F.A.S.T Fuel Injection System

[Loco1234]

Has anyone considered using a F.A.S.T Fuel Injection System on a MM?

http://www.fuelairspark.com/

I know the Ford ECIV works great but the F.A.S.T system allows for some tweaking the stock Ford system doesn't....

It allows for the use of a wide band O2 sensor for closed-loop applications. The ECU can adjust for air/fuel ratios from 10:1 to 16:1. through the use of a 7-Wire O2 Sensor.

It of course allows for SEFI

It utilizes a brass-plated thermistor to measure engine coolant temperature. As the engine operating temperature increases, the resistance in the thermistor decreases, allowing the system ECU to adjust fuel enrichment.

It has a MAP sensor, which by monitoring intake manifold vacuum, measures the amount of load being placed on the engine. The MAP sensor relays engine load output to the ECU which in turn adjusts fuel enrichment for optimum performance and economy. There is even a 3 Bar MAP Sensor, for blown applications up to 30 lbs. of boost.

[I Tried]

It would be cool to have that kind of adjustability on a car like these. I don't think there are many cars making enough power to need it. I run the accell Gen 7 Dfi on my lightning and love it.

[Loco1234]

Another member on this board... um.... I think it was Buickconvert once mention that acell system...

im not really familiar...

Im putting a F.A.S.T system on a Boss 351 Cleveland that has been heavily modified.... 600-800hp range.... This is a project that is very slow moving so don't expect pix and a review just yet....

Im mostly looking for opinions..... if I like the system though I may use on other app's.... Including Marauder and a 1986 Merkur XR4TI

[buickconvert]

I've wondered this about Buicks and MM's: Couldn't one just modify the stock ECM to run closed loop all the time? I mean, it already runs closed-loop at idle and cruise. . .how hard could it be to get it to run closed loop at WOT?

[Power Surge]

The factory Ford PCM is a very powerful piece, in the hands of a proper tuner. I actually PREFER tuning a vehicle with the OEM Ford computer, over tuning with FAST, Speed-Pro, DFI, etc. I made 1000hp on my Lightning with the factory PCM, and it drove like stock. The aftermarket systems do give you more adjustability over fueling and spark and such, but there are literally hundreds of more available parameters in the Ford PCM to do things with. Another thing to consider, is the PCM is tied into the car and other modules via a databus system. Other modules of the car get some info from the PCM, like the cluster, ABS, traction control, etc. Plus on an automatic car, the trans is controlled buy the PCM. So switching to an aftermarket engine managment system means that you may lose some of the car's feature, and you will also have to add in a seperate transmission controller to run the trans (like the Bauman).

Basically, I don't feel there is ANY reason to switch to an aftermarket system on a 99-up Ford. Just my 2 cents.

[I Tried]

The factory Ford PCM is a very powerful piece, in the hands of a proper tuner. I actually PREFER tuning a vehicle with the OEM Ford computer, over tuning with FAST, Speed-Pro, DFI, etc. I made 1000hp on my Lightning with the factory PCM, and it drove like stock. The aftermarket systems do give you more adjustability over fueling and spark and such, but there are literally hundreds of more available parameters in the Ford PCM to do things with. Another thing to consider, is the PCM is tied into the car and other modules via a databus system. Other modules of the car get some info from the PCM, like the cluster, ABS, traction control, etc. Plus on an automatic car, the trans is controlled buy the PCM. So switching to an aftermarket engine managment system means that you may lose some of the car's feature, and you will also have to add in a seperate transmission controller to run the trans (like the Bauman).

Basically, I don't feel there is ANY reason to switch to an aftermarket system on a 99-up Ford. Just my 2 cents.


100% Correct. My lightning is a 93 gen 1 and The stock pcm is slow.

[martyo]

My car runs a FAST and it is awesome. Period.

[Power Surge]

My car runs a FAST and it is awesome. Period.

What have you got done to your car? I didn't see any info or links in your sig, but it sure looks badass :D.

[martyo]

What have you got done to your car? I didn't see any info or links in your sig, but it sure looks badass :D.


A little of this and a little of that. Suffice it to say that the FAST system is handy for tuning an 775 hp motor. :D

[Power Surge]

A little of this and a little of that. Suffice it to say that the FAST system is handy for tuning an 775 hp motor. :D

Ahhh, so it's secret :). I like tuning FAST over all other aftermarket systems.

[martyo]

Ahhh, so it's secret :). I like tuning FAST over all other aftermarket systems.

We put a lot of time in my car and the FAST system was the real turning point in getting the combo to come together.

We did like 943 dyno pulls trying to tune with the stock PCM. A little Steve Petty magic and about 4 pulls and the car was tuned.

[ScottB]

I've wondered this about Buicks and MM's: Couldn't one just modify the stock ECM to run closed loop all the time? I mean, it already runs closed-loop at idle and cruise. . .how hard could it be to get it to run closed loop at WOT?

I think the reason is that the PCM is not "real time" it is "near real time". In real time the microprocessor takes into account the time it takes for signals to be read, interpreted, sent and acted upon. For instance, a missile guidance system is real time; it knows that when it reads speed and direction, by the time it corrects there is a lag, and the time it takes to make the correction imposes another lag.

One way to get closed loop adjustments into open loop is to design the system so it modifies the open loop mappings based on closed loop history. EECV does this to some extent but probably not well enough for what you suggest.

[Loco1234]

So your running the FAST computer.... did you have to give up anything that the stock computer did that the F.A.S.T computer doesn't...?

R u using only the XFI?

Any tips or suggestions if I look to go this route....?

Pros...Cons...?

[RR|Suki]

here's the real question, what's the price?

[Lidio]

Hey guys I know I'm a little late on this one and I've not really posted much here these days or any where for that matter with the way my time's been lately.

Any way these days I hate to say this but I was a very big FAST fan till some of the major advancements happened with being able to tune stock EEC's the last three years or so. In my honest opining FAST is a down grade from lets say a late model MM or Mach-1 etc. as an example.

There are two key things that FAST cant do that I've become very accustomed to with stock EEC. First is "IAT vs spark". This is or can be important to some tuners and can save the day in a water to air application where the inter-cooler water pump might quit working. And can be used to tune more aggressively based on IAT as it changes.

The 2nd feature I like with stock EEC although there are more... is its ability to reduce torque or pull power from the motor when the EEC commands an up shift or a down shift. I turn off or don't really use this feature for up-shifts, but when it comes to controlling a trans problem that we've chased for years, the stock EEC is the only thing that will fix this problem. The problem I'm referring to is the flare you get when forcing a 4R70W or an AOD-E to down shift from 4th back to ether 3rd gear or all the way back to 2nd gear. By utilizing TQ reduction for this and a shift timing feature that will not let the trans go from 4th right to 2nd with out tapping or hitting 3rd for a mili second or two.... We've cured this flare with stock EEC's that I've chased for almost ten years in no way any hardware or valve body changes we've tried could have done.

With SCT's "Big-Air" Mass-Air meters and now the big 60lbs and 75lbs high impedance injectors, we've been able to make some big power with a lot
4.6L's/pushrod motors too, and retain very good if not perfect street-ability especially with the automatic cars like the MM's. Just a few years ago the number one reason at least for me to get some one into a FAST was that you couldn't get real big injectors with the correct impedance for the stock EEC drivers, and I never really liked the injector driver boxes or driver mods some people did for us with the stock computers. But that's all changed now in a big way.

Its nothing now to have a BA-2400 and 60lbs injectors in a 32V Ford with medium size cams, stroker/big-bore, lots of boost with a centrifugal or screw type blower, one or two turbo's, make 600 to 800+HP to the tire and run all around perfect. There is still very much a time and place for the aftermarket stand alone ECU's, my favorite being the old FAST and the new XFi. But for us we're needing them less these days.

Just a little note, the new FAST system called the XFi. uses a "IAT vs spark" feature only because I requested it a couple of years ago while the system was being developed.

Thanks

[TooManyFords]

Lidio,

First, thank you for your input on the FAST vs EEC debate. While 99% of the users here will only find this interesting, there are a few of us that are really in this boat and looking for guidance.

Myself, I've chosen to go EEC for the time being and had LaSota Racing design a base tune for my combination. But I am worried that I am so far out on the bleeding edge with my combination that the EEC will not be able to handle what I have. Thus a backup plan to move to the new XFi if I need to.

My worry is that on my build, I want to be sure to be in the 11.0-11.5 AFR range as soon as my motor is building boost, but it won't be WOT and I don't want it to run lean at half throttle but still be making gobs of boost and power...

My question to you pertains to the ability of the FAST/XFi to use wide-band O2 sensors at all times. Do you view this as a deciding factor with extremely radical builds?

Thank you in advance.

john

[SergntMac]

Lots of good 411 here guys, thanks! Even a noob like me can follow it.

John...Ask LaSorta Racing about upgrading to the '04 EEC with MAV2 program. Jerry W. told Zack and I about this back in April of '04. We did it, and added a second knock sensor to boot. When I asked him why, he explained in detail and a lot went over my head. He then smiled and said "more elbow room for me" and he was right. Give this some thought?

[RR|Suki]

Lots of good 411 here guys, thanks! Even a noob like me can follow it.

John...Ask LaSorta Racing about upgrading to the '04 EEC with MAV2 program. Jerry W. told Zack and I about this back in April of '04. We did it, and added a second knock sensor to boot. When I asked him why, he explained in detail and a lot went over my head. He then smiled and said "more elbow room for me" and he was right. Give this some thought?

you spoke to me about this aswell Mac, and it seems like a good idea. Now if only I could get around this problem of living so far away from tuners!!!!! on that topic where can I get this nifty EEC? $2500 for a FAST is totally not needed for little ole me.

[SergntMac]

Ray "The Dealer" hooked me up. Initial charge was just under 500 bucks, but half that was a core charge I got back when I returned my BMDO EEC to Ray. With the extra knock sensor, you're looking at 300 bucks or so.

Adding the knock sensor to the front harness isn't difficult. It's just adding two pins to harness at the EEC, what they plug into is inside the MAV2 EEC, thus I don't believe you can delete or ignore the second knock sensor from this upgrade.

You problem area will be what it is today, A.J., finding the tuner local to you that can map the new EEC. It comes blank.

[RR|Suki]

Ray "The Dealer" hooked me up. Initial charge was just under 500 bucks, but half that was a core charge I got back when I returned my BMDO EEC to Ray. With the extra knock sensor, you're looking at 300 bucks or so.

Adding the knock sensor to the front harness isn't difficult. It's just adding two pins to harness at the EEC, what they plug into is inside the MAV2 EEC, thus I don't believe you can delete or ignore the second knock sensor from this upgrade.

You problem area will be what it is today, A.J., finding the tuner local to you that can map the new EEC. It comes blank.

The car gods hate me!!!

[TooManyFords]

The only other thing I need to know about FAST/XFi is exactly how many on-board systems quit functioning? I'm guessing that once the switch is made, I have to get something to manage the transmission. But what else quits? Speedometer? Cruise Control? Can the FAST/XFi piggy-back on the factory EEC to allow it to control what gets broken?

John

[Lidio]

The stock EEC doesn't have the ability to keep the A/F where you might want it at WOT in a closed loop fashion. This does not play into my decision to go with or with out a FAST in any way. If the parts are picked correctly with any of these applications and the tune is done correctly, the closed loop WOT feature is no big deal.
As long as your pump or injectors or some thing else doesn't degrade for some reason... then the A/F you command at WOT is what you'll get over and over with great constancy with an EEC system. Yes it will vary a little here and there depending on air quality and temp etc. but if the tune isn't on the raged edge to begin with, then a small variance in A/F at WOT is nothing to worry about. Also some of the more radical builds we do tend to just plan end up on the dyno with my wide-band rutinely for check ups or upgrades and this leads to checking to make sure the A/F has stayed the same which typically if not every time its all good months and years later.

In the last few years we've now made more RWHP with stock EEC-5 and newer boxes then we did with stand alone's in prior years. I'd say for the average Ford performance or street/race car, a stand alone shouldn't even be considered for less the 900-1000 HP levels and even then I'd believe as long as the MAF is packageable in the Mix and there are no "Back-Flo" problems to worry about with the MAF vs Speed-density standalones, I'd almost say that stock EEC's could go pretty far in a lot of applications.

As far as stock instruments and compatibility issues go, I'm not sure exactly what you'll loose on a MM, but on a like '99 and newer Mustang when they went to the electric speedo and a couple of other things you'd normally loose the tack, speedo and coolant temp and all trans functions if you don't manage to piggy back the stock ECU with the FAST. But I'm telling you depending on the combo, if its less then 1000hp, I'd not go to a stand alone system, and if you do research who you buy it from and how supportive they'll really be. The biggest problem with most of the stand alones is the lack of support.


Thanks

[Power Surge]

and if you do research who you buy it from and how supportive they'll really be. The biggest problem with most of the stand alones is the lack of support.



I agree 100% with this. I have had cars here with stand alone systems and needed some tech help with them in the sense of both parts/wiring and tuning and the support is horrible. Especially with DFI. There are "specialists" out there for each brand, but unless you are paying them to come do the tuning, they don't want to give you the time of day.

[TooManyFords]

Lidio,

Not losing all the "creature comforts" such as tach, speedo and transmission control was my primary reason for sticking with the EEC as PLAN A.


The stock EEC doesn't have the ability to keep the A/F where you might want it at WOT in a closed loop fashion. This does not play into my decision to go with or with out a FAST in any way. If the parts are picked correctly with any of these applications and the tune is done correctly, the closed loop WOT feature is no big deal.


I had to read this a few times before I think I understand what you are saying, and to para-phrase, "The EEC cannot be commanded to maintain a specific AFR unless it is at WOT."

But let's say the supercharger is roots based and configured for 18-20psi at WOT. When running at anything less than WOT but still running say 10 psi, is the EEC going to try to maintain Stoich of 14.7 and thus run the engine lean? It seems to me that would be an issue and one of the main reasons for wanting to go into a "closed loop" mode when not at WOT so you can dial in that AFR.

I have to guess that most of the wicked-up Kenne Bell's and even Eatons may run into this, maybe not. I sure don't want to be the first to find out the hard way that my worst fears come true because I didn't go with PLAN B (FAST/XFi).

It seems that the more you spend going fast, the more you want to be certain you've looked at all the possibilities. I don't know of any tuner that warranties a motor from possible failure, so you can certainly understand my concerns. If you do, then I'll be over in a couple weeks!

Cheers

John

[MikesMerc]

This is a great thread. I'm posting to subscribe. Good stuff!

[Power Surge]

Lidio,

Not losing all the "creature comforts" such as tach, speedo and transmission control was my primary reason for sticking with the EEC as PLAN A.


I had to read this a few times before I think I understand what you are saying, and to para-phrase, "The EEC cannot be commanded to maintain a specific AFR unless it is at WOT."

But let's say the supercharger is roots based and configured for 18-20psi at WOT. When running at anything less than WOT but still running say 10 psi, is the EEC going to try to maintain Stoich of 14.7 and thus run the engine lean? It seems to me that would be an issue and one of the main reasons for wanting to go into a "closed loop" mode when not at WOT so you can dial in that AFR.

I have to guess that most of the wicked-up Kenne Bell's and even Eatons may run into this, maybe not. I sure don't want to be the first to find out the hard way that my worst fears come true because I didn't go with PLAN B (FAST/XFi).

It seems that the more you spend going fast, the more you want to be certain you've looked at all the possibilities. I don't know of any tuner that warranties a motor from possible failure, so you can certainly understand my concerns. If you do, then I'll be over in a couple weeks!

Cheers

John

The EEC is not commanding stoich all the time it's not at WOT. The car is really only in closed loop at idle, cruise, and very light throttle positions. Otherwise it's going in and out of OL. Moderate part throttle, and it goes OL. And everything is infinitely controllable as far as fuel, spark, etc. The EECs have way more adjustablity and tunability over the stand alone systems. And you could even shut the closed loop operation off, and work in full time open loop. That's how my turbo Lightning was. No O2s at all, full time OL. Of course I had to tune the entire PCM from scratch, but that's not a big deal. It drove like stock, and made 805 rwhp.

The stock EEC is a very powerful device :).

[Loco1234]

I do like the MAV2 computer with the added second knock sensor and it allows for more power in the 04 models then in the 03 models... I like my tune; it is setup to take the most advantage of this situation as possible. but was curious if their would be an advantage to go with F.A.S.T of their new XFI

[TooManyFords]

The EEC is not commanding stoich all the time it's not at WOT. The car is really only in closed loop at idle, cruise, and very light throttle positions. Otherwise it's going in and out of OL. Moderate part throttle, and it goes OL. And everything is infinitely controllable as far as fuel, spark, etc. The EECs have way more adjustablity and tunability over the stand alone systems. And you could even shut the closed loop operation off, and work in full time open loop. That's how my turbo Lightning was. No O2s at all, full time OL. Of course I had to tune the entire PCM from scratch, but that's not a big deal. It drove like stock, and made 805 rwhp.

The stock EEC is a very powerful device :).

I guess I had my OL and CL mixed up. For those keeping score in the bleachers, Open Loop (OL) is when it is reading from the tables and bases the input on the MAF. Closed Loop (CL) is when it is reading from the O2 sensors and trying to hit 14.64 AFR (Stoich).

Thanks for the input. PLAN A is still first choice and we'll see what I can get done before SSHS6!

John