Emissions Lesson for AZ(Phoenix/Tuscon)V11 owners

[gstallons]

It's not the education that hurts, it's the tuition !!!!!

[Dan M]

I recently found out about the 3 minute fuel dump. It was discussed here on another thread. Actually it is the first 3000 revolutions after start up cold or hot. (about 3 minutes @ idle ) Since they only test at idle you can lean it out via the air bleeds on the T-Bodys. 5.50% CO is a pretty generous standard. I've set mine to between 2&3% maintaining good HCs and a nice steady idle.

[Guest ratchethack]

And by all means, in addition to making sure it's past 3K rev's, make sure the 1.4 oz brass body OE coolant temp sensor in the head has climbed all the way up its required heat lag time to full operating temp before the Enviro-Nazi's insert their probe!! If not, you're risking over CO% FAIL!!

 

With an ultra low mass air temp sensor in the head, no worry about sensor temp lag time a-tall. . .

 

Say Dan. D'you reckon there's anyone else out there ready to wake up yet?

[ScottS]

Wow this is good info- its great when resolutions are posted. Thanks !

 

 

Would the computer on a 2000 V11 have the same 3k revs subroutine ? Or a variation ?

 

3 minutes is a long time! Especailly when you want to adjust stuff

[GuzziMoto]

And by all means, in addition to making sure it's past 3K rev's, make sure the 1.4 oz brass body OE coolant temp sensor in the head has climbed all the way up its required heat lag time to full operating temp before the Enviro-Nazi's insert their probe!! If not, you're risking over CO% FAIL!!

 

With an ultra low mass air temp sensor in the head, no worry about sensor temp lag time a-tall. . .

 

Say Dan. D'you reckon there's anyone else out there ready to wake up yet?

Unless you trailered your bike to the testing station, by your own testimony the stock sensor would maintain a higher temp reading (some how possibly higher then the actual engine temp?) longer. Now it's the other way around. Is it even relevent to the issue?

Yeah, SOMEONE needs to wake up all right....

[Guest ratchethack]

Unless you trailered your bike to the testing station, by your own testimony the stock sensor would maintain a higher temp reading (some how possibly higher then the actual engine temp?) longer. Now it's the other way around. Is it even relevent to the issue?

Yeah, SOMEONE needs to wake up all right....

Um, yes. . . Well, there will always be some who, lacking the. . . err, capacity, will clearly never get it. . .

 

And waddayagonna do?

[Dan M]

Unless you trailered your bike to the testing station, by your own testimony the stock sensor would maintain a higher temp reading (some how possibly higher then the actual engine temp?) longer. Now it's the other way around. Is it even relevent to the issue?

Yeah, SOMEONE needs to wake up all right....

 

Well, since we're talking emissions, CO will stay higher longer with the slow reacting OE sensor set up. Once fully warmed up though, the maintained higher and slow to respond temp reading and associated leanness will cause hydrocarbons (the other EPA measured gas) to soar. Just another reason that a fast accurate way to read head temp is important.

[Greg Field]

Um, yes. . . Well, there will always be some who, lacking the. . . err, capacity, will clearly never get it. . .

 

And waddayagonna do?

 

We certainly know that to be true.

[XPLRN]

It's not the education that hurts, it's the tuition !!!!!

True that..........the purpose of this thread was to try and help others out in the future that might run into this situation and come searching here.

 

I recently found out about the 3 minute fuel dump. It was discussed here on another thread. Actually it is the first 3000 revolutions after start up cold or hot. (about 3 minutes @ idle ) Since they only test at idle you can lean it out via the air bleeds on the T-Bodys. 5.50% CO is a pretty generous standard. I've set mine to between 2&3% maintaining good HCs and a nice steady idle.

Do you by chance have a link to the "It was discussed here on another thread" thread ?? I did a fair amount of looking/searching on computer related subject topics and must have missed it!???

 

I don't know much about 'generous standards', I'm just frustrated that the state I live in is the only one??? in the USA that does MC motorcycle emissions testing!!! Heck even Kallie, the leader of automotive emissions crap, doesn't have MC emissions testing!!!

 

 

Wow this is good info- its great when resolutions are posted. Thanks !

 

Would the computer on a 2000 V11 have the same 3k revs subroutine ? Or a variation ?

 

3 minutes is a long time! Especailly when you want to adjust stuff

I hope the results help someone else in the future........your most certainly welcome!!

 

Maybe if you check your computer, referencing the pictures in the first posts of this thread you can figure out if you have the Marelli 15M computer.........that's the one I was dealing with.

 

Yeah.......3 minutes is a long time.......I made sure they had the big fan blowing on it while it was sitting there idling.

 

 

And by all means, in addition to making sure it's past 3K rev's, make sure the 1.4 oz brass body OE coolant temp sensor in the head has climbed all the way up its required heat lag time to full operating temp before the Enviro-Nazi's insert their probe!! If not, you're risking over CO% FAIL!!

 

With an ultra low mass air temp sensor in the head, no worry about sensor temp lag time a-tall. . .

 

Say Dan. D'you reckon there's anyone else out there ready to wake up yet?

 

I did put in the brass temp sensor holder/body that screws into the right side head. I'm a newbie and didn't know that was a OE coolant temp sensor?? What is the "ultra low mass air temp sensor in the head" that you reference?? I figure that the 50 mile ride over there in 114 degree temp got the whole assembly good and heat soaked.

 

Help a MG brother out.........what is the wake up comment directed towards!???

 

Unless you trailered your bike to the testing station, by your own testimony the stock sensor would maintain a higher temp reading (some how possibly higher then the actual engine temp?) longer. Now it's the other way around. Is it even relevent to the issue?

Yeah, SOMEONE needs to wake up all right....

 

Once again.........help a MG brother out.........what is the "SOMEONE needs to wake up all right" comment directed towards!??? Who are you referencing with the "by your own testimony" ?? I did put the all brass sensor holder in as it was mentioned here somewhere that it would provide a more accurate cylinder head temp reading.........true or ????

[GuzziMoto]

I did put in the brass temp sensor holder/body that screws into the right side head. I'm a newbie and didn't know that was a OE coolant temp sensor?? What is the "ultra low mass air temp sensor in the head" that you reference?? I figure that the 50 mile ride over there in 114 degree temp got the whole assembly good and heat soaked.

 

Help a MG brother out.........what is the wake up comment directed towards!???

 

 

 

Once again.........help a MG brother out.........what is the "SOMEONE needs to wake up all right" comment directed towards!??? Who are you referencing with the "by your own testimony" ?? I did put the all brass sensor holder in as it was mentioned here somewhere that it would provide a more accurate cylinder head temp reading.........true or ????

The comment was directed at the person I quoted. He has a habit of throwing this (and other not quite relevent) things into threads they don't belong in. Hack and some others have determined (with no actual scientific testing, only seat of the pants "it runs better so it must be more accurate" type testing) that the stock sensor has too much thermal mass to accurately measure the temp of the engine. They have come up with a air temp sensor that measures the temp of the air next to the engine but has much less mass. They believe this is a more accurate way to measure engine temp but their view is not shared by all. Some believe that thermal conductivity (which the air temp sensor way is lacking in) is an issue as well. There is a long thread (possibly one of the longest on this board) going round in circles about this subject, until it was locked due to the way people were behaving.This whole stupid issue has become something like a religion, and the true believers in the low mass air temp sensor look down on the non-believers. You will have to make up your own mind.

The brass holder you have can be a good thing, but it is not without it's down sides as well. Some insulate it to prevent heat loss and most apply a thermal compound between the sensor tip and the holder to improve thermal conductivity.

Sorry to pull yopu and your thread into this messy affair.

[XPLRN]

The comment was directed at the person I quoted. He has a habit of throwing this (and other not quite relevent) things into threads they don't belong in. Hack and some others have determined (with no actual scientific testing, only seat of the pants "it runs better so it must be more accurate" type testing) that the stock sensor has too much thermal mass to accurately measure the temp of the engine. They have come up with a air temp sensor that measures the temp of the air next to the engine but has much less mass. They believe this is a more accurate way to measure engine temp but their view is not shared by all. Some believe that thermal conductivity (which the air temp sensor way is lacking in) is an issue as well. There is a long thread (possibly one of the longest on this board) going round in circles about this subject, until it was locked due to the way people were behaving.This whole stupid issue has become something like a religion, and the true believers in the low mass air temp sensor look down on the non-believers. You will have to make up your own mind.

The brass holder you have can be a good thing, but it is not without it's down sides as well. Some insulate it to prevent heat loss and most apply a thermal compound between the sensor tip and the holder to improve thermal conductivity.

Sorry to pull yopu and your thread into this messy affair.

 

Thanks for the excellent explanation of stuff I didn't know about. Messy affairs on the internet forums......not fun stuff however I understand how it can happen!! I come out of a technical/scientific background where data collected was used in multi-million $ legal cases. I only want what is documentable as being correct/best for the operation of the V11. I did use copper anti-seize as a thermal compound to aid in the heat transfer from the brass holder to the temp sensor. Guess I'll have to do some searching for the locked thread to check it out!!

[Guest ratchethack]

Messy affairs on the internet forums......not fun stuff however I understand how it can happen!! I come out of a technical/scientific background where data collected was used in multi-million $ legal cases. I only want what is documentable as being correct/best for the operation of the V11. I did use copper anti-seize as a thermal compound to aid in the heat transfer from the brass holder to the temp sensor. Guess I'll have to do some searching for the locked thread to check it out!!

XPLRN, my friend, are you prepared to enter into "high risk" territory?

 

Just checkin'. Since your background would tend to bring high value to your ability to separate the wheat from the chaff here, I would most heartily encourage your sincere interest. However, it could be some hard slogging. . .

 

If I may offer some assistance with a bit of a summary:

 

You see, awhile back, in the dead of winter, whist waiting out the cold and rain, with Dan’s help and well qualified professional expertise, I did some extensive experimenting with the OE head temp sensor, motivated by what started out mostly as curiosity. I learned a great deal about the way it works (and doesn’t work). It’s a component that was evidently sourced by the Luigi’s via low-bid contract. In any event, I was considerably surprised to find it to be a fairly serious mismatch to the function of monitoring and control of fuel injection of the Guzzi air cooled motor. Being designed to operate in a circulating bath of coolant, it has an inherent design flaw as mis-applied on the Guzzi, which I identified as the prohibitive THERMAL INERTIA of its relatively massive 1.4 oz brass body, which acts as an unwanted heat reservoir. While this design would work just fine in any motor with a water jacket, in an air cooled cylinder head, its ability to respond anywhere near rapidly enough to temperature changes for adequate FI control is seriously compromised -- with or without thermo-compound in the air gap.

 

Now it seems that this simple heat flow principle was so incomprehensible to a select few, that these few Forum scholars evidently concluded that I dreamed it up, and either could not, and/or (more likely) would not comprehend. It seemed that my well-documented, well founded comprehension of heat flow analysis and the principles involved, my well researched findings -- as well as the results I got on the road that backed up and fully supported my analysis, were somehow perceived as a threat to the uneducated and inexperienced status quo. . .

 

In any event, offense was taken to both my findings and my analysis, as if it was all Bravo Sierra Puro, and simply could not happen. A full-blown Forum jihad eventually ensued, comprised of the aforementioned select few jihadists contributing nothing but a daily slew of abject ignorance and the most concentrated, deliberate attempt to shout down my open and honest findings as I’ve seen on any Forum anywhere at any time. The unrelenting twisting, distortion, and mischaracterization of what I’ve done continues today in this thread by the same most vocal few. Amazingly enough, NONE of the jihadists had (or yet have) ANY experience with, and therefore (still) have no comprehension whatsoever of what they've been so viciously attacking. Understandably, this wildly berzerk behavior scared off many of those who, unlike the jihadists, evidently had sincere interest, but had trouble following what we were doing amidst the daily hail of ridicule. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such childish behavior on any Forum before (or since) on the side of raw ignorance, but there you have it.

 

Despite the empty ridicule of those who will swear on stacks of Guzziology to the contrary, your brass head temp sensor holder, weighing 2 oz., screwed into the head, with the 1.4 oz OE temp sensor screwed into it, WILL and DOES cause the same improper fueling where you live as it did where Dan and I live, on nearly opposite sides of the continent (and everywhere else) – but is most particularly noticeable in ambient riding temps of 90-100F+. Though you might not recognize the symptoms -- they're more of an irritation than a "problem" -- but a considerable irritation nonetheless. In Phoenix, I more than suspect that you’ve experienced the hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms at full operating temp at idle and off-throttle that I identified as the hallmark of the OE head temp sensor. I found that these symptoms are made considerably worse by the brass holder and thermo-compound, which raises the combined brass heat reservoir to a relatively massive 3.4 oz lump. The resulting inaccurate temp/time reads and bad fueling also causes over-rich fueling and prolonged warm-up intervals in cooler weather, as reported by several others.

 

Converting to the ultra low mass GM head temp sensor has made both my Guzzi and Dan’s perform significantly better on the road than possible with the OE sensor. We're both using them today. I have several thousand miles on mine, and the improvements continue to be consistent, a 10% improvement in MPG being the irrefutable and conclusive benchmark of more accurate fueling, at least in my case.

 

Unfortunately, the honest, straightforward account of both my experiments and Dan's, and the results of our testing on the road have been undermined by an astonishing litany of Forum abuse that resulted in the closing of the original thread. I can’t recommend this – unless you’re VERY SERIOUSLY motivated -- but if you really want to wade through the dreckfest, with your background, you will have no trouble gleaning the truth from the great reeking heap of steadily escalating mendacity in the 58 pages here:

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11231

 

Dan had later found a similar, fundamentally equivalent, and perhaps better approach to the same solution using the same ultra low mass air temp sensor, and opened another, somewhat less um, contentious 4-page follow-up thread here (also closed):

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...=14832&st=0

 

Now the saddest part of all the idiotic behavior of the jihadists has been the realization that there are those who actually seem to possess a sincere interest in the value of converting to an air temp sensor, but who, for obvious reasons, don’t want any part of the childish behavior that’s been brought to this Forum by the rabid, knowledge-free, experience-free, and logic-free ravings of the jihadists. But despite this, I’ve anticipated more sincere interest as the weather warms up, and the hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms become more of an evident irritation.

 

If you or anyone else has sincere interest in what I’ve done or what Dan has also done, unfortunately, I cannot advise you to post your interest on this Forum, because rational, adult level discussion on this topic has proven to be. . . um, persistently problematic here. But if you're interested, I, for one, would be pleased to help you out with any info about what Dan and I both have found to be the hot weather shortcomings of your current setup with the OE sensor, brass holder, and thermo-compound, and what we've done to eliminate the inherent response lag-time of the OE sensor. I've tested the same brass holder and OE sensor with thermo-compound you're currently using (and many variations on it) quite extensively, as well-documented in the first closed thread above, and so has Dan, in at least one config., which I think is the same as yours. My experience has been that I never fully understood what I'd been putting up with for over 5 years until it was 100% GONE -- and what a relief, especially for summer riding!

 

The ultra low mass GM air temp sensor is commonly available at a far lower cost than the OE brass body sensor from Guzzi, and requires either modifying the plastic body of the sensor by threading it (as Dan has done), or fabricating a new plastic holder (as I have done), and splicing in a new connector, also relatively low cost.

 

I would welcome your PM, as I have all those who have PM’d previously and (understandably) didn’t want to resurrect the childish ridicule-fest that eventually shut down the 2 threads linked above.

 

Hope this helps.

[Dan M]

I PM'd you before I saw Ratchet's post.

Rather than start the whole crap storm over, reply off thread if you have any interest.

[Guest ratchethack]

Myron, reply sent via PM.

[Skeeve]

I'm also curious to know if this computer 3 minute enrichment cycle is common knowledge with the technically knowledgeable folks here!!! ?????

 

Doh!

 

Yes, it's known, albeit only somewhat recently: I can't recall if I 1st learnt of it here or over at the Guzzitech forums, but yes, I'm sorry I didn't think of that.

 

My only defense is that:

 

1) here in CA motorcycles have never been smogged. (Altho' there is an evil b!tch of a state rep based around Thousand Oaks/Agoura or thereabouts who's trying to change that. Quick, where's my bucket of water to throw on that witch!)

 

2) Everyone in a testing facility is supposed to know that a tested vehicle is supposed to be thoroughly warmed up before starting the test.

 

Glad you did the detective work & solved this mystery! Sorry you ended up out of pocket from the experience, but at least you can feel proud that your experience will help someone else down the road... thanks to v11lm.com!