Print

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

[cvofbme]

Since this topic ran through 261 posts without 1 "tuner" determining if O2 sensor voltage @ WOT can be used to tune to a target AFR I have come here to see if it will spur valuable input by tuners.

Question:
If a tuner were to put a bike on the dyno and measure WOT AFR with his broadbands and record the voltage from the sensors...can that voltage number be used in reverse to get to the previously measured AFR?

If this is possible to use to get close to a dynoed WOT AFR for those DIYers who do not have the equipment it may provide a way for them to tune WOT after v-tuning to the 83kpa limit.

Hopefully this will prompt some good input rather than the BS crap that got tossed around even by the moderators on the "other" site.

Thanks,
Bob

Can a DIYer use a target voltage to get to a target AFR?
That is the question...the only question.

really

[hrdtail78]

It hasn't been released yet.  But SE did have something in 06.  Terminology and nomenclature.

Don't mean to harp, but.... What this topic and thread is about is mapping VE's. That is all. I state this separately because tuning is different than mapping. Mapping is getting the ECM to understand the air flow through the particular build. Tuning is what fuel and timing is best for that particular build. 

I brought up 13.2. It is a number in the curve that I think is still realistic of good data.  Rule of thumb for anything measurable has always been 10%.  Not the measurement itself but the tool you measure with. You don't use a oil pressure gauge with a scale of 10-60 to measure 58 psi of oil.  Same with you don't use a tq wrench of a scale of 30-200 to tq 30 inlbs.  Yes, we are on the edge here, but I am still changing my target to 12.8 after mapping.   

Funny when I hear about marketing ploys from the TTS camp. From what I see. It doesn't seem marketing was even brought up or thought about.  Because if it was. I'm sure it would of played out way different.  Just my thought on it.  HFT.

[Buckeye_Tuning]

I, myself have NEVER seen these threads to be about marketing at all.  I feel that this was a move to get us to THINK about the possibility of getting 100kpa with the NBs.  I think we can, and I for one, am awaiting the release.... if it comes....

[roger28310]

Your still DEAD WRONG. The NARROW BAND sensor with no tricking measures a range and outputs a voltage, no more no less. What the OP asked for was to test the WOT area with Broad Bands and then look to see what voltage came out of the Narrow Bands at the same time. If as you seem to want to mislead people into thinking they were out of spec they would not give a reading.

Since the accepted running range at WOT on a HD is within the range the Narrow Band measures per the manufactures spec. it is perfectly capable of making the measurement. The accuracy at that measurement level is where the real question is.

It has been the normally accepted truth that the Broad Band accurately measures (+/-.01 AFR) 13.1, 13.2, 13.3 ect. which cannot be further from the truth. It has also been the normally accepted truth that a HD engine need to be tuned to 13.2 :1 across the board which again cannot be further from the truth.

So with that in mind and brought up in this very thread the data was provided from the manufacture (Bosch) of the Broad Bands sensor that this accuracy is NOT possible the way the aftermarket is using them today. So if the Broad bands cannot do what has been claim, what is the real measurement needed. In Mayor's last post the old magic number of 13.2:1 has now changed to 13 - 13.8 AFR. So the question has to be can the narrow band sensor get you there. It is certainly NOT real accurate once you get to that range but it just might be good enough.

I do not dislike the Broad Band sensor as Mayor would like you to believe, but I do dislike the way it been twisted around to say it does everything but print money, and some believe it even does that!

Andy

There is no O2 sensor, Broad Band, Narrow Band or Wide Band that measures AFR.

Thats funny, you're right, everyone else in the automotive industry, to include the company that designed and manufactures them is wrong. NARROW band, get it?

[roger28310]

I, myself have NEVER seen these threads to be about marketing at all. 

You have got to be kidding, right?

This thread and the one that the OP started on the the other forum reeks of marketing. The OP when he started this thread  claimed to have discovered this himself, turns out the manufacturer, and also his close friend, has been working on this all along. This thread has been nothing more than a tool to get people talking about all the added benefits of the next software release of TTS.

IMHO, these threads would have been better received had Steve Cole just been honest with everyone up front instead of getting FLTRI to be his front man and play silly smoke and mirror games.

[cvofbme]

+1  totally agree with roger

[whittlebeast]

AFR is simply a scale thing.  Trivial.  I prefer to work in Lambda * 14.7

Do you guys know how the underlying math works making EFI possible?  Once you get your head around the basics, tuning gets way easier.

Andy

[mayor]

In Mayor's last post the old magic number of 13.2:1 has now changed to 13 - 13.8 AFR. So the question has to be can the narrow band sensor get you there. It is certainly NOT real accurate once you get to that range but it just might be good enough.

I didn't change squat.  I reiterated what I believe the op's intent was with the thread.  I'm actually trying to keep the thread on point, despite your best efforts to derail the discussion with argumentative nonsense.  My number still is 13.2 as a target with broad bands, I also have publically stated that these engines will put out about the same power from 12.8-13.8 for as long as I have been active in discussing tuning.  The reason my target is 13.2 is that gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling in respect for margin of error, take that for what you want. I don't care if that reported 13.2 is actual afr or some sort of lost Mayan measurement of time, I trust it because the engine responds to that in a predictable manner.   Will you please drop this broad band topic? Believe me when I tell you that this is not making you look logical, quite the opposite actually.  You are splitting hairs in a room full of bald people. 

[joe_lyons50023]

Thanks for reminding me I'm going bald, real cool mayor.

[mayor]

IMHO, these threads would have been better received had Steve Cole just been honest with everyone up front instead of getting FLTRI to be his front man and play silly smoke and mirror games.

I really think you have it all wrong, well sort of at least.  I understand it this was a Bob driven idea. Steve came along later based on Bob asking Steve what he thought of the idea.  It seems to have merit, so naturally the idea may be used to fill a tuning hole in the current diy tunes.  I honestly do not believe Steve put Bob up to publically discussing this.  I think Bob thought it would be helpful in order to gain acceptance of his idea.  This is how I wish Bob would have started the thread, with how the idea occurred so that there wouldn't be these questions of intent.  Having talked to Steve on multiple occasions in the past,  I am quite sure that this is a topic that he may be wishing was not in public. I think they could have just as easily buried this in a software release, since having the discusion does not make a bit of difference the the grand seem of things. 

[mayor]

I'm shill here for you Joe. 

[cvofbme]

 

[FLTRI]

I really think you have it all wrong, well sort of at least.  I understand it this was a Bob driven idea. Steve came along later based on Bob asking Steve what he thought of the idea.  It seems to have merit, so naturally the idea may be used to fill a tuning hole in the current diy tunes.  I honestly do not believe Steve put Bob up to publically discussing this.  I think Bob thought it would be helpful in order to gain acceptance of his idea.  This is how I wish Bob would have started the thread, with how the idea occurred so that there wouldn't be these questions of intent.  Having talked to Steve on multiple occasions in the past,  I am quite sure that this is a topic that he may be wishing was not in public. I think they could have just as easily buried this in a software release, since having the discusion does not make a bit of difference the the grand seem of things. 

Mayor,
You are spot on in your understanding of the OP here, as well as the other forum. The idea to rally a few Dyno guys who may have time and want to play around a bit to see if it is feasible to use voltage to tune WOT as that's always what has been the shortcoming of DIY tuning.

Thanks Mayor,
Bob

[mayor]

No worries Bob, I find the topic interesting so I shill be here for you until the end. 

[joe_lyons50023]

I don't think that I ever got a clear answer about why with the 12mm sensors there is a bias voltage of around 950.  I have heard of this being used with cars also but I don't know why.  Is it to have the ecm control the closed loop bias tables itself kinda like the older cals had the clb tables that we had to manually change?