Print

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

[joe_lyons50023]

I will trust x or x+1 that's simple enough I can understand it lol.

[whittlebeast]

This entire thread comes down to one thing.  Are you willing to run your motor in the lambda range that the NB o2s are repeatable and reliable.  I for one am not willing to take that gamble or accept that tradeoff.

Personally, I use other methods.

Andy

[hrdtail78]

Treat MAP * RPM / 100 as a MAF function (weight of air per unit time)

Have fun tuning

Andy

MAP is 100 and RPM is 3000.  So we have 100 * 3000 / 100 = MAF.  MAF = 3000.  On every engine.   

[whittlebeast]

MAP is 100 and RPM is 3000.  So we have 100 * 3000 / 100 = MAF.  MAF = 3000.  On every engine.   

When plotted against Duty Cycle, yes.  MAPxRPM/100 is a MAF function.  The units are not Grams/sec.  The units all fall away when plotted against fuel flow.

Try it on several well tuned motors compared to what that motor looked like before tuning.  You may be surprised how fast tuning issues jump out at you.

Andy

[FLTRI]

This entire thread comes down to one thing.  Are you willing to run your motor in the lambda range that the NB o2s are repeatable and reliable...

Andy

Andy, you are dead wrong with this statement.
This thread comes down to looking for an answer:

CAN A DIYer USE A VOLTAGE FROM A NARROW BAND SENSOR TO TARGET A GIVEN AFR.

This is only to be used during tuning for those who do not have the broadband equipment to measure AFR from the exhaust.

This has been repeatedly stated in this thread by myself as well as others.

Bob

[whittlebeast]

Bob

When you quoted my answer, you elected to cut my quote right where I answered your OP question....

Andy

[hd-dude]

I have cleaned this thread up a bit and if the negative comments continue it will be locked down and more bans given.

If you can't contribute in a constructive manner stay out of it!

[FLTRI]

Bob

When you quoted my answer, you elected to cut my quote right where I answered your OP question....

Andy

Sorry Andy,
I didn't see the answer. Still don't.

Again, can a DIYer use a given o2 voltage output to use as a target to get a safe 12.5-13.5 WOT tune?

Bob

[ultraswede]

Again, can a DIYer use a given o2 voltage output to use as a target to get a safe 12.5-13.5 WOT tune?

Yes.
(if someone can provide me with the software to sort and filter the o2 sensor data)
I'm sure it cant be any less accurate than the current over 83 kpa v-tuning.


No,
at the moment.

This is my take on this thread, as a DIYer.

[FLTRI]

Yes.
(if someone can provide me with the software to sort and filter the o2 sensor data)

Thanks ultra but what we're looking for is the answer from someone with an AFR sniffer to find what voltage to target, then mess up the tune and see if he can change VEs to get back to that voltage/AFR.
Gotta have the tools to do the test to answer the question.
Thanks,
Bob

[Buckeye_Tuning]

Joe, the added MV is not a dead zone just sitting there, it becomes part of the voltage read by the ECM as a WHOLE.  It becomes a 2000mv system inside of the ECM.  Instead of the 100mv the O2s naturally produce.  And that may very well explain your finding of each 2mv is reported as opposed to each mv.  When we double the range, the BUS cannot report things as fine a resolution.  It is not the resolution isn't there, it is because of how the BUS receives and reports data.  It truly is a 2000mv O2 sensing system.

Why does the O2s report less than what we would think, when it comes to AFR in the 13s?  Remember way ass back in the thread, someone posted a graph on how these O2s report their voltage, as compared to the AFR?   Notice that only the center of the graph is truly a line, the tops and bottoms are curves?

We are entering a curve when we get to 13.0ish.  It will no longer be linear, on the curve, a few MV will represent an AFR change, wherein on the straight parts... it takes way more MV to represent an AFR change.

Usually, I agree with Andy, but here he comes with a mis understanding...  one that has been explained repeatedly.  In this argument, and in this context, the NB sensors are NOT being used to 'run the engine'.  No more than we use our WEGOS to 'run an engine'.

Again, it will come down to the deal of... when will this be released?  Is this robust enough to go to BETA?  We can all argue this and that, but the proof WILL be in the pudding.

[whittlebeast]

Where was I misleading.  I may need to reword something is a way that is more clear, or rethink the claim.

Andy

[mayor]

I have a proposed test that I think is on topic.  I am going to be playing around with a friend of mines ’10 bagger on the dyno this week.  This is a 96” w/37h cams and Samson Legend series exhaust.  I do not have any pre base calibrations for this bike/build, so I have no preconceived ideas of what the wide open throttle VE should come in at.  Based on what has been posted so far on lambda DBW bikes, I am guessing that a mV output of around 1772 should be close to a 13.0 afr value.  The 1772 is the non corrected value plus the additional 900 mV that is added for buffer.  That 1772 value will be my target, and the test will be to see if at the end of the test a broad band sample of the afr is around 13 +/- 0.5 which corresponds with the OP’s idea for an acceptable DIY tuning tolerance.  This test will be on one cylinder only.  I will use sampled afr values to dial in the other cylinder simultaneously.  The cylinder that I will use the narrow band sensor voltage for will be a blind test, meaning I am not going to prejudice the test by sampling that cylinder first.  This should be very indicative of a DIYer doing a closed course tune.  Once I feel I have that cylinder dialed in based on the narrow band sensor output, I will sample the afr with the dyno broad band sensor. 

I made a spread sheet showing the % of change of VE’s based on predetermined afr values, and added the corresponding sensor values to the sampled values. I used a similar formula for my lambda bike to dial in the ve’s (with 13.2 being the target instead of 13).  I started out with a fairly lucky guess on that bike’s starting cal, but it only took three roll on sessions (base pull & 2 VE corrections per cylinder) to get to well within what is acceptable for this DIY test.  I will use the % of change in the VE column to make the corrections, and not the % of sensor value since the VE’s are linked to the AFR.  The mV values are just what I will be using to determine approximate sampled AFR from the stock sensors. 

Does this test make sense?  Is this agreeable to everyone as at least a valid attempt to test the practicality of using sensor voltage? 

[FLTRI]

Again, it will come down to the deal of... when will this be released?  Is this robust enough to go to BETA?  We can all argue this and that, but the proof WILL be in the pudding.

No offence, but the OP had absolutely nothing to do with a future product, but definitely about DIYers using voltage outputs to target WOT AFR.
Why not just try the test to see what happens rather than preconceive results...as soooo many others have done?


Mayor,
Once you know what voltage the sensor outputs (1772?) at your target AFR (13.2) you will have your target tune voltage.
Bob

[Buckeye_Tuning]

Andy, when you say to me you won't trust the NBs so out of range to RUN an engine, I have to agree, and that sounds like we are trying to use this for closed loop fuel control.  Except, that is not the case, it is for simply dialing in the 80-100kpa regions, as if we used off board, software driven tools like the DTT Twin SCan.  I feel with the proper filtering, etc, we can use this at some point to determine AFR, NOT run an engine.

Bob, Because I will simply await a product.  If this is PURELY about a DIYer using the NBs to manually tune with?  That sucks as an idea, Bob.  SImply sucks.  The NBs do NOT output in a linear fashion and any kind of 'cheat sheet' like we do out +s and -s doing WOT sweeps won't work correctly  or will be SOOOOOOOO cumbersome as to make it impossible for a guy that asks where his AFR page is in his TTS. I just answered that very question on another forum... and now you 'say' there is no product, but only another 'method' to use?  Thats BS in MY book.  NOBODY will do this, nor understand it.  ONLY us with DYNOS have even a slight chance of seeing this work.  And you expect a guy, with a laptop, along the side of the road, after gathering data, to fudge around with this?  Get REAL for once.  My 'fun' anymore is that I have went back to helping the poor slobs who know dick, tune their bikes over the internet...  like Mayor and I used to do.  So, unless YOU divulge the exact MV needed and guarantee that this mv will never change, what is the sense of me going to HDF and talking about this?  I see.......  nothing.

If this will NOT become a software driven product, this is one huge worthless conversation for sure, and now...  I'm out of here.