efiguy

iTrader: (2)

Yes let's read on;
Will it control lockup? No
Will it shut off your a/c clutch during acceleration? No
Will it do the nitrous table for you? No
Will it control a multiport from the same ECM? No
Does it allow you to change your cold start idle? No, it's preset.
Does it allow you to change your cold start effective temp? No it's preset.
As far as table size, as you know they effect steady state and have little to do with transient fueling(driving) of the vehicle. You want as many transient tables as possible for ultimate drivability.
And I could make a bunch more points but why don't you be the first to try their fuel cutoff as a rev limiter. Tell us how far the pieces go when you stick a piston and scatter the motor on a boosted application under full power when the fuel cuts off.
Let us know how you make out with that.

89_RS

TCI makes an $85 switch to cure this problem. Hell, if you are using any aftermaket ECU other than the EBL, you don't have TCC lockup controlled by the ECU without some painful wiring.

And this matters why? The stock ECM doesn't cut the a/c clutch out during accel on my LO3, so no big problem there.

Duh. MSD specifically states that you aren't supposed to use a power adder with it. You can fudge this a bit by telling the ECU to run super rich under WOT, which can be calculated for manually before setting the lambda value.

For an ECM that is designed to run a quad injector TBI unit, why should it be expected to? You can't get an EBL designed to run a TBI car to run a TPI car without a serious hardware & software change.

This is no different than a from the factory ECU.

Again, this is no different than a from the factory ECU.

Trim the steady state table by about 20% rich for acceleration and you're pretty golden. Thats how their pump squirt logic works. Same goes for hand tuning a fuel table on the dyno. As for data resolution, most tables are in 250rpm increments which is more than plenty for a street car. While that sounds like a wide gap, it isn't. The electronics aren't processing signals fast enough to stay ahead of the engine until you get up to something like 30+ readings per second, and at that point its debatable whether or not the ECU is still making decisions on proper data. Yes it improves fueling & spark timing, but unless you are building an all out 8sec EFI car, its not really needed.

Unless you forget to put oil in the engine, nothing happens. The MoTec M400 I used in FSAE cut the fuel at 13500rpm and cut the spark at 13750rpm. We blew up one engine up 30lbs of boost because we forgot to put oil in the engine when we put it on the dyno. Granted, we'd been up for 30+ hrs by that time, so its not at all unreasonable that we forgot something like that. And if you had bothered to read the standard literature, you'd see to control timing you'd need an MSD 6AL box

I've been there, done that, got the T-Shirt and used several ECU's that are well out of the league of anything you or I can afford. The M400, which is a very basic ECU by FSAE standard, is something like $9k if you buy it off the shelf. The best & most expensive ECU I ever saw used was made by BOSCH and it was a $35k ECU that supported real time engine cycle analysis on every cylinder in the car. That means it had 4 sets of every sensor on the engine from intake to final exhaust. I'm tired of spending hours on end looking at square wave signal data, WBO2 sensor readouts, spark curve acceleration tables, fueling tables, HAL sensor signals, cam reluctor wheel timing, and more sensor data than you will ever be able to ever shake a stick at. I did it for three years for free because it was something to fill freetime while in college. But you pull a dozen or so 30+hr dyno sessions wringing every last drop of power out of an engine and lets see how well you like the idea of tuning a car that all you want it to do is get you from point A to B with a bit of fun.

You, me, and 98.5% of all gearheads out there don't need the feature sets you think are so vitally important to an ECU. All I want is a system that requires 2 simple fan relay setups and all I have to do is get in and go. The factory ECU is great for that, but sucks when it comes to tuning or changing engine sizes. Great part about a self tuning ECU is that as long as you stay under the horsepower limit of the system, you can run practically anything you want.

efiguy

iTrader: (2)

So for $300-$400 more you wouldn't want any or all of these features over the MSD and OEM? Your call I guess, seems to be waste, cuz when all is said and done you still just have a freakin electronic carb that will have a lot of the same issues a carb would on the same intake/engine. And no expandability either.

And when you can't scale that larger table to better fit a motor with a big cam and low vacuum then you can see just how good they run.
You talk at me like I'm a novice, I'm far from it, I've tuned on some pretty advanced stuff too, ECM's that by themselves are $7500.00+. I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of difficiencies in that system, especially when it's only a few hundred bucks less than a couple of systems that are far more tunable and a whole lot more versatile. I guess because it looks cool and saves you a couple hours tuning then it's worth it. But that's obviously your opinion, you're certainly entitled to that.

Tibo

iTrader: (15)

I guess this could be true if you ordered performance parts from autozone, or used the stock parts from a Z06 corvette and a turbo.

89_RS

Wasn't saying it was the best, but that it was an option.

That's because FAST, Holley, and others already in the self tuning ECU market are having customers screaming for the same kind of system that can handle a blow through power adder. FAST & Holley already advise that while they won't warranty it, you can use a roots blower or N2O systems with their self tuning ECU's as long as you increase the target AFR to supply more fuel to compensate for the added air. Its a bit crude, but a bit of simple calculus gets you close enough for all intents and purposes.

One more thing to go wrong with the code. No sense to make an ECU more complicated than it needs to be for any given application. And if you make a self tuning EFI system that bolts to any intake manifold that accepts a 4150 carb, you're engine options are limited only by the cam duration. I don't need vaccum, the are a ton of cheap & easy ways to bypass the need for vaccum these days.


My 23+yr old 305 is running just as good as it has when I started driving it 10yrs ago. Is there a significant gain in reliability, economy, driveability, or service life by having an adjustable cold start idle? 10yrs and 75k+ miles later, still running strong even after 3 freakishly cold IN winters where I did cold starts in -35* F weather without a block heater.

Again, what is the significant gain by having a changeable effective cold start temp?

You don't have to run a power adder, and therefore don't have to compensate. Just because its not specifically designed or stated that you can use a power adder, doesn't mean you can't use a power adder. I don't want to sit there for hours on end programming an ECU to handle a power adder. I'd rather do a simple 15sec integration, get within a few tenths of a percentage points of perfect, plug that single number in and let the ECU do the rest.

That's all EFI is: Electronic carbs & distributors. Instead of mechanical gears & linkages driving the fuel & timing, we now use potentiometers & mag trigger signal sensors. You have the exact same expandability with a carb & distributor as you do with any modern day EFI system. All you gain with a modern EFI system is the ability to do better engine management because you have more data upon which you can make a decision.

Why does it need to be able to run a big lobe cam that can't hold vaccum? I'd much rather have a mild streetable engine that a 3000+rpm engine. Unless you choose to run one of those very aggressive cam profiles, there is no need for the ECU to be able to handle that kind of cam. I don't even know if the EBL could handle it and its one of the most advanced ECU's out there for the Thirdgen.

You're missing the forest for the trees. You're looking for an ECU to have XYZ feature set, and thats great. But in the overall scheme of things, its not really any better than most any other ECU out there from the performance delivered stance. What I'm saying is that you aren't really gaining anything earth shattering with that extra out lay of cash. You gain more complexity, not more performance with that money. And both you and I can be judged as idiots as we are talking about systems that cost 5 times as much or more than what the EBL goes for ($500 tops) and its a far more advanced system that any of the self tuning ECU's and its based off of OBD I sensors. If you want to stick with a stock style fueling & ignition system, go for the EBL. If you want to run a different fueling system, pick the system that you like the best, not what people tell you is the best.

FWIW, its not a deficiency if it has the same capability as the factory ECU. Its only a deficiency if it doesn't have the same feature that the factory had (read, its left out a feature that the factory included such as AIR system controls).

Tibo

iTrader: (15)

Many users on these boards have tuned SBC engines with mild to radical cams. Look up posts for Traxion's camaro. He had a 240 duration 350 that went 11 seconds and was streetable. Many other users have done likewise.

89_RS

You've never been apart of FSAE, I can tell. We raced this car against an F430 in a RR and mopped the floor with the F430:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM2FUCZ7AEU

TPS from a 93 Mustang, MAF from an 04 Corvette, fuel injectors from an 04 Toyota Camry, a junkyard rebuilt Honda F4i, fuse panel from an 81 Camaro, various AC Delco electronics, and lots of custom fab & wiring. 85hp in a car that, with driver & full liquid load, weighed 600lbs. It does 0-60 in just over 4secs, 0-100 (max chassis design speed) in just under 6secs, and pulls 1.6 lateral g.

89_RS

I know you can, I've seen Traxion's build. 240 isn't that aggressive, thats just a bit hotter than the ZZ4 cam which has a 231 duration. 240 is within what the Atomic EFI can handle. But apparently not being ambitious about tuning an ECU means you're just stupid. Glad to know I'm one dumb SOB for not wanting to deal with tuning.

Tibo

iTrader: (15)

208/221 @50.

efiguy

iTrader: (2)

I just sat thru that boring *** video and didn't see you wax anybody, no proof of what you're claiming, no track times vs the competition, nothing.
And for the record, most aftermarket systems use a TPS from a 93 Stang and so on, why do you think that is? That's no great accomplishment on your part, sorry.

And you're totaling missing my point. They asked about an opinion on the MSD, I gave mine. Let me recap, imo the MSD is overpriced at approx $2200.00, vs. other systems costing $2500.00-$2700.00 that have all the features I mentioned+, ones that you made allowances for, with the only difference being they may not be self tuning. I'd think since you're such a tuning wiz you'd embrace the extra stuff. Apparantly not.

I'm done here.

89_RS

If you had gone to college, you'd know that most Div I schools in the US have an FSAE program. In fact, most schools in the Canada and Western Europe have those programs as well. That track is the back stretch at Michigan. The course is approximately 1 mile in length and the minimum lap time for endurance race is something like 1m:15s. Most cars do that easily, which works out to an average lap speed of 45mph IIRC. The fast FSAE cars do it in a minute. A few of the western European & Canadian schools run that course in under a minute. For someone who's into tuning as much as you are, and I suppose as old as I am (25), I'd have thought you'd have heard of FSAE before, especially considering that alot of the members here participated in that during college.

Those chassis aren't crash rated, so the field is spread way out with multiple passing lanes so they can run that competition. The summer we ran against the Ferrari, someone else who now lives 2000 miles west of me shot the video. So forgive me if I didn't have the exact video. I was demonstrating that something that is cobbled together from OTS parts has the tuning ability to really go like stink.

Get out from behind the PC and turn a wrench for crying out loud.

No, I won't. While the M400 had a ton of features, it took a lot of work to get the features we used dialed in and that involved a lot of delving into features that we'd never ever use, but had to because of the way the software was written for the ECU. I've had all the fun I ever wanted dealing with so called superior ECU's. Just for once I'd like an ECU that did exactly what I programed it to without a mile long feature set to work through.

efiguy

iTrader: (2)

To each their own 89RS but I'm 52 years old and a college graduate. I was building EFI'd BBC race engines for offshore boats and EFI'd V-6 Mercury outboards while you were still crapping in your diapers, twit.

Like I said, I'm done here.

gp90gta

iTrader: (1)

Hmm, interesting, I've messed with a bunch of different systems over the last 6-7 years and have to say, the more adjustability and features the better/more I enjoy tuning.

I dont have an EBL but if I knew what I know now I would have bought it, then again I dont think it supported MPFI at the time.

I agree with the above statement that not every system is for everyone, but feel that even after you did your research, buy the right system that fits the type of person you are and application (hopefully), after a couple of years will want something different anyways. No facts here just my opinion though.

Good luck with your choice.

89_RS

Look, I wasn't even insinuating that you were a twit or not a college graduate. Rather, you seemed to think I was blowing smoke out my *** about FSAE. You were going to college when FSAE was still a twinkling in the eye of the Big 3. IIRC, the first FSAE program was started in the mid 1970's. Now, hardly any Div I School doesn't have the program.

Considering that the ME students I worked with rambled on as you did about ECU feature sets and how anything less is just stupid, I assumed that you were one of the younger tuners, not a 35+ year career pro. And just because you've done it for 35 years doesn't mean your always right.

RBob

iTrader: (1)

It appears that this thread has run it's course...

RBob.