MSD vs XFI vs Classic Fast

J-B Racing

Forced Induction
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Ok now the picture is clearer than before. I run a Classic Fast and have been for almost 3 years. Had a DIS-4 on the car and worked perfect. With the Fast and the Stock ECM. For some stupid reason I sold the DIS-4 and a year later I decided to put one back on. So I bought a DIS-4 Plus. This is the newer MSD with the Dials instead of the Dip Switch. I was not able to make this work with my Fast. The Ignition would cut off at around 4000 RPM. So a friend of mine that runs an XFI bought a used DIS-4 Dip type. Before he installed it on his car I asked to trade because I was sure that my DIS-4 plus would work with the XFI and not the Classic Fast. So this pas week-end he tried out his car and ran mid 9's at 145 MPH with the MSD that would not work for me. Keep this mind if you get an MSD what you have for Management.

Joe
 
Good to know, thanks. Any other peculiarities noticed with the classic FAST and the dip switch MSD-4?

Regards,
Shev
 
Good to know, thanks. Any other peculiarities noticed with the classic FAST and the dip switch MSD-4?

Regards,
Shev

Not really. I tried 2 MSD DIS-4 with my Classic FAST and both worked perfect. I just have no info on how the XFI and a stock ECM are compatable.
 
Update

OK so Martin that took my DIS-4 Plus that did not work with my Classic Fast worked on his XFI and pulled on the Dyno 820 RWHP with it.
I started my car and the old DIS-4 Dip Switch is working again like it did before.
BTW Martin is the Canuk on the Video section that ran a 9.45

So remember to keep this in mind buying an MSD. Make sure you choose the correct unit.


Joe
 
Some yrs ago, there was a pi$$in contest between the guys @ FAST and MSD, about the DIS units causing problems.....I had an HO unit. No problems w/ it.
 
Some yrs ago, there was a pi$$in contest between the guys @ FAST and MSD, about the DIS units causing problems.....I had an HO unit. No problems w/ it.
Hell yes there was! Those boxes were wildly inconsistent in the minimum dwell time that the box would recognize on the points input. Long before the HO, all their stuff had a 750 microsecond minimum dwell time by design and they were reasonably consistent. Some braniac at MSD decided to substantially increase that time to 1200 milliseconds. Then, by their own admission to us at FAST, the method of implementing this filter on the points input could vary anywhere from around 800 microseconds all the way up to about 2000 microseconds. Good luck on whichever one you got. Then they had phone techs telling FAST customers that they should send their ECUs back in to "have them modified to have a minimum dwell time of 4 milliseconds". Run the numbers there and draw your own conclusions.

So yes, Chuck, there was certainly some contention over that point. I would contend that those guys at MSD did not have their act together but I am biased :D
 
Hell yes there was! Those boxes were wildly inconsistent in the minimum dwell time that the box would recognize on the points input. Long before the HO, all their stuff had a 750 microsecond minimum dwell time by design and they were reasonably consistent. Some braniac at MSD decided to substantially increase that time to 1200 milliseconds. Then, by their own admission to us at FAST, the method of implementing this filter on the points input could vary anywhere from around 800 microseconds all the way up to about 2000 microseconds. Good luck on whichever one you got. Then they had phone techs telling FAST customers that they should send their ECUs back in to "have them modified to have a minimum dwell time of 4 milliseconds". Run the numbers there and draw your own conclusions.

So yes, Chuck, there was certainly some contention over that point. I would contend that those guys at MSD did not have their act together but I am biased :D


Criag
The MSD tech support is as equal as calling Walmart Shoes department and asking if they have size 12 for men...:confused:
 
Top