What does make an aftermarket better?

[bruce]

Originally posted by Glen
My two cents, for what it's worth. What makes the FAST or DFI better than the factory ECM? One thing, ease of use. Don't need 4 or 5 other pieces to make adjustments, record a pass or look at pretty screens.

Neither piece was made to replace the factory ECM. Not everyone starts with a factory car with all the bells and whistles, some are dedicated race cars and thats the market they were intended for originally. Without a market, neither FAST or DFI would exist Then, along came some smart ass with a street car wanting to go EFI, and not wanting to learn the factory stuff, ta-da, now we have units in place where they weren't originally planned or designed. So what happens? As is typical of most people they start whining about how come they won't do this or that and want features like a factory ECM, they want driviability like a factory car from a ECM that wasn't intended for that level of sophistication. So now we have DFI 7+ with more features and hopefully soon, a new FAST.

So, what do we have? We have a car, we have a v6 turbo from a wrecked GN, we want to install this. Now we need an ECM, a wire harness, some kind of WB O2 option, software and all the stuff to read and modify the factory ECM.

Add the costs and they come close to a FAST or DFI with out all the learning curves just for the software muniplations. Thats the advantage, thats the market.

Is their code any better, don't know so lets say no. Are they going to give you their code or publish it here? Thats a NO! Can the same thing be done with a factory ECM.....yes. Are we beating a dead horse with this subject.....yea!

Any change left over feel free to donate to the Navy Relief Fund

OK, but do you have any accurate technical data to contribute?

As far as 4-5 other items, what are you talking about?.
For real time you need Tunercat R_T stuff, and data logging DS.
Hardly more then switching screens. If you want to run both a laptop with a USB and serial port lets you run both at the same time. While it adds the extra complexity of having two programs running, unlike the aftermarket if one fails, the whole show doesn't collapse. And as slow as some of the aftermarket stuff is, doing it the SLOW way is actually much faster.

 

[Glen]

Where's YOUR proof, Bruce. You sit their on your duff whining and crying that your hacked crap is better, where's YOUR proof? Post YOUR code and what YOU did to get into the GM code. Show us how YOU modified it.

Your point of contention isn't going to happen.

 

[HighPSI]

Originally posted by bruce
It's really too bad you don't live closer.

BTW, if your aftermarket ecm has an adapter harnes that plugs into the stock harness, all we'd need to do is run your ecm on the ecm bench, and then build a similiar file for the stocker using that data, and we could honestly run the car with the same tune but different ecms.
Then make 2 comparison runs, one with each ecm, and have accurate results.

I agree that by taking the aftermarket information and making a chip for it, it should run the exact same. My point is: the aftermarket ecm can get you where you want to be in 2-3 passes at very little risk of hurting any parts. Why risk hurting a $10,000 motor because you didn't want to spend the extra $1000 for the aftermarket ecm?

I have sold FAST systems to guys without laptop's and seen them run them without ever touching the tuneup. This is running it with just my startup program. Do I recommend this? No. Could they run better with tuning? More than likely, Yes.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Glen
Where's YOUR proof, Bruce. You sit their on your duff whining and crying that your hacked crap is better, where's YOUR proof? Post YOUR code and what YOU did to get into the GM code. Show us how YOU modified it.

Your point of contention isn't going to happen.

Who's crying?, I just asked a simple guestion.
Why do you have to try and restate things in a negative light, and mix in things that have no bearing on the current thread, and try to mistate what I have said?.
It's really a shame that so few really want to discuss things anymore.

Anyway, just to answer you.

The GM code is all over the net, 30 secs goggling with net you at least 10 sets of commented code.
Go to the DIY-EFI site and search for Programming 101, and there is how I did my first bit of looking at the code. Step by step, I've posted how to read what's in there, and the GNTtype had all the calibration data listed.

The GM stuff is readily available.
For anyone to say it' hiden just hasn't bothered looking, from TBI, to port, ecm to pcm, it's all been public domained, in so far as things related to what's in the GN code. Which is what this web site is about last I checked.

 

[Reggie West]

BTW, if your aftermarket ecm has an adapter harnes that plugs into the stock harness, all we'd need to do is run your ecm on the ecm bench, and then build a similiar file for the stocker using that data, and we could honestly run the car with the same tune but different ecms.


So with this logic, I will go buy a FAST unit for $2000, tune my Stage motor with it and use the WB feature, datalog the runs and then make the corrections in the VE tables. Once I do all of this, give you the FAST ECM and let you build a file for the stock ECM. Is that about right?

What I am hearing here is that you need an aftermarket machine to tune the car correctly and once that is done you can go and copy it to a chip and use a cheaper stock ECM to run the car. This only proves that the aftermarket unit is faster to do the job. It also proves that the FAST unit performs all of the functions inside one program that would take a USB and a serial port to do using TunerCat and datalog with DS.

Or let me put it this way. What takes weeks or months to achieve with a stock ECM, TunerCat and datalogger of some sort, will take a weekend or two to achieve with a FAST unit or a DFI.

That is what makes an aftermarket unit better.

 

[Glen]

This isn't a discussion, and I fail to see where it ever was. It's an assualt on one system or another with nothing gained.

It's more like two guys standing on a street corner saying their crank is bigger/better than the others with neither side willing to drop their drawers in public to prove it.

 

[Night Train]

Some very interesting points here and a few childish ones. Seems like the difference between F.A.S.T. and stock ECM is like cutting down a tree with an ax or saw. They both get the job done, just one is considered by many to be a little less time consuming.

 

[turbosam6]

Heres one thing to look at: Right now I see 2 major players in the stock ecm business. Steve Y and Bob B. Sure, there are many other chip burners, but for any kind of adjustibility, thats about it. 2 guys. So when they decide to get out of the biz, and they will sooner or later, what is going to happen? Hopefully someone will take over the reigns, but maybe not. Anyone looking to get into the automotive aftermarket would be flat retarded to specialize in buicks, a dying breed. FAST will always be there. Another thing: Lets say you're not a rocket scientist like Bruce , and need to pay someone to tune your race car. Take a FAST equipped car to just about any "high performance" shop, they will tune it, and you'll be set. No reburning, no parts ordering.

I bought the FAST system for the insurance it provides on my motor. And as far as I can see, the stock ecm cannot do that. Like Cal said, why spend all that money and trust it to a stock ecm?

I know there are people out there that can do wonders with stock ecm's, and thats great. I think its amazing what we've been able to do with them. And for 90% of us, its all we'll ever need. But when your motor costs more than your car did, I like some protection.

 

[JCotton]

Hey Guys.... looks like we be gettin a little heated. I'm hesitant to throw my 2 bits in, but I feel I have an opinion based on my experience. I may not hit on the technical part Bruce is looking for, but in laymans terms I'd like to share. I will be the first to say, I am not a chip guy, I don't burn chips or want anything to do with it. We build lots of cars that I recommend chips for and lots of cars that I recommend FAST units for. Kinda like turbos, some cars I recommend BB turbos for and some I recommend non-BB turbos for. Ialways take in all the factors when determining what best fits the application.
As for the whats better and why, I don't believe it is an issue that can ever be definitively resolved. Bruce, you like the OEM for whatever reasons you have listed, I prefer the FAST because I have found it to be friendly for me. Does it cost more money? Yep..... but as some have already stated here, so doesn't all the bells and whistles to do what you do with OEM. I happened to see the post last week on GNTTYPE.org about the cost of the WBO2 to compliment tuning with the OEM computor, to me that was the icing on the cake, and still OEM can't compensate on the fly... as the FAST does. As Cal said, I have the same results, when I sell a FAST unit with a starter program, most everytime the customer is faster out of the box with the starter program than he was with his OEM stuff. Does that mean OEM doesn't work? Nope.... just that he wasn't able to get it tuned by whatever means he had at his fingertips. Does a FAST unit make more HP than OEM, NOPE..... just seems to be easier to find the HP..... for me. The bottom line Bruce, I have no info to change your mind or anyone elses, I just know from my own experience, I love tuning cars with a FAST unit.

 

[Laterrr]

I looked at the OEM ECM stuff 8 years ago when we got our first GN. I have the background and experience to design and program an embedded controller like the OEM ECM. I have designed 2 products with 68HC11's and 8 or 10 others with various processors. The real problem I have with the whole chip/OEM ECM thing is dealing with the egos and stroking the arrogant people who play in that area. There isn't a real HOWTO anywhere that spells out a complete solution for someone with no background in embedded programming. The people who have looked into it don't really share their information. They want to get paid for it. Either in dollars for making a chip or in hero worship and adulation when they finally deign to actually tell someone groveling at their feet the obscure answer to some question. They hide behind all kinds of technical jargon and avoid the real tuning issues. They tell people that this stuff is easy. Sure, it is for me. I've got 20 years experience at assembly language and a EE degree to boot. It is not easy for a guy with a law degree or a medical degree. Who are they kidding? Sure, I believe many people could learn. It's not rocket science. I don't want to do assembly language, I want to tune my car.

"Go Google" You can find all the info you need? Ah, this is "the Web of a Thousand Lies", right? There's a lot of bits and pieces out there. A lot of it contradicts other bits and pieces. You have to be an expert in assembly, know some electronics, and know a lot about what is required to tune a car before you can really play in the chip burning arena. You also need to spend quite a few hours studying the disassembled code to get the big picture of how it all works. You might miss the importance of FAPE even. Oh, and watch out. There is a lot of obsolete info out there that is just plain wrong. A newbie wrote an answer in a newsgroup and none of the experts thought it was worth correcting the idiot. That fact is a lie. Some of the experts make mistakes too. They really don't like admitting it either. You won't see them printing corrections.

I think I'll stick to my DFI and my FAST ECMs. The tuning issues are paramount and the manufacturers are trying to help. They already got paid so they're not looking for hero worship either.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Laterrr
I looked at the OEM ECM stuff 8 years ago when we got our first GN.

So then your not really familiar with the ME or Translator stuff then. They more then give the average tuner a reasonable window of adjustment to work in for tayloring a tune to their car.

There is no need for someone that wants to tune an oem ecm to learn assembly. All it takes is getting Tunercat to be able to change most any perameter in the chip. Again, alot has changed in the last 8 years.

And if you want to go that route, then the aftermarkets are even worse since noone is telling how to modify their code, either. With the GM stuff there are at least the fundamentials availble.

Hmm, since you mentioned FAPE, do any of the aftermarkets allow for a correction like that?.

Heck they're just now allowing for TCC control, after years of sales.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Reggie West
BTW, if your aftermarket ecm has an adapter harnes that plugs into the stock harness, all we'd need to do is run your ecm on the ecm bench, and then build a similiar file for the stocker using that data, and we could honestly run the car with the same tune but different ecms.

So with this logic, I will go buy a FAST unit for $2000, tune my Stage motor with it and use the WB feature, datalog the runs and then make the corrections in the VE tables. Once I do all of this, give you the FAST ECM and let you build a file for the stock ECM. Is that about right?

What I am hearing here is that you need an aftermarket machine to tune the car correctly and once that is done you can go and copy it to a chip and use a cheaper stock ECM to run the car. That is what makes an aftermarket unit better.

NO, try reading what I was replying to.
Cal already has a tune that he's happy with. I said it would be interesting to run that data on an oem to really see the difference.

I can tune an oem ecm in the same number of runs as an aftermaket, if not fewer. The MAF tables only have about 80 points to get the fueling correct where an aftermarket have 3X or more points to plot.

The only thing cheaper about the oem ecm is they're made by the millions and that drops the price down. No aftermarket co that I know of has the resources of GM to develope an ecm.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by turbosam6
Heres one thing to look at: Right now I see 2 major players in the stock ecm business. Steve Y and Bob B. Sure, there are many other chip burners, but for any kind of adjustibility, thats about it. 2 guys. So when they decide to get out of the biz, and they will sooner or later, what is going to happen? Hopefully someone will take over the reigns, but maybe not. Anyone looking to get into the automotive aftermarket would be flat retarded to specialize in buicks, a dying breed. FAST will always be there. Another thing: Lets say you're not a rocket scientist like Bruce , and need to pay someone to tune your race car. Take a FAST equipped car to just about any "high performance" shop, they will tune it, and you'll be set. No reburning, no parts ordering.

I bought the FAST system for the insurance it provides on my motor. And as far as I can see, the stock ecm cannot do that. Like Cal said, why spend all that money and trust it to a stock ecm?

I know there are people out there that can do wonders with stock ecm's, and thats great. I think its amazing what we've been able to do with them. And for 90% of us, its all we'll ever need. But when your motor costs more than your car did, I like some protection.

Then the thing to do is support those that really support the Turbo Buicks, IMO. The aftermarket ecms are made to be universally applicable.

Tell me what insurance there is with an aftermarket, what are the premiums?. If you use a WB that puts all your eggs in one basket, and if it fails, your out an engine just as a tuning error would cook an oemer.

Excuse me for bailing, but I was trying to get a technical discussion going here.

 

[V6 Beast]

Originally posted by bruce
So far I still see the oem as the winner overall, other then possibly opinions about how pretty the software is, but I was looking to compare functionality.

I think that's because you run everything on an ECM bench and not in the real world with an actual car that you spent a lot of time and effort building. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but most of us don't have hte luxury of running test scenarios on an ECM bench. We only have our cars to test with.

To me the big difference is what happens when you make a slight mistake at a high HP level tuning. With Stock ecm if you guessed or adjusted the fueling wrong by the time you figure it out you've broken stuff.. Possibly expensive stuff, maybe a whole motor.

With the aftermarket ECMs that do WBO2 correction, if you make a mistake they can compensate for your error and possibly save parts.

I don't think there is anyway to accurately tune our cars without a true WB that data logs, datalogging software and maybe an EGT. (I know more opinions, but I have tried my burning my own chips, tried the ME-R and now am trying FAST) Then you also shoud have something that reads boost for you so you know what boost level you are tuning to(only the ME-R can do this with stock ecm as far as I know and not many people know how to make it do it at all. I am one of the few I think. A peak Boost gauge isn't the same)

When you start adding up the costs they really aren't that far apart. How much does it take to put together an ECM bench so you can test things there before putting them on a car?

If you go with ME-R (which I think is prob one of the best stock ECM solutions), the way I figure it you are looking at $1400 with no EGT $1600 with it. Then throw in an ECM bench so you can test things in a safe enviroment and not blow up motors. I think I saw a post where Jack sells FAST for $1950 or something.

SO what do you get for the extra $500 ? The biggest thing is a single learning curve that is much shorter. One software interface to learn and no fancy program swapping between applications which just adds to the learning curve. With the Stock ECM you will need to learn DS(not that big a deal if you are computer literate but a lot of my GN buds couldn't even install it), Learn how to datalog the Wide band and find your actual run in all the data(No easy task especially if you can't install DS), learn tunercat or ME-R (fortunately Steve Y. is a great guy to deal with and bends over backwards to help. Not sure if the makes of tunercat are as helpful) or whatever you use. IMHO you get a system that is a heck of a lot easier to tune, provides a higher level of protection for your motor and most importantly, gives you accurate tuning data that is easy to see so you can make the correct tuning changes. All for a mere $500. The more this thread goes on, the better FAST sounds.

I know you wanted exact, very techinical reasons on why an eftermarket ECM is better than stock. There may not be any, but that doesn't mean one still isn't better for it's intended purpose than the other. If I were to ask for exact technical reasons why a lawnmower is better for cutting grass than a pair of hand clippers that have been modified to cut at the exact same height all the time, no one may be able to come up with any. Does that mean handlclippers are better or even just as good for mowing a 2 acre yard?



Sully

 

[ijames]

Sully, one small nit which really doesn't change any of your fine points. You can use the TurboLink boost sensing harness and log boost with both TurboLink and DirectScan.

 

[V6 Beast]

Originally posted by ijames
Sully, one small nit which really doesn't change any of your fine points. You can use the TurboLink boost sensing harness and log boost with both TurboLink and DirectScan.

I didn't know you could use it with DS. IMHO, Turbolink doesn't have a fast enough capture rate for really high end tuning and the boost sensing option caused MAF to drop down to like 240 which caused the inj. to supply less fuel leaning the car way out when we tried it. If your chip doesn't lock MAF at 255 it seemed to cause more trouble than it was worth. I don't know tunercat, but getting MAF to lock at 255 required programming outside of the Chip tuning software I was using. I have no idea if you experience similiar problems using it with DS.

Sully

 

[ijames]

I actually don't have it but a few friends do and they never reported such large changes in the maf values. The easiest fix (no code patch required) is to zero out the mat compensation for the maf table, which tunercat should have let you do. With ds you have to make your conversion table to go from the reported "mat" values to boost, but it all works. (Again, lots of piece-togethers and workarounds in the stock ecm world, hmmm?)

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by V6 Beast
I think that's because you run everything on an ECM bench and not in the real world with an actual car that you spent a lot of time and effort building.

What gives you that idea?.
I've spent some serious time tuning my car and others.

I've done alot of experimenting, here's just some.
http://home.woh.rr.com/brucesgn/

Browse around that site, and tell me that I haven't put some time in under the hood.

Yes, with things as they are I have a fair amount of time that I can work on the bench, but that's in addition to time under the hood of my car, and others.

And if I did run a FAST, ACCEL, MOTEC, or whatever, I'd still run it on an ecm bench. You'd have to spend years data logging your set up to match what I can gather in just minutes of running things thru the bench. No you can't do a perfect tune from JUST an ecm bench but you can gather and look at data alot faster and easier on a bench.

 

[V6 Beast]

I didn't mean to imply that you never did anything under the hood. I have visited your sight before. But how often do you try stuff on the car without running it through it's paces on the bench first? How quick would you be to just start trying this and that directly on a car after dropping 5 grand in the motor. If you didn't have a bench, would have just put on a 749 ecm and made a few WOT blasts to see what happened?

I don't think so.. So how much does the ECM bench cost so we can tune at the same level as you do?

S.

 

[bobc455]

Alright, maybe I can take this more in the direction that Bruce wanted it to go, since I'm also curious what there is to be learned. (Bruce if I get this wrong, then re-steer me again.)

In a nutshell, you have timing and injector PW. We'll ignore things like the ability to turn fans on/off, etc., and stick more to the ability to run an engine well.

For the injectors, you have pulsewidth (duration), the resolution of that width (if I recall, some systems have a finer control resolution than others), and the timing of the pulsewidth (sequential vs. bank-to-bank, etc.). You also have the ability to easily switch from a low-impedance injector to a high-impedance. Is there anything else that a system can control?

Then for timing, you have the accuracy of the spark, and how tightly you can control that accuracy. I have not heard of any system blamed to be inconsistent (i.e. timing jumping around a couple degrees, etc.), so really the only key factor here is how accurately you can set the timing. On the FAST, I think I can set timing to 1/4 degree (as far as I know it also controls to 1/4 degree), and I think Bruce said the stock OEM can do 0.3 (1/3?) degree. DFI = ???

All the ECMs seem to be able to start the car, have warmup enrichment, etc., so I'm not aware of any major differences there (except for maybe 4th gear input, etc., that I don't think the aftermarkets usually consider). (What is FAPE, anyhow?)

Corrections? Additions? Is there some magic in one system's algorithm that gives something extra that I'm not mentioning?

This may turn into a bit of a "mine is bigger than yours" contest in some ways, but if it's all technical then go ahead and show me your pulsewidth resolution!

-Bob Cunningham