| you keep referring to this same post. It's not really worth constantly referring to: it was from the early run of Ash's independent ECU's, it was an NA chip (nismo has a TT), and the chip wasn't functioning properly- it may have had UV damage, or was just messed up when sent, whatever. Would would have come closer to satisfying my earlier post is something saying how a properly running (meaning with the exact same specs that were designed into it) Ash TT ECU caused dangerous detonation and/or engine failure. It's apples and oranges. The link you gave could maybe be used to show that an abnormally high # of Ash chips come with corrupted programs (but then you'd need more data points)...but it doesn't make a case at all to say that the leaner design of Ash's chips results in dangerous detonation that is unatrributable to anything other than the ECU. And, in that same thread you linked, I found this: . And I know that's not a perfect example, either. But it does go to show that you need to run good gas with either chip (obviously), so this discrepency in the margin of safety might not be so significant as is made out to be. Look man, I have no particular vested interest in defending Ashspec chips, but I do love a logical debate, so here I am. I want to see documented cases where these ECU's destroyed engines, with the variable being the ECU. If I start seeing those, I'll start agreeing with you. I just see no need to recommend a more expensive chip under the premise of safety. Seems like you guys are stretching things a bit. -Rob
|
