dlaing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Why did you replace the plastic holder with the brass one? Some bikes have fuel mileage issues (low fuel mileage) and they benefit from adding some sort of heat transfer goo between the sensor and the copper tip of the holder. This gives a more accurate temp reading to the ECU. If your bikes runs perfect the the ETS reading a little low and you add heat transfer goo or replace the plastic holder with a brass holder the more accurate temp reading may make the bike run lean. You can then adjust your map accordingly or put the platic holder back on. Alternately, you could add a variable resistor as RH did and give yourself manual control over the temp reading. If it does not run better with the plastic holder back on then you have other issues. Adding Goo makes the sensor more accurately reflect the temperature of the cylinder head, but it does not give a more accurate temp reading to the ECU. The voltage output corresponds to fuel mixture adjustment table. Adding Goo increases the temp reading to the ECU causing the engine to run LEANER than the engineers planned. THIS IS LESS ACCURATE. If you go back to the plastic adapter, add anti-seize and screw it in very gently, finger tight or only slightly tighter. Mine cracked with about the same torque that would break a two mm bolt. If you can find a way to make the brass sensor work, go for it. But we certainly have no consensus here on how to make it work. I agree, "You can then adjust your map accordingly or put the platic holder back on.(if you still have it) Alternately, you could add a variable resistor as RH did and give yourself manual control over the temp reading." Or you could add a cooling finned heat sink, as RatchetHack did. (Much cheaper than TuneBoy, DirectLink or MY15M) I'll be using Tuneboy to make mine work. I would add goo if I was sure that the sensor designed for water cooled engines did not run too hot.
dlaing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 David: Guzzi has sensor holders in stock. I'll have to nag my local dealer again. I gave up nagging them many months ago. The price is now probably twice what it was when I ordered it...
dlaing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Now that we have reached 40 pages, we may need to get back to the questions: Why did Guzzi use an adapter? Why not just screw it into the cylinder head? Clearly that would be more "ACCURATE" than using an adapter SEEMINGLY designed to lower the temperature of the sensor rated 5% accurate from -40 to 125C. The whole idea that they wouldn't just tap to fit the sensor seems to indicate that they wanted the sensor running in its temperature range that produced reliable accuracy.
raz Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Adding Goo makes the sensor more accurately reflect the temperature of the cylinder head, but it does not give a more accurate temp reading to the ECU. Contradiction in terms. The voltage output corresponds to fuel mixture adjustment table. The table tells the ECU how to react to different temperatures. Bodging the temperature input is bound to be counter productive. Altering the table is not, but first see below. Adding Goo increases the temp reading to the ECU causing the engine to run LEANER than the engineers planned. THIS IS LESS ACCURATE. What fact is telling you this is because of the temp sensor, or even its corresponding table, at all? And not the standard fuel map, fuel trim, TPS, TB adjustment or something else. If your statement is correct, why does it only affect some bikes? Does any bike with OEM intake & exhaust have this problem? If you've got aftermarket aspiration stuff and have this problem, just what makes you think you don't have a fuel map problem?
dlaing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Contradiction in terms. No it is not. Adding goo makes the sensor more accurately indicate the core temperature inside the cylinder head. (but maybe not above 125C) Not adding goo makes the sensor more accurately represent the temperature for the ECU to inject the right amount of fuel, as determined by the engineers.
dlaing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 The table tells the ECU how to react to different temperatures. Bodging the temperature input is bound to be counter productive. Altering the table is not, but first see below. I have nothing against altering the table using Tuneboy or DirectLink. By bodging, do you mean using a resistor to change the voltage? That does not have to be counter productive. As Ratchet engineered it, he only activates it in relatively rare circumstances, like stuck at a traffic light or putzing behind motorhomes. What fact is telling you this is because of the temp sensor, or even its corresponding table, at all? And not the standard fuel map, fuel trim, TPS, TB adjustment or something else.... Nothing is telling me that this is because of the sensor or table or anything else. The inaccuracy is because of the goo. .... If your statement is correct, why does it only affect some bikes? Does any bike with OEM intake & exhaust have this problem? If you've got aftermarket aspiration stuff and have this problem, just what makes you think you don't have a fuel map problem? Adding goo makes all bikes run leaner. It is only problematic on some bikes because many various factors. Send two V11s for full re-mapping and watch how far off their maps can be. Doug Lofgren's website shows an interesting comparison of two identical Ducatis with very different maps. Heck, we can't even figure out a TPS setting that works for every bike. I am sure I have a fuel map problem, otherwise it would always be smooth, I'd be averaging over 40MPG US and I'd be capable of pulling redline in top gear on the windless flats. I have tried quite a few PCIII maps, most make it run smoother and burn more fuel. I have altered the maps too, never getting it perfect in all conditions. The state of tune often does not hold long, too. A perfect map would be more forgiving of changes in weather, fuel, and state of tune. Could also be the engine is getting worn out... Compression seems good. Could be worn timing chain, or valves, I suppose. But the brass adapter had a negative effect, and adding solder to make it more conductive aggravated it. Re-mapping will happen, but that is not about what this argument is about.
Greg Field Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Perhaps the tree you should be barking at passes through your valve guides?
Dan M Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I have nothing against altering the table using Tuneboy or DirectLink.By bodging, do you mean using a resistor to change the voltage? That does not have to be counter productive. As Ratchet engineered it, he only activates it in relatively rare circumstances, like stuck at a traffic light or putzing behind motorhomes. Nothing is telling me that this is because of the sensor or table or anything else. The inaccuracy is because of the goo. Adding goo makes all bikes run leaner. It is only problematic on some bikes because many various factors. Send two V11s for full re-mapping and watch how far off their maps can be. Doug Lofgren's website shows an interesting comparison of two identical Ducatis with very different maps. Heck, we can't even figure out a TPS setting that works for every bike. I am sure I have a fuel map problem, otherwise it would always be smooth, I'd be averaging over 40MPG US and I'd be capable of pulling redline in top gear on the windless flats. I have tried quite a few PCIII maps, most make it run smoother and burn more fuel. I have altered the maps too, never getting it perfect in all conditions. The state of tune often does not hold long, too. A perfect map would be more forgiving of changes in weather, fuel, and state of tune. Could also be the engine is getting worn out... Compression seems good. Could be worn timing chain, or valves, I suppose. But the brass adapter had a negative effect, and adding solder to make it more conductive aggravated it. Re-mapping will happen, but that is not about what this argument is about. Rather than rererehash all this info and theory and in the process get to 50 or more pages, it would be of advantage to reread this thread starting around page 8. Do you see that there is a connection between running better and using more fuel? Leaning these motors out will often cause issues. On your "the state of tune often does not hold long". I totally agree with Greg. You probably need valve guides. If you can't hold a t-body sync or a valve adjustment, your motor has all the ear marks of loose valve guides.
dlaing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Perhaps the tree you should be barking at passes through your valve guides? Could be, regardless, anyone taking a bone stock, already too lean, EPA tuned V11 and making it even leaner by only adding goo, is making a mistake. And anyone replacing the plastic with brass could be making a mistake if they don't make some of the aforementioned changes, especially if they are adding goo and wrapping it in duct tape. Ratchet's cooling finned heat sink is a fine way to make the goo method more ACCURATELY represent the temperature, relative to the programming in the ECU, and for what the heat sink can't suck away, the resistor bodge can (if used properly)
dlaing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Rather than rererehash all this info and theory and in the process get to 50 or more pages, it would be of advantage to reread this thread starting around page 8. Do you see that there is a connection between running better and using more fuel? Leaning these motors out will often cause issues. On your "the state of tune often does not hold long". I totally agree with Greg. You probably need valve guides. If you can't hold a t-body sync or a valve adjustment, you motor has all the ear marks of loose valve guides. Yeah, that is my point, that leaning these motors out by adding goo may cause these issues. Sure if you also have an overly rich PCIII map, the goo is going to help. My bet is that is the case with many of the advocates stories. Valve guides sure could be my problem, and maybe Ratchet's too, as he has many miles on his. I guess I'll pay someone to figure that out for me, as it is above my level of expertise and tools to fix.
Dan M Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Yeah, that is my point, that leaning these motors out by adding goo may cause these issues.Sure if you also have an overly rich PCIII map, the goo is going to help. My bet is that is the case with many of the advocates stories. Valve guides sure could be my problem, and maybe Ratchet's too, as he has many miles on his. I guess I'll pay someone to figure that out for me, as it is above my level of expertise and tools to fix. Maybe not Dave, checking guides is pretty easy on the Guzzi especialy if you have access to a compressor and a compression tester. I can walk you through it if you like.
GuzziMoto Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Goo is most likely to "cause issues" if there is something wrong with your bike to begin with (loose valves, TPS issues,etc). Many have added goo without adjusting the map including myself and had no issues. The ETS signal being sent to the ECU is more accurate when the signal more closely reflects the actual temp of the head. What the ECU does after that has NOTHING to do with accuracy of the ETS. Anything you do to make the ETS heat up and cooldown in sync with the head will increase that accuracy. If your motor runs better with an inaccurate signal then it does with an accurate signal then either something is wrong with the map or something is wrong with your bike. As many V11s have had the goo applied and only a few have had issues afterward you decide for yourself where the problem lies. I have. If you chose to alter the ETS signal as a cheap way of adjusting the fueling, fine. But it has limited control and can only move the whole range up or down. It is not without promise or usefulness, but please call it what it is and don't pretend it is anything more. As far as valves and guides, the stock valves tend to be soft and can wear funny which then wears out the guides funny. If this is the case with yours (sounds like it is) expect to replace the valves and guides. Tuning the bike until you have done so is a waste of time.
raz Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Adding Goo increases the temp reading to the ECU causing the engine to run LEANER than the engineers planned. THIS IS LESS ACCURATE. What fact is telling you this is because of the temp sensor, or even its corresponding table, at all? And not the standard fuel map, fuel trim, TPS, TB adjustment or something else. If your statement is correct, why does it only affect some bikes? Does any bike with OEM intake & exhaust have this problem? If you've got aftermarket aspiration stuff and have this problem, just what makes you think you don't have a fuel map problem? Nothing is telling me that this is because of the sensor or table or anything else. The inaccuracy is because of the goo. I mean if you have goo and experience lean issues, why do you presume it is because of the goo? What if the base map was too lean to begin with, but just within margins for not giving much problems? Put it this way: If you first add goo without getting problems, then replace your exhaust and end up with a too lean bike, would that still make you say the goo is the problem? Or would this make you say the exhaust caused the engine ro tun leaner than engineers planned? Is the order important here?
gstallons Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 FWIW ! The GOO I used is a Ford Motor Company product. The part # is E7AZ-19A426-A. This a heat sink grease you apply to modules that mount to a heat sink or use a surface they attatch to for the purpose of heat transfer.
GuzziMoto Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 FWIW ! The GOO I used is a Ford Motor Company product. The part # is E7AZ-19A426-A. This a heat sink grease you apply to modules that mount to a heat sink or use a surface they attatch to for the purpose of heat transfer. There's your problem. You can't use Ford parts on a Guzzi and expect it to work right.
Recommended Posts