ECU

[moto]

I have to admit that I'm replying to this thread partly because I'm a bit drunk and in that state I know everything better than anyone else . Forgive me.

I made an error and had a look on these links. For an unknown reason the author  seems to have a lot of aggression and he either does not know what he is talking about or he wants to mislead readers into the direction that is suitable for his personal commercial mission. Most probably both. Another odd thing is that he doesn't have a decent domain name, but is hiding behind an anonymoys IP address.

41563[/snapback]

The author of those links is not hiding anywhere and has no desire to remain anonymous. I simply don't know how to get the pages to come up within the context of the website, as it uses frames. I first looked at the page properties and copied the URLs. Just now I tried to use the main page adress in front of the extensions instead and it works just fine, although the pages are still not brought up in context: http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/dyno_error.html, http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/4gasEGAvso2sensor.html, and http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/dyno_locs.html. To say that Marc Salvisberg doesn't know what he's talking about and/or has an agenda to mislead is a bit of a stretch. Sure his writing style sounds agressive. I don't agree with it either, but that does not make what he is saying here untrue. Think about the magnitude of what he is up against. People tend to believe the falsehood that is repeated most frequently and with the most marketing glitz. Think about how difficult it is to change people's minds about anything, no matter how wrong it might be. I can undertstand Marc's frustration coming out in the written word and I can forgive him for that.

[moto]

The idea being that using e.g. SAE correction/approximation you can compare dyno results taken at the 20°C to the result at 40°C environment. Of course, in real life you can't.

41563[/snapback]

I can say from my own experience that SAE correction factors work quite well. I have many different runs taken on different days on the same motorcycle with the only change being in atmospheric conditions, and the corrected graphs are nearly indistinguishable (I'm willing to post as needed). Atmospheric conditions can easily change from one run to the next, and if there were no correction factors you could not tell at all what you were doing. You would be hard pressed to tell whether or not the horsepower you gained or lost was due to the parts you just bolted on or due to the change in atmospheric conditions. I used to do a fresh run in the morning to get a new baseline whenever I had to stop tuning on a previous day and I usually still do, but how well runs repeat with the correction factors has made it something I do because I'm persnickety, not because I have to.

[Cliff]

It seems that FUD is becoming an acceptable practise of corporations. They always seem to provide skewed information to support their product rather than a balanced view.

 

First we had this supposed open loop vs closed loop thread

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4028

 

A more balanced topic theme would have been "OEM closed loop controllers still not there and closed loop controllers cause additional pain for Dynojet"

 

Now we have a corporation that in addition to making dynos make their own 4 gas analyser to gain a competitive advantage.

 

I have no issue with believing their gas sensor is superior to a wideband sensor but I find the hard to believe their line about wideband sensors being useless. Sure they have documented some anomilies with the sensors but there is no investigation as to what has caused them.

 

So far I've spent a few hours googling for any evidence to support their claims and so far I have found none.

I have even posted a question on the Megaquirt forum http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?p=33486 . There is some interesting information surfacing. There is even an account of a lean reading anomoly from an o2 sensor and an explaination.

[BrianG]

One might also wonder why the whole internal combustion controller industry remains based on O2 sensors... wide-band or not, if they are so valueless, especially if there are some other better source(s) of information. After all, the ECU wouldn't know what the source of the data was, so there's not much room for a "EFI manufacturer's conspiracy" theory there.

 

I might not argue with the assertion that there are "other" sources of real-time "combustion status" data, but I can't see that the whole industry remains captive to erroneous technology. Sub-optimal, perhaps, but wrong?? I can't see it.

[Guest Pexi]

... and if there were no correction factors you could not tell at all what you were doing. You would be hard pressed to tell whether or not the horsepower you gained or lost was due to the parts you just bolted on or due to the change in atmospheric conditions.

 

All that sounds 100% right to me. SAE correction factor is the best widely used / standardized mathemathical formula to "equalize" dyno runs executed in different time/atmospheric environment in the same dyno equipment and within a reasonable time frame (time frame is relevant because dyno's rollers, breaking and measuring devices, temp/air pressure sensors, whatever, deteriorate in time). I don't argue with that at all. But my point is/was that this monsieur claimed aggressively that a dyno operator should not have presented real measured values to the customer, because they were incorrect. He claims that SAE correcter figures are somehow better, more correct. That is bullshit.

 

SAE "corrected" figures are estimations. If they correspond to the results you have had it's fine, it means that the intake temperature/compression compensation maps in that bike's ECU were ok, but not much else.

 

Another point, that I would like to raise:

Temperature plays a very important role in SAE formula - so the question is: what temperature? Answer: intake air temperature. How well this temp during the dyno run corresponds to the road driving situation? My answer: very badly. Value of dyno optimization: not much.

 

This is a wonderful thread!

[moto]

It seems that FUD is becoming an acceptable practise of corporations.

What's FUD? I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't know what that is.

They always seem to provide skewed information to support their product rather than a balanced view.

I think in the case of DynoJet you would be correct. In the case of Factory, I would say less so, especially on this particular topic.

Now we have a corporation that in addition to making dynos make their own 4 gas analyser to gain a competitive advantage.

If you are referring to Factory, they do not make the bench used in their gas analyzer. As mentioned before, that is manufactured by Andros. However, Factory's pump, filtration, sample cooling and water separation make it superior to anything else I've seen so far. I think gaining a "competitive advantage" is a byproduct of Marc's trying to solve some of the problems he encountered as a tuner. I see nothing wrong with producing a superior product equating a "competitive advantage". I think it should be that way, although it certainly isn't always. It seems that hype and repetition give the best "competitive advantage" in this day and age.

I have no issue with believing their gas sensor is superior to a wideband sensor but I find the hard to believe their line about wideband sensors being useless.

Good! This is astep in the right direction. However, I don't recall anyone saying that O2 readings (or O2 sensors) are useless. I did say, and I think Marc is saying, that it's not nearly as effective to tune pulsewidth to an O2 content as it is to tune to HP or CO content.

Sure they have documented some anomilies with the sensors but there is no investigation as to what has caused them.

Could be true, but the readings I and everyone else who is using an EGA is getting are not "anomalies". The so far most effective tuning methodology would simply not work if all or most of the O2 data was anomolous. Once again the methodology, as follows: You can use CO to rough in. You tune pulsewidth to best power. If the gas readings are for more than one cylinder at once, you look at CO and O2 content next. If the CO and O2 look high, you might have a stagger issue. You then fix that by whatever method you have available. Once that is fixed, CO and O2 will have dropped, while HP will have gone up. If O2 is then still high, then you likely need more advance. If you had one EGA takeoff per cylinder you can go straight to looking at timing, as (obviously) O2 will not tell you about stagger in this instance. If HC is high, you might need less. Once again, HP is the arbiter. Once you've actually got fuel and ignition right, CO2 will look good. At this stage, you are done, no matter what the O2 readings are. Of course this all assumes an engine in mechanically good order with no ignition problems, etc. As you can see, there would be a problem if you went straight to O2 content. I am firmly convinced that the readings I am getting are the actual O2 content. I'm also conviced that the readings most people are getting with their wideband, control box equipped, 5-wire O2 sensors are accurate as well. What I am arguing is not the accuracy of these devices (although the anomalies are disturbing), but whether or not O2 content is a proper indicator of mixture strength, to the extent that it has a place controlling an ECU in a performance application.

So far I've spent a few hours googling for any evidence to support their claims and so far I have found none.

Again, is something untrue until everyone and their mother is talking about it?

I have even posted a question on the Megaquirt forum http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?p=33486 . There is some interesting information surfacing. There is even an account of a lean reading anomoly from an o2 sensor and an explaination.

41570[/snapback]

Very cool. There was some interesting reading here.

[moto]

One might also wonder why the whole internal combustion controller industry remains based on O2 sensors... wide-band or not, if they are so valueless, especially if there are some other better source(s) of information.  After all, the ECU wouldn't know what the source of the data was, so there's not much room for a "EFI manufacturer's conspiracy" theory there.

 

I might not argue with the assertion that there are "other" sources of real-time "combustion status" data, but I can't see that the whole industry remains captive to erroneous technology.  Sub-optimal, perhaps, but wrong??  I can't see it.

41573[/snapback]

The answer to all of this is catalytic converters. They need the O2 content to be in a particular range to function. Most closed loop ECUs only change the pulsewidth from the basemap based on O2 sensor input when the O2 content begins to go out of the range of where the cat will work efficiently as well as survive. The rest of the time, the ECU is just working off of the basemap with pulsewidth corrections based on TP, rpm, temps, pressures, etc. The map is never permanently modified by O2 sensor input, nor is the ECU ever running in a full closed loop mode, where pulsewidth is fully controlled by O2 sensor voltage. O2 sensors have to be reasonable accurate to do this job. That's why I am, aside fom the anomalies Cliff and I have uncovered, not essentially challenging the accuracy of O2 sensors. Once again, I am challenging the validity of the use of O2 sensor output-voltage in being sufficiently related to mixture strength to warrant using it to control pulsewidth in a full closed loop ECU for a high performance application, or in "Autotuning".

[moto]

But my point is/was that this monsieur claimed aggressively that a dyno operator should not have presented real measured values to the customer, because they were incorrect. He claims that SAE correcter figures are somehow better, more correct. That is bullshit.

If the customer's previous run was corrected, and the one presented by the tuner was not, because he realized that he lost the customer some power and wanted to cover that up, I think that's scandalous. The customer deserves to be able to compare apples to apples. If both runs are corrected he can do that. As a matter of fact, for both the tuner and the customer that's about the only way to reasonably compare data. What else can you do? To expect that somehow all runs and tuning can or should be complete before any changes in ambient conditions occur is a bit of a stretch.

SAE "corrected" figures are estimations. If they correspond to the results you have had it's fine, it means that the intake temperature/compression compensation maps in that bike's ECU were ok, but not much else.

Not quite, as the correction factors work pretty darned well on carbureted engines as well. Once again I can provide as much data as is required from as many bikes as you like, and you can see for yourself.

Another point, that I would like to raise:

Temperature plays a very important role in SAE formula - so the question is: what temperature? Answer: intake air temperature. How well this temp during the dyno run corresponds to the road driving situation?  My answer: very badly. Value of dyno optimization: not much.

Well, on an injected engine, that depends on the ECUs temp compensation, which seems to be quite good nowadays. On a carbureted engine you can certainly tune to a particular temp, say the average you might encounter. That doesn't mean that tuning a carbureted engine is not useful. It just means that under some of the conditions the tuning will be suboptimal. Does that mean one should not tune?

[BrianG]

The answer to all of this is catalytic converters. They need the O2 content to be in a particular range to function. Most closed loop ECUs only change the pulsewidth from the basemap based on O2 sensor input when the O2 content begins to go out of the range of where the cat will work efficiently as well as survive. The rest of the time, the ECU is just working off of the basemap with pulsewidth corrections based on TP, rpm, temps, pressures, etc. The map is never permanently modified by O2 sensor input, nor is the ECU ever running in a full closed loop mode, where pulsewidth is fully controlled by O2 sensor voltage. O2 sensors have to be reasonable accurate to do this job. That's why I am, aside fom the anomalies Cliff and I have uncovered, not essentially challenging the accuracy of O2 sensors. Once again, I am challenging the validity of the use of O2 sensor output-voltage in being sufficiently related to mixture strength to warrant using it to control pulsewidth in a full closed loop ECU for a high performance application, or in "Autotuning".

41578[/snapback]

 

Ah..... sorry.... I missed the part about this discussion being anchored to full closed-loop control of elite performance engines. Consider my commentary withdrawn.

[moto]

Ah..... sorry.... I missed the part about this discussion being anchored to full closed-loop control of elite performance engines.  Consider my commentary withdrawn.

41604[/snapback]

"Elite performance engines" could be construed by someone to mean "racing". To clarify, I actually have reservations against any O2 sensor controlled full closed loop application. What I meant to imply is that in instances where the O2 sensor is used to optimize cat efficiency/longevity (as in most) the sensor is either not a player or only an incidental player in controlling pulsewidth for the purpose of producing HP or mileage (or "performance"). If that means you would like to withdraw your withdrawal, I will humbly apologize for the confusion...

[JuhaV]

That's why I am, aside fom the anomalies Cliff and I have uncovered, not essentially challenging the accuracy of O2 sensors. Once again, I am challenging the validity of the use of O2 sensor output-voltage in being sufficiently related to mixture strength to warrant using it to control pulsewidth in a full closed loop ECU for a high performance application, or in "Autotuning".

41578[/snapback]

 

I can't say that I have read and understood everything in this threat, but is/was there actually someone here who has really been promoting FULL closed loop adjustment based purely on lambda sensors ?

 

I still have the opinion that anykind of sensor in your exhaust is better than having no sensor at all. The info that your sensor gives just needs to be interpreted correctly by the ECU and used for finetuning the fuel injection. Some of that knowledge may be written permanentyl into the maps or not.

 

I cannot see any other way to ensure that your engine performs correctly despite of the changing day-to-day, weather-to-weather, gas-to-gas situations.

 

br, JuhaV

[moto]

I can't say that I have read and understood everything in this threat, but is/was there actually someone here who has really been promoting FULL closed loop adjustment based purely on lambda sensors ?

Well, Cliff has been touting the benefits of his ECU mainly upon the supposed merits of O2 sensor driven full closed loop operation, but, as far as I can tell, so far things have not progressed/deteriorated enough for anyone to threaten anyone else...

I still have the opinion that any kind of sensor in your exhaust  is better than having no sensor at all.

I think you might not if you had actually at least read all of the posts, even if you did not understand all of it. In any case, the usefulness of sensors depends entirely upon the relevance of their outputs. How can O2 sensor output be relevant when it can be the same for a 1.9% to 11.4% CO with 1% CO approaching lean misfire, 11% approaching rich misfire and 3-4% being ideal for power, and when it can also read all the way from .2% to 4% O2 at best power.

The info that your sensor gives just needs to be interpreted correctly by the ECU and used for finetuning the fuel injection.

Right, but how do you "interpret" a signal that, at best, bears a loose relationship to mixture stength? Don't get me wrong, as stated before, it can be usefully interpreted, but not by an ECU, which can't monitor other gas contents, stagger, or HP.

Some of that knowledge may be written permanentyl into the maps or not.

What knowlege would that be?

I cannot see any other way to ensure that your engine performs correctly despite of the changing day-to-day, weather-to-weather, gas-to-gas situations.

As mentioned before, ECUs correct just fine by monitoring throttle position, rpm, pressures, temperatures, etc., certainly better than they could based on O2 sensor voltages.

[dlaing]

How can O2 sensor output be relevant when it can be the same for a 1.9% to 11.4% CO with 1% CO approaching lean misfire, 11% approaching rich misfire and 3-4% being ideal for power, and when it can also read all the way from .2% to 4% at best power.  Right, but how do you "interpret" a signal that, at best, bears a loose relationship to mixture stength? Don't get me wrong, as stated before, it can be usefully interpreted, but not by an ECU, which can't monitor other gas contents, stagger, or HP.What knowlege would that be?

41643[/snapback]

Based on your data, how can you say " it can be usefully interpreted"?

What does a high or low O2 reading indicate, when at 3.5%?

It seems that a Low O2 reading, when CO is optimal, might indicate too much ignition advance, and fuel.

It seems like a High O2 reading, when CO is optimal, might indicate too little ignition advance, and fuel.

[moto]

Based on your data, how can you say " it can be usefully interpreted"?

What does a high or low O2 reading indicate, when at 3.5%

Just to clarify, the stated 3-4% range referred to CO.

It seems that a Low O2 reading, when CO is optimal, might indicate too much ignition advance, and fuel.

It seems like a High O2 reading, when CO is optimal, might indicate too little ignition advance, and fuel.

41646[/snapback]

Once again, if CO looked ideal to slightly high and O2 looked high, and blanket changes to pulsewidth made little difference to HP, a stagger issue would be highly probable. If that was not the case or solved, and O2 was still high, the ignition timing would likely need to be advanced. O2 will not tell anything about overadvanced ignition.

[dlaing]

QUOTE(dlaing @ Jan 22 2005, 11:57 AM)

Based on your data, how can you say " it can be usefully interpreted"?

What does a high or low O2 reading indicate, when at 3.5%

 

 

Sorry, My BAD, I meant to say,What does a high or low O2 reading indicate, when at 3.5% CO