Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure that you are unable to get your car engineered with an After Market ECU. (eg. Haltech, Wolf 3D, Microtech)

So how to people go about passing the engineer with the After Market ECU ?

I heard that you can get your aftermarket ECU tested for emissions, allowing you to pass it in engineering, but apparently this is very very expensive ($4,000)

I was thinking maybe to hide the After Market ECU somewhere else in the car, and go get the car engineered. Leaving the standard ECU in the foot well. And see if I get the car passed. Has anyone tried this ? did it work ?

If I can't get it passed. My Next question, do you think I will be able to start my car with the standard ECU with most of the sensors removed ?

As I'm in the process of putting a RB25 NEO into my VL, all the wiring hidden, and most of sensors will be removed, like the transaction control throttle body, boost control, knock sensor. It will still have the oil sensors, water temp, MAF sensor, OS sensor, just the bare basic's

Sorry about the long Thread, Thanks in advance

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/51121-engineering-with-aftermarket-ecu/
Share on other sites

I don't think they have an emmissions test cell in the Act. So I suspect that all they will do for an engine swap inspection is check the numbers and make sure that nothing is stolen. Since you are putting a much "cleaner" current generation 2.5 litre engine in car that came with a 1986 "dirtier" 3 litre engine, I don't think there will be a problem.

Best answer, ask the inspectors what they will be checking.

Talk to a signatory or the relevant inspector that passes this sort of thing.

I have heard various theories about engineering ECU's but i'm not going to repeat any because it's all heresay and therefore may be misleading.

In any case my recommendation is that you don't play swapsies to get through engineering. Personally I can't see why anyone would ever do this. If you are going to go to the effort and cost of having something engineered, you might as well get all the mods signed off then and there so its all above board and you minimise the risk of problems later on (eg insurance or defects). Otherwise my view is that you are leaving yourself open to be liable because the car you are driving is effectively not road legal.

I will be speaking to an engineer later this afternoon about getting my engine swap engineered and will ask him then. I have had an emissions test done on my last car before it was engineered, and the rta dude said that it would be fine once I get the car to pass the emissions test. However without the car actually passing an emissions test before I sold it, I can't confirm this.

However, would an engineer check for an aftermarket computer?? I have had my R34 fully engineered in the past and the engineer didn't even consider it!

I have recieved feedback from a Engineer in NSW, saying that they wont pass a aftermarket ECU.

I will contact some Engineer's in ACT and check with them

It's going in a VL Commondoor, so the "standard" VL ECU won't work. It's an RB25DET NEO engine, they were never emmisions tested here as they weren't sold here. So what isn't an "aftermarket" ECU in this case? The VL ECU is "aftermarket" to the engine and the RB25DET ECU is "aftermarket" to the VL.

So you have to ask the question of the engineer correctly, don't ask "is an aftermarket ECU OK?" Ask "which of the two ECU's do you suggest?" Since neither will work, then he has to say aftermarket is OK as long as it passes the emmmisions test.

Whether or not it passes the emmisions test is the real question, it shouldn't matter how you get there. :D

It's going in a VL Commondoor, so the "standard" VL ECU won't work. It's an RB25DET NEO engine, they were never emmisions tested here as they weren't sold here. So what isn't an "aftermarket" ECU in this case? The VL ECU is "aftermarket" to the engine and the RB25DET ECU is "aftermarket" to the VL.

The ECU is considered to be part of the engine, as is the exhaust, intake tract, fuel tank and any pollution devices. So the "standard" ECU is the one that comes with the engine from the factory.

Whether or not it passes the emmisions test is the real question, it shouldn't matter how you get there.

I agree but in reality it depends on the engineer and how they interpret the ADR's. I have heard the arguement that the adjustable nature of an aftermarket ECU means some engineers will never allow one to be passed because of the way they read the rules.

If he knows it's there he should be interested because the ECU impacts on emissions.

But an aftermarket ecu also tuned properly can pass emmision tests.

But i see your point as the tune can be easily altered after passing the test. So how does the engineering report cover this issue?

The ECU is considered to be part of the engine, as is the exhaust, intake tract, fuel tank and any pollution devices. So the "standard" ECU is the one that comes with the engine from the factory.

I agree but in reality it depends on the engineer and how they interpret the ADR's. I have heard the arguement that the adjustable nature of an aftermarket ECU means some engineers will never allow one to be passed because of the way they read the rules.

What if the RB25DET he is using is from an auto, then he can't use the "standard ECU". VL ECU's are tunable anyway, so if he could use one of those he would be able to tune it just like any aftermarket ECU. Even LS1 ECU's are tunable these days (via LS1 EDIT) , does that mean you can't engineer a Commondoor with a standard one of those?

You are right, it unltimately depends on the engineer. But it also depends on how you approach the problem with them as well. :D

But an aftermarket ecu also tuned properly can pass emmision tests.  

But i see your point as the tune can be easily altered after passing the test. So how does the engineering report cover this issue?

The engineering report is done as at the time the car was presented. It is exactly the same as turning up with standard wheels and then swapping then over later. When he checked it, it passed that's why the engineeering report is timed and dated. :D

So an engineers report is basically the same as a bodgy roadworthy!! :D

Well no, it is a little more detailed and requires considerably more knowledge and testing. But what else can the poor engineer be expected to do, follow you around and make sure you don't change anything? :headspin:

Disclaimer: I am just arguing here because i'm an engineer and I like to argue. What i'm actually saying might be completely incorrect.

What if the RB25DET he is using is from an auto, then he can't use the "standard ECU". VL ECU's are tunable anyway, so if he could use one of those he would be able to tune it just like any aftermarket ECU. Even LS1 ECU's are tunable these days (via LS1 EDIT) , does that mean you can't engineer a Commondoor with a standard one of those?

If I was a signatory I would argue thus...

If the RB25 he is using is an auto he needs to use the auto ECU. If he wants to use a manual he needs to use a manual ECU. Otherwise he could prove the auto and manual maps are identical and use either.

I would argue that it is not only the physical box that constitutes an ECU but also the factory maps. Therefore if you change the maps from factory, you are no longer emissions compliant until you prove otherwise.

I don't know anything about modern commodores, is LS1 EDIT released, supported and endorsed by Holden?

I will contact my local engineer to get another perspective.

SK do they have a prob with RB30DET's not being a factory option ? Most are probably not aware if it looks factory and evaprative , breather etc ancilliaries are connected and working . I doubt many engineers would witness the computer , if you tell them its factory that's what the report will state .

Cheers A .

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I see, honestly I’m not too fussed about the looks. The only reason to go plenum is to make the piping easier instead of the classic over the rad etc. 
    • Not easy to quantify wrt something like how many fractions of a second slower it would be over 0-100. But given that a 250-300rwkW car is able to do that launch sprint in 5-6 sec (and faster with appropriate tyres, and surface)..... giving up as much as a second would feel like torture. A ~450HP capable turbo is not going to make lots of boost in the 2000-3000 rpm range. So, whilst with some boost on hand it will be faster accelerating in that rev range than your engine currently is NA, it will not feel like a fast car until the boost is solidly in. You know what your car feels like right now when you open it up at 2000rpm. if you've ever been in an actual fast car, you will appreciate that the NARB25 is.... not exciting. Well, add some boost and it will be better. But shorten the intake runners and it might not be better at all. It might come out better, but it could end up feeling the same. For me, it's not the 0-X km/h sprints that matter. It is easy to fry the tyres with anything over 200 rwkW. You can't use all the power available in 1st and 2nd anyway, you have to modulate the throttle. What matters is how the car reacts when you're driving in traffic in 4th or 5th and have maybe 2000 rpm on board, and you want/need to add some speed quickly, and don't have time for the downshift. It won't make boost, it will be all NA (at the speeds we're talking about - remember how fast you're going at 2000 in 4th! and don't plan on breaking the limit by too much.) So giving away NA torque is not what I would consider practical for a street car. And retaining that NA torque builds boost faster which makes the car faster. The flashy plenum is not actually better, unless you're looking at a track car where you can keep it on the boil all the time.  
    • So how much difference does it make you think? Like 1 second in the 0-100?  I was have smaller turbo so hopefully that spools quick GTX2871.  currently it’s NA so you can imagine pretty slow, but I do want fast accusation a little as there’s not many places I’ll be driving where I go over 80 even near me. So 0-60 and 0-80 targets   
    • Short inlet runners cost quite a bit. Dulls off the off-boost torque, and delays boost onset, because arrival of boost is driven by gas flow is a product of the ability to flow air which is torque. This is the reason that the stock manifolds have longer runners. On a 3L, or bigger, you can usually accept the compromise of giving away some torque because the extra capacity gives you a little extra to waste. But on a smaller motor, there's not a lot there to start with. Example, I swapped RB20 out of my R32, 25NeoDET in its place. The "wall of torque" that I experienced afterwards made it all worthwhile. That's because I came from RB20 land where torque is not a thing. But I would not do anything, anything at all, to reduce the low/mid torque I have now, because I remember what it is like to not have it!
    • Really, low/midrange torque goes really bad?? I want decent acceleration, maybe I use a stock rb25det neo manifold?    
×
×
  • Create New...