Talk:Engine control unit

message: Wdl1961, it is not okeh to remove valid maintenance templates without fixing the problem they indicate. The template on this article indicating a lack of inline citations needs to remain in place until the problem is fixed. Thanks for editing coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wdl1961, it is still not okeh to remove valid maintenance templates and tags without fixing the problem they indicate. Tossing an apparently random book title at the bottom of the article doesn't get the job done; it doesn't constitute support for a questionable assertion. Please, if you have good and valid references, improve the article by citing them properly. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference template

message: Such systems are used for many internal combustion engines in other applications.  In aeronautical applications, the systems are known as "FADECs" (Full Authority Digital Engine Controls).  This kind of electronic control is less common in piston-engined aeroplanes than in automobiles, because of the large costs of certifying parts for aviation use, relatively small demand, and the consequent stagnation of technological innovation in this market. Also, a carburated engine with magneto ignition and a gravity feed fuel system does not require any electrical power to run, which is  a safety bonus.
mr scheinwerfermann
you put this in before and delete it now as giberish. what part is it you do not understand. quit  your selective editing all over the place pls
Wdl1961 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sifting through the article history, it appears the irrelevant and poorly-written parts of the block of text you present here were reinserted when I reverted your unwarranted removal of valid maintenance templates. You're certainly right that I should have paid better attention to the totality of text being restored in the revert. Thanks for calling attention to the problematic text, which has now been cleaned up. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other applications 

message: What happened to:
Also, a carburated engine with magneto ignition and a 
gravity feed fuel system does not require  electrical power generated by an alternator to run,a safety bonus.
Also, a carburated engine with magneto ignition and a
gravity feed fuel system does not require any electrical power to run, which is  a safety bonus.
Wdl1961 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Are ECU's only for internal combustion engines or for external ones as well? I'm not sure, but in a bold effort to be specific, I added ICE to the intro. paragraph. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Tiger MarcROAR! 19:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: External combustion engines are mainly steam engines. I doubt the relevance. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are ECU's only for internal combustion engines? 

message: * 
This entry now appears in the section Further reading because I added that section name, but it is also in an inline citation. It is a confusing reference, because I am doubtful that a FAA book is relevant, and the citation omits the usual information on a book. Can some editor with more knowledge fix this situation? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing reference 

message: Engine Management is a huge topic and this current article barely skims the surface.
I'm actually a developer of the Megasquirt ECU that is referenced here. However, I think the sections:
"Open source engine management systems"
"Modifiable but restricted engine management systems"
"DIY engine management systems"
should be removed as they are such a tiny part of the ECU market. Players like Bosch and Delphi are huge and deserve to have thousands of words written about them before a single word of article space is given to these few aftermarket ECUs.
Modern ECUs are always substantially "model" based, a topic which is missing from the article.  James Murray 80.176.88.36 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested changes 

message: this sounds like it's one of those modern, computerized components...maybe it should be mentioned in the article when they came into general use, or something...does that sound like pertinent information? maybe these things have been used in automobiles since henry fords day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.250.228 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section needed 

message: "Timing retard eliminator" redirects to this article. It doesn't seem to be described very clearly (or at all?) in the article. There is a link to this self-redirect (under a different capitalization) in the "See also" section. What should be done about this? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing retard eliminator 

message: To the writer, thanks for an informative article.  Now history is divided into 3 periods generally:  Ancient History, Medieval History, and Modern History; modern referring to about 1500 on.  Obviously you do not mean that with your term "modern."  But it would be useful to know precisely what period you mean by modern.  Do you mean "After 1990"?  (EnochBethany (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Do You Mean by "Modern"?