ECU

[dlaing]

So is that the only reason to look at O2? (assuming you have a CO meter)

To look for possible stagger or timing issues?

[moto]

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

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

41651[/snapback]

Did my reply explain sufficently?

[moto]

So is that the only reason to look at O2? (assuming you have a CO meter)

To look for possible stagger or timing issues?

41652[/snapback]

For performance (hp and/or economy), pretty much.

[Cliff]

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.

 

I think Juha is one of the more technically literate folks here and to suggest that he has not read all the artiicles or does not understand is a disservice to him and others here.

 

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.

 

This is where the skewing of facts comes in.

 

In a rich mixture there is no oxygen. It is a zero quantity. All you measure is noise. This is the same for CO in a lean mixture. Its a noise that is measure.

 

So yes you are correct in that an oxygen sensor can not give any useful information here and not suprisingly they don't.

 

However if you look at the quote below from the thread I quoted earlier

 

First off we have to dismiss the rumour that they measure oxygen. Only when lean. When rich of stoich a HEGO becomes a glorified EGT probe and a wideband measures the content of the other ions in the exhaust gas. Call em lambda sensors and it becomes less confusing. If you want

confusing go and read up BB's research for the PWC. Needless to say, with a GOOD wideband you can get within 0.2 or so of the correct lambda.

 

So

fact 1 ) an oxgyen sensor can not be used to determine anything in a rich mixture.

fact 2 ) Wide band sensors can measure mixture at rich mixtures

 

Conclusion - a wide band sensor is not measuring oxygen when rich.

 

I don't think anyone here has claimed that a closed loop can produce better results than what can be manually tweaked on a dyno. Even a dynolinked tuned dyno sessionwill fall short.

 

There are those that will want the absolute maximum power and for them an expensive dyno session is the only option. How much does your tweaking cost?

 

Most have stock bikes that do not run anywhere like they should or they have made a few common modifications and want to get there bike close to optimal.

 

For them a dynolink session is all they require. Yes there are quite a few that are happy with the results. A closed loop ECU will give the same result. No it wont give the the absolute maximum available but it will be close enough for most.

[JuhaV]

Well, Cliff has been touting the benefits of his ECU mainly upon the supposed merits of O2 sensor driven full closed loop operation,

41643[/snapback]

 

As far as I understood Cliff's ECU is not running full closed loop, but partial closed-loop. Cliff, if I am wrong here please rectify. Sorry to repeat this, but I think that it is important to have this detail correct.

 

When saying "partial" I mean here the following options :

 

1) Partial map closed loop = in some parts of the map ECU performs closed loop adjustment to the mixture and in the other parts of the map the system is in open-loop mode. User can choose where to be closed loop and where to be open loop.

 

2) Partial adjustment closed loop = lambda sensor is allowed to cause only a certain amount correction to the injection values, let’s say plus/minus 15 %. The base values are always taken from the map. The map can be user edited.

 

3) Multi-target closed loop = there can be different O2 target values for different parts of the map. These are also freely editable.

 

When you have a wide-band sensor coupled with such an ECU, you are quite happy even with a base map that is somewhat off (not >> than 15 % off, of course). And the best thing is that you are able to improve your base map very easily.

 

I have used a My16M in closed loop mode over 10000 km in my Sport 1100. I can only say that the bike runs much better with My16M than with the original Weber Marelli Unit. I have tried the original, Will Creedon and Termignoni chips and the bike has been properly set up. Further, the bike runs even better with MY16M in closed-loop mode

 

br, JuhaV

[dlaing]

I am still confused here.

From many people's experiences, the wide band sensor does a good job, and the bikes run better and make more power.

MOTO's data would seem to indicate that Oxygen data is useless without other data.

And Cliff just suggested that the Wideband sensors measure more than just O2.

So are Moto's Oxygen measurements different than what a WideBand sensor would indicate?

I guess one does the output in percentage, while the other outputs in voltage, that is translated into A:F ratio.

Has Moto tried using a Wideband sensor?

Or has anyone done a direct comparison of a wideband sensor compared to a gas analyzer?

[moto]

I think Juha is one of the more technically literate folks here and I to suggest that he has not read all the artiicles or does not understand is a disservice to him and others here.

That's all fine and good, but he himself stated that he had not read nor understood all of the posts.

This is where the skewing of facts comes in. In a rich mixture there is no oxygen. It is a zero quantity. All you measure is noise. This is the same for CO in a lean mixture. Its a noise that is measure.

Huh? Why would you want to skew the facts? And then to announce it so brazenly? Tsk, tsk. Well, on the other hand you are being honest, which I commend!

Certainly in a rich mixture, there is little to no oxygen. But I can't recall anyone advocating the use of an O2 sensor in a rich mixture. There is definitely measurable CO during a lean condition. As stated before, you can get meaningful CO numbers all the way down to lean misfire.

fact 2 ) Wide band sensors can measure mixture at rich mixtures

No, they can't measure mixture, but they might measure oxygen content.

Conclusion - a wide band sensor is not measuring oxygen when rich.

Then what is it measuring?

I don't think anyone here has claimed that a closed loop can produce better results than what can be manually tweaked on a dyno. Even a dynolinked tuned dyno sessionwill fall short.

Quite true!

There are those that will want the absolute maximum power and for them an expensive dyno session is the only option.

True.

How much does your tweaking cost?

That depends on how many throttle positions are tuned, how many rpm steps are tuned, whether ignition timing is tuned, if the table positions are overlapping for timing and pulsewidth, whether cylinders are tuned individually, if any interpolation is used (if so, how much), and whether the tuning is CO or HP; if to CO, how the target is derived; if to HP, to what resolution (1 HP? .5 HP? .2 HP? Some other number?).

Most have stock bikes that do not run anywhere like they should or they have made a few common modifications and want to get there bike close to optimal.

True.

For them a dynolink session is all they require.

Maybe we have widely disparate ideas of what the word optimal means in this context. Can you define what it means to you?

Yes there are quite a few that are happy with the results.

Really? Where? What is this happiness based upon? I would like to see this quantified and qualified.

A closed loop ECU will give the same result.

Agreed.

No it wont give the the absolute maximum available but it will be close enough for most.

I think that if folks had a better undertanding of what they were really getting, didn't just buy DynoJet's "A/F ratio" related marketing hype hook, line and sinker, and knew that there was a better alternative, it would not be.

[dlaing]

Here are the results of my one Tuning Link experience.

The bike rode much more nicely after the tuning. But I still got some pinging around 5000to 6000 rpms. Also, how did I get more power at 5800-5900 when the A:F is the same???

[callison]

Moto and Cliff are slowly getting to the same page. I'm going to throw in my simplistic 2 cents worth. Any system can be optimized for a static condition, i.e., "mapped" in an ECU. If nothing ever changes, you can be sure that you're deriving that last .5 HP from the engine (a percentage is a better reference though, rather than a hard .5 HP or whatever). In the real world though, NOTHING is static. Virtually everything on an engine will be changing all of the time as well as in the environment. Humidity, temperature, oil viscosity etc. You can't just pick one either, it's a gestalt and you have to consider them all when applying that to the "quantified" horsepower. Which is bullpuckey. You can never fully quantify the horsepower because you cannot separate entirely the effects of the engine itself from the effects of the fuel/air input. You can however, attempt to opimize the output of the system. For EFI systems, that's done with a map that's as close as possible to the desired characteristic. You can enable that map to "self optimize" via external sensors and suitable programming. The nature of servo operation is that the effect will always lag the action - you will never achieve optimum. Sorry, that's the way it is, and to keep harping on the imperfections of O2 sensors and quantified output is a bit off of the point. You can apply any number of partial solutions to the WM problem via PCIII's, TuneBoy, TPS tweaking etc and improve the WM. You can never hope to entirely optimize it. Aside from tweaking for maximum horsepower or maximum fuel economy or meeting environmental pollution concerns, the MOST typical reason for any of these solutions is to attempt to resolve the stumbling of the WM system in the 3-4000 rpm range. Quit paying attention to optimized power figures and bewilderingly small numerical differences and start paying attention to optimum system behavior. The bike with the best performance characteristics is far more enjoyable than the bike with the most characterized performance.

 

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I keep seeing posts full of edgy disagreement between folks that would probably be good friends if they were working together in the same room.

[dlaing]

John T's before and after tuning link

[callison]

Also, how did I get more power at 5800-5900 when the A:F is the same???

 

That may or may not be explainable depending upon how the dyno curve was obtained. If it's a whack the throttle open to redline and then shut it off, then the energy of the rotating masses in the drivetrain can affect the system. Doug Lofgren has made note of the considerable affects large rear wheels on Harley Davidsons can make on the system at specific rpm's. http://www.visi.com/~moperfserv/rpipes.htm. Just having your engine better cooled down for the second run can make a significant difference as well. That's independent of A/F ratio.

[Cliff]

I'm not particularly interested in what the wideband sensors are actually measuring or how. They claim to measure lambda and all of the independant evidence supports that they do a reasonable job under most conditions.

 

A precise definition for optimal?

 

Only those you are in very competitive racing environments would require the optimal as you would define it and justify the expense. Those people for one would not be riding Moto Guzzi.

 

For me optimal is good enough to not require additional expense or effort to improve. If I can be with 5% of the peak I'm happy. That could be an A/F ratio anwhere from 12 to 13.5 for power and anywhere from 13.5 to 15 for cruise. That may seem imprecise to you but for me the results are good enough to keep me pleased with the results. For me efficiency is a higher priority than raw power. The bar for milage used to be 5l/100km. Currently its 4.5, I don't do this by trying to go super lean.

 

My next project is to go closed loop for spark advance. I'll be hoping to get milage close to 4.

[Cliff]

Thats an interesting point about static testing Carl. Most ECUs have an enrichment for acceleration. If you maximise the static case, how much do you lose on the road due to the now over rich mixture.

[dlaing]

Carl wrote: " ...and to keep harping on the imperfections of O2 sensors and quantified output is a bit off of the point."

I believe I disagree, but what do you mean by "off of the point"?

I think the validity of O2 sensors is right on the point.

I know my bike felt better after the Tuning Link, but just simply making it run richer made it feel better, too.

I want to know if the O2 sensors on a tuning link are messing up my map.

I want to know if Moto's Oxygen data is the same as WBO2.

These are important points.

I want to know what Moto would charge to optimize the crucial parts of the fuel map to within 1HP and to get the entire loaded throttle map to within the 2-4%CO range.

[moto]

As far as I understood Cliff's ECU is not running full closed loop, but partial closed-loop. Cliff, if I am wrong here please rectify. Sorry to repeat this, but I think that it is important to have this detail correct.

 

When saying "partial" I mean here the following options :

 

1) Partial map closed loop = in some parts of the map  ECU performs closed loop adjustment to the mixture and in the other parts of the map the system is in  open-loop mode. User can choose where to be closed loop and where to be open loop.

 

2) Partial adjustment closed loop =  lambda sensor is allowed to cause only a certain amount correction to the injection values, let’s say plus/minus 15 %. The base values are always taken from the map. The map can be user edited.

 

3) Multi-target closed loop =  there can be different O2 target values for different parts of the map. These are also freely editable.

Having the ECU in the modes where the O2 sensor output exerts the least influence on the map will be best, especially if the base map is close.

When you have a wide-band sensor coupled with such an ECU, you are quite happy even with a base map that is somewhat off (not >> than 15 % off, of course). And the best thing is that you are able to improve your base map very easily.

"I" won't be happy, but "one" might be. Again, it depends upon one's criteria for happiness. Irrespective of that, the O2 sensor inputs will damage performance less if the basemap is off substantially to begin with, especially toward the lean side. Depending on what voltage the ECU is looking for, it might even help. Does the 15% you mentioned refer to pulsewidth, or something else?

I have tried the original, Will Creedon and Termignoni chips and the bike has been properly set up.

You can't drop a prefab chip in and expect the engine to run right. It might, but fuel pressure, injector flow rates and the mapping itself (!) preclude that from being fool proof.

I have used a My16M in closed loop mode over 10000 km in my Sport 1100. I can only say that the bike runs much better with My16M than with the original Weber Marelli Unit. Further, the bike runs even better with MY16M in closed-loop mode

Hey, that's great! Do you have any before and after dyno runs to show us? As far as your engine running reasonably well in closed loop mode, it is possible, especially if it was running very lean to begin with. Remember the example from before, with a .4% oxygen content and 1.9 to 11.4% CO? Remember how below ~1.0% CO engines can begin to misfire? Say the engine was running at somewhere around 1.0% CO or near but not at misfire. This figure could be somewhat lower for an engine with big displacement cylinders, like a Guzzi. So lets say we are under 1% CO. If we then use .4% O2 as our target, and barring any anomalies such as Cliff and I have uncovered, the CO will likely come up to around 1.9% before the ECU stops adjusting, which will yield a significant improvement in performance, but not as much as if we were to bring the CO to between 3 and 4%. It should be noted that this example is not likely work out exactly this way in real life, because I have not established the relationships between CO and HP nor between CO and O2 for a modern Guzzi, and therefore have to resort to using figures from another engine. I think my example nevertheless makes the point...