engine oil temp sensor

[Guest ratchethack]

Consensus doesn't stand up to the clear record of this thread Greg. A consensus of fools who got something wrong will say just about anything imagineable, and many things not imagineable.

 

EXHIBIT A:

 

I tend to think that someone is saying that the problem with the OE sensor is that it has too much thermal inertia, and in this case, "too much" would imply that it has more then the cylinder head so that it cannot change temp as quickly as the cylinder head can.

You tend to think incorrectly, GMoto, and without either knowledge or experience.

 

You clearly have no grasp whatsoever of the term, thermal inertia.

 

It is not the same concept as heat.

 

Please do yourself a favor and look up the term as I advised many posts ago, and post back when you're prepared to post with a grasp of what you're talking about. You have a track record of getting it wrong here and not being able to back up what you say with any evidence. It's starting to wear pretty thin.

thermal mass

You've failed to quote me anywhere using this term^, "thermal mass". This is your own term. When referring to anything I've said, please be more accurate.

 

You clearly haven't a clue about either what I've posted, or about what you've posted yourself.

[Dan M]

Technical fillibuster. Yes. I like that.

 

44 pages. Outstanding BQ, too!

 

The BQ dissected.

 

This thread started in May of 07 and ran sporadically for a year to fill 7 & 1/2 pages.

 

It was resurrected in Jan of 09

In the three months since there have been 35+ more pages. How did it get here?

Here's some rough posting numbers since January.

Since a page is 15 posts. I've only included those with more than a page worth of posts.

 

Ratchet 97 6+pages

Dave L 91 6+pages

Greg F 87 5+pages

Me 60 4 pages

Guzzi2go 46 3+pages

Raz 29 almost 2 pages

Guzzimoto 26 1+pages

Skeeve 17 1+pages

 

Seems the BQ is a joint effort.

[GuzziMoto]

See, that's why I read stuff like this. If it weren't for reading this thread I wouldn't know that thermal mass and thermal inertia are unrelated, that putting a heat sink on a temp sensor increases its accuracy, that an air temp sensor is a better choice for measuring cylinder head temp then a water temp sensor, that a water temp sensorthat weighs less then a ounce or two has more thermal inertia then a cylinder head, and that the Easter Bunny is real.

I take being insulted by RH as a good thing. It means I'm on the right side.

[raz]

Dear God, is this my 30th post in this very thread

 

I actually re-read the whole effin' thread from post one some week ago. It took a good while but I had time to kill

Pretty interesting. Information is forgotten and repeated, or people change their minds completely without anyone (even themselves) noticing. The last thing may even have happened to me, I'm not really sure

[Greg Field]

Apparently different languages indeed. YOU ARE INCORRECT. As I quoted myself (not for the first time) above, I have been VERY CAREFUL to REPEATEDLY STATE -- up front and throughout my posts in this thread -- I HAVE NO PROBLEM TO SOLVE HERE.

 

 

I submit the following, Commendatore:

 

From Post 30, before you even tried thermo goup or the brass holder:

 

“I've started to focus on this because I think I've got some symptoms of less than accurate sensor operation, per this thread and many previous posts on this.

 

"Seems to me the brass holder solves the problem of the broken stock holder, but without something between the thermistor and the base of the recess in the holder, the key operating principle of faulty temp pickup will be the same with both the plastic and brass holder. “

 

Then, from post 116, wherein you try lead and the brass holder:

“Having finally got a ROUND TUIT, I just installed the brass holder and futzed with it, and I'm in agreement with Tony.^

 

"Instead of thermal paste, I used a custom-formed cylinder of lead drifted into the holder. By my measure with a dial depth gauge, the distance between the tip of the sensor and the bottom of the holder cavity ain't a tiny thing, and it's clearly very much intentional. The gap is .25". I cut and finished the lead cylinder to about .26" in length. The lead was soft enough so seating the sensor pushed into the lead ~.01", ensuring very complete, direct thermal flow. As it turned out, this wasn't a good thing.

 

"The results were abominable. It wouldn't idle when fully warm, missing and coughing at low RPM and off-idle transitions in traffic something fierce. Clearly, the sensor is working fine, but the ECU is now putting the FI pulsewidth in lean mode when it needs to be in rich mode, which leads me to Tony's conclusion above. Though it ran fine at normal operating RPMs at speed, it was just about unrideable in town. So back in went the OE plastic holder with no thermal goop a-tall, and the formerly good as ever in town and in traffic behavior (as well as at speed) returned instantly.”

 

Then, post 125:

"With a .2" air gap in the brass holder, the symptoms are again much the same. Again, the symptoms are: ". . .abominable. It wouldn't idle when fully warm, missing and coughing at low RPM and off-idle transitions in traffic something fierce. . . .it ran fine at normal operating RPMs at speed, [and] was just about unrideable in town."

 

Then, post 149:

 

"I've road tested all combinations with the brass holder that I'm going to try without doing a re-map first. Filled solid with lead, with 2 mm air gap, 4 mm air gap, and no lead (6+ mm air gap). All had the same unacceptable hot running symptoms (noted above), none tolerable.

 

"There IS an OE air gap between the plastic holder and sensor, at least in my case. I get ~.015" by gauging the thickness of the zinc-based silicone heat sink compound left on the sensor tip after testing. The symptoms on the road with the thermo compound after warm-up were every bit as unacceptable as with the brass sensor.

 

"I've begun to road test the plastic holder with significantly larger air gaps (no thermo-goop) by shimming up the sensor with washers.

 

"To date:

 

"With a small-diameter washer providing a ~.075" air gap: Same as fully seated OE config. This is certainly acceptable, and a far cry from the brass holder.

 

With ~.075" air gap using large, 1.5" OD fender washer bored to fit the sensor, acting as additional thermal finning: BEST YET, with limited testing time to date at full operating temp."

 

This is in the first 10 pages. I'm not going to re-live the next 35 for anything. After the "abominable results," you continued one with your quest to simulate the manual choke, effusively carrying on about the improvements with each iteration and on several occasions about improved gas mileage. I didn't dream this. Truth is always stranger than dreams . . .

[Greg Field]

The BQ dissected.

 

 

Ratchet 97 6+pages

Dave L 91 6+pages

Greg F 87 5+pages

Me 60 4 pages

Guzzi2go 46 3+pages

Raz 29 almost 2 pages

Guzzimoto 26 1+pages

Skeeve 17 1+pages

 

Seems the BQ is a joint effort.

 

For purposes of BQ, a post is not a post. I think you'll find most of mine are under 4 lines in length. I think you'll find most of Ratch's are over 20 lines in length. Possibly even over 40 lines. Brevity is antithetical to bloviation.

 

Here's the third line in this post: Yes! Post 666. Who was more deserving than I?

[Guest ratchethack]

. . .

This is in the first 10 pages. I'm not going to re-live the next 35 for anything. After the "abominable results," you continued one with your quest to simulate the manual choke, effusively carrying on about the improvements with each iteration and on several occasions about improved gas mileage. I didn't dream this. Truth is always stranger than dreams . . .

Yes Greg. I'd started to ID some shortcomings with the operation of the OE sensor in the first 10 pages. Nowhere there or since have I complained about the previous operation of my Guzzi, or any "problem" with the way it ran. You dreamed that one up yourself. I've stated clearly up front and repeatedly re-stated that I have been experimenting, and that from the start, I said that if I learn nothing at all, I'd be pleased to go back to the OE sensor/holder and be "happy as a clam".

 

What I found, as you no doubt skipped over numerous times in your multiple quotes above, is an increasingly well-defined understanding of the INHERENT PROBLEM with the OE sensor/holder, as clearly and repeatedly documented, with greater detail and understanding as that understanding was revealed in my testing.

 

What I got from you from your first posts was nothing but snide remarks, cold water, and of course page-counting. No knowledge of the sensor, no experience testing it, and no experience with either a heat sink or variable resistor, of which you were particulary prolific with your negative remarks and square wheels comments.

 

In case you still haven't noticed, the knowledge I gained in the experiments with heat sink and var. resistor pointed me to seek out the low mass sensor I'm now using, which continues to be a considerable improvement over anything previous -- including the OE sensor/holder.

 

I've learned things that have benefitted myself here. Sorry you're unable to gain anything from it. I highly suspect you will be one of the "committed few" by the time this thread winds down.

 

Good God almighty, how closed-minded is it possible for people to be?

 

I was already having to repeat myself for your benefit (and in direct response to you) way back in February -- and you STILL haven't got it:

 

Ratch:

 

Consider the possibility that you are chasing a solution to a problem caused by something other than the temp sensor.

 

And why in the first place did you add paste to your sensor or change to a brass one? The whole point of adding the brass sensor or adding a thermally conductive medium to the plastic sensor is to correct a pre-existing condition, the most common one being poor fuel mileage. That's why I did mine. If you don't have a pre-existing condition, why would you bother to make the change?

To which I had responded directly, some 3 hours later:

Greg, I've covered all of this before many times in this thread, but to repeat (as in, repeat AGAIN):

 

I'm NOT chasing a solution to a problem here, as I've made it very clear to point out, not only up front, but many times throughout my posts since I resurrected this old thread. I'm merely experimenting here. It's Winter, f'er cryin' out loud. Though yesterday was a "stellar" riding day, it's relatively COLD today, especially early, and my perforated Vanson leathers don't do all that well when it's this cold out where I like to ride.

 

(Again) I have no "problem" to solve. (Again) I wouldn't even think about this stuff in better riding weather.

 

(Again) My Guzzi runs better than perfectly satisfactorily with the OE sensor/holder and no thermo-paste, and, though I've already learned enough to encourage further experimentation, if I learn nothing more of value that I can EVER apply to my Guzzi, well then -- I'll happily put away the experimenting, go back to my OE setup without any thermo-goop, and be happy as a clam, possibly in possession of a better understanding of how the cyl head thermo sensor works.

 

(Again) As I think I've already repeated at least three times lately: Of course the ideal way to solve "problems" with mapping that arise from cylinder heat temp monitoring would be to establish as direct a thermal connection between cylinder head and sensor as possible (add thermo-paste), AND THEN CREATE A NEW MAP based on the more accurate temp read.

 

I'm not doing that. Why not? (Again) In my own case, I consider my map as good a match to my setup as I'm possibly ever likely to achieve, unless or until I make engine/intake/exhaust config changes, of which none are planned.

 

So far, I've discovered several principles of operation here that I hadn't been aware of previously, and I reckon I'll discover a few more before I'm done. Who knows? I may learn something that'll allow me to achieve even better mileage with the map I've got now? (Though better than 40+ mpg might be a stretch.) I might discover a way to achieve this by adding thermo paste without loss of idle and low-RPM driveability due to an over-lean condition? (Again) I'm not necessarily "chasing" either outcome -- but you never know. . .

 

Now I'm not about to back off wot I'm posting here, no matter how many don't, can't (or won't) read, nor no matter how many don't, can't (or won't) attempt to comprehend wot they're reading, and no matter how many seem to either take exception to wot I'm doing, nor no matter how many take offense to my candid reply posts to those who challenge the content of my posts who clearly haven't read and/or haven't as much as attempted to comprehend what they're challenging. Frankly, the evident need for repetition here has gone a bit far beyond tiresome for Yours Truly recently.

 

I'm learning stuff here, and I'm not too concerned about posts from those who believe they already know it all. Clearly, despite the formidable knowledge and experience they believe themselves to possess , many of 'em haven't got the foggiest idea about wot's going on here. On the other hand, there seem to be at least a few others hereabouts who might be capable of understanding some of the simple stuff I'm posting about, and who -- heaven forfend! -- might actually be sincerely interested in some of the apparently bizarre and shocking stuff (!!) I'm coming up with. To my knowledge, I b'lieve I'm the first on this Forum to do some of this. Call me and my antics anything you wish.

 

Again -- anyone NOT interested enough to pay any attention is -- AGAIN -- most enthusiastically welcome by Yours Truly to go find something else to do.

 

Now I have a question for you, Greg. Why would you be compelled to throw cold water here by suggesting that my clearly and repeatedly stated objectives with these Winter experiments are something akin to "bolting on square wheels?"

 

Enquiring minds. . .(well, you know). . .

This is getting waaaaaaaay too boring. I've got more testing to do and I don't much care who likes it or who doesn't (as I've posted previously -- many times). . . [sigh] . . .

[Greg Field]

Good lord. I skipped nothing of the kind in those quotes. Prove that I did, since you've made the accusation. What you're saying was there wasn't there. My read on this is far more accurate than you will allow yourself to see. You would be highly successful in PR work, I suspect.

 

As for the sensor, I have tons of experience with it. I did the work more than a year ahead of when this thread started. That puts me about three years on in experience over you. I've worked on them on dozens of machines. That puts me dozens minus one experienced over you.

 

Carry on, though. By 90 pages, you'll've come full circle again, or will have gone back and edited all your posts.

[Guest ratchethack]

As for the sensor, I have tons of experience with it. I did the work more than a year ahead of when this thread started. That puts me about three years on in experience over you. I've worked on them on dozens of machines. That puts me dozens minus one experienced over you.

Please tell me about all your experience with what you've been most critical of me posting here -- that is, your experience using a heat sink on the OE sensor, your experience adding a variable resistor in series, and your experience substituting a GM low mass sensor. I reckon I must've missed all those somehow?

[Greg Field]

Please tell me about all your experience with what you've been most critical of me posting here -- that is, your experience using a heat sink on the OE sensor, your experience adding a variable resistor in series, and your experience substituting a GM low mass sensor. I reckon I must've missed all those somehow?

 

You are correct that I have no experience trying to bodge a manual choke onto my or any other V11 Sport. I never had to. I got dozens, perhaps hundreds of them running perfectly without need for such nonsense. I do not believe you went to all this work for no reason, as you hinted at in the posts I quoted. You mistake your exception for the norm. There is something else wrong with your bike. I wish you luck in finding it.

[Guest ratchethack]

I have no experience trying to bodge a manual choke onto my or any other V11 Sport.

Nor do I. I have experience with a few experiments important to the undestanding of the operation of the heat temp sensor that you don't, as clearly and repeatedly explained.

 

Adding variable resistance to the OE head temp sensor output (again, as an experiment ONLY) is NOT the equivalent of adding a manual choke. I'm sorry if this is your understanding, but now you're on the record as having made a significant, blatant technical error that reveals a serious lack of understanding of the operation of the head temp sensor.

You mistake your exception for the norm. There is something else wrong with your bike. I wish you luck in finding it.

Hm. I mistake my exception for the norm??

 

I b'lieve you mistake your perception of the norm for the rule. . .

 

Something’s WRONG with my bike. . . That's your Professional diagnosis, Doc?

 

Let’s see now. . .

 

1. Lights up first time every time <3 sec. of start of cranking. Check.

2. Pulls like a freight train without a hint of a hiccup, all the way up to the rev limiter – every time. Check.

3. Plugs read consistent light chocolate tan, with a trace of a soot “shadow” on the exhaust valve side of the plug tower. Check.

4. Last 3 tankfulls have returned 42, 37, and 35 MPG, all under either hard riding/mountain climb, and/or light-to-light traffic conditions. First chance to do the riding I like best, I expect another ~42 MPG. Check.

5. Idles as smooth as a billiard table at 1200 RPM under all conditions – and for the first time ever, this now includes complete absence of former rare low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms when hauling down to extended idle from particularly hard, hot riding. Every time. Check.

6. No trace of former (rare) low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms under off-idle and off-on-off throttle in traffic. Check.

7. Has never used any detectable amount of oil between changes. Check.

8. At 35K miles, it has never run better overall. Check.

There is something else wrong with your bike. I wish you luck in finding it.

Yep, somthinnnnnnnn’s CLEARLY WRONG here, alright. . .

[Greg Field]

5. Idles as smooth as a billiard table at 1200 RPM under all conditions – and for the first time ever, this now includes complete absence of former rare low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms when hauling down to extended idle from particularly hard, hot riding. Every time. Check.

6. No trace of former (rare) low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms under off-idle and off-on-off throttle in traffic. Check.

 

 

So, now, once again, there was a problem that you were trying to correct? I thought you said I had dreamed that up? And not just one, but two? And I see you have conceded the point on your accusation. Good lord. It's like speaking to a politician.

[Dan M]

For purposes of BQ, a post is not a post.

 

Yes, but in your quest for 40 pages, every post counts.

[Greg Field]

Yes, but in your quest for 40 pages, every post counts.

 

Yes. Hadn't considered that angle.

[Guest ratchethack]

So, now, once again, there was a problem that you were trying to correct? I thought you said I had dreamed that up? And not just one, but two? And I see you have conceded the point on your accusation. Good lord. It's like speaking to a politician.

 

Um, no. No, not a-tall. . .[sigh]. . .

 

My fellow Forum posters, here we have a perfect set -- a chain if you will -- of examples of a Forum CLAIRVOYANT from the historic record of this thread. It's one example (oh, there are many – make no mistake!) of a poster's ability to know in advance WITHOUT READING what a post actually says before replying to it. The woods ‘r full of ‘em this time o’ year. This is how a Forum Clusterfarge, aka Group Driveshaft Dork Wrap Wad gets started. . .

 

I find this nothing less than fascinating. Humorous, too.

 

I went back to see how many times I’d explained, re-explained, and re-re-…ad nauseum... a key point (clearly still entirely unknown and unrecognized above) that was evidently ignored the more times I repeated it 7 times over a period of 20 days, twice in direct response to our Forum CLAIRVOYANT, who doesn’t need to read what he’s responding to.

 

After an 8 month thread hiatus, I'd re-opened the thread Jan 25 2009, 03:06 AM'.

 

First explanation:

Ideally, I'd be dynotuning a new map with as direct thermal connection between head and sensor as possible. If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits, by all objective measures it runs perfectly with the OE sensor holder without thermal conductive paste), I'd have re-mapped it long ago.

First reminder:

. . . since it runs so magnificently without me mucking with it a-tall). . .

2nd reminder:

Lacking a motor that exhibits anything close to undesirable running characteristics from the jump, with the OE sensor/holder exactly as pristine and unsullied by thermo-smegma as it was boated across the blue from Como,

3rd reminder:

My map is a PC III map. Unlike many other maps, apparently, this particular map runs perfectly acceptably under all conditions of startup and operation on the road with the plastic holder/sensor -- WITHOUT any thermo-paste and a OE air gap of ~.015".

4th reminder:

As noted previously, my Guzzi with it's current PC III map runs more than acceptably well with considerable "slop" in the accuracy of the temperature read when there's no direct thermo connection between plastic holder base and sensor tip via thermo-paste.

And then, in direct response to our CLAIRVOYANT, with some surprise at his inability to have noticed ALL the above, the 5th reminder with full re-explanation:

Greg, I've covered all of this before many times in this thread, but to repeat (as in, repeat AGAIN):

 

I'm NOT chasing a solution to a problem here, as I've made it very clear to point out, not only up front, but many times throughout my posts since I resurrected this old thread. I'm merely experimenting here. . . .

 

(Again) I have no "problem" to solve. (Again) I wouldn't even think about this stuff in better riding weather.

 

(Again) My Guzzi runs better than perfectly satisfactorily with the OE sensor/holder and no thermo-paste, and, though I've already learned enough to encourage further experimentation, if I learn nothing more of value that I can EVER apply to my Guzzi, well then -- I'll happily put away the experimenting, go back to my OE setup without any thermo-goop, and be happy as a clam, possibly in possession of a better understanding of how the cyl head thermo sensor works.

 

(Again) As I think I've already repeated at least three times lately: Of course the ideal way to solve "problems" with mapping that arise from cylinder heat temp monitoring would be to establish as direct a thermal connection between cylinder head and sensor as possible (add thermo-paste), AND THEN CREATE A NEW MAP based on the more accurate temp read.

 

I'm not doing that. Why not? (Again) In my own case, I consider my map as good a match to my setup as I'm possibly ever likely to achieve, unless or until I make engine/intake/exhaust config changes, of which none are planned.

And again, in direct response to our Forum CLAIRVOYANT (again) on the subject of not paying attention to what one's responding to:

I knew I was not hallucinating. You still think it impossible for someone to think there was a problem and that you were experimenting in effort to correct it?

Yep, after all the care and repetition I went to to explain, re-explain, and re-re-re-. . . etc. up front and throughout -- Without much of any Q a-tall, I'd say downright Impossible -- assuming you had a sincere interest in wot you were responding to, and that you therefore paid much've any medium-grade level of attention to it, that is.

 

Now if that's an unacceptable, or somehow unfair ASSUMPTION on my part -- all bets 'r off.

6th reminder:

Per multiple previous posts, I HAD NO REAL “PROBLEM” TO SOLVE here, unless very occasional slight hot over-lean symptoms at and off idle and very occasional pinging (detonation) after hard riding in hot weather be considered "problems", which I'd never considered either to be. If I had, I’d have re-mapped 6 years ago. But since my “library” PC III map has always delivered far better than “acceptable” performance under all conditions of operation without meddling with the OE plastic sensor/holder a-tall, I ain’t fixin’ wot I figure ain’t broke by replacing the map.

Now it’d be one thing if our Forum CLAIRVOYANT hadn’t been participating – but NO! He was posting naught but negativity, ridicule, WHILE COUNTING THE PAGES, EVIDENTLY FOR OUR GROUP "BENEFIT" throughout – without any need to read wot he was responding to! Simply amazing. . .

 

I reckon I'd broken off the reminders out of fatigue and boredom as the rain was coming down in late February, with the idea that if it hadn’t sunk in by then, those too dense to grasp it would never grasp it.

 

Looks like they’re the same ones still participating in wot has now metastasized and feverishly swollen up into the current and infamous Group Dork Wad Driveshaft Wrappage Extravaganza.

 

I reckon there’s just no accounting for the variety of bizarre behavior on a public Forum. . . . good thing I didn’t take any bets. I’d NEVER have imagined a Great Wallopping Clusterfarge of this magnitude. . .

 

. . . Truth, as they say, is stranger. . . (well, you know). . .