Home | Product & Installation Articles | FAST | Inside The FAST™ XFI 2.0 Hardware And Software Tuning Features

Inside The FAST™ XFI 2.0 Hardware And Software Tuning Features

Earlier this year, our good friends at FAST™ (Fuel Air Spark Technology™) released the second rendition of their industry-renowned XFI Electronic Fuel Injection system, packed with several refined functions and capabilities found in the original XFI unit, along with a host of new features that bring even more control and adjustability for end users from the novice to professional tuners.

At the PRI Show in Orlando last winter, we had the opportunity to get a sneak peek at the FAST™ XFI 2.0 and learn more about some of the features to expect, and now, with the LSX 388 engine build for our Drag Radial Camaro and utilizing the XFI 2.0 unit nearing completion, it’s time to take a closer look at FAST™’s latest and greatest piece. In order to do so, we’ve sat down with:

  • FAST™’s own in house XFI technician Kevin Winstead
  • Noted fuel injection tuning wizard and EFI University instructor Brian Macy
  • Shawn Miller, the lead engine builder behind our LSX project at Virginia Speed

The XFI 2.0 Hardware

The complete XFI 2.0 system is a combination of hardware and software that delivers revolutionary features and functions in one package, beginning with a rugged and stylish new billet enclosure to house the surface mount component circuit board. The XFI 2.0 system, like its predecessor, completely replaces the clunky factory computer and wiring harness that compromises performance. The latest built-in flash microprocessor technology provides lighting-quick processing speed, which FAST™ claims to be four times faster than earlier EFI systems. “The best way to explain the new XFI 2.0 hardware is that it’s robust,” explains Winstead. “The hardware itself found in both the XFI and XFI 2.0 is fairly new technology compared to our older FAST™ systems. Where some of those system were based more on OE design, these are all aftermarket.

The C-Com® Software

On the software side of things, the Windows-based C-Com XFI application found in the original XFI system is once again in use in version 2.0, providing the ability to download the latest software and hardware firmware updates via email or the FAST™ website, all without ever physically removing the XFI 2.0 enclosure from the car.

But beyond those basics of the C-Com software are the essential tools that provide tuners the ability to adjust and fine-tune every element of the EFI system. Among those tools are several customizable tables for adjusting things, such as Idle Speed vs. Coolant Temperature and the Fuel Ratio vs. RPM & MAP (manifold absolute pressure), along with an incredibly useful set of 3D graphs that display the information in a form that the tuner can easily visualize their tune settings performed in the aforementioned tables.

The self learning functionality new to the XFI 2.0 is certainly at the top of the list of impressive new features and one that will appeal to and make the transition to an aftermarket EFI system much simpler for novice users. “The Self Learning feature actually works really well, even on complex engine configurations” assures Macy.

The Self Learning VE table works by looking at your target air/fuel table and your base VE table and comparing the two, creating an automated VE map for your vehicle. Through the use of a dyno or normal street driving and with a wideband oxygen sensor and closed loop tuning, a ballpark fuel table can be created in short order. This obviously isn’t meant to nor can replace human input, but it will certainly get you a base to tune from. And for those jumping from the street to the strip and back, this is a great tool.

“I was a little skeptical at first when we were doing beta testing with the software,” explains Macy. “I had a $30,000 engine on the dyno that I was tuning, and I got it dialed in and then threw all the numbers off about 10% and ran the engine up. We could watch it actually see the air/fuel ratio and change the numbers back to what it should’ve been. In the end, it got really, really close to what I had. It wasn’t exact, but it was within a number or two.”

Click here to read the rest of the article at