engine oil temp sensor

[dlaing]

Sorry, I try to be concise and certainly not vague. Sometimes I try to avoid redundancy so repeating what has already been posted as is the case with the sensor is omitted. I feel like if someone is participating and arguing, they have read what has preceded. As you know lengthy posts draw fire around here. (BQ)

You have mocked RH and myself. You dissect every word to look for fault then you whine about insults and ask for politeness. It is a two way street Dave.

Lack of repetition was not the problem.

I haven't mocked you, only Ratchet... unless you are really the same person, living in separate but parallel universes

If I mocked you, point it out and I'll either apologize or come up with some excuse.

You have for the most part been a model netizen and not deserved of mockery.

[Guest ratchethack]

I just took a gander at some of the truly amazing posts in this thread. In and amongst a vast ocean of ignorance and stupidity are islands of truth and wisdom that evidently few hereabouts will ever be capable of comprehending.

 

This one hadn't escaped my full attention 5 days ago, but now it really stands out as a paragraph that nails this topic concisely.

 

(emphasis courtesy of Yours Truly):

 

There is clearly a problem. The root cause is a poor design. The whole "add goo, switch to brass" temp sensor bandwagon initiated by others than RH suggested that the bikes ran too rich. Others complain that the bikes have issues when extremely hot (too lean) so evidently there is a temp sensing problem. If most people's factory set up works well as you suggest, why all the sensor tampering? Why all the PC3s? Why all the tune boys? The system is flawed. The system needs an amount of tuning. You like to call it hacking but any altering from factory is a manner of tuning be it better or worse. A proper map on with a PC3 will not compensate for temp. If the temp sensor is faulty or does not react quickly enough the "proper map" will still be flawed. If any modification of any motor in any way causes it to run better or eliminate a particular problem that you are trying to get around then why not? Why not do anything if it solves the problem you are trying to solve or makes the improvement you are trying to make?

Many thanks to Dan for being one of the very few who continue to be SINCERELY INTERESTED, for bringing his well qualified PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE with sensors to this thread, for wot turns out to be (at least hereabouts ) his EXTREMELY RARE ability to comprehend basic thermodynamics and heat flow analysis -- and finally, and possibly most significantly -- for not folding up under the idiotic, cheap, empty ridicule of closed-minded CONSENSUS of those who cannot (or will not) learn anything new here, and for ignoring the obvious filibustering (unprecedented in the entire history of this Forum, I b'lieve) by those who perceive the practical knowledge that has been advanced here as a personal threat to be shouted down.

[Greg Field]

As you have said so many times, you didn't have a problem to solve. Has that changed again?

[Guest ratchethack]

As you have said so many times, you didn't have a problem to solve. Has that changed again?

. . .[sigh]. . .

 

Dan's words are his own, not mine. Dan was clearly not referring to any "problem" I had set out to solve in his statement above.

 

Nice attempt to deflect attention away from your filibustering agenda, Greg. I could be wrong on this, but though you'll clearly continue to have a non-thinking CONSENSUS following your Forum filibuster, it seems that by now, some are starting to catch on to your agenda, and not too many are falling for it anymore.

 

If you can find anywhere in this thread where I posted that I set out to "solve a PROBLEM" here, please quote me directly as I have quoted you above -- and see if you can do it without taking my post(s) out of context. Dave couldn't find anywhere that I ever said my engine ran "perfectly", as you've also misrepresented my position many times, when he followed your lead without thinking for himself, and I challenged him on that point 3 days ago -- but maybe you can catch me out on this point today.

 

NOTE: As with Dave, if you attempt to pull anything I've posted here out of original context, I'll be obligated to put it back in original context for you, and you'll continue to look even more foolish than you do now by continuing to mischaracterize what I've repeatedly made very clear for your benefit, primarily, and in direct response to you -- too many times to count now. . .

 

Good luck, Greg.

[Ray R]

YOU KIDS BEHAVE!!!! DON'T MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR!!!!!

[GuzziMoto]

. . .[sigh]. . .

 

Again, if you can find anywhere in this thread where I posted that I had "a PROBLEM to solve" here, please quote me directly as I have quoted you above -- and see if you can do it without taking my post(s) out of context. Dave couldn't do it when he followed your lead without thinking for himself, when I challenged him on this exact point 3 days ago -- but maybe you can do it today.

 

NOTE: If you attempt to pull anything I've posted here out of original context, I'll be obligated to put it back in original context for you, and you'll continue to look even more foolish than you do now by continuing to mischaracterize what I've repeatedly made very clear for your benefit, primarily, and in direct response to you multiple times -- too many times to count now. . .

 

Good luck, Greg.

 

Do you not even understand what you yourself are saying?

 

Quote from post #797...."Please find anywhere in this thread where I posted that my engine ever ran "perfectly", and post the quote(s) with the usual Forum link(s) back to the source(s), as I have done with your post above."

 

To which dlaing responded....."Sorry dude, I missed the niggling nits.

I think I attributed the niggling nits to the preceding words:

"If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits,"

My bad. I guess I don't read as well as I did in 4th grade....

 

 

QUOTE (ratchethack @ Feb 6 2009, 04:27 PM)

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.

 

To which you have yet to point out how wrong dlaing is or how he just cannot comprehend such high concepts, being a philistine or some such.

 

Now normally I would not bother with a detail like that, but for you I feel it is my duty to society to point that out.

[Guest ratchethack]

Thanks for the correction, GMoto.

 

Same exact principle. Post duly revised.

 

Since all the "sincerity" you've expressed in this thread seems to be focused entirely upon finding any possible irrelevant fault with my posts and the posts of others, rather than on the content or merit (or lack thereof) of the principles being discussed WRT the topic at hand, how about putting your highly motivated search capabilities to work again, and give my challenge to Greg above a whack yourself, GMoto? -- And by all means, while you're at it, see if you can do any better than Dave did with my similar challenge to him 3 days ago.

 

In any event, be sure to keep your dork wrapped up in the ever-tightening group wad around the ol' driveshaft -- just a couple more rev's, and it's bound to result in something quite spectacular.

[luhbo]

YOU KIDS BEHAVE!!!! DON'T MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR!!!!!

 

That's a classic Mine are 17 resp. 18+ now. This means we're now shouting it in the opposite direction, from the back to those on the front seats - and at the stoppers ^^

 

Hubert

[Dan M]

In case anyone is interested, here are the part numbers for the air charge temp sensor and the pigtail

 

Sensor:

Standard Ign. - # AX32

CarQuest - # 72-4502

A/C Delco - # 213-243

 

Pigtail:

Standard Ign - # S556

A/C Delco - # PT307

 

I have found that unit from Standard is shorter in over all length than the A/C Delco. - May be better for clearance issues.

[luhbo]

If I was ill i'd take the airtemp sensor out off the airbox (replace it with a suitable resistor - let's say 5°C summer morning temperature) and put it into the right head.

Don't say it's nonsense. Remember the seat latch - idle lever spring swap.

 

Hubert

[GuzziMoto]

Thanks for the correction, GMoto.

 

Same exact principle. Post duly revised.

 

Since all the "sincerity" you've expressed in this thread seems to be focused entirely upon finding any possible irrelevant fault with my posts and the posts of others, rather than on the content or merit (or lack thereof) of the principles being discussed WRT the topic at hand, how about putting your highly motivated search capabilities to work again, and give my challenge to Greg above a whack yourself, GMoto? -- And by all means, while you're at it, see if you can do any better than Dave did with my similar challenge to him 3 days ago.

 

In any event, be sure to keep your dork wrapped up in the ever-tightening group wad around the ol' driveshaft -- just a couple more rev's, and it's bound to result in something quite spectacular.

Nah, this is too much fun just trying to keep score. I don't know if your bike had an issue and you did all this to fix it, or if your bike ran perfectly and you were just trying to improve perfection (technically impossible, but the way this thread is going.....) and in the end I don't care. The only reason I felt compelled to point that out was that you yourself would pound someone into the ground for being so ignorant to have made such a mistake. We have fundamental differences in our understandings of thermal dynamics. I think heat only flows in the direction of hot to cold until the cold is no longer cold and hot is no longer hot. I don't see how you could view your setup as being a more accurate ETS setup based on the evidence of your bike runs better now so it must be more accurate. And I'm sure the original Guzzi engineer who spec'd the ETS did not put in the amount of time and effort that you put in to just one of your average posts in this thread into spec'ing the sensor and housing. As I have said, I don't have an issue with you monkeying around with the ETS or any other sensor. I only want a spade called a spade. You know the idea is not new and there are companies that sell devices to allow you to modify the ETS signal?

[Guest ratchethack]

. . .You know the idea is not new and there are companies that sell devices to allow you to modify the ETS signal?

I reckon I ought to know pretty well, since I used a device that does exactly that in my testing, as posted earlier in this thread -- and another device that allows modification of the inherent thermal inertia property of the OE sensor.

 

But to my knowledge, no company sells a device that allows a sensor to change its thermal inertia and thereby, it's ability to respond more quickly, enabling it to more closely follow temp changes, which in turn, makes it more accurate.

 

OMG this is getting boring. . . I just gotta go now.

[Skeeve]

Ok....after all this, I'm still trying to figure out the right thing to do.

 

I have my tank off for other reasons, and so replacing the sensor housing would be easiest if I did it now.

 

Does ANYONE know of an instance where the plastic failed, broke, or otherwise disintegrated all on its own without someone attempting to remove it? ...

And if I use the brass fitting, is it appropriate to use the copper antisieze to fill the air gap between the sensor and head in all cases? Or only if my bike is running too rich? And is that rich condition only experienced during warm-up? Or all the time? Or is it a case of YMMV?

 

Sorry, I know all the answers are imbedded in here somewhere. I just don't have the patience to take another 4 hours of my life to review all the posts again.

 

Ray:

 

The stock plastic holder seems to fail most often when people mess with it; if it ain't broke, don't fix it! [A good rule to live by, generally, I find... ]

 

If it fails, your best bet is to replace it with another plastic holder; this thread has shown that the brass holder really only seems to be the replacement of choice if you live in colder climates [western WA state where it rains more than it shines, Sweden, etc.] If & when you feel compelled to replace the holder, smear the threads of the holder w/ copper antisieze before you screw it into the head. Put some teflon tape on the threads of the sensor before you screw it into the holder.

 

If you ever get a PC3 and get a custom map done, make certain you do so on the hottest day of the year, with the engine good & hot, near or below sea level [is there a dyno shop in Death Valley? ] - that way, you'll never have to worry about running too lean [which is worse for the engine than too rich, generally] and don't worry about tweaking the holder after that: change the holder to another type & you'll have just wasted the money you spent on a custom map!

 

Don't worry too much about the contention & friction you may have seen over this topic while reading this thread: some of these guys just like to yank each other's chains, & do it regardless of provocation...

[Ray R]

Thank you Greg and Skeeve for your summation. I appreciate it.

 

Can I throw a wrench into this discussion? One which will no doubt get this topic to the magic 60 pages Greg is hoping for..

 

I'm installing a factory race kit (1200 Sport) which includes a remapped ECU. What impact would these engine temp sensor modifications have on that mapping?

[GuzziMoto]

I reckon I ought to know pretty well, since I used a device that does exactly that in my testing, as posted earlier in this thread -- and another device that allows modification of the inherent thermal inertia property of the OE sensor.

 

But to my knowledge, no company sells a device that allows the a sensor to change its thermal inertia and thereby, it's ability to respond more quickly, enabling it to more closely follow temp changes, which in turn, makes it more accurate.

 

OMG this is getting boring. . . I just gotta go now.

 

I remember you making such a device from components you bought...., but I don't recall you buying a premade device. If you did and I missed it, sorry.

Again, we have differing views on thermal dynamics. You think air has better heat transfer properties then metal and I think it's the other way around. Whatever. I say again, though. If you increase the accuracy of the stock sensor by adding goo (improving the thermal transfer properties) and your bike runs worse, I don't see the logic in your assumption that this new setup is even more accurate because your bike runs better.

Ray, I do believe in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" addage. But I have added goo to both my Guzzis sensors and saw an improvement in the way they run and the mileage they get. But it not a huge improvement for me. And depending on where you live and the temps and traffic you ride in it may be a negative change for you. It is easily undone though. And if you have a newer Guzzi with an O2 sensor I doubt it would be a negative. Those should be self correcting for mixture at everything but high load situations (where the factory map is too rich typically). But obviously if you try it and it doesn't work out it will be YOU, not me, swapping it back to the way it was.

Sit back, have a beer or two and think long and hard before acting.

I do think that many here would say that improving the accuracy of the sensor is a good thing, but how to achieve that and what else is required along with it is where the difference of opinion really lies.