anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Actually it does.

Even if I don't agree with you or another members perspective, the points people are making are very useful for members who are reading these threads. They will take your side, my site, someone else's side and make an informed decision on their own builds.

-- Joe

IROCZ1989

iTrader: (1)

Obviously your passionate about the stock stuff. Thats fine. Not arguing with that. Truth is some people just dont have time or desire to learn the old stuff. Why cant you accept that fact? Some do like you and others. Thats fine too. But to keep asking why to people who want to switch is going around in circles. Like you said, why spend $$$ on an aftermarket ecu in a thirdgen when you say to spend that kind of money they should be driving a new vette. So anyone that spends alot of money on an old car is crazy and should just dump it for a new one? I dont get the logic there. Im not getting the junkyard build statement either. Alot of people here have big dollar nice stuff.Everyones thirdgen is different. I have a big inch nitrous. Joe has forced induction different cubes. What are the goals? Who the hell cares. No one needs all that power to begin with for anything but having fun and enjoyment if you want to go down that road. Its in a nutshell choice. Might want to research a little more about Callaway though if your going to quote their accomplishments. The twin turbo kits they offered after the sledgehammer used accel dfi piggyback systems on the stock ecu. Something to ponder.

No ones arguing. We are on different pages is all. If we all agreed and were all the same ,this place would be boring as anything.

jharrison5

So I did my research and went with the FAST Ez Efi 2.0 system since it was plug and play to my stock setup. For the money it just made sense to go with a self tuning system that could be upgraded over time.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

I've never used one, but a lot of the carb swap guys (Corvette, 2nd gen Fbody, etc) have been using them and reported good results.

The self learning stuff has got a lot better. The old "closed loop" way (and I don't mean OEM, I mean early aftermarket) was simply target AFR but the newer stuff now looks at MAP signal, RPM stability, etc and tries to get the fuel mixture and advance just right to get not only a reasonable AFR but the best vacuum, most stable RPM at idle and per given TPS signal, and so on.

-- Joe

jharrison5

Plugged right into my existing tpi setup however I did have to add a fuel pressure sensor and change the plenum to a map style. Had the plenum already and the sensor was $100 but the system is upgradable and will run an ls engine too.

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

No, it makes the 165 inferior. If the 165 takes experience, and anything made nowadays (30 years later) is so much more user friendly that someone without experience can tune it, then yes....the 165, on user friendliness alone, is obviously inferior. Don't get me wrong, keep rockin it to your hearts delight. ...doesn't mean the 165 can't work. Not saying that at all, but are you actually suggesting the 165 is equal? or *gasp* even better? See...this is where the rational conversation goes off the track. File it away with the "carbs can be tuned just as well as EFI if you no what you're doing" debate.

I didn't do that on purpose, but it's funny just HOW similar the two discussions really are. Most people who like the older stuff get it, but there are always a few who keep dialing the landline on a rotary phone. ...and to be fair, a buddy actually has one, and we all love dialing it, but that's not the point.

UltRoadWarrior9

Well the title the OP chose was which system do we like and why? So I'll give my

I'm 46 years old and grew up with Commodore's/Atari's and Apple home computers. Computers that one had to program in order to be useful. I could go into a rant how cell phonies and home computer/notepads etc do not invite the user to learn the device in order to program it... I think what we have here is a generation gap! Perhaps most people just want a fast EFI car without having to climb the learning curve. Which is fine, but my first 1986 Camaro, I was changing jets, stretching accelerator springs etc. on that Rochester Carb. Anything to advance that distributor without pinging...

I find it highly respectable that these GM ECM's even still perform! Who here has had a silicon device (cell phone, 1080p monitor) that has worked for so long? Speaks to the reliability. I want this in my 383 build! You're damn right I do! That's why I'm going with EBL-P4. It has old tech and new tech + support here.

BTW, my commodore 64 still fires up and the 5 1/4" floppies still read

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

No, it does not. Exactly what are you expecting out of a '165 processor equipped with the stock MAF sensor which is the true limitation, not the ECU? What is the basis of your argument? The system is still powering unmodified 3rd gens on the road today, and tuning them internally for modifications is an absolute breeze, not to mention tuning them externally being even easier than that via a MAF Translator, throttle body of your choice, and larger injectors. A '7165 will control as much fuel as you can throw at it, and timing, well, what is there to tune, exactly? A spark table? Big deal. All you're doing when it comes to "tuning" is compensating the amount of air that the engine is taking in with fuel, that is all it is. Where is its' inferiority? Where? I see none other than the end user.

...

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

If I have no experience tuning any system, and one is user friendly enough for me to use and one is not, then that system that I can use is superior, provided that all other factors are equal. The 7165 may run my junkyard 383, but so will the Holley. Is there anything the 165 can do that the Holley will not?

Making the argument that one is All you need, is FAR different from saying it's just as good ...even if my needs will NEVER exceed one system or the other.


I'm 40, and I think carbs are WAY cooler than EFI, regardless of what system you use! The idea that someone thought that up over 100 years ago to me is just amazing! ...but for me it was essential that I keep the TPI. Part of the soul of the car.


I won't completely disagree with that argument, except to point out that unless you've painted your own car, built your own motor, tuned your own system, built your own trans, set up your own rear..etc. etc.....then we all make our own choices as to what we do and do NOT do. Most of us don't do it all, and we choose what curves to climb!

...and for the record, I think what RBob is doing with EBL is one the coolest things I've come across in my years of hot rodding. As I mentioned early in the thread, the true meaning of hot rodding IMHO.

UltRoadWarrior9

Permit me to disagree. EFI is WAAAY better. Just shape that power curve by plugging in numbers based on so many variables.... Isn't this much more precise than changing jets/needles on a carb?
But it is amazing to study history on the venturi effect which the carburetor is based on, and also TBI for that matter.
But seriously, MPFI and SFI are totally superior as they deliver fuel right on top of the intake valve.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Pros and cons to both. EFI can be easier to tune and you can tune around little problems, but at the same time carb setups can make more power and mask a lot of little problems that make tuning EFI a pita.

Honestly what I find really cool is a lot of the research papers on flame travel and how chamber design affects it, valve angle, etc. The reasons why LS type motors make so much more power for the same displacement as an SBC, and idle better too. Electronic engine controls are just.. Boring.

-- Joe

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

Totally agree. I would never argue carbs are better. Maybe COOLER though!!! LOL, but that's based on gazillion intangibles. I think for all their undeniable benefits, computers are cold and calculated. Mechanical systems seem more alive! ..and maybe that's the key to this entire thread. Maybe some of us see the art and magic in the computer coding and tuning, while others dismiss it as a necessary evil. I dunno.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

My experience says if you can tune an aftermarket system, you can tune an OEM system and visa-versa.

With the programs available today and the interfacing technology (hardware, like laptops, emulator and SoC/flash systems) that one is no more difficult to tune than the other, with a few exceptions and for me those are (mostly) aftermarket systems that I have found to be far more time consuming and difficult tune than any OEM system I have used. Thankfully those aftermarket systems (old AEM and Old Haltech) have long since had their support dropped, and newer replacement systems are much more user friendly. (I've played a little with some OEM MAF systems and can't figure out exactly how to tune the MAF tables with any certainty that I'm adjusting the correct things, I mean I got it done, but it just didn't make as much sense as SD to me. Greddy's Power FC was also a little difficult to get to run well, and had very limited adjustable values. That system has since been replaced (also aftermarket) and the owner commented how right from the first turn of the key with the new system (still untuned) ran better than the old system that had been professionally dyno tuned.

The basics being that using a program such as Tuner Pro RT, lays out all the parameters you need (and them some if the XDF creator decided to do so), and in ways that make it easy to tune. A friend of mine who was using a Nistune system commented how similar the Tuner Pro program looked to his system.

Like I have said previously I have tuned many different systems, they all have their pros and cons, but if you can tune one side you can tune the other side, simple as that.

I don't trust auto tune on anything but a stock or near stock engine, because auto-tune from what I have seen can not deal with low vacuum caused by large cams. I was recently involved in removing a FAST (Not-so)-EZ-EFI system (2.0) and replacing it with an MS3Pro. The EZ-EFI provided no way to actually get the car dialed in, where as the MS3Pro (which has the ability to "auto-tune" via Tuner Studio), has much more ability to tune for the engine. Granted his engine only made about 7 in/Hg with the FAST, it's now making a bit more of about 10 or 11 IIRC, because I can force the engine to do what it needs to instead of letting some pre-defined table suggest what the engine needs.

On the flip side of auto-tune, I decided to test it out on my relatively mild 305 installed in my T-bucket running off an MS2 ECU and it seemed to work pretty decently. It would have worked better had the AFR numbers in TS matched what the O2 was displaying, but it seemed to work ok regardless I (need to adjust the WBO2 input to make it match).

So basically what I find is that people who say one side of the coin is not as shiny as the other have generally not tried to shine up the other side to see that it's basically the same.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Not all auto-tunes are created equal, but from what I've seen ez-efi2 seems to attempt to get the most vac possible by adjusting fuel and timing.


While we get your point that most people who can tune an aftermarket system would be able to tune a stock system, it would be kinda like moving out of my house and into a cave and saying "Well hey, I'm out of the rain!"

The fact that this debate is still going is silly. We replace our pistons, cranks, heads, intakes, cams all without giving it a second thought to get more power yet wasting your life tinkering with antique electronics is a status symbol.

I'm gonna go in the garage now and spend the next 3 days porting some cast iron smog heads with a hand file. (No i'm not really).

-- Joe

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Your analogies are not the same.

While the OBD1 Delco electronics might be old in age, they have a lot of features that even the most advanced aftermarket systems don't, which yes is mostly to do with driveability and emissions, to some people those are important, to some people they are a necessity, due to local laws requiring them to stay intact.

The Delco ECM is fully capable of running most engines built by most people here and do it quite well. The problem is people have been led to believe that just because something is newer or aftermarket that it automatically makes it better, which is most definitely not always the case.

The EZ-EFI that I removed did not control timing. It didn't run the engine well at all. IIRC the timing option was an additional charge over the almost $3000 (cdn) he paid for it. The MS3Pro was about half that, plus some other parts since we also switched to MPFI (wasn't going to originally). He came in much less for the MS3Pro system with better control and features. There is a downside for him though, he has to rely on me to tune it for him, which he's glad to do now that he saw how an "auto-tuning" system worked for him.

What's silly is not that the debate is going is that people can't see the benefits to people for both sides of the coin. To automatically just discount the OEM systems/parts because they are "old" or "not shiny" or "familiar" is just asinine IMO. But if that's a status symbol to be able to tune the OEM systems and enjoy it, I'll glad wear it.

Other than full universality and lack of ALS or flat shift, WBO2 control, nitrous control type features (without hacks) that MOST people never use anyway, I can't think of anything that is in an aftermarket ECU that isn't in an OEM ECU that would automatically make one better than the other.

When you're not trying to install the ECM on an engine that it was not designed for (even though I've done that several times now) or need some of those features, the OEM EFI is a VERY good choice, easily tunable and usually cheaper with less issues than many aftermarket EFI installs I see.

I see so many threads on the MSExtra forums and Facebook (various systems) where people ask how to do the simple setup just to get a system up and running, let alone tune it, where retaining the OEM system but adding tuning capability would usually be a better choice. You know it's set-up, you know it's compatible, you know it will run, it just needs tweaked to get it to run well after modifying the engine. Sometimes the difficulty is just the documentation (that's already been touched on in this thread) and sometimes it's just that the person doesn't want to take the time to learn. They get dooped into thinking that since it's an aftermarket system it will automatically be easy, when there's still a learning curve to it, and sometimes a steep one. Most of the time it seems to be the latter...

I'm not sure you've noticed but I use both OEM and aftermarket systems in my vehicles (and the same goes for friend's cars), I have reasons to do both, I don't consider one automatically better than the other, just different and for different uses one system will fit the bill better than the other.

All I'm saying is to stop pretending that just because something is aftermarket that it automatically is better than an OEM part, you're only fooling yourself if you believe that. Different applications require different parts.

mmadden55

I personally think all of them are hideously overpriced, I would like to see somebody convert a raspberry to the task. It is like the $20.00 pack of 5 razor blades, a license to steal.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Hardware isn't the issue. You can build an ECM for about $100.

The problem is software. I'm only aware of one open source EMS and it's not complete. MS "extra" code can only be run on licensed MS ECU's.

When you buy one of these systems you are not paying for the actual price of the hardware components, you are paying for the intellectual property.

The company I work for, we make security products (Firewalls, content filtering, etc). On a typical entry level appliance the hardware cost is about $1,100 but the unit retails for around $20,000 which includes a 12 month license. (unit is a brick if not licensed).

I'm guessing here, but if I were to assign 3 engineers the task of writing from scratch an EMS that has basically the same features as an ez-efi for example, I'd expect the project to cost about a half a million dollars.



-- Joe

ddahlgren

Motec M84 Lsu 4.9 wide band 512k internal log on 16 channels that you pick along with logging rate closed loop on a cell by cell basis SD, Alpha-N and MAF 8 aux outputs digital inputs 8 sensor in channels that you can calibrate for your sensor or use the calibration from one of their tested sensors and very reliable and simple to tune. Runs a GM IAC or Bosch or Ford for that matter dual lambda is low cost option and sequential or batch. You define trigger patterns rather than be told what they have to be.. Download the software and PM me if any questions.

WASyL

Megasquirt with TPI adaptor board rox, can do every thing, can expand and add functions, i run it with Pertol and LPG -> table switching VE and ignition table, launch control and lots more

best regards

antman89iroc

I can't comment about the aftermarket controllers since I have not used one. My 89 IROC started life as a stock 165 controlled MAF car. Tuned it with the moates adaptor and tunerpro. There is quite a learning curve for a novice EFI tuner, I can't imagine what it would have been like if I hadn't tuned carbs and distributors before. After I built my 414 I decided to go with a different computer and decided on Dynamic EFI's EBL Flash. Not the P4 which may have been a better choice. It is relatively straight forward with some harness pin changes. It is MUCH better than the 165/MAF setup and since it's a flash memory my ECM is no longer blocking my right front speaker and people can ride with me lol. Seriously, I have a pretty hot daily driver that made 419 WHP last time I dyno tuned. It is pretty easy to tune and offers a good amount of control but you do have to be dedicated to getting it right. Also, for me anyway, I had some difficulty with some steady state cruising at 1800. Seems it didn't like 72' of overlap and with a cam change it is a dream to drive. Daily driven and frankly daily tuned. About a week with the cam change and I am almost there.
My advice would be decide what is important to you. If it's $$ and you want to tune and plan changes the EBL flash is my recommendation. Cost less than $1000 including EBL hardware, tuning software, cables and a laptop. If you want self (or local) tuning then buck up the money and get what you want. Either way there will be headaches, money and time required.