Engineering with Aftermarket ECU

[browny]

From what I gather, the issue will be emissions compliance. The engine is not a factory delivered unit and its won't be running factory management/maps. Therefore it hasn't met any emissions standards, anywhere.

The million dollar question is how do you prove emmissions compliance so that an engineer will be statisfied and sign the conversion off. I'll post up my engineers response.

The idea of not disclosing everything to an engineer when having the car signed off seems rather ridiculous to me:

* If the engine is the only part being certified, but you arn't telling the engineer everything then you are effectively paying the engineer to provide an engineering certificate that is void. I can think of better ways to spend my money.

* If you slip things past the engineer you will probably be able to get the car through roadworthy as well. So why bother spending the money on an engineering cert?

* If there are a number of things being certified its most cost effective to have everything done at once rather than coming back a second time after getting a defect or being turned down for a pink slip.

[meggala]

I would run the stock rb25 ecu if the car will run it

with stock afm and injectors

there is emissions evidence for the rb25 neo so your engineer can use that.

cheers

[browny]

A few questions and answers from an email I sent to my local signatory....

Q: What about modifying factory ECU's via LS1 EDIT/chip changes or similar?

A: Strictly speaking, LS1 Edit and similar cracking is deliberate tampering with emission control equipment. Likewise changing the chip.

If the system was edited then put through a full ADR drive cycle test and passed, then it would be legal as long as the alteration software was not available to anyone that might service, tune or alter the vehicle.

Q: What about programmable management that can be password protected so it can't be changed by the owner?

A: Must be made tamper proof. This is probably technically okay provided that it is followed by a full ADR emission test...

Q: Can't you just take an emissions test?

A: The RTA can't work out whether their own test complies or not. The staff at the IM240 facilities say that IM240 is an acceptable alternative to the full ADR test. Emmanuel Kanna from the RTA's head office says no, and since I have that in writing, I have to say no also... Most engineers have not been told no by the RTA and hence accept IM240.

Q: What if I have an auto and want to convert it to manual, do I need to use the manual ECU?

A: Yes. And change any other emission control equipment to match the manual

spec. Except that EGR cannot be removed. So a factory manual HZ Holden 253 auto has no EGR, the auto does but an auto engine converted to manual must retain it.

Gets a bit iffy when you convert something like a 1UZ-FE to manual - there is no factory manual computer...

Q: What about if I put the std management in for engineering and then replace it with something aftermarket?

A: The engineer is only responsible for the vehicle in the condition that it was in at the time of inspection. Not my problem when it gets defected later and fined $25K. :-)

Q: What if a copy of the ECU settings are attached to the engineering/emissions report?

A: Does that prevent tampering? No? Then how does it accomplish the anti-tampering requirements of the ADRs?

If combined with effective anti-tampering that made the computer effectively read-only, it might be relevant.

[vlv00m]

Well, I found that in the ACT that it is possible to get a Aftermarket ECU engineered, as ACT is alot more easier to get modifications passed.