[Nacho]

Originally Posted by kblake

You are proving my point for me. I said that if you are going to keep the engine pretty close to stock, then go for the Gen 3. I don't deny it's a great engine, especially stock, and with bolt-ons. It's just not better than the Gen 2, once you replace the intake manifold and stock ECU/sensors.

Read my lips: I don't care. This discussion has nothing to do with Hondas, and nothing to do with racing. It's about which flavor of the 3SGTE is better, for which applications.

Making more power isn't for racing?

If you try to take information from economy cars, and apply it to sports cars, you are going to waste a lot of time and money. Are you planning to put a girdle on your 3SGTE? No? Why not? Hondas do it when they go forced induction.

All the DOHC VTEC motors come with girdles stock. No need to add one.

And there's a difference between the structural rigidity of one engine and what you can do to make that specific engine stronger and the way air moves in and out of a head. Again, pystics are physics. Air doesn't care who manufactures the engine.

300RWHP. You are showing me examples of Gen 3's making a whopping 16 more RWHP than that. The gen 3 has the same fuel pump, with the same limitations, despite the larger injectors. Either engine is running on the edge of safety above 275RWHP.

If the gains of the stock ECU vs a tuned ECU are 4 HP at the 300 WHP level, what makes you think they'll just significantly at higher levels? No one's really tested the limits of the stock gen 3 ecu that i know of.

And you can swap out fuel pumps for alot less than you can swap ecus. I don't see what the fuel pump limitations have to do with the ECU's allegeded inferiority.

Ahh, more anecdotal evidence. You're great at spouting hearsay, but a little short on facts.

That's not antedocal evidence, that's facts. gen 3. Stock ECU. 8+ months.
It made over 300 WHP. It made it for quite a while. At least 8 months. I don't feel like calling him solely to ask exactly how long his stock ECU was on the car before he got the Blitz. If i call him or talk to him online soon, i'll try to remember to ask if he remembers exactly how long.

Either way, you claim that the stock gen 3 ECU can't make power for long. I'd count 8+ months as a long time, not 'once or twice'

Oh please. There's no advertisement there. I was simply using ATS as an example to refute your argument. As I said in my original post, I always recommend a standalone, when it's in the budget. Sometimes it's not, and in that case, a ROM tune is better than relying on the stock computer.

You're using the products that you sell as a reason that the gen II ECU is better (even claiming that the AFM is better, which is a joke), just like you used to claim that a 2.5" DP was better than a 3' DP when you sold them for KO. Your 'tech' seems to mirror whoever you work for at the time's products.

I'll take a stock gen 3 ECU and it's MAP over a reflashed gen 2 ECU w/ AFM any day.

from: http://www.megaboost.co.uk/mr2/frames/techinfopage.htm

"Toyota MR2 - MKII Turbo (1989 - 1994)


Transmission: 5-speed manual, double-overdrive
Gear Ratios:
5th: 3.23:1
4th: 1.91:1
3rd: 1.32:1
2nd: 0.92:1
1st: 0.73:1
Final Drive Ratio: 4.29:1"

I wasn't able to track down anywhere that listed gear ratios for the Gen 3. Perhaps one of our Gen 3 owners will have the information.

In that case, i can find any gen II owner and compare them. I'll make sure to use the 15" rears and 225/50/15 tires as well so as to eliminate the gearing differences from different sized wheels.