Really? It's silly to explain to people where the issues come from and why......
no, I think it's silly that we're having a discussion about whether or not a sensor that for decades has become widely accepted as accurate enough to afr tune across every consumer market that has gasoline combustion engines is actually accurate enough to base decisions while afr tuning our fancied up 2 cylinder tractor engines.
Look, you are the only one who is arguing the above. No one else has jumped on that band wagon. That's because we all have reached the point that we can agree that the broad bands aren't perfect, but they are good enough for the applications that they are being used for in our little world. If you want to continue shouting that the sky is falling, go right ahead but believe me when I tell you that this is not making you look rational.
Then you asked for proof and you got it supplied to you and then you say it's not good enough. Now you do not want to read the proof and take the time to understand it all. The data has been provided along with results from doing it this way so all that is really left to figure out, is will it work across a wide cross section of engine combinations. It's sure seems as though some would like to do anything to stop people from finding that out.
what I want proof of is how this is relevant to me and every other consumer that has accepted that the broad bands are more than accurate enough to base tuning decisions from. You can post all the technical sheets you want, but that is not providing proof that we should fear the use of a sensor that has been used to afr tune hundreds of thousands of internal combustion engines.
Here's how I view the accuracy of the reported afr value from a broad band sensor. I know that a reported value of 12.8-13.8 afr is accurate enough to use as a target when afr tuning by how the torque curve of an engine responds. I don't care what the actual afr is, because the values I targeted had the engine responding favorable and predictably. I know that a reported value of 13.6-14.7 is accurate enough to use at cruise conditions because the engine reacts favorable to those reported values. I also know this because I have seen side by side simultaneously comparisons between broad band and narrow bands that have shown the same corresponding values. No where in those above statements do I suggest that these values are actual afr values! I state those are reported values. Not only is this my opinion, but the vast majority of tuners in the industry have accepted this as good enough based on a huge amount of bikes in the market today that have been tuned to the above values.
The data has been provided along with results from doing it this way so all that is really left to figure out, is will it work across a wide cross section of engine combinations. It's sure seems as though some would like to do anything to stop people from finding that out.
This is not going to replace Dyno tuners but it may possibly give the DIY person a good running, safe home tune up at WOT. I remember when we introduced Vtune and this is nothing more than the same BS over again. Now everyone knows Vtune process works and that's why each company has made there copy of it. In time I think that we are going to find that tuning this way is going to work just as well, but it's not there yet.
I'm not sure where you have been, but many of us have reached the consenses that Bob was on to something with reported sensor voltage some time ago, and we are ready to see if this works in other engine configurations. No one here is arguing that the narrow bands are junk or that this idea isn't interesting enough to continue discussing/testing.
Author
Topic: O2 Sensor Output (mv) compared to measured AFR (Read 154078 times)