From digest.v5.n106 Tue Aug 13 15:32:57 1996
From: Land Shark <lndshrk_at_>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:17:54 -0600
Subject: RE: OBD II implications
>I=92ve noticed a recent post or two on OBD II and the soldered-in chips
>mandated for model year 96 and beyond. Doing searches on =93OBD II=94 a=
>reading what is available on the net, it appears -- if auto repair
>industry trade groups are to be believed -- that the new system kills
>the possibility of essentially *all* engine performance enhancements and
>may even interfere with the use of certain non-engine modifications that
>trigger the =93check engine=94 light. My questions are: =20
>is it the consensus of this list that the disaster scenario is true? =20
No, not in total .. the onset of OBD-II has made performance enhancement
of any significant degree MUCH more challenging, since you not only have
to make the changes to operating code, but corresponding changes to=20
the "checking" or OBD-II code..
The second caveat comes when you consider that there is really NO room i=
the new law for ANY modifications .. certainly not to the checking code..
Enforceable?? probably not .. but who knows in this era of Politically
Correct court decisions..
>Are there any horsepower enhancements that can get around the rule?=20
Depends on the CAR .. Example: an EXHAUST change on a Ford Mustang will
illuminate the MIL, but you can raise the FUEL pressure of a new Porsche
Turbo quite a bit and get NO MIL .. in the Pcar's case, you get signific=
performance increase via this method...
>What will happen to companies like Dinan? =20
A more apropos question is .. "What will happen to the enthusiast"
The big COMPANIES out there KNEW about OBD-II YEARS AGO .. and rather th=
co-operate to the common good, they chose to continue to mystify the who=
thing as black magic ..=20
Now they are scrambling and pointing fingers ..
C'est la vie!
[ Help ]