MyECU installed on my 2003 V11

[Paul Minnaert]

well Brian, on page 5 from the lm1 manual:

http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/support..._Manual_3.0.pdf

 

4.1 Mounting the sensor using a Bung or Exhaust Clamp.

Using a bung is the preferred method for mounting the O2 sensor for both catalytic and

non-catalytic cars.

On CATALYTIC CONVERTER equipped vehicles:

Bung: Install the oxygen sensor’s bung upstream from the catalytic converter

(a bung and plug is included in the LM-1 kit). Any decent muffler or

exhaust shop can do this for you. The wide-band oxygen sensor is then

installed into the bung to take a reading. (Insert the plug into the bung

when not in use). The bung must be installed in the exhaust pipe at

the side or on top, NOT on the bottom of the exhaust pipe. Best

position is between 10:00 and 2:00 position.……or………

Exhaust Clamp: You may use the optional Exhaust Clamp to mount the O2 sensor to the

car’s tail pipe when taking readings from cars with catalytic converters

(see below). However, it is recommended instead to use the bung (as

- 6 -

described above) to give you the most accurate reading. Measuring

after the cat will result in leaner-than-reality readings, depending on the

efficiency of the cat. Some operators of chassis dynos use this method

and roughly “correct” the reading.

On NON-CATALYTIC converter vehicles:

Exhaust Clamp: With non-cat cars, you can simply take the reading from the car’s tail

pipe; however, you MUST use the optional Exhaust Clamp to do so. Do

NOT simply insert the O2 sensor into the tail pipe. Doing so may

damage the sensor and it will certainly not yield accurate

measurements. (The oxygen sensor needs to have its cable exposed

to outside air to yield the most accurate results.)

……or………

Bung: You have the option with non-catalytic cars to also use a Bung as

described above. Use of a bung is the preferred method for mounting

the 02 sensor for both catalytic and non-catalytic cars.

On TURBO CHARGED vehicles:

Bung: Install the bung downstream from the turbo before the catalytic

converter. The high exhaust pressure before the turbo interferes with

the lambda measurement and the high exhaust temperatures

encountered there can damage the sensor.

Do NOT install the Bung below the 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock position.

Condensation can form in the exhaust pipe and permanently damage the sensor.

6 o’clock is the absolute worst position to mount the sensor.Wide band oxygen sensors – like the one shipped with the LM-1 – are

designed to work with unleaded gasoline. Using them with leaded gasoline will

significantly reduce the lifespan of the sensor. The reduction is directly

proportional to the metal content of the fuel. In most cases, a wide band sensor

will provide accurate measurements somewhere between 50 hours and 500 hours

with leaded fuel.

WHEN INSTALLED IN THE EXHAUST, THE OXYGEN SENSOR

MUST BE CONNECTED AND OPERATING WITH THE LM-1

WHENEVER THE CAR IS RUNNING. AN UN-POWERED OXYGEN

SENSOR WILL BE DAMAGED WHEN EXPOSED TO EXHAUST GAS.

RULE OF THUMB: POWER UP THE OXYGEN SENSOR

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ENGINE IS STARTED. (See

Section 8.2)

- 7 -

The maximum temperature of the sensor at the bung (the sensor hexagon)

should not exceed 500 oC or 900 oF. If these temperatures are exceeded in your

application you should either install a copper heat sink (instructions below) or the

Innovate Motorsports Heat-Sink Bung extender (HBX-1).

The bung extender is recommended for situations where airflow is restricted or

the encountered heat is higher than a heat sink can handle.

[BrianG]

well Brian, on page 5 from the lm1 manual:

http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/support..._Manual_3.0.pdf

 

4.1 Mounting the sensor using a Bung or Exhaust Clamp.

Best

position is between 10:00 and 2:00 position.……or………

Exhaust Clamp: You may use the optional Exhaust Clamp to mount the O2 sensor to the

car’s tail pipe when taking readings from cars with catalytic converters

(see below). However, it is recommended instead to use the bung (as

Do NOT install the Bung below the 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock position.

Condensation can form in the exhaust pipe and permanently damage the sensor.

6 o’clock is the absolute worst position to mount the sensor.

62378[/snapback]

 

Paul........ is this some kind of crack about my reading skills??!!

 

It's a lucky thing that I RTFM at all!!

[moto]

Yah, Cliff's closed loop is not perfect, but I suspect with a $2000 4 gas anal-ysis to create a near perfect base map and then with the closed loop and wideband sensor to keep it near perfect, the bike will ride with the perfection of a Lexus and the soul of a Guzzi!

...albeit nearly US$3000 over stock price.

Of course one could just do what Frank did, and get better than 90% improvement toward perfection for less than the cost TechnoResearch's Motorbike Diagnostic, a PCIII and a dyno tune.

Either way, a great improvement to a great bike.

61802[/snapback]

Why would you want to go and louse up a perfectly good map with closed loop?

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[moto]

My 2000 V-11 Sport has bungs in the headers already, so finding the right sensor would be ideal.  Is there one for the 10mm bung?

62241[/snapback]

The 10mm bungs are designed for use with an EGA.

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

 

[moto]

I don't think any sensors will fit the 10mm thread. It may only be for attaching diagnostic equipment.

 

I took the header down to an exhaust shop with a nut. Only cost about $20 bucks to get the nut welded.

 

Make sure you have any flanges that need to be on, on!! You won't get them on after the nut is welded.

62246[/snapback]

If you are going to do that, one side of the nut should have a radius matching to the pipe's O.D. machined on it. There should be no gaps to fill or bridge with rod. The thickness should be such that if you take the sensor out and install a plug, the plug's inside face sits tangent to the inside of the pipe. It's a good idea to use stainless steel so the bung and weld seam do not corrode.

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[dlaing]

Why would you want to go and louse up a perfectly good map with closed loop?

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

62496[/snapback]

So, if I spend $2000 dollars mapping at MotoLab, there is no way for on board O2 sensors to improve the mixture?

While Cliff's software is currently fairly simple in how it handles the O2 information, it looks like it can more often do a better job of creating an ideal mixture at cruising speeds while enhancin a dyno tuned map than just a dyno map can.

I imagine if a dyno tuner could be found that could tune for an ideal balance of power and fuel efficiency at varying altitudes and other conditions, than you are correct that a perfectly good map could not be improved.

I think wide band sensors have gotten a bad rap because of the results of shoving a probe up an exhaust pipe and assuming that the results are accurate.

No, they cannot replace 4 gas analysis and dynometers, but a properly mounted WBO2 should be able to improve just about any map.

Or I could be wrong. You are the dyno expert.

But you have indicated that proper mapping is where maximum power is made, and I disagree, as a sport TOURING rider.

EDIT Derek, forget I said the above. I think you are essentially correct, and if I am correct, it is only because of splitting technical hairs.

I believe the O2 sensor on Cliff's MY15M is best used with the optimizer to create a decent but imperfect map, that should be better than a PCIII tuning link map that has not been optimized for power.

[Cliff]

The main point of going closed loop is you don't need to have an expensive dyno session to map the bike.

 

I'm not saying the resultant map will be as good as what could be achieved on moto's dyno. I'm saying that most riders will be happy enough with the resultant map to not want to bother with the dyno. In fact many users of my ECU are more than happy with my Sport map running open loop( My ECU does not have to be run closed loop).

 

If you have a rough spot at 3000RPM around town, richen the map in that area a bit. If thats worse try a bit leaner. Repeat as necessary till perfect ( enough ). No dyno required. If that sounds too technical don't bother trying my ECU.

That technique works perfectly well with a power commander or tuneboy.

 

The real decision is do you want to map your bike or have someone else map your bike. Unless you are considering competition grade racing, or have money to burn, or don't want to put in the effort yourself, a dyno session is not necessary.

 

BTW here's one of my latest users.

http://www.dlra.org.au/profiles/140.htm

He expects ( and has achieved ) his centauro to pull smoothly from idle.

[moto]

So, if I spend $2000 dollars mapping at MotoLab, there is no way for on board O2 sensors to improve the mixture?

Even spending less than that, I think an O2 sensor-based improvement is highly unlikely.

While Cliff's software is currently fairly simple in how it handles the O2 information, it looks like it can more often do a better job of creating an ideal mixture at cruising speeds while enhancin a dyno tuned map than just a dyno map can.

What reasoning is this statement based on?

I imagine if a dyno tuner could be found that could tune for an ideal balance of power and fuel efficiency at varying altitudes and other conditions, than you are correct that a perfectly good map could not be improved.

In my opinion, if a tuner worth his salt (with access to proper equipment of course) does a half decent job tuning (say by hitting a CO target via one to three iterations per cell) for either horsepower or fuel economy, or a balance of both, closed loop operation stands a very slim chance of improving anything. Remember that the varying conditions such as altitude are adressed by other ECU inputs, which means that an O2 sensor is redundant for this purpose.

I think wide band sensors have gotten a bad rap because of the results of shoving a probe up an exhaust pipe and assuming that the results are accurate.

Maybe they have, but that's not why I don't think they are a good idea.

No, they cannot replace 4 gas analysis and dynometers, but a properly mounted WBO2 should be able to improve just about any map.

I strongly disagree.

But you have indicated that proper mapping is where maximum power is made, and I disagree, as a sport TOURING rider.

Well, if it's economy you are after, you really need to look at BSFC, for which the use an O2 sensor is not a substitute.

I believe the O2 sensor on Cliff's MY15M is best used with the optimizer to create a decent but imperfect map, that should be better than a PCIII tuning link map that has not been optimized for power.

Why would Cliff's optimizer produce better results than a tuning link map?

 

 

A couple of points to remember:

 

A/F ratios are at best only loosely related to O2 content.

 

If you use either of these as a target for tuning, the target must be decided upon by some method. The result will only be as good as the viability of the target.

 

You can hit the target while having stagger and/or retarded ignition timing problems. In the case of a stagger problem, the ECU/tuner/autotuning software will add fuel, which will result in one cylinder being sort of in the ballpark and the other one being rich, loosing more power and economy than one cylinder slightly rich and the other one slightly lean would have resulted in. In the case of ignition timing, the O2 will be high, while the mixture could be perfect. The ECU/tuner/autotuning software will add fuel, loosing more power and economy than the retarded timing alone would have resulted in.

 

You can hit a reasonable looking O2 target with a CO percentage ranging from ~2 to ~11% (without stagger or timing issues).

 

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[dlaing]

What reasoning is this statement based on?

62526[/snapback]

I don't believe that if I dyno'd today at MotoLab, rode for a year, switched fuel, had my tps go off by a couple millivolts, had my valve adjustment go off, my timing chain slacken, and then went to get dyno'd in MotoLabs ficticious mile high tuning center in Colorado by you, that you would create the same map.

I also think that if I dyno tuned with you, erased the maps, and then dyno tuned with say, Doug Lofgren, or Ken Hand, (both well respected tuners) the maps would be very different.

I theorize that a WBO2 could compensate a little better to changes...but I could be wrong.

 

Remember that the varying conditions such as altitude are adressed by other ECU inputs

62526[/snapback]

In which case, to greater reach perfection, I would have to dyno tune over varying weather conditions to ensure that the calculations such as barometer and temperature trim are correct.

 

Well, if it's economy you are after, you really need to look at BSFC, for which the use an O2 sensor is not a substitute.

62526[/snapback]

I think BSFC is overkill, and just targeting cruising positions on the map for slightly leaner than optimized for power, is adequate. But to reach greater perfection, I theorize that if a map was optimized for power, the ECU could take WBO2 indications of A/F below maybe 12.5/1 when the engine is at cruising, and lean it just a little.

 

Why would Cliff's optimizer produce better results than a tuning link map?

62526[/snapback]

Excellent question!

I am sure Cliff can better answer it.

But to give it a try...

The Optimiser, (I just noticed he spells it -miser rather than -mizer or Opti-Power ) on our bike can adjust timing, while the tuning link cannot....yet.

The Optimiser can tune on the road....something that I think can produce better results, because weather can be adjusted for better than on a tuning link dyno.

And most importantly, because I believe that the tuning link probe stuck up my muffler can't match a properly positioned WBO2 (flame away PCIII diehards!)

There have been cases where the Tuning Link map made the bike run worse.

[moto]

I don't believe that if I dyno'd today at MotoLab, rode for a year, switched fuel, had my tps go off by a couple millivolts, had my valve adjustment go off, my timing chain slacken, and then went to get dyno'd in MotoLabs ficticious mile high tuning center in Colorado by you, that you would create the same map.

I might not create the exact same map, but the map I created the first time around would be better than what closed loop could produce. To be clear, my question about the basis of your comment was not to say that there are no variables to be corrected for. It was to ask on what basis you can assert that using closed loop "can more often do a better job of creating an ideal mixture at cruising speeds while enhancin a dyno tuned map than just a dyno map can". Why would you want to correct for the lack of basic maintenance with a change in mapping? Wouldn't it be much better to just adjust the TPS, valves and cam chain tensioners?

I also think that if I dyno tuned with you, erased the maps, and then dyno tuned with say, Doug Lofgren, or Ken Hand, (both well respected tuners) the maps would be very different.

They might be, but I'm sure we can agree that all other things being equal, there is precisely one map that is perfect for best power at all table positions, and one map for the best BSFC at all table positions.

I theorize that a WBO2 could compensate a little better to changes...but I could be wrong.

Again, what facts is this theory based on?

In which case, to greater reach perfection, I would have to dyno tune over varying weather conditions to ensure that the calculations such as barometer and temperature trim are correct.

You are right, but what I am assering is that even in their present form, they are more appropriate than what O2 sensor based corrections can produce.

I think BSFC is overkill, and just targeting cruising positions on the map for slightly leaner than optimized for power, is adequate.

I agree. But this implies that O2 content is directly and consistently related to mixture strength, and that we know what the O2 content target is for every table postion at this slightly leaner setting. The problem is that O2 content is not directly and consistently related to mixture strength and that in order to find the correct O2 content targets, we need a an eddy current brake with a 4-gas EGA.

But to reach greater perfection, I theorize that if a map was optimized for power, the ECU could take WBO2 indications of A/F below maybe 12.5/1 when the engine is at cruising, and lean it just a little.

If the map was optimized for power, you would never see a 12.5:1 ratio. Stoichiometry for gasoline is around 14.7:1, which, as far as I know, in terms of O2 sensors, implies zero percent residual oxygen. I have not found an engine yet that had no oxygen left over when it was making best power for a given table position.

The Optimiser, (I just noticed he spells it -miser rather than -mizer or Opti-Power ) on our bike can adjust timing, while the tuning link cannot....yet.

Using the "s" instead of the "z" is just the British spelling. Does the Optimiser attempt to automatically tune the ignition advance?

The Optimiser can tune on the road....something that I think can produce better results, because weather can be adjusted for better than on a tuning link dyno.

Again, the built in pressure/temp corrections are likely to do a better job, unless maybe the MyECU doesn't have those. However, using Tuning Link implies that the stock ECU is being used, which does have them (To be fair, Wayne McDonald has uncovered some problems with corrections at high alitude when using a PC). How can closed loop operation on the road correct for the weather when it's possible to have the same O2 readings all the way from below 2% to above 11% CO and O2 content all the way from .2% to 4% at best power?

And most importantly, because I believe that the tuning link probe stuck up my muffler can't match a properly positioned WBO2 (flame away PCIII diehards!)

How well the probe works depends on how far it's shoved up the pipe. I can't speak directly to what works properly with tuning link, but I have found that with my EGA below 18" in is iffy. I prefer to use bungs welded in the headpipes, but when I can't, I've found 28" to be completely reliable.

There have been cases where the Tuning Link map made the bike run worse.

While contamination with ambient air is definitely a detriment, I don't think poor results from the use of TuningLink are solely to be attributed to this factor. I think it has far more to do with using an O2 sensor in the first place.

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[moto]

That technique works perfectly well with a power commander or tuneboy.

Or Direct-Link.

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

 

[luhbo]

That's better then this, and you are wrong and I am not, and this is how it works and this is how it should...

 

IMHO this does no justice to anyone nor anything concerned here.

 

A good tuner does a good job, why not. And if you want such a job done to your map you will be perfectly happy with it. If you have been at a good tuner. This is not depending on what tools he uses, it depends on how he uses them.

 

I'm totally happy with my My15M for other reasons. I was not searching for the ultimate map or the worlds hottest sparks. For me the My15M was the key for a long time securely locked world of automotive "science". I knew what EFI was or is, but now I can play around with it. And I can see and feel what ARF e.a. make to an engine!

Over this winter I will install a new exhaust, the old one died unfortunately. So next spring I will have a different setup but I will not have to pay for a new map! The Optimizer will arrange it. And I will gain experience as well, because I then can see what effects these particular cans will have. BTW, what I'm already sure of is that the effects will be quite marginal.

 

I will not say this system is better then an other one. It's just the system that suits me and my preferences almost perfectly, that's all.

 

The anglos tend to say "I love it", hm, I love my wife, but at least I can say the "My15M" helped a very lot to make this V11 become "MyGuzzi".

 

Hubert

[pete roper]

That's better then this, and you are wrong and I am not, and this is how it works and this is how it should...

 

IMHO this does no justice to anyone nor anything concerned here.

 

A good tuner does a good job, why not. And if you want such a job done to your map you will be perfectly happy with it. If you have been at a good tuner. This is not depending on what tools he uses, it depends on how he uses them.

 

I'm totally happy with my My15M for other reasons. I was not searching for the ultimate map or the worlds hottest sparks. For me the My15M was the key for a long time securely locked world of automotive "science". I knew what EFI was or is, but now I can play around with it. And I can see and feel what ARF e.a. make to an engine!Hubert

62579[/snapback]

 

In a nutshell that's basically the way I feel.

 

Mornin' Cliff

 

Pete

[moto]

In a nutshell that's basically the way I feel.

Are you saying that no one here is interested in what works, what doesn't work and why?

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[luhbo]

I didn't want to say that, but these threads easily become somewhat dogmatic. Readers can get a completely wrong taste of EFI. It needs not to be so cryptic. A wideband probe with controller (so cheap in the meantime), an open ECU like Cliff's and some basic understanding of the main principles can make modern bike technique as understandable as the old bikes were.

I think most Guzzi owners want more than just to be able to check the oil, the tires and polish the plugs every now and then.

 

Hubert