i currently have a tpi 350 in my car but it has the tuned port 305 ecu.

i was wondering if the ecu from a lt1 350 would work (someone told me it might)

or if i should just get a megasquirt instead

 

The ECU from a LT1 won't work for you.

Getting a Megasquirt because you have a swapped in 350 and just need a 350 memcal is like swatting a fly with a baseball bat... your best bet it to repin the harness to use a '165 ECM (which is a better ECM in both technology and support). There is a Technical Article for it (check the TGO homepage for the Technical Article section) or, http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~davis/z28/ecm_swap/

 

i was considering a mega-squirt because down the line i plan on building a 383 stroker twin turbo engine running about 12lbs, would it be possible to have a stock ecu programmed to work effectively for that?

would the stock 305 tpi ecu work until i start the build (prolly a year at least)

 

The '85 ECM's are the same ; only the tune on the removable chip ( memcal ) inside is different

Get a original '85 350 memcal or one from a online tuner if you don't want to do the 165 ECM
upgrade

 

The 85 ECU isn't the same as the 87 ECU. 85 is a one off year with an old, slow, 165 baud ECM.

As far as the boost, I would personally skip the 165 and go to the 730 ECM

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/diy-...st-7730-a.html

 

a year or two ago,in a 'vette magazine,i saw an article
about using a '94-97 LT1 ECM on a TPI by using a
special distributor with optical disc that mimics the
operation of an optispark distributor.IIRC, the major
advantage besides the updated technology of the LT1
ECM,was that "flash"programming could be used.

 

Why would you go to that length when you can get full emulation for probably a lot less cost?

 

Observe I quoted the OP's post ; not yours?????

OP stated he had "350 engine running off a '85 305 ECM"
All '85 TPI used same 870 ECM .
original post edited for clarity

 

the camaro did not get a 350 until 1987, do you mean the corvette ecu?

 

vetteoz - that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.