Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zakklp70]

Anyone have any experience with the xied o2 sensor adapters? Wonder if it's worth it or just get the TTS system.

[Skillet]

I have an 08 Road King with the XIED, K&N air filter and upgraded mufflers and she runs great. Did not change the MAP. Have 37,000 miles with no problems.

[glens]

Yeah, it probably won't blow up if you do all that and don't tune it, but it'll run a lot better with the TTS than it ever could dream of like that with just the IEDs.

If you've got a non-catalyst bike and it's either totally stock otherwise or it has all the specific H-D parts for and with the stage whatever download, then the regular IEDs would be an okay thing to spend money on.  The XIEDs take the closed-loop too far out of the O2 sensors' linear operating range.  In any event, you can do exactly what any of the IEDs do without cobbling something into the wiring harness(es) by telling the ECM how you want it to operate with the TTS.  Plus a whole lot more...

If you've got a catalyst bike and it's still on the bike, throwing more fuel into the mix using either method is going to make the cat get a bunch hotter than it does already while it burns off the excess excess.

[dartman]

I have an 08 Road King with the XIED, K&N air filter and upgraded mufflers and she runs great. Did not change the MAP. Have 37,000 miles with no problems.

Yep, they do just as advertised, better low speed drivability, a little cooler running

[Skillet]

It may have been advertised as low speed but that Road King hasn't seen low speed since June of 08 when I bought it. The XIED's, mufflers and air filter were installed after I picked the bike up. I'm not saying that a new map should not have been done but with the performance I have gotten running WFO has been satisfactory. This is just my experience with this bike. My '11 SESG has the Stage II treatment from Fulsac and I have a '80 FXB Sturgis with a 93'' S&S Shovelhead engine so I don't mind spending money for performance.

[glens]

The ECM sees the low "O2 sensor voltages" resulting from these simple voltage divider circuits and adds fuel to get the perceived O2 sensor voltage back up to whatever it was programmed to achieve as the switching point.  It then continually toggles the fuel between "rich" and "lean" to drive the sensor output to become centered on that switching point.  This is what makes the sensors "switch".

The ECM keeps track of the required changes in several places throughout the operational range (think of it as a very sparse VE table) and will transfer the last-known changes (at the outermost edges of the tables) to the areas beyond the range of the tables.  This is why you have not (terminally?) burned pistons or valves running hard with all your breathing changes.

It's much better if these Adaptive Fuel tables are routinely populated with values nearer the center of their operational range.  You undoubtedly have them populated with some values much closer to their limits instead.

It's also much better if these AFV table values are more uniform than you very most likely have them.

The AFV tables can get nicely centered and made very uniform if the VE tables are made to be accurate representations of what the engine really needs in its present running configuration.  There are a couple ways to do this, but it's without question that the TTS "V-Tune" scheme is about the best method presently available.

You can set the target O2 switching voltage in the ECM using a programmer like the TTS, SEPST, PowerVision, and I always have a hard time thinking of the name of the other one...  If you look at a graph of the O2 sensor output voltage vs. AFR used to generate exhaust gasses for the O2 sensor to probe, in the center of its range the graph shows a nearly vertical line.  Whenever the switching voltage is within that part of the graph, a relatively small amount of fuel added or removed from the combustion process results in a moderate voltage change.  When the setpoint is locate around the upper curve where it starts to go more horizontal, it takes a much greater amount of fuel being added to achieve even a minuscule voltage increase.  This has to result in much less precise activity in terms of fuel swings by the ECM trying to make the O2 sensor voltage oscillate about the setpoint.  Just something to consider.

Nightrider.com didn't start making these before I independently discussed doing this on one of the forums.  The reason I don't like them isn't sour grapes because they're making money with them and I'm not.  I dismissed the notion almost as soon as I brought it up.  As I later found, out this "trick" is just about as old as the use of O2 sensors for closed-loop EFI.

Again, if the changes don't result in the O2 sensors operating out of their more linear range, and if the EFI programming is otherwise correct, I feel they're a reasonable (and certainly inexpensive) option.  But relying on the coarse adaptability of the ECM to correct for breathing changes is sub-optimal at best and adding these on top of that is something I would never do with my tens-of-thousands-dollars piece of equipment.

[Skillet]

glens, your point is noted and appreciated. That's what is great about this forum. You had the opportunity to just write me off but instead took the time to help clarify the operation of the fuel management from the ECM. Man up until June of 08 I was riding my 1980 Sturgis that I bought new. So for almost 30 years I thought I was comfortable. Then along comes the purchase of the Road King and in 2011 the SESG. I was hooked on modern day Harleys. Anyway thanks for your inputs.

[Willie D]

Nightrider.com didn't start making these before I independently discussed doing this on one of the forums.  The reason I don't like them isn't sour grapes because they're making money with them and I'm not.  I dismissed the notion almost as soon as I brought it up.  As I later found, out this "trick" is just about as old as the use of O2 sensors for closed-loop EFI.

Again, if the changes don't result in the O2 sensors operating out of their more linear range, and if the EFI programming is otherwise correct, I feel they're a reasonable (and certainly inexpensive) option.  But relying on the coarse adaptability of the ECM to correct for breathing changes is sub-optimal at best and adding these on top of that is something I would never do with my tens-of-thousands-dollars piece of equipment.

So what I hear you saying is- they work or they don't ? 

[glens]

They work by reducing the voltage output of the O2 sensors, which are somewhat like a battery in that when up to temperature they produce DC voltage in proportion to the difference in the amount of free oxygen either side of the element.  They get their reference O2 through the wires.

The ECM reads the voltage and compares it to the value it's programmed to cause the sensors to produce.  When the IEDs are in place, the ECM sees this merely as "not enough" and adds fuel to get it to the programmed level.  But since the IEDs are dividing-down the sensor output, the sensors will then be creating higher voltage.  There is a dependably-functional upper limit to what they output.  Furthermore, the ECM doesn't just try for a fixed voltage from the sensors.  It warbles the fuel high and low, shooting for the average voltage output to be correct.  When the sensors are operating in their preferred environment, a small amount of fuel added or removed (in each "warble") produces a moderate change in output voltage.  When the sensors are operating in their upper range, where the voltage output is leveling off, it takes a much greater amount of added fuel to result in a barely perceptible increase in voltage.  On top of that, with a voltage divider on the output of the sensor, the voltage swings the sensor produces will actually appear to be smaller than they are.

So long as the rest of the ECM programming is correct in terms of how much fuel to send at various throttle positions (or intake "manifold" pressure) vs. engine speed, using these IEDs should work well, if they don't cause the O2 sensors to actually be producing voltage that's too far above their preferred range.  In any event I say the "X"IEDs do this.

My direct answer to your question is dependent on your answer to my questions:

1.  Is your ECM "correctly" calibrated for your engine configuration (intake, exhaust, etc.)?  If so, and your ECM being "right" is the result of "everything's stock" or "everything's H-D stage one" (in all respects), then yes, (regular) IEDs will work well for you.  If your ECM is "correct" because you've otherwise programmed it (with a proper, custom calibration) then you do not need any IEDs since whatever system you'd used to do the programming is capable of altering the target sensor outputs.

2.  Is your ECM incorrectly calibrated for your engine configuration (maybe "stage one download" but not H-D components used to make it "stage one"; maybe aftermarket breathing parts with no ECM "download"; etc.)?  If so, any version IED will do what it does just fine, but it will not make your bike run correctly.  You may be able to run your bike that way for many thousands of miles.  I'm not saying it'll "fer sure" blow up or anything.  But it will never run as well as it could, and you'd be much happier with it if it were tuned correctly even if you think you're happy with it all cobbled up.

[Willie D]

The CVO 110 - 1800 will be 'Stock' w/o the stage 1 dwnld. So I'm going to assume that ECM is calibrated correctly. By adding the XIED, I was hoping to make the motor run a bit richer in the closed loop and reduce the amount of heat. I know that it worked on the 96" in my 2010. The AFR from the MoCo is very lean per EPA requirements. I can't see how running a richer mixture will damage anything. Not sure about why you feel it will be 'Cobbled' up by adding the XiED ?

WD

My direct answer to your question is dependent on your answer to my questions:

1.  Is your ECM "correctly" calibrated for your engine configuration (intake, exhaust, etc.)?  If so, and your ECM being "right" is the result of "everything's stock" or "everything's H-D stage one" (in all respects), then yes, (regular) IEDs will work well for you.  If your ECM is "correct" because you've otherwise programmed it (with a proper, custom calibration) then you do not need any IEDs since whatever system you'd used to do the programming is capable of altering the target sensor outputs.

2.  Is your ECM incorrectly calibrated for your engine configuration (maybe "stage one download" but not H-D components used to make it "stage one"; maybe aftermarket breathing parts with no ECM "download"; etc.)?  If so, any version IED will do what it does just fine, but it will not make your bike run correctly.  You may be able to run your bike that way for many thousands of miles.  I'm not saying it'll "fer sure" blow up or anything.  But it will never run as well as it could, and you'd be much happier with it if it were tuned correctly even if you think you're happy with it all cobbled up.

[glens]

"Cobbled" was used in the section describing the scenario where "pipes", mufflers, intake breather, etc. were installed in any combination and the only method of "tuning" was installing *IEDs.

I just spent a few minutes over at nightrider's site.  I see they're no longer selling "standard" IEDs.  They're all either "X" or variable.  Interesting.  I see they're also now saying "There is an indirect richening of open loop fuel mixture's through the learning mode or adaptive fuel value action, ensuring these richer 13.8-12.5:1 AFR's are also adjusted in heavy/full throttle situations."  If their forum has all the posts from several years ago it could be found where I'd argued with him that this would be the case.  I guess he's accepted it now?

Several aspects of this come immediately to mind.  If you have otherwise-correct programming in your ECM and you want to merely add fuel to your closed-loop operation and you do it with these, you'll also be adding fuel to your WOT operation where it's not needed (because your programming is otherwise correct there).  If you have incorrect programming because you've changed breathing apparatus against the stock ECM calibration, you'll be relying on your Adaptive Fuel operations to "correct" the calibration (bad-enough idea in itself).  With a freer-breathing filter assembly the largest changes from stock will occur when the throttle is open the widest.  The adaptive corrections applied there will be from a less-flowing place (the most-flowing closed-loop area) and will likely not be proper correction for WOT.  Maybe by using the XIEDs the overcompensation provided at WOT will bring the fuel to where it needs to be after all?  Who can say.  You'd spend near enough to find out as you'd spent buying a proper tuning kit!

I see also that he's stating he's got a patent on this.  Unbelievable that they'd issue a patent for something that's got such documented prior art...

Anyway, I've put together an image made from a couple screenshots of the TTS software "O2 Voltage Calculator".  In it are highlighted the XIED "14.0:1 AFR" and the maximum "AFR" allowable for closed-loop operation in the TTS calibration I'm currently using.  Once the O2 sensor starts operating into the horizontal part of the curve its output is both less accurate and more non-linear.

I'm pretty sure the XIEDs used to cause a higher O2 sensor voltage and that the third iteration of the fixed-output *IEDs was a "14" something.  Evidently he's backed off the early XIED voltage drop and substituted the latest (that I know about) iteration in its place.  Coincidentally, the earlier "AFR" TTS calibrations would allow up to 836 mV to be set as the closed-loop bias.  I believe that's what he'd used to develop the voltage drop for the original XIEDs.

Do what you want, but I'd recommend getting a TTS kit and v-tuning your bike, even if you're going to leave the running equipment all stock.  The factory calibrations are made to be "safe" and environmentally friendly for every bike that comes off the line.  There are production tolerances in the motor and fuel pressure regulator output, not to mention that no two fuel injectors are going to act exactly the same everywhere they work.  By using v-tune you can optimize your calibration for exactly your parts and this will result in a smoother-running engine if nothing else.

Also, know that if you leave the exhaust catalyst in place and add more fuel without adding more air, you'll create more heat in the catalyst as it burns off the excess.  This holds true whether you use XIEDs or properly recalibrate your ECM.

By using a catalyst the factory is able to run the engine just a tad richer with no increase in hydrocarbon emissions.  I don't know whether or how much they've done this, however.

[Willie D]

Thx for all this info, way too much for me this late at night......   

[glens]

In http://tuneyourharley.com/biketech/content/xied-impact-catalytic-converters he has a chart with side text that lists the various "AFRs" the different models shoot for.  The original XIED was 13.8.  He doesn't list what the O2IED shot for, but it was the highest "AFR" of the bunch (his first iteration of the product).

Oh, and nowhere in the article which uses mostly conjecture to "debunk" the melting catalyst myth does he acknowledge that more fuel in the cat creates more heat in the cat.  Funny, that...

[Willie D]

In http://tuneyourharley.com/biketech/content/xied-impact-catalytic-converters he has a chart with side text that lists the various "AFRs" the different models shoot for.  The original XIED was 13.8.  He doesn't list what the O2IED shot for, but it was the highest "AFR" of the bunch (his first iteration of the product).

Oh, and nowhere in the article which uses mostly conjecture to "debunk" the melting catalyst myth does he acknowledge that more fuel in the cat creates more heat in the cat.  Funny, that...

I used the 02IED and it was 14.2 as near as the sniffer could tell, but I had already installed the 2-1 RR so I didn't need to worry about the Cat Conv. the bike ran fine and was not as HOT as before, which is what I was shooting for. I am not after Peak Hp, just a little better performance and sound.

Thanks for all of the intel. You sound very knowledgeable about this topic, but I sense some bitterness about the whole IED thing.

JMHO

[glens]

Bitternessewilderment

It just baffles my mind why anyone would spend tens of thousands of dollars and then get cheap to the tune of a few hundred when the difference in the way the bike can run is worth far more than the difference in cost.