Anybody run stand alone systems to run their LS

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Anybody run stand alone systems to run their LS like FAST, Holley or Edelbrock
If so which one and how did you like it.
I just installed my LS1 and I'm thinking on FAST?.

Thanks in advance
Steve

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Anybody run stand alone systems to run their LS like FAST, Holley or Edelbrock
If so which one and how did you like it.
I just installed my LS1 and I'm thinking on FAST?.

Thanks in advance

[BR3W CITY]

IMO most of the time those standalone systems don't net you anything that the standard ECM system wouldn't. I've used the Fast, Econtrols, and I've spent about 20 minutes with the Holley. For some swaps with really unusual configs they are cool, or to do things like double injectors, ITB's etc.

You get away with a few less wires, but the cost is pretty high. The FAST and eControls tune well, with the FAST being more of a user-friendly thing and eControls being a more works-for-anything system.

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by BR3W CITY

IMO most of the time those standalone systems don't net you anything that the standard ECM system wouldn't. I've used the Fast, Econtrols, and I've spent about 20 minutes with the Holley. For some swaps with really unusual configs they are cool, or to do things like double injectors, ITB's etc.

You get away with a few less wires, but the cost is pretty high. The FAST and eControls tune well, with the FAST being more of a user-friendly thing and eControls being a more works-for-anything system.

Thanks for the input

[solidaxel]

What about using a Marine Electronic Fuel Injection GM unit?
Is the cost the same or more than a stock ECM, what about the harness?

[BR3W CITY]

I don't think you can run a VSS on that, so controlling an auto trans or speedo would be interesting. Which actually makes me wonder....how do boats know how many knots they are going?

[houstonshark]

Originally Posted by BR3W CITY

I don't think you can run a VSS on that, so controlling an auto trans or speedo would be interesting. Which actually makes me wonder....how do boats know how many knots they are going?

Most boats have paddle wheels that measure the water speed (which can be inaccurate on a river) and/or GPS based speedo's.

[Wasted Income]

Originally Posted by houstonshark

Most boats have paddle wheels that measure the water speed (which can be inaccurate on a river) and/or GPS based speedo's.

Yea some do. My current offshore boat has both a pitot tube speedo and GPS into the chart plotter....neither of which are inputted into the engine ECUs. Houstonshark brought up a good point that paddle wheel and pitot tube speedos read differently if you are running with or against a current. The engine does not care how fast the boat is moving, as it is irrelevant to the load on the engine. Also prop slip, hull design, trim angle, and tab position can all play into how "fast" you are going vs the engine rpm or engine MAP (load).

I tuned my old LSx jet boat with a manual trans segment in the ECM. It was one of the easiest tunes I've ever done, as there is no transmission, and you never go up or down hill, so the RPM vs MAP is one straight angled line, basically a 2D map, versus a true 3D map like in a car.

[Wasted Income]

Originally Posted by 1970 CST Short Wide

Anybody run stand alone systems to run their LS like FAST, Holley or Edelbrock

Nope. Nobody. You'll be the first.

[MalibuSSwagon]

VSS is alot less important without an electronic trans...I had LT1swap program my PCM for a manual trans and I have not hooked up a VSS yet, knocking down 20 MPG with my 5.3

[Matt Cramer]

I used an MS3-Pro on my truck. It was definite overkill for a stock 4.8, but I was using it to develop a custom wiring harness. Here's my take on what situations a stock ECU would be a good fit for, and what ones would call for a standalone.

Stock engine? Stock ECU makes perfect sense here; you don't really want much in the way of tunability.

A couple minor bolt ons or a cam swap? It shouldn't be too hard to adjust the stock ECU for this.

Forced induction or a serious naturally aspirated build? OK, this is starting to get to the point where you will want to look at standalones. You might be able to tune a stock ECU to run this. However, standalone ECUs are often a bit simpler to tune under boost (no weird MAF trickery, for example) and give you access to features like the individual cylinder trim tables. A lot of those settings in a stock ECU are hard to access and often wrong for a turbo or all out build. You could add more fuel across the board to compensate for a lean cylinder, but that would leave power on the table.

Another good reason to start looking at standalones is if your build calls for a lot of black boxes for features a stock ECU can't easily do - standalones have a lot of race features as standard equipment. I've heard of tricks to sort of get boost control out of a stock ECU, for example, but not to make one do closed loop boost control that ramps in the boost on a timer after you release a two step rev limiter, or ones that will let you creep forward on a trans brake. (Stock ECU gurus, feel free to chime in if there is a trick to do this.)

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by Matt Cramer

I used an MS3-Pro on my truck. It was definite overkill for a stock 4.8, but I was using it to develop a custom wiring harness. Here's my take on what situations a stock ECU would be a good fit for, and what ones would call for a standalone.

Stock engine? Stock ECU makes perfect sense here; you don't really want much in the way of tunability.

A couple minor bolt ons or a cam swap? It shouldn't be too hard to adjust the stock ECU for this.

Forced induction or a serious naturally aspirated build? OK, this is starting to get to the point where you will want to look at standalones. You might be able to tune a stock ECU to run this. However, standalone ECUs are often a bit simpler to tune under boost (no weird MAF trickery, for example) and give you access to features like the individual cylinder trim tables. A lot of those settings in a stock ECU are hard to access and often wrong for a turbo or all out build. You could add more fuel across the board to compensate for a lean cylinder, but that would leave power on the table.

Another good reason to start looking at standalones is if your build calls for a lot of black boxes for features a stock ECU can't easily do - standalones have a lot of race features as standard equipment. I've heard of tricks to sort of get boost control out of a stock ECU, for example, but not to make one do closed loop boost control that ramps in the boost on a timer after you release a two step rev limiter, or ones that will let you creep forward on a trans brake. (Stock ECU gurus, feel free to chime in if there is a trick to do this.)

Thanks Matt, that makes good sense.

[RickDeVon]

I am thinking most run these on their non LS motors...It should work cause some carb their LS motors...

[knomadd]

I'm not running one, and I don't have an LS (yet) but I've been looking into them and from what it sounds like, none of them control the transmission, or if they do they are expensive. You'd likely need a stand alone trans controller for it. If you don't have a computer controlled trans, this wouldn't be an issue though.

[moggey01]

I know people that use Holley on everything. That is what they are using in NHRA pro stock now as well.

[Heavymetl]

Originally Posted by moggey01

I know people that use Holley on everything. That is what they are using in NHRA pro stock now as well.

I'm running the Holley on my C10 as well. I really, really like it, although it comes at a price.

In the old days, people spent big bucks and effort building a shortblock and adding quality cylinder heads. Now a cheapo junkyard LS is typically good to go with minor upgrades (valvesprings, pushrods, etc) and the money is spent on engine management.

[moggey01]

It's strange that the Holley system was actually in an R and D stage back in 2000-2001. I was part of a pro stock truck team that was testing it when the class was axed. The Holley stuff has come a long way since then. Grumpy Jenkins had 1 truck that raced with it at the time and that was Victor Cagnazzi.

[Wasted Income]

Originally Posted by moggey01

It's strange that the Holley system was actually in an R and D stage back in 2000-2001. I was part of a pro stock truck team that was testing it when the class was axed. The Holley stuff has come a long way since then. Grumpy Jenkins had 1 truck that raced with it at the time and that was Victor Cagnazzi.

Was that the FJO ecu? Because that is what the current Holley HP and Dominator is based off of. They bought out FJO Racing Products and further developed their ECU.

[Wasted Income]

Originally Posted by knomadd

I'm not running one, and I don't have an LS (yet) but I've been looking into them and from what it sounds like, none of them control the transmission, or if they do they are expensive. You'd likely need a stand alone trans controller for it. If you don't have a computer controlled trans, this wouldn't be an issue though.

I run the Holley Dominator, which does indeed have auto transmission control in the same box. However, it's pretty expensive....but it works like a charm.

I know the Megasquirts can also do auto trans control via a separate box that is CAN bussed to the MS.