
Posts: 418
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I'm still extremely skeptical of OBD2 logging. If I had access to the same stuff that jmac has, I could make the OBD2 port say whatever I want it to, while performing a completely different action in the background. I'm somewhat skeptical that his operation has the technical background to do it, but it's also not out of the question since it's not actually very hard if you know what you're doing with embedded code. Moreover, there's been no need to do it yet, but if the next step in the arms race is OBD2 logging, then the next countermeasure in said arms race will be OBD2 faking.

--------------------
My Spec Miata Build Sheet - Hope people find it useful
 -

Tvance13
Member

Car #: 85
Year : 2001
Posts: 161
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tvance13   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Kent - You seem to miss the point. The goal here is to address the fact that people ARE running modified ECUS. What makes it better, worse, more or less reliable, faster or slower is all background to the real issue. I wish it wasn't an issue, but it is. You could buy one on this site not long ago. So we can:

A) Deal with the problem in a constructive way (Timing, FP, or open factory ECU, or...)

B) Keep talking about the dream of what the class was intended to be. And pretend they can enforce this in tech. From what I know it is not possible.

FOr what it is worth, I am pretty new to this and I think it is pretty cool that this is out in the open. In karting it takes years to get to the inner circle and only those "in the know" get the info...The trick plugs, axles, axle diameters and lengths, hubs, air filters, etc. All the stuff that the guy next to you on the grid used to his advantage and learned from paying dues. The new guy has no clue why he is slower, but over time he learns.

Getting this out in the open just evens the playing field in the class and makes it that much more inviting to a new guy. If on day one of racing I am in the know and can sit on the grid in an equal car I am all for it. That is not what we have right now.

--------------------
http://TylerVanceRacing.com

Rooster Tail Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
around

Region: SJR
Car #: 52
Year : 1995
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rooster Tail     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I probably haven't been on the site in months, and this thread is the first I see. [Eek!] [Roll Eyes]

Tyler, it still takes years to get on the inside. I've been racing SM since 2003, and I know I'm not on the inside. You're only hearing about cheated up ECU's because it's been happening for years, and now enough people must already have them.

And the folks on the cutting edge are now 2 or 3 steps ahead now.

Open up the ECU's and be done with it. Then make the 99's take air through a coffee stirrer.

quote:
'They'll never let the 99's in SM.'
'They'll make sure the 99's will never be competitive.'

Yeah, uh huh, right.

--------------------
-Tosh Desai
2008 NJRRS SM Champion


"Well, you know, because Thunder always comes after... Lightning!"

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Tyler, I get it, actually. There are two methods at play here. One is sold by one group of vendors, the other by another group of vendors. Each wants the others' method to be illegal or irrelevant.

ECU's are smart. They can sample the conditions and make a decision based on what is in their mapping parameters. They can make the same power repeatably and reliably and be programmed to do so without damaging the motor. Reliability is the path to low cost and low cost is the mantra of SpecMiata and the bane of vendors. ECU mods make the FPR and timing mods irrelevant.

Lowering fuel pressure is dumb. It will keep the engine on the lean side no matter how hot the air gets in the draft. With the 99, the FPR is in the tank, so adjusting it between qualifying when the temp is 44F and race time when the temp is 74F is not easy. It's a kludgy and stupid way to improve performance. Adjustable FPR is one way of making the gains from a fancy ECU less attractive. The pitch is that it costs less, but over the long haul, that's doubtful. Money just moves from this pocket to that one.

We'd be better off with an adjustable EMS than an adjustable FPR set low. Better still is an elevated minimum FP and a sealed ECU. Take away the opportunity to do 'prep' and 'tuning' which reduces reliability and increases costs and does absolutely ZERO to make the racing closer or more fun at lower cost.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

David de Regt Verified Driver
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 47/479
Year : 1992
Posts: 418
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David de Regt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Kent: The only problem with a sealed ECU/FP is that then all the other sensor/wiring harness/timing cheats suddenly become that much more valuable. When you remove an easier and more effective method of cheating, you provide much more incentive to find that extra bit of something through whatever means possible...

--------------------
My Spec Miata Build Sheet - Hope people find it useful
 -

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent, I think the point is that the high end/top 99 cars are already getting the advantage via one method or another (either extensive parts binning or cheating) and we're trying to bring the other 99s into parity with the top guys without making them resort to cheating.

Ah... then we have a fix for that.
1. Set a minimum fuel pressure above the point where cars go leaner than Mazda intended at redline. The midpoint of the FSM range might be the right place to set the minimum. You can either replace your FPR with a new one or get an adjustable one, but you have to meet a higher than FSM minimum. FP is easy to tech on the 99s. This is a nice safe way to keep the cars reliable and limit cheating.
2. A spec, sealed, SCCA Enterprises ECU with grid swaps.
3. Aggressive detection of altered timing. Drago says he has a sure-fire means of detecting timing cheats. I believe him.
4. Detection of harness cheats by OBDII logging/VOM checks as Drago and I talked about in Vegas.

1. There already is a spec on fuel pressure in the 99 FSM. If I feel my reliablity is hurting shouldn't I be the one to determine if I need to find another FPR with a higher pressure?
2. OK, but all years. Who is going to fork the bill? SCCA? I doubt it.
3. OK
4. Don't know what VOM is, but OK if it works

And since you are harping about reliability so much, maybe we should mandate 10 base timing in all the cars like the 99 since you want to re-write specs in the FSM. Might look into some sort of new rev limit too. Can't be good to run these engines to 7000 rpm all the time. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Moreover, there's been no need to do it yet, but if the next step in the arms race is OBD2 logging, then the next countermeasure in said arms race will be OBD2 faking.

I agree, I think that is probably a very accurate statement.
I bought and used a logger this weekend, it detects the remapped ecus easily as we all knew it would.
Jim

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

jmac36
Member

Posts: 100
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for jmac36     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Moreover, there's been no need to do it yet, but if the next step in the arms race is OBD2 logging, then the next countermeasure in said arms race will be OBD2 faking.

I agree, I think that is probably a very accurate statement.
I bought and used a logger this weekend, it detects the remapped ecus easily as we all knew it would.
Jim

No, it will detect timing gains. Big deal, so will all of the two bit scaners out on the market, but there are at least 4 ways around that. And no I'm not going to list them. LOL
Jim, again, are you willing to bet a championship on that? I'm not saying we ARE changing the OBD2 data you can read, what I'm telling you is, it CAN be done. And no, I have no plans of doing this, but there are smarter folks out there than me.Trust me, if someone like me can figure this crap out, do you think no one else can?

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by David de Regt:
Kent, I think the point is that the high end/top 99 cars are already getting the advantage via one method or another (either extensive parts binning or cheating) and we're trying to bring the other 99s into parity with the top guys without making them resort to cheating.

Ah... then we have a fix for that.
1. Set a minimum fuel pressure above the point where cars go leaner than Mazda intended at redline. The midpoint of the FSM range might be the right place to set the minimum. You can either replace your FPR with a new one or get an adjustable one, but you have to meet a higher than FSM minimum. FP is easy to tech on the 99s. This is a nice safe way to keep the cars reliable and limit cheating.
2. A spec, sealed, SCCA Enterprises ECU with grid swaps.
3. Aggressive detection of altered timing. Drago says he has a sure-fire means of detecting timing cheats. I believe him.
4. Detection of harness cheats by OBDII logging/VOM checks as Drago and I talked about in Vegas.

1. There already is a spec on fuel pressure in the 99 FSM. If I feel my reliablity is hurting shouldn't I be the one to determine if I need to find another FPR with a higher pressure.
2. OK, but all years. Who is going to fork the bill? SCCA? I doubt it.
3. OK
4. Don't know what VOM is, but OK if it works

And since you are harping about reliability so much, maybe we should mandate 10 base timing in all the cars like the 99 since you want to re-write specs in the FSM. Might look into some sort of new rev limit too. Can't be good to run these engines to 7000 rpm all the time. [Roll Eyes]

James, the limited prep/performance aspect of SM is what keeps it low cost. We have let the class drift from that too much. If we don't keep a tight lid on that, we have an arms race. That happened to the 1.6L cars and the 'pro' motors.

I get your point about rewriting FSM specs. It's a good one. But since we have been sold on the idea that adjustable FPR's are cheap, we can spec them and make sure the adjustments result in low cost racing. That IS the class goal: low cost, high emphasis on the DRIVER not the mechanic/builder. Right?

I don't agree about the mandatory ECU's though. We all had to buy a $1200 suspension kit to play. The same can be made true about ECUs.

I also agree about reducing base timing. We should also run factory airboxes. No benefit to the SP Induction intakes from a reliability and close-racing perspective. I think Mazda speced a fairly conservative redline for the 1.6L. We could certainly go higher by changing the crystal in the ECU, but I don't think that makes the racing any better or the cars more reliable. I honestly wouldn't be against a lower redline in the interest of reliability. It would affect all equally, no?

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Kent,

The arms race? The ICBMs left the silos years ago. That ship sailed.

I don't recall reading anywhere that a good builder or mechanic would not be rewarded for his/her efforts. Must of missed that in a FASTRACK. I guess setup know how is a no-no too since it's all about DRIVER.

And low cost racing. Well that is a very subjective term. Compared to IT, T1, what? I would think that SM is a pretty low cost deal for SCCA national racing.

You think the redline setting is pretty safe? I am sure your engineering degree arrived at that conclusion just like it did about timing and AFRs right? [Razz]

Nothing like big dreaming though. Need a few folks to search for utopia. It gives the rest of us something to point fingers and laugh about.

Ok, back to my hole....

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by jmac36:
Jim, again, are you willing to bet a championship on that? I'm not saying we ARE changing the OBD2 data you can read, what I'm telling you is, it CAN be done. And no, I have no plans of doing this, but there are smarter folks out there than me.Trust me, if someone like me can figure this crap out, do you think no one else can? [/QB]

If necessary we will spec ECU part numbers that we know what the max timing advance is so someone doesn't bring a one off obscure part number and claim that somehow has 5 more degrees of timing advance than any other stock ecu tested.

That being said, I agree with what you are saying... If someone wants to cheat badly enough, just about ANY RULE and ANY tech method can be circumvented. This is not F1 or Nascar, we don't have those resources or personnel.
So if we are being realistic, it will be tough. We know that and fully admit it. But the class overwhelmingly wanted enforcement,so thats what SMAC is working on. Swing popular opinion to your spec box and get it through SMAC and I would support it as a competitor and CRB member. But as you know and so should the SM community... It has to go threw SM community and SMAC long before it ever gets to me on the CRB level.

Let me clear something up...
As a competitor, I dont care what we do. I will simply build to the best of my ability to the current rule and present a legal car under those rules as I have always done.
As a CRB member, I am acting on behalf of the class and what the class wants and the best interest of the class.

The best situation for me as a competitor is status quo, I get pretty close on timing and have an untouched pressure regulator at 54/55 psi. I basically go no faster with your computer or with fully open timing and FP. Yet personally, I support open timing and FP. I would even support a spec ECU if that is what class an SMAC wants.
But right now, the order stands at

Enforcement
open timing/fuel
spec/sealed Mazda ecu

Jim

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by davew:
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR. The '06s are NOT coming. Mazda knows this, SCCA knows this, CRB knows this, SMAC knows this. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. Now you know this!!!!!!!!!!!


Dave

I was mostly joking -- mostly

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

Keith in WA Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Pack Fodder

Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95
Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Keith in WA     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

After trying to follow this thread and a few others I’ve never felt more vindicated in my decision to drive a 1.8 NA. Sure, it maybe the only car that was decided needed help last year and all the data seems to point to the 1.6 or ’99 being the most competitive (depending on who you talk to) but while all the debate rages on about how to safely make the 1.6 faster or contain the ‘99, us 1.8 owners can just fine tune the ass groove in the couch and crack another beer so we can add the 10lbs to our guts instead of the floor pan. [Smile]

--------------------
Keith Novak
(Will work for tires)

 
Page 7 of 10 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  next » 
 

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
Hop To: