wideband vs narrow band O2 (results inside)
11-19-2003, 09:33 AM
#51
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and thats showing thrends between 12.5-13.0 which is pretty close.. If you had a car that started in the 11.0's and went to the 13.0's the difference would be greater.
.5-.3 between AFR is hard to duplicate on a dyno.. unless the AFR is smoothed (you'll see a smoothing factor noted on it usualy)
most cars just don't run the same AFR twice
.5-.3 between AFR is hard to duplicate on a dyno.. unless the AFR is smoothed (you'll see a smoothing factor noted on it usualy)
most cars just don't run the same AFR twice
11-19-2003, 09:50 AM
#52
Originally posted by JP84Z430HP
Now, let me throw another idea into the mix here, I may even start a new thread about it. Has anyone messed with the 0-1 volt output on some of the wideband controllers? Has it been more linear, and therefore a more reliable input to the ECM for O2 voltage? I guess I'm just wondering if I get a WB with the 0-1 output, would it's 0-1 be any better than the basic NB O2?
Now, let me throw another idea into the mix here, I may even start a new thread about it. Has anyone messed with the 0-1 volt output on some of the wideband controllers? Has it been more linear, and therefore a more reliable input to the ECM for O2 voltage? I guess I'm just wondering if I get a WB with the 0-1 output, would it's 0-1 be any better than the basic NB O2?
11-19-2003, 09:50 AM
#53
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 11sORbust
rooster, I posted the data to show what I have. I didn't title the thread "narrow band is useless". I tune big cammed,n/a engines. They seem to show the same trend. That the mv is useless for some reason. It could be cam overlap or something. I really can't explain why one can't use o2 mv for the type of engines I work on. For milder apps, the o2 might have some use. But when I see a a/f ratio of 17:1 and a mv readings of .950 then I know that the NB is worth a crap. You can't argue that.
You might have a point BUT you have to have the technical data to back yourself up in this forum. I don't think you have bad intentions. But you are going to get nowhere w/o any hard data. I am the kvu guy tim mentioned. I never had anything in the past to support my theories. So the result was I couldn't PROVE my point. Then the my post turned into bait. So before you start making a point in diy-prom, you better have the data.
Trust me, I wanted to scale the a/f to mv. But I really don't think it's honestly possible. The position of the sensor and a billion other things makes it impossible to make the mv convert to a/f ratio IN GENERAL.
please don't get upset and find the data to support your views. But you really need to take my data into consideration. Cause the factory o2 is far from a a/f ratio gauge.
Tim
rooster, I posted the data to show what I have. I didn't title the thread "narrow band is useless". I tune big cammed,n/a engines. They seem to show the same trend. That the mv is useless for some reason. It could be cam overlap or something. I really can't explain why one can't use o2 mv for the type of engines I work on. For milder apps, the o2 might have some use. But when I see a a/f ratio of 17:1 and a mv readings of .950 then I know that the NB is worth a crap. You can't argue that.
You might have a point BUT you have to have the technical data to back yourself up in this forum. I don't think you have bad intentions. But you are going to get nowhere w/o any hard data. I am the kvu guy tim mentioned. I never had anything in the past to support my theories. So the result was I couldn't PROVE my point. Then the my post turned into bait. So before you start making a point in diy-prom, you better have the data.
Trust me, I wanted to scale the a/f to mv. But I really don't think it's honestly possible. The position of the sensor and a billion other things makes it impossible to make the mv convert to a/f ratio IN GENERAL.
please don't get upset and find the data to support your views. But you really need to take my data into consideration. Cause the factory o2 is far from a a/f ratio gauge.
Tim
I get irritated when everyone jumps on the bandwagons.
I won't argue with anyone though
11-19-2003, 09:53 AM
#54
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL area
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My graphs might not be award winning but you can see by looking at 1/3 of the first run the actual a/f ratio was starting at 17:1+/stok o2 was at 960mv. Then the second set of data the a/f is in the 10's range till aprox 1/3 but the mv is STILL the same at 960mv. Graph my two NB charts and you'll see the mv is near identical. Could you explain that?
11-19-2003, 09:57 AM
#56
Originally posted by 11sORbust
My graphs might not be award winning but you can see that at that at 1/3 of the first run the actual a/f ratio was starting at 17:1+/stok o2 was at 960mv. Then the second set of data the a/f is in the 10's range till aprox 1/3 but the mv is STILL the same at 960mv. Graph my two NB charts and you'll see the mv is near identical. Could you explain that?
My graphs might not be award winning but you can see that at that at 1/3 of the first run the actual a/f ratio was starting at 17:1+/stok o2 was at 960mv. Then the second set of data the a/f is in the 10's range till aprox 1/3 but the mv is STILL the same at 960mv. Graph my two NB charts and you'll see the mv is near identical. Could you explain that?
I've seen NB's read pretty wacko myself. I don't trust the numbers enough to use them for tuning... just to see trends.
11-19-2003, 09:57 AM
#57
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL area
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your graphs have no scaling on them whatsoever.. who knows what those lines mean.
Last edited by 11sORbust; 11-19-2003 at 10:05 AM.
11-19-2003, 10:00 AM
#58
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL area
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you think Terry could've hurt his O2 by putting in race gas or some kind of fuel additive? If I remember right he's been known to do such things in the past.
I've seen NB's read pretty wacko myself. I don't trust the numbers enough to use them for tuning... just to see trends.
I've seen NB's read pretty wacko myself. I don't trust the numbers enough to use them for tuning... just to see trends.
11-19-2003, 10:17 AM
#60
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 11sORbust
It doesn't matter, look at the two NB radings. Can you see they look the same? Can you see the wideband data varies?
It doesn't matter, look at the two NB radings. Can you see they look the same? Can you see the wideband data varies?
Can you inferr anything from this graph?
11-19-2003, 10:19 AM
#61
Originally posted by 11sORbust
Who are you? Guess a www.team3rdgen.com guy?? I thought I explained that the 02 was put on the morning of the dyno? And was working great on the street for part throttle.
Who are you? Guess a www.team3rdgen.com guy?? I thought I explained that the 02 was put on the morning of the dyno? And was working great on the street for part throttle.
I wonder if there's an explaination hidden in how the two different sensors read the gases?
I know it's possible to be passing unburned fuel out the exhaust but still be burning lean in the chambers. You can also get extra oxygen in the exhaust but be burning rich in the chambers. In either of these two cases I think a NB would be off, but I don't know enough about how the WB works to think the same of it.
Maybe the WB looks at enough things to measure the actual A/F ratio more accurately.... I mean that's what they're for anyway.
I also question how much one should rely on the output of a WB O2 since I've seen too many cases that don't follow the logic. One engine will make best power at 11:1 and another at 14:1. The EGT's will be very close between the two at best power.
Vizard has tried individual O2's on each header tube, AND EGT's on each header tube. I haven't heard this straight from the man but I think he tends to go with the EGT's for WOT tuning and the O2's for part throttle.
Any thoughts on this?
11-19-2003, 12:08 PM
#63
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL area
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
305, come on tell me who you b. You know terry so....throw be a bone herre...
Rooster, you tell me what you need and I'll set up the graphs for you to understand. I have enough experience to see that the NB didn't show nothing but 960-mv, generally(on both runs). So how do you want the graphs set up? I can plot NB run 1 and two. Or plot the wb vs nb on run 1, the same for the last run. Tell me what you need to read the results. I understand your point. BTW, where did you get your data on the cost of a taco vs burger
All jokes aside, tell me what you need to read things clearly.
Tim
Rooster, you tell me what you need and I'll set up the graphs for you to understand. I have enough experience to see that the NB didn't show nothing but 960-mv, generally(on both runs). So how do you want the graphs set up? I can plot NB run 1 and two. Or plot the wb vs nb on run 1, the same for the last run. Tell me what you need to read the results. I understand your point. BTW, where did you get your data on the cost of a taco vs burger
All jokes aside, tell me what you need to read things clearly.
Tim
11-19-2003, 12:11 PM
#64
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL area
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTEVizard has tried individual O2's on each header tube, AND EGT's on each header tube. I haven't heard this straight from the man but I think he tends to go with the EGT's for WOT tuning and the O2's for part throttle.
Any thoughts on this?] [/QUOTE] Good question. Please make a thread about it. I don't want to get off topic here. But that is a different idea, using EGT to tune wot....
Any thoughts on this?] [/QUOTE] Good question. Please make a thread about it. I don't want to get off topic here. But that is a different idea, using EGT to tune wot....
11-19-2003, 12:34 PM
#65
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
rooster ...
All of your so-called 'conclusions' are easily ... let me repeat that ... EASILY made using my first graph. The second graph doesn't help at all (unless of course someone admits stupidity in not knowing higher AFRs = lower mV). Your request for me to regraph was useless. Everything that you wrote on my second graph you could have easily written on the first graph I posted. Furthermore, you are stating nothing that I have not already said ... except for the absolute lie of 880mV = 13.0AFR and that 12.8AFR = 900mV. Why is it a lie?
1) It can easily change based on the O2 sensor. I'm not even talking about the brand of O2 (although that is obviously true too). Even the Bosch 3-wire that I am running can produce different results when using the same part number.
2) I have TONS of data showing 900mv corresponding to ANYTHING between 12.4-13.0. I also have tons of data showing 880mV corresponding to anything between 12.6-13.2.
3) I performed data analysis on the data used for my graphs. 12.6 AFR corresponds to anything between a 850mV reading all the way up to a 910mV reading.
Some of the comments that you put on my graph are ludicrous. Consistent spikes? Huh? They are totally erratic! Let's discuss just the first 3 AFR spikes. On the first one the NB goes up and returns. On the second one the NB goes up and hovers there. On the third one it goes DOWN before even going up! What the heck. That's not consistent at all! I really like your averaging comments. So, if I see 880mV should I assume that it is 13.0 like you said (when in reality it could be anywhere from 12.6-13.2)? That's the problem with averages.
Hey did you see how responsive the NB is on the initial pump shot? That's a awesome tuning tool. NOT!
Tim
All of your so-called 'conclusions' are easily ... let me repeat that ... EASILY made using my first graph. The second graph doesn't help at all (unless of course someone admits stupidity in not knowing higher AFRs = lower mV). Your request for me to regraph was useless. Everything that you wrote on my second graph you could have easily written on the first graph I posted. Furthermore, you are stating nothing that I have not already said ... except for the absolute lie of 880mV = 13.0AFR and that 12.8AFR = 900mV. Why is it a lie?
1) It can easily change based on the O2 sensor. I'm not even talking about the brand of O2 (although that is obviously true too). Even the Bosch 3-wire that I am running can produce different results when using the same part number.
2) I have TONS of data showing 900mv corresponding to ANYTHING between 12.4-13.0. I also have tons of data showing 880mV corresponding to anything between 12.6-13.2.
3) I performed data analysis on the data used for my graphs. 12.6 AFR corresponds to anything between a 850mV reading all the way up to a 910mV reading.
Some of the comments that you put on my graph are ludicrous. Consistent spikes? Huh? They are totally erratic! Let's discuss just the first 3 AFR spikes. On the first one the NB goes up and returns. On the second one the NB goes up and hovers there. On the third one it goes DOWN before even going up! What the heck. That's not consistent at all! I really like your averaging comments. So, if I see 880mV should I assume that it is 13.0 like you said (when in reality it could be anywhere from 12.6-13.2)? That's the problem with averages.
Hey did you see how responsive the NB is on the initial pump shot? That's a awesome tuning tool. NOT!
Tim
11-19-2003, 02:52 PM
#67
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TRAXION
rooster ...
All of your so-called 'conclusions' are easily ... let me repeat that ... EASILY made using my first graph. The second graph doesn't help at all (unless of course someone admits stupidity in not knowing higher AFRs = lower mV).
No, the way you have your original graph confuses people, it makes it difficult to see, and unless you know what your looking at its hard to tell anything from it
Your request for me to regraph was useless. Everything that you wrote on my second graph you could have easily written on the first graph I posted. Furthermore, you are stating nothing that I have not already said ... except for the absolute lie of 880mV = 13.0AFR and that 12.8AFR = 900mV. Why is it a lie?
sure looks correct to me, also pretty damn conisistant with every other car i've tuned..
1) It can easily change based on the O2 sensor. I'm not even talking about the brand of O2 (although that is obviously true too). Even the Bosch 3-wire that I am running can produce different results when using the same part number.
Is that why on the late model cars equipped with two o2 sensors.. LT1's LS1's Mustangs etc.. i find the same numbers on both banks provided that the cars in good health?
2) I have TONS of data showing 900mv corresponding to ANYTHING between 12.4-13.0. I also have tons of data showing 880mV corresponding to anything between 12.6-13.2.
maybe with the spikey WB graph you got, take a average.. you of all people must know that you got to average alot of what the car is doing, raw data is for the most part useless..unless you really think those spikes are there.. in that case you better add some resolution to your PE tables, you got some major issues to take care (in a sarcastic voice)
3) I performed data analysis on the data used for my graphs. 12.6 AFR corresponds to anything between a 850mV reading all the way up to a 910mV reading.
Refer to number 2
Some of the comments that you put on my graph are ludicrous. Consistent spikes? Huh? They are totally erratic!
thats funny so is your car making the AFR spikes or the perfect know all wideband
Let's discuss just the first 3 AFR spikes. On the first one the NB goes up and returns. On the second one the NB goes up and hovers there. On the third one it goes DOWN before even going up! What the heck. That's not consistent at all! I really like your averaging comments. So, if I see 880mV should I assume that it is 13.0 like you said (when in reality it could be anywhere from 12.6-13.2)? That's the problem with averages.
the consistant spikes i'm talking about are the ones that matter, the ones that venture beyond half a AFR point.... spikes smaller than that are insignificant to how much power the cars make AND it would be amazing if you could duplicate the same exact spikes with the same sensor in back to back runs
Hey did you see how responsive the NB is on the initial pump shot? That's a awesome tuning tool. NOT!
Made the same jump as the WB BUT not as much because the graph still isn't scaled correctly, it would be imposible to without the right logrythmic function
I'm not going to speak again, this has gone way past a normal intellegent discussion about the accuratecy of the narrow band sensors vs wideband.
I got your graph to look halfway decent and readable by a normal person SO hopefully people don't put too much faith in thier widebands and they don't totally ditch what the narrow bands say.
You've got to admit that your graph while useable/readable by you doesn't offer anything to a casual reader or even someone who doesn't notice the flip floped scales. I didn't even notice it until i started wondering why the two graphs deveated from each other.
If you saw a graph in a newspaper, something ment to be read by others and it had the same features you would think what idiot drew this up.. wouldn't you? Thats why i wanted you to fix it so people noticed what is going on and not get the same concluetion that the first 3 people who responded to this board had.
You've got a hot head, I hope someone locks this post
This board is notoriously bad about a few people not letting others share information/ideas.. I think the quality of material has fell off a cliff in the past 4 years i've been reading
Tim
rooster ...
All of your so-called 'conclusions' are easily ... let me repeat that ... EASILY made using my first graph. The second graph doesn't help at all (unless of course someone admits stupidity in not knowing higher AFRs = lower mV).
No, the way you have your original graph confuses people, it makes it difficult to see, and unless you know what your looking at its hard to tell anything from it
Your request for me to regraph was useless. Everything that you wrote on my second graph you could have easily written on the first graph I posted. Furthermore, you are stating nothing that I have not already said ... except for the absolute lie of 880mV = 13.0AFR and that 12.8AFR = 900mV. Why is it a lie?
sure looks correct to me, also pretty damn conisistant with every other car i've tuned..
1) It can easily change based on the O2 sensor. I'm not even talking about the brand of O2 (although that is obviously true too). Even the Bosch 3-wire that I am running can produce different results when using the same part number.
Is that why on the late model cars equipped with two o2 sensors.. LT1's LS1's Mustangs etc.. i find the same numbers on both banks provided that the cars in good health?
2) I have TONS of data showing 900mv corresponding to ANYTHING between 12.4-13.0. I also have tons of data showing 880mV corresponding to anything between 12.6-13.2.
maybe with the spikey WB graph you got, take a average.. you of all people must know that you got to average alot of what the car is doing, raw data is for the most part useless..unless you really think those spikes are there.. in that case you better add some resolution to your PE tables, you got some major issues to take care (in a sarcastic voice)
3) I performed data analysis on the data used for my graphs. 12.6 AFR corresponds to anything between a 850mV reading all the way up to a 910mV reading.
Refer to number 2
Some of the comments that you put on my graph are ludicrous. Consistent spikes? Huh? They are totally erratic!
thats funny so is your car making the AFR spikes or the perfect know all wideband
Let's discuss just the first 3 AFR spikes. On the first one the NB goes up and returns. On the second one the NB goes up and hovers there. On the third one it goes DOWN before even going up! What the heck. That's not consistent at all! I really like your averaging comments. So, if I see 880mV should I assume that it is 13.0 like you said (when in reality it could be anywhere from 12.6-13.2)? That's the problem with averages.
the consistant spikes i'm talking about are the ones that matter, the ones that venture beyond half a AFR point.... spikes smaller than that are insignificant to how much power the cars make AND it would be amazing if you could duplicate the same exact spikes with the same sensor in back to back runs
Hey did you see how responsive the NB is on the initial pump shot? That's a awesome tuning tool. NOT!
Made the same jump as the WB BUT not as much because the graph still isn't scaled correctly, it would be imposible to without the right logrythmic function
I'm not going to speak again, this has gone way past a normal intellegent discussion about the accuratecy of the narrow band sensors vs wideband.
I got your graph to look halfway decent and readable by a normal person SO hopefully people don't put too much faith in thier widebands and they don't totally ditch what the narrow bands say.
You've got to admit that your graph while useable/readable by you doesn't offer anything to a casual reader or even someone who doesn't notice the flip floped scales. I didn't even notice it until i started wondering why the two graphs deveated from each other.
If you saw a graph in a newspaper, something ment to be read by others and it had the same features you would think what idiot drew this up.. wouldn't you? Thats why i wanted you to fix it so people noticed what is going on and not get the same concluetion that the first 3 people who responded to this board had.
You've got a hot head, I hope someone locks this post
This board is notoriously bad about a few people not letting others share information/ideas.. I think the quality of material has fell off a cliff in the past 4 years i've been reading
Tim
Last edited by rooster433; 11-19-2003 at 02:56 PM.
11-19-2003, 03:27 PM
#68
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
I honestly give up. Please continue to conduct your tuning solely by O2 voltage. I think the O2 mV is great for getting things in the ballpark (as I originally stated) ... but only because I am aware of the mV vs. AFR on my setup. I wouldn't think of doing it on somebody else's without first verifying that the relationship is true for their setup. Furthermore, the NB is just not responsive enough. No, it is not the 'be all end all' ... and I have mentioned that several times in other posts. But, it is more responsive and definitely more accurate than an NB O2. I can't see how you can disagree with that. But, somehow you do.
Tim
Tim
11-19-2003, 04:33 PM
#69
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL area
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rooster, If you wanted me to clean the data up, then fine. But the only thing you are doing is ruining MY thread. I could have changed it so you could understand what is going on. But even glenn said that it seemed clear that the nb is USELESS.
You have 3 ways to reply,
1. You could tell me what you need to read my data. I'll get some software and do exactly what you say to get you a clear reading.
2. You can just not reply, realizing a stalemate. It's going to be a hard sell to get people tuning WOT with a NB O2....
3. Get more upset and ruin my thread.
My point is that you admit that the data is unclear. So if you can make it out then how can you say that it's wrong. So I think it would be best for you to ignore the hype and understand the data. That way you can make an INFORMED decision on this topic.
Tim
You have 3 ways to reply,
1. You could tell me what you need to read my data. I'll get some software and do exactly what you say to get you a clear reading.
2. You can just not reply, realizing a stalemate. It's going to be a hard sell to get people tuning WOT with a NB O2....
3. Get more upset and ruin my thread.
My point is that you admit that the data is unclear. So if you can make it out then how can you say that it's wrong. So I think it would be best for you to ignore the hype and understand the data. That way you can make an INFORMED decision on this topic.
Tim
11-19-2003, 07:54 PM
#70
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL area
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could this thread please be deleted? It has turned into a mess. It has nothing to do with tpi. The car that was used for info had an aftermarket mpfi intake on it. Besides, it seems that my data was far from clear and would be useless in the archives. thanks
Tim
Tim
11-19-2003, 08:33 PM
#71
I have all 8 dyno sheets/logs/bins in a zip file if you want to check them out.
Would you mind sending them to me? I'm trying to learn all I can about tuning before I get into building my car next spring. Too bad your post got all garbaged up!
Thanks
mrls6@juno.com
Would you mind sending them to me? I'm trying to learn all I can about tuning before I get into building my car next spring. Too bad your post got all garbaged up!
Thanks
mrls6@juno.com
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
