ITS s5 NA 166whp
09-14-2007, 03:47 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 352
It's really sad that there is no tech in the SCCA.
The reason the rule is being looked at for change, and it will most likely go through, is that the way it's written now it's much more expensive to develop a legal package than it is to install a really good standalone. Finding someone to decode and re-write chips for 20 year old cars that the general "tuner" public doesn't care about anymore is pretty much impossible. And impossible translates into expensive. The intent of the current rule was to allow "chips" but the guy writing it obviously failed miserably and we now have $5k Motecs in a bottle. Why pay $5k for that when you can buy the Motec for half that and not cut it up to the point if it does break Motec is going to laugh at you when you try to send it back fro service? I'd recommend reading the banter on IT.com if you're up for a good laugh and hours of forehead slapping. It's amazing how little knowledge there is about fuel injection systems and what some of those guys think will happen if/when the rule changes. Some of them really think that when you bolt on an EMS the VE of the engine will magically increase by a factor of at least 10 and we'll all make 200 more HP and have traction control to boot.
The reason the rule is being looked at for change, and it will most likely go through, is that the way it's written now it's much more expensive to develop a legal package than it is to install a really good standalone. Finding someone to decode and re-write chips for 20 year old cars that the general "tuner" public doesn't care about anymore is pretty much impossible. And impossible translates into expensive. The intent of the current rule was to allow "chips" but the guy writing it obviously failed miserably and we now have $5k Motecs in a bottle. Why pay $5k for that when you can buy the Motec for half that and not cut it up to the point if it does break Motec is going to laugh at you when you try to send it back fro service? I'd recommend reading the banter on IT.com if you're up for a good laugh and hours of forehead slapping. It's amazing how little knowledge there is about fuel injection systems and what some of those guys think will happen if/when the rule changes. Some of them really think that when you bolt on an EMS the VE of the engine will magically increase by a factor of at least 10 and we'll all make 200 more HP and have traction control to boot.
09-16-2007, 12:53 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Originally Posted by C. Ludwig' post='882734' date='Sep 14 2007, 01:47 PM
It's really sad that there is no tech in the SCCA.
The reason the rule is being looked at for change, and it will most likely go through, is that the way it's written now it's much more expensive to develop a legal package than it is to install a really good standalone. Finding someone to decode and re-write chips for 20 year old cars that the general "tuner" public doesn't care about anymore is pretty much impossible. And impossible translates into expensive. The intent of the current rule was to allow "chips" but the guy writing it obviously failed miserably and we now have $5k Motecs in a bottle. Why pay $5k for that when you can buy the Motec for half that and not cut it up to the point if it does break Motec is going to laugh at you when you try to send it back fro service? I'd recommend reading the banter on IT.com if you're up for a good laugh and hours of forehead slapping. It's amazing how little knowledge there is about fuel injection systems and what some of those guys think will happen if/when the rule changes. Some of them really think that when you bolt on an EMS the VE of the engine will magically increase by a factor of at least 10 and we'll all make 200 more HP and have traction control to boot.
The reason the rule is being looked at for change, and it will most likely go through, is that the way it's written now it's much more expensive to develop a legal package than it is to install a really good standalone. Finding someone to decode and re-write chips for 20 year old cars that the general "tuner" public doesn't care about anymore is pretty much impossible. And impossible translates into expensive. The intent of the current rule was to allow "chips" but the guy writing it obviously failed miserably and we now have $5k Motecs in a bottle. Why pay $5k for that when you can buy the Motec for half that and not cut it up to the point if it does break Motec is going to laugh at you when you try to send it back fro service? I'd recommend reading the banter on IT.com if you're up for a good laugh and hours of forehead slapping. It's amazing how little knowledge there is about fuel injection systems and what some of those guys think will happen if/when the rule changes. Some of them really think that when you bolt on an EMS the VE of the engine will magically increase by a factor of at least 10 and we'll all make 200 more HP and have traction control to boot.
lol, so glad we can just do an rtek... so simple.
i think the old rule catered to the bmw's, theres tons of chips for those
09-18-2007, 10:01 AM
#13
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by j9fd3s' post='882803' date='Sep 16 2007, 01:53 PM
lol, so glad we can just do an rtek... so simple.
i think the old rule catered to the bmw's, theres tons of chips for those
i think the old rule catered to the bmw's, theres tons of chips for those
So with the new Rtek, no more messing around with the FPR?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tancred
2nd Generation Specific
5
03-11-2006 06:27 PM
94touring
3rd Generation Specific
6
01-23-2003 01:46 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)