Computer tuning in CMC

[GT4Point6]

Deflecting the suject of this thread with tangents like this are in a sense, sweeping things under the carpet.

 

Back on topic ...

 

I agree but then again, you made the statement about the left coast that started the off topic. Next time, start a new thread.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Deflecting the suject of this thread with tangents like this are in a sense, sweeping things under the carpet.

 

Back on topic ...

 

I agree but then again, you made the statement about the left coast that started the off topic. Next time, start a new thread.

 

Tell it to Brad ... it was a response to his "fix".

 

Oh ... BTW ... uncle.

[Glenn]

kinda leaves a make when one lumps all of Cali into one group baces on what one has seen from that area. kinda like the way you guys treat us Texas folks.

[Lady in Nomex]

kinda leaves a make when one lumps all of Cali into one group baces on what one has seen from that area. kinda like the way you guys treat us Texas folks.

 

Then let's not do that. Peace pipe?

[GT4Point6]

CMC uses Jason at PCMforless.com. I send my PCM to him and he installs a predetermined set of parameters that every one agrees to. He then locks the PCM so that the fuel tables and timing maps are not accessible except only to him. He then assigns a unique alpha-numeric code to that PCM and it is etched into the case. All the directors are sent this code which assigns the code to an owner. At teh track, if it's part of tech, the inspector has a sheet of paper that has Mitch Warren and a unique code next to my name. If that PCM is not installed in the car, I fail tech.

 

What kind of cost are we talking about with this?

This can be done so a OBDII programmer plugged into the access port (away from the computer) to program the computer won't work?

Not sure if GM's are the same but some fords' port to tune the computer is by the driver and the computer is by the pax foot well. This is also the port used to scan for codes so it can't be disabled for those that periodically check for codes.

[Glenn]

when a GM computer is "locked" by the tuner, it only prevents the ability to alter the tune. you can still read thru the OBDII port under the dash.

not sure if Ford computers have the same ability.

 

i for one would prefer we all be required to send out PCM's to a tuner who would lock them and serialize them to be able to track them.

[bsim]

So "if" we were to go that route (we're not), what would the benefit be? We'd all run the same base tables, and all have the same "tune" table, yes? So where's the "tune" come from? We already have the same tables!

 

So, the "benefit" is being able to 1) turn of vats and 2) turn off the ses light, yes?

A resistor can fix #1 (or $50 for a painless vats eliminator), and #2 is only an issue for those people that don't want to see the dash light on (which can be fixed by the tape solution).

 

So where's the "bang for the buck"?

[mitchntx1548534714]

So "if" we were to go that route (we're not), what would the benefit be? We'd all run the same base tables, and all have the same "tune" table, yes? So where's the "tune" come from? We already have the same tables!

 

So, the "benefit" is being able to 1) turn of vats and 2) turn off the ses light, yes?

A resistor can fix #1 (or $50 for a painless vats eliminator), and #2 is only an issue for those people that don't want to see the dash light on (which can be fixed by the tape solution).

 

So where's the "bang for the buck"?

 

The SES light is more than a Christmas tree light.

 

It can tell you if your oil pressure is low, coolant is hot, O2 is fouled, MAF contaminated, bad coil, bad plug ... a laundry list of diagnostic and pre-failure warnings built into the ECM.

 

But covered up or glaring all the time ... how do you know?

 

I guess we could all install a row of gauges to let us know. Of course that requires attention and vision to be diverted from the racers around you.

 

Or we could install 1/2 dozen, independent warning lights, each costing $30-50 each

 

A $150 "tune" or a $2000 motor ... what do you consider bang?

 

And no one has showed me where in the rules it allows using a resistors to fool the ECM. If it doesn't say you can, you can't, right?

 

 

oops ... the pcm4less tuner is named Bryan, not Jason.

[Glenn]

brad - my comment was to require all EFI cars to have the stock tune "locked" by a tuner. if anything, allow VATS and Emissions to be turned off. this would allow us to see when real issue happens and that will be indicated by the SES, and stop the possibility of guys doing tunes anyways even when its not legal because there is no current way to police it.

[snakebit]

because there is no current way to police it.

 

Police it with the rules. One year suspension for cheating, 5 years for a second offense, banned for life after that. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, but come on this is club racing, I don't want to cheat to win.

And/or....add a polygraph rule. A good friend of mine competes in some pretty competive bass tournaments here in the south. Most have a polygraph rule to deter cheating. Just the thought off it, does the job.

Given the current ruleset, I'd like to see the 5.0 and 4.6 2V fords, and the TBI/TPI and LT-1 chevy's tune as much as they like as long as they're under the limit. Only the LS chevy, 3V and 4V 4.6 would be limited in what they could do.

My .02 worth

 

Okay....now you can laugh

 

John

[Glenn]

so w/ no way to verify a tune - how do you impose the penalty?

 

its like saying you cant drink blue gatoraid w/in 2 weeks of a CMC race. how do you police that rule?

 

and i agree w/ you that if your here and cheating, your here for the wrong reasons. but i dont want to loose at all, much less to a cheater.

lock the PCM's, its an easy way to ensure that is one place where cheating cant be done.

[snakebit]

My car is a 4.6 2V. With headers and u/d pulleys, I will more than likely be around 245-250 hp. With 93 octane I'd be lucky to reach 260 with all I can throw at the computer. I propose certain cars can have unlimited tuning, no policing necessary, as long as they're under 260/300. If tuning is illegal, then cheating will probably happen, thus the strict penalties and/or polygraph that I mentioned earlier.

 

CMC car count is low here in the SE. I'd like to have the option to drop ballast, change throttle bodies and computer, and run AI on some weekends. That's one reason I pushed for 17" wheels and 13" brakes. If I have to seal my OBD port and or computer, I'm outta luck.

 

I'm putting all this out there just for debate, I'm perfectly fine not touching the computer, or tuning then locked. As long as I can swap computers for other events.

 

John

[GT4Point6]

So "if" we were to go that route (we're not), what would the benefit be? We'd all run the same base tables, and all have the same "tune" table, yes? So where's the "tune" come from? We already have the same tables!

 

So, the "benefit" is being able to 1) turn of vats and 2) turn off the ses light, yes?

A resistor can fix #1 (or $50 for a painless vats eliminator), and #2 is only an issue for those people that don't want to see the dash light on (which can be fixed by the tape solution).

 

So where's the "bang for the buck"?

 

The SES light is more than a Christmas tree light.

 

It can tell you if your oil pressure is low, coolant is hot, O2 is fouled, MAF contaminated, bad coil, bad plug ... a laundry list of diagnostic and pre-failure warnings built into the ECM.

 

But covered up or glaring all the time ... how do you know?

 

I guess we could all install a row of gauges to let us know. Of course that requires attention and vision to be diverted from the racers around you.

 

Or we could install 1/2 dozen, independent warning lights, each costing $30-50 each

 

A $150 "tune" or a $2000 motor ... what do you consider bang?

 

And no one has showed me where in the rules it allows using a resistors to fool the ECM. If it doesn't say you can, you can't, right?

 

 

oops ... the pcm4less tuner is named Bryan, not Jason.

 

Glad we are back on track but I agree with Brad and you make my point to an extent with the text I bolded above. Who wants to have to look down below the dash for a very little light during a race? Not me! My critical gages are above the dash for ease of viewing and minimal time with my eyes below the dash level. Your comment I bolded agrees with my point and contradicts your own point to an extent.

 

For the record, I took the bulb out for the SES/CEL light. I scan the computer a couple of times a weekend for codes. Some I get all the time, cats, etc... If I get some thing I don't recognize, then I know I got a problem (lean bank 1, etc...). Works and it’s cheaper than Brad’s fix.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Again, everyone needs to understand I am NOT advocating changing parameters inside the ECM that would affect performance. Leave the fuel maps and timing tables stock.

 

All I'm advocating is allowing the disabling of functions that are associated with things like ABS, cats, VATS, BCM, EGR, emissions, etc. so that the warning light is once again functional.

 

That is NOT tuning.

 

Kevin, I can see that spin and honestly, figured that would be used in that light.

 

Which is better in a driver's field of vision ...

 

a single, small warning light high in the dash, or

multiple gauges high in the dash?

 

Which requires more driver attention?

 

The light would allow the driver to focus on driving instead of constant monitoring of gauges, regardless of placement.

 

I still don't see why everyone is afraid of this. Like stated earlier, cheaters will cheat regardless. Why not allow the ECM to function as it does from the factory and eliminate the parameters that monitor functions of components the rules allow to be removed?

 

"It's not necessary" isn't the answer. The rules are full of "not necessary" allowances like ...

 

data acquisition

radio communication

adjustable fuel pressure regulator

shift knobs

aftermarket gauges

battery relocation

removal of windshield wipers

engine balancing

big radiators

oil coolers

brake ducts

TKOs

springs and shocks

 

None of those allowances are "necessary" for a driver to put a car on the track. Many or most are there to help the driver tune the car or to make the car more durable.

 

Allowing the SES light to do it's designed function falls in line with making the car to safely last longer.

[Al F.]

Mitch, I do believe you have a valid point. It would be nice to have a functioning SES. Most guys have gotten over it, but that doesnt mean that is the most optimum solution. I'm willing to work with you on this and get more details flushed out. I spoke about this with a good half of the directors and got good feedback, certainly not a brick wall. There are a lot of details that need flushing out though, including:

1) specifics of how each car gets programmed

2) specifics of ability to "lock" flashed cars (lt1 no prob, what about the others?)

3) finding a tuner that is capable and willing to do the work for each platform

4) defining what can and what cannot be touched

5) defining a protocol for peace of mind that only what is allowed has been touched

 

There will be more. Lets work up a more complete plan and then float it around and see if it floats then. By the way, the rules allow you to rewire circuits as long as the change does not alter the performance of the remaining required components. I'd take dropping a resistor into my ignition switch as a valid modification to wiring since I am not altering the performance of the PCM. I would not take that to mean I can fool the PCM into always thinking water is at 50degrees because that would alter the performance of the PCM. We can certainly make this clearer in writing if folks feel we should.

[camaro_1le]

So my vats/keys are functional and my 92 Camaro only throws the SES light when required and it is at the power level (legally); so you will require me to pull my pcm, send it someone to program, pay a couple of hundred dollars...for what? What am I getting out of it for $200 or $300?

 

And I am not in the paranoid camp that "everyone" is cheating (except naturally for two people, surprising how that works). Show me the documented evidence that cheating is widespread, not just hearsay and I might reconsider my stance. If you know of people cheating and have turned a blind eye, shame on you.

 

Finally, you are not required to remove anything that will cause the SES light to trigger. If the SES is so bloody important, fix the cause and leave me alone

[mitchntx1548534714]

And I am not in the paranoid camp that "everyone" is cheating (except naturally for two people, surprising how that works). Show me the documented evidence that cheating is widespread, not just hearsay and I might reconsider my stance. If you know of people cheating and have turned a blind eye, shame on you.

 

E-cams and compression ratio ring a bell?

Shame on us all ...

 

Jim, I'm not trying to be adversarial. It just gets really frustrating when something so simple and so easy and so cheap is immediately discarded as too complicated, too difficult and too expensive.

 

Should everyone be forced to participate? No ... not at all. Your TPI car is exempt any way. This is specifically for later model OBD1 and OBD2 cars.

 

And I'm speaking from only the GM camp. I have no idea how the Ford side works. I have heard rumors that the later model Mustangs have an issue with the "fly by wire" throttle setup in that the car is not very responsive to throttle input.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Guest

[Al F.]

Nobody has mentioned anything about "requiring", Jim, just discussing an option.

[roadracerwhite]

So my vats/keys are functional and my 92 Camaro only throws the SES light when required and it is at the power level (legally);

 

 

After having several experiences of my daily driver not starting because of the vats system, I would certainly disable that for a race car.

[Rustang72]

And I am not in the paranoid camp that "everyone" is cheating (except naturally for two people, surprising how that works). Show me the documented evidence that cheating is widespread, not just hearsay and I might reconsider my stance. If you know of people cheating and have turned a blind eye, shame on you.

 

E-cams and compression ratio ring a bell?

Shame on us all ...

Since when are E-cams not legal? There are emails and posts from directors that say they are legal. Also, if you make legal HP and it is obvious what mods you have, who cares how you got to legal HP/TQ? With a simple vacuum gauge, the dyno operator for my recertification could identify what cam my engine has (not an E-cam or Cobra cam). The problem with computer tuning is that it's so hard to track.

And I'm speaking from only the GM camp. I have no idea how the Ford side works. I have heard rumors that the later model Mustangs have an issue with the "fly by wire" throttle setup in that the car is not very responsive to throttle input.

Are there any fly by wire S197s currently in CMC?

[Adam Ginsberg]

Since when are E-cams not legal? There are emails and posts from directors that say they are legal. Also, if you make legal HP and it is obvious what mods you have, who cares how you got to legal HP/TQ? With a simple vacuum gauge, the dyno operator for my recertification could identify what cam my engine has (not an E-cam or Cobra cam). The problem with computer tuning is that it's so hard to track.

 

There has been discussion about permitting E-cams with the possible changes (which now appear to be on hold), but the E-cam itself is not listed in the rules as being permitted. Nor the B, F, Z or any other aftermarket cam not specifically listed in the rules (read the section about the carbed 3rd gen spec engine option).

 

Are there any fly by wire S197s currently in CMC?

 

Yes, there is. 2 in CA (at a minimum, there may be more). Not sure about the other regions.

[Tony G]

We have 4 fly by wires in CMC out here with no issues, one is in A/I.

Tony Guaglione

[Glenn]

the E cam is not legal. it was talked about w/ regards to making it legal for CMC-2, but not CMC.

[Rustang72]

Nor the B, F, Z or any other aftermarket cam not specifically listed in the rules (read the section about the carbed 3rd gen spec engine option).

Why would I read a section about a 3rd gen spec option for a Fox with an FI engine? Also, if E-cams are not legal, why are people told by directors to run them? Does an E-cam give a significant advantage over a Cobra cam? If you are under the HP/TQ limits, why does it matter?

[Glenn]

if a director told you to do it, he is in the wrong just as you are.

and yes, there is a big difference between an E cam and a Cobra cam.

 

there is no mention in the rules of allowing an E-cam in any CMC car in the rules. the CMC rules is a list of things you CAN do. if its not in there, you cant do it. period.