I currently run the stock ecm with a Translator plus and ext. chip. I am working on my buddies car with the FAST setup. I saw the special on the FAST system from PTE, and was thinking, pretty good deal. I could sell all my stuff for a good amount. My question is, what gains can I expect to see? I know the FAST is a lot more tuneable, but I'm having some trouble getting it tuned, and would have to take it to Harry to have it tuned. I've heard guys say that the ecm swap alone gained them a lot of power and et. Is it worth it? How screwd would I be if I had a problem? Are the wb o2's easily fouled by leaded fuel? I need bigger injectors anyway, so I wouldn't have to have my ecm modded. Sorry for the length of the post, but its a lot of cash, and I need to research. Thanks!
Advantages of FAST over stock ecm, T+?
- Thread starter turbosam6
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Having never run FAST on a Turbo Buick, I can't say what the gains versus a stock ECM/T+/Extender would be. The one question that I can answer is about the WB O2 being fouled out. I've got a friend that's been running FAST on his Procharged LT4 Firebird for several years now, and all he runs is leaded race fuel. He has yet to foul a sensor from running race fuel, and there are lots and lots of guys running FAST with turbos, etc. that have yet to foul an O2 sensor. I'm sure there is a recommended period of time when you're "supposed" to change the sensor, but I think most guys just run them until they die and then replace them. Replacements are pretty costly from what I gather, and with FAST you have to load a calibration program if/when you get a new O2 sensor so the ECU will read correctly. I'm not sure if the Accel DFI is the same way so I can't speak for that. Hope I helped a little bit. Hopefully, someone else that has actually made the change from the stock ECM to FAST can give you that portion of your answer.
The thing I like best about FAST is that you can tune for any change. Upgrade injectors? Just change the setting, no need for a different chip. Want to change timing in certain portions of the map? No problem.
The stock ECM can't be beat for a 100% stock setup, but as soon as you start playing with stuff then you wind up band-aiding other things to make the ECM do it's job.
I don't know what problem you're having with your friends FAST, but there is a lot of support available (especially here) and once you get the hang of it you shouldn't need to bring it to anybody to get tuned.
I drive a big-block V8 that used to have a Pro-Jection (a very basic FI setup), and when I put the FAST on I went from a previous best of 13.33 to 12.89 on the first run with no tuning (12.79 on the next run). Other people have also told me that changing to the FAST gave them 1/2 second (I find this hard to believe in many instances, however- but they always claim at least *some* gain).
Now that I've driven a car with FAST, trying to drive a car that you can't tune to death would drive me nuts! I wouldn't want someone elses guess at what will work in my car (as is the case with many aftermarket chips), and I wouldn't want to have to get 15 or 20 chips burned before it's right, only to have to do that all over again when I make another change.
Just my $0.02.
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
The stock ECM can't be beat for a 100% stock setup, but as soon as you start playing with stuff then you wind up band-aiding other things to make the ECM do it's job.
I don't know what problem you're having with your friends FAST, but there is a lot of support available (especially here) and once you get the hang of it you shouldn't need to bring it to anybody to get tuned.
I drive a big-block V8 that used to have a Pro-Jection (a very basic FI setup), and when I put the FAST on I went from a previous best of 13.33 to 12.89 on the first run with no tuning (12.79 on the next run). Other people have also told me that changing to the FAST gave them 1/2 second (I find this hard to believe in many instances, however- but they always claim at least *some* gain).
Now that I've driven a car with FAST, trying to drive a car that you can't tune to death would drive me nuts! I wouldn't want someone elses guess at what will work in my car (as is the case with many aftermarket chips), and I wouldn't want to have to get 15 or 20 chips burned before it's right, only to have to do that all over again when I make another change.
Just my $0.02.
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
Re: Re: Advantages of FAST over stock ecm, T+?
Another nice thing about that FAST along these lines is, once your fuel map is close, And you're not running on the edge (street trim) you can simply take the O2 out, set for open loop, and drive without the sensor. I first started and tuned my car without an O2 present. NOw that I have ubstalled it, I wasnt too far off either
Another nice thing about that FAST along these lines is, once your fuel map is close, And you're not running on the edge (street trim) you can simply take the O2 out, set for open loop, and drive without the sensor. I first started and tuned my car without an O2 present. NOw that I have ubstalled it, I wasnt too far off either
Bruce-
If you can burn your own chips and have a WB O2, then there is no need for the FAST. But you are in a small minority.
TCC is an issue (if you have a lockup, which I don't), and I think A/C is also (not positive on that one). I've heard that you can control TCC by the nitrous output, but I've never played with it so I couldn't tell you (seems feasible to me). I also understand that you can install a switch to control the TCC, but again I don't know the specifics.
And what I mean by band-aiding, is lets say you change something on the car (rearend ratio, free-flowing exhaust, camshaft, heads, whatever)- in order to make the ECM work with the same chip, you now have to band aid somehow (higher FP, etc.) or burn a new chip. With the FAST, you can just recalibrate on the fly.
(The aforementioned TCC control via the nitrous output would also be a band-aid in this context, since it's doing something that it wasn't exactly designed to do)
However the overall point being that for those of us who can't burn their own chips, the FAST is a great way of tuning and simple to change when you make mods to the car.
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
If you can burn your own chips and have a WB O2, then there is no need for the FAST. But you are in a small minority.
TCC is an issue (if you have a lockup, which I don't), and I think A/C is also (not positive on that one). I've heard that you can control TCC by the nitrous output, but I've never played with it so I couldn't tell you (seems feasible to me). I also understand that you can install a switch to control the TCC, but again I don't know the specifics.
And what I mean by band-aiding, is lets say you change something on the car (rearend ratio, free-flowing exhaust, camshaft, heads, whatever)- in order to make the ECM work with the same chip, you now have to band aid somehow (higher FP, etc.) or burn a new chip. With the FAST, you can just recalibrate on the fly.
(The aforementioned TCC control via the nitrous output would also be a band-aid in this context, since it's doing something that it wasn't exactly designed to do)
However the overall point being that for those of us who can't burn their own chips, the FAST is a great way of tuning and simple to change when you make mods to the car.
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
Fueling resolution.
I'd be willing to bet however, in a Gen7 setup, iit would blow the stock ECM away in all aspects.
Unfortunately the FAST is a race piece, with very little "convenience" built in. That is their shortcoming for most, the people who would consider upgrading to it in a street car lose a lot.
Unfortunately, it seems that most of the FAST users probably (don't know for sure) have had very little or no exposure to the Translator +/Extender chip combination, or the Translator +/MaxEffort chip combination.
Otherwise, I suspect a lot of the comments about the stock ECM having no "tuneability" may not have shown up.
Most guys running FAST probably have been doing so for some time, and may have even graduated from DFI to FAST, and as such are probably out of touch with what's actually available and achievable with the stock ECM now days, with the Translators and M.E.'s
I've been eyeing a FAST for something similar for quite some time.
BUT, I am not willing to give up computer control of the TCC, etc. and can't even imagine how I could justify the cost of switching over to the sequential system. Yes, I demand on keeping sequential control no matter what system I run.
Not trying to flame on FAST at all. Just pointing out that "things have come a long way baby".
The one unfortunate thing I see happening that does dissapoint me, is that FAST hasen't evolved as fast as the stock setup with the T+/Extender combo.
Otherwise, I suspect a lot of the comments about the stock ECM having no "tuneability" may not have shown up.
Most guys running FAST probably have been doing so for some time, and may have even graduated from DFI to FAST, and as such are probably out of touch with what's actually available and achievable with the stock ECM now days, with the Translators and M.E.'s
I've been eyeing a FAST for something similar for quite some time.
BUT, I am not willing to give up computer control of the TCC, etc. and can't even imagine how I could justify the cost of switching over to the sequential system. Yes, I demand on keeping sequential control no matter what system I run.
Not trying to flame on FAST at all. Just pointing out that "things have come a long way baby".
The one unfortunate thing I see happening that does dissapoint me, is that FAST hasen't evolved as fast as the stock setup with the T+/Extender combo.
I'm not a turbo guy, so I can't speak for the T+ / ME combo. But I have heard of a lot of people with the thumbwheel that like that arrangement.
Bruce, I don't think many people burn their own chips around here(I don't know anyone that does)- must be more common in your region of the country. Most people I know just buy aftermarket chips like Thrashers or thumbwheels or whatever.
But one other nice thing (for me anyhow) is that if I'm on the nitrous, the WB watches the A/F and will make corrections if necessary. Actually this is the biggest reason I went for FAST vs. other controllers.
I don't know if the ME can use a WB to correct like that, but that's definately one of the things I like about the FAST (the ability to maintain an A/F ratio even if something small changes). (Of course I will grant you that very few Buick guys run nitrous, but again it points out the flexibility of the FAST)
I have gotten the impression that behind the scenes, development is well underway for the next FAST unit- maybe call it 2FAST? I think this is going to resolve a lot of issues, and bring home some nice features that aren't available anywhere else. But I have no official information (such as completion date, what the features actually are, etc.). (I'd love to be one of the first to try, if you need a beta tester Craig or Lance!!!)
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
Bruce, I don't think many people burn their own chips around here(I don't know anyone that does)- must be more common in your region of the country. Most people I know just buy aftermarket chips like Thrashers or thumbwheels or whatever.
But one other nice thing (for me anyhow) is that if I'm on the nitrous, the WB watches the A/F and will make corrections if necessary. Actually this is the biggest reason I went for FAST vs. other controllers.
I don't know if the ME can use a WB to correct like that, but that's definately one of the things I like about the FAST (the ability to maintain an A/F ratio even if something small changes). (Of course I will grant you that very few Buick guys run nitrous, but again it points out the flexibility of the FAST)
I have gotten the impression that behind the scenes, development is well underway for the next FAST unit- maybe call it 2FAST? I think this is going to resolve a lot of issues, and bring home some nice features that aren't available anywhere else. But I have no official information (such as completion date, what the features actually are, etc.). (I'd love to be one of the first to try, if you need a beta tester Craig or Lance!!!)
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
Are you seeing wildly changing VE table entries?.
If so then maybe.
On my car a given Commanded AFR in PE and the engine seems happy. Thou I'm still playing, the oem code has, I think 600 rpm steps in it. How close do you really cut?. Better yet, how close do you NEED to cut it?.
This thread is cracking me up... IF you have a T+, a wideband, Directscan, a PROM burner, and you can find room for all this crap and still go down the track..maybe you can do OK.
You still can't make a pass and data log, then come back to the pits and see which cells in the VE table you hit, alter the fueling, and have a pretty close fuel map in about 3 passes.
Let's look at a little empirical evidence. How many cars that deviate significantly from stock and/or run very quick times (say low 10s or faster) still run the stock ECM? I can think of a few..I can think of a heckuva lot more who went to the FAST and never looked back!
It's a question of combination, goals, and personal affinity. If your car is mid 10s or slower, and if your combination isn't too far off of stock (i.e., cam, intended RPM range, compression ratio) then keep the stock ECM. My GN has a stock ECM and I have no plans to change it.
I would have to be nuts however to put a stock ECM on my twin turbo, S2 T-type. Yes, there are probably people who could make it work. Am I interested in doing the development (breaking enough parts) to be that person? Heck no! I am good enough at breaking things without giving myself extra chances!
IF you have a T+, a wideband, Directscan, a PROM burner, and you can find room for all this crap and still go down the track..maybe you can do OK. You still can't make a pass and data log, then come back to the pits and see which cells in the VE table you hit, alter the fueling, and have a pretty close fuel map in about 3 passes.
Let's look at a little empirical evidence. How many cars that deviate significantly from stock and/or run very quick times (say low 10s or faster) still run the stock ECM? I can think of a few..I can think of a heckuva lot more who went to the FAST and never looked back!
It's a question of combination, goals, and personal affinity. If your car is mid 10s or slower, and if your combination isn't too far off of stock (i.e., cam, intended RPM range, compression ratio) then keep the stock ECM. My GN has a stock ECM and I have no plans to change it.
I would have to be nuts however to put a stock ECM on my twin turbo, S2 T-type. Yes, there are probably people who could make it work. Am I interested in doing the development (breaking enough parts) to be that person? Heck no! I am good enough at breaking things without giving myself extra chances!
How many people take the path of least resistance?.
How much can you afford to take the path?.
With an Extender, and/or ME all you do is rotate some switchs. With Dircetscan you can do datalogging.
Use an emulator with a stock ecm and you can do your realtime editing.
For the Streetable car guys, having lean cruise, launch assist are valuable options.
You want to get up an running with the least path of resistance, then, yes the aftermarkets are the answer. But, that is at the expense of much courser adjustments. Try adding fuel to an aftermarket ecm as a function of time in PE, or correct that for coolant temp.. What may be non issues with you, can be for others.
I just think the aftermarkets could be more user friendly, ie open source code, non keyed WBs, etc..
Course just silly enough that the ignition was more of an issue then the type of ecm.
How much can you afford to take the path?.
With an Extender, and/or ME all you do is rotate some switchs. With Dircetscan you can do datalogging.
Use an emulator with a stock ecm and you can do your realtime editing.
For the Streetable car guys, having lean cruise, launch assist are valuable options.
You want to get up an running with the least path of resistance, then, yes the aftermarkets are the answer. But, that is at the expense of much courser adjustments. Try adding fuel to an aftermarket ecm as a function of time in PE, or correct that for coolant temp.. What may be non issues with you, can be for others.
I just think the aftermarkets could be more user friendly, ie open source code, non keyed WBs, etc..
Course just silly enough that the ignition was more of an issue then the type of ecm.
Bruce-
Don't you think that open source code would create a ton of legal exposure?
As it is, I would think that some guy who blows his motor might try to sue blaming the ECU even though he doesn't know how to tune, and if you had open source code you could create real safety issues by making things happen that aren't supposed to.
I used to work for a machinery company that made its own control systems, and customers would frequently ask for the source code so they could go play around. Of course that would have given them the ability to override safety functions, etc., so we would always refuse to give out any information from our own control system. Even for components with industry-standard PLC's where we did occasionally give out source code, we made the customers sign an agreement so they wouldn't putz around with any of the safety features, but even then just about every time we had a problem with a machine we'd find that the customer had overridden a safety feature or two. Then guess who's on the hook? Lawsuits galore! Too much liability.
I think you'll agree that GM never intended for people to get into their ECM either, but that system was designed back when the Atari 400 was one of the top selling computers, so technology was a lot less common- as people grew to understand technology by orders of magnitude, in retrospect it was bound to happen.
Boy has this gotten off-topic or what! (partially my own fault of course)
One more thing- the way the WB O2 interacts with the VE table is very elegant, I don't think any system using the factory ECM has gotten anywhere near this level of interaction, at least that I've ever seen. Of course once your calibrations are set you don't need that, but in either case (factory or aftermarket ECM) once you are calibrated you can put away the computers and dataloggers and just drive, right?
Granted, there are those people who could tune according to just about anything- heck, give me a sensor on my spider gears that tells me how much faster one rear wheel is turning vs. the other (and different parameters for turning the car vs. accelerating the car/wheel slippage) and I'll tune for that. But in reality, it ends somewhere for everyone, unless you want to end up with some amazing system like a A/B SLC 5/40 controlling every little thing based on every other little thing. I'll be happy to loan you my car and take it for a drive, and you can tell me if I need to add fuel as a function of time based on coolant temp.
I will agree with you on the non-keyed WB's- it sure feels monopolistic to me. But they've got to pay for R&D somehow, right? There are lots of people waiting for the 2FAST...
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
Don't you think that open source code would create a ton of legal exposure?
As it is, I would think that some guy who blows his motor might try to sue blaming the ECU even though he doesn't know how to tune, and if you had open source code you could create real safety issues by making things happen that aren't supposed to.
I used to work for a machinery company that made its own control systems, and customers would frequently ask for the source code so they could go play around. Of course that would have given them the ability to override safety functions, etc., so we would always refuse to give out any information from our own control system. Even for components with industry-standard PLC's where we did occasionally give out source code, we made the customers sign an agreement so they wouldn't putz around with any of the safety features, but even then just about every time we had a problem with a machine we'd find that the customer had overridden a safety feature or two. Then guess who's on the hook? Lawsuits galore! Too much liability.
I think you'll agree that GM never intended for people to get into their ECM either, but that system was designed back when the Atari 400 was one of the top selling computers, so technology was a lot less common- as people grew to understand technology by orders of magnitude, in retrospect it was bound to happen.
Boy has this gotten off-topic or what! (partially my own fault of course)
One more thing- the way the WB O2 interacts with the VE table is very elegant, I don't think any system using the factory ECM has gotten anywhere near this level of interaction, at least that I've ever seen. Of course once your calibrations are set you don't need that, but in either case (factory or aftermarket ECM) once you are calibrated you can put away the computers and dataloggers and just drive, right?
Granted, there are those people who could tune according to just about anything- heck, give me a sensor on my spider gears that tells me how much faster one rear wheel is turning vs. the other (and different parameters for turning the car vs. accelerating the car/wheel slippage) and I'll tune for that. But in reality, it ends somewhere for everyone, unless you want to end up with some amazing system like a A/B SLC 5/40 controlling every little thing based on every other little thing. I'll be happy to loan you my car and take it for a drive, and you can tell me if I need to add fuel as a function of time based on coolant temp.
I will agree with you on the non-keyed WB's- it sure feels monopolistic to me. But they've got to pay for R&D somehow, right? There are lots of people waiting for the 2FAST...
-Bob Cunningham
bobc@gnttype.org
No, and it would probably improve the breed, IMO.
But, like so many things it's about power, ie control.
Closed loop WOT, isn't that big of deal in my book.
First off you still have to find the WOR AFR you car likes. Then a fuel change CAN effect the WOT AFR. It takes a 5 gas analyzer to get truely trust worthy numbers in my book.
I tend to use what ever tuning tools I have on almost a daily basis.
I'll trade my not having a WOT closed loop for launch assist anytime. Oh, and all it took was some manupilation of the stock code to get a really neat setup, but the extender version is sweet also.
BTW, what sort of strategy do they have for wastegate management?.
Oh, and I do firmly believe for some folks the FAST is a great system, but the oem is better in many reguards. Like anything to do with hipo cars there are tradeoffs, you takes your pluses with your negs..
Bruce, let me say that whenever I see a post that you're involved in, especially the ones concerning chips, injectors, etc. I read them from beginning to end. You are certainly a wealth of knowledge when it comes to how far one can tweak the factory ECM beyond the means that GM ever thought. I'm not responding here to flame, just some opinions.
I don't necessarily think that it's about control. I'd say there was certainly quite a bit of time, research, and money involved in the development of DFI be it from Accel, FAST, Motec, etc. That being said, I have no problem with anyone that foots all of the expense for said research to recoup their costs if they want to sell the device. I'm under the opinion that they may be gouging the prices somewhat, but I doubt I'll ever get into the league of needing a FAST system for any vehicle I own so it's really a non-issue for me.
Is that to say that if you had a FAST, Accel, or Motec available to you on a daily basis that you would use it as well? Most people I know use whatever tuning tools they have handy at the time, it just so happens that some of the have the means to get the aftermarket setups.
When you launch control, are you talking of some sort of RPM stutter like a 2 step? I've never personally seen a TR use launch assist, but I've seen it done with FAST systems. I've got a friend that has just modified his FAST ECU program to perform like a 2-step rev limiter when he builds so much manifold pressure (I think that's how he's got it set). I'm sure there are other ways of doing it FAST, et al, and some may actually have a function like that built in. I've just got a little hands on experience with FAST so I know how it can be done in there.
None built in, that I know of. That's not to say that the new Gen7 Accel, or Motec, don't have some sort of wastegate management. But if you look at the majority of cars that would be utilizing an aftermarket ECU in the first place, they'd probably gone past using the stock wastegate controller long before. To that end, they're probably using some sort of closed loop boost controller, or two adjustable wastegates (I've seen both).
I don't necessarily think that it's about control. I'd say there was certainly quite a bit of time, research, and money involved in the development of DFI be it from Accel, FAST, Motec, etc. That being said, I have no problem with anyone that foots all of the expense for said research to recoup their costs if they want to sell the device. I'm under the opinion that they may be gouging the prices somewhat, but I doubt I'll ever get into the league of needing a FAST system for any vehicle I own so it's really a non-issue for me.
Is that to say that if you had a FAST, Accel, or Motec available to you on a daily basis that you would use it as well? Most people I know use whatever tuning tools they have handy at the time, it just so happens that some of the have the means to get the aftermarket setups.
When you launch control, are you talking of some sort of RPM stutter like a 2 step? I've never personally seen a TR use launch assist, but I've seen it done with FAST systems. I've got a friend that has just modified his FAST ECU program to perform like a 2-step rev limiter when he builds so much manifold pressure (I think that's how he's got it set). I'm sure there are other ways of doing it FAST, et al, and some may actually have a function like that built in. I've just got a little hands on experience with FAST so I know how it can be done in there.
None built in, that I know of. That's not to say that the new Gen7 Accel, or Motec, don't have some sort of wastegate management. But if you look at the majority of cars that would be utilizing an aftermarket ECU in the first place, they'd probably gone past using the stock wastegate controller long before. To that end, they're probably using some sort of closed loop boost controller, or two adjustable wastegates (I've seen both).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Part number for VDO speedometer in the AVC GNX dash (reads too fast)
- Latest: johnsmallberries
-
