View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:58 am



Reply to topic  [ 339 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next
Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy 
Author Message
QFP80 - Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Los Angeles
HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:
The ADV, according to the datasheet's warm-up procedure, is MUCH more resistant to thermal shock damage. This is why it can heat up as fast as it does. But, it seems to pay a price in other respects.


Yeah, they really let you slam the heater power on hard and fast. And it does seem that this was the overriding factor in the design. Get it hot, fast, so the ecu can get into feedback within seconds of startup.

_________________
1969 Plymouth Satellite Wagon with a 440 & TF727
1929 Ford Roadster with a 2JZ and a T400, GT47, 1,100WHP, 240+ MPH
1930 Ford Roadster with a 42 Merc Flathead with triple Holley 94's. Major work in progress
I work for AEM but am not here schilling for them. Nothing I say is official.


Sat Apr 09, 2016 6:33 am
Profile
TO92 - Vaguely active

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 3
More confusing stuff.
All Bosch documents has a little different values (example Ip).
And some are conflicting at same document (Ex. look at this 2007 paper Ip curve and 0.7 value at table).

I do some "error" curves.
First chart LSU4.9.
Red curve values from DelSolids 2007 document and blue ones from latest Motorsports datasheet (there is not a pressure comp curve -> I use same 16%).
Image

And same at LSU ADV.
Image


Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:43 am
Profile
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 299
DelSolid wrote:
Hentai wrote:
I would "suspect" it has to with the point of the ADV, being for pre turbo applications. I've seen one in a oem car. Also I believe the design tolerates higher temps than the 4.9 and 4.2 does. It would surprise me in order to meet the goals it was setup for that was one of the penalties it had to take.


There are 2 distinct versions of the LSU ADV, the normal "LSU ADV" and the "LSU ADV preTurbo" one. They have different part numbers and slightly different specs. Its not safe to assume that all ADV sensors are preTurbo ADV's. And the max allowable back pressure for both the ADV's and the 4.9 is 2.5 bar, so the ADV preTurbo is not rated for any higher pressure capability than the 4.9.

Here are the temp and back pressure specs for the 4.2, 4.9, ADV and ADV preTurbo sensors.
Attachment:
Bosch temp specs.png


Thanks for the correction


Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:24 pm
Profile
TO92 - Vaguely active

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 3
DelSolid wrote:
That is really interesting and doesn't jive with the document I have.

It looks like one of the pre-release spec sheets that were floating around.
Look at the attached 4.9 Bosch sheet dated July, 13, 2007 and the fact that it is listed as the First Edition, yet it is dated 2 years later than yours.
Looks like even Bosch isn't sure what the correction should be!

Attachment:
TCI_LSU4_9 sensor 2 16 10.pdf

Little more about this :roll: .
My ECU Lambda-setup picture is captured from Bosch's last version of software (under year old), so would think that is correct?


Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:03 pm
Profile
TO92 - Vaguely active

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:47 am
Posts: 1
Tre-Cool wrote:
1st post, so i'll make it a strong one.

I've been tuning mostly factory GM based ecu's for over 8 years or so, so have used a few different sensor kits, so these are my impressions.

1st wb was an LC1, it died after 4 months. (this was back in 2006 or so)

Moved onto using some of the PLX SM-afr kits, was primarily using the serial output back then before modding them to use serial comms into my efilive flashscan cable. It's only at this point do you find out how bad the difference is between the analog to serial data. even a large difference between the display guage and analog signal was enough for me to give up on them.

Started using the Techedge 2j2 (never ended up upgrading to the 2j9) again used these primarily for the direct serial output into efilive.

Started using the MTX-L as permanent gauges & for tuning in a few cars due to it's small form factor. Generally had 2 permanently mounted in the car on v8's, 1 for each side of the motor. Generally they have been pretty good but over time they started getting lots of E8 errors, probably due to the heat as they are mostly running on supercharged v8's. Still using LSU 4.2 sensors though.

Started buying the ecotrons ALM kits, 1 x alm-led and 3 other guage kits. the response and data I was getting was much better then the previous stuff, but I put this down to the 4.9 sensor if anything. Retuned a few cars from other shops and fuel economy has always improved on the cars & closed loop fuel trims get's within 3%. Probably not much to do with the sensors/kits but more to do with how the previous tuners were reading from tailpipe or the sensors they were using.

I even removed the old LSM-11 "wideband" from my dyno and put in the ALM-LED in it's place, I don't get much difference between wideband readings from what I fit in the car header to reading out of the tailpipe on the dyno. the LSM seemed to read leaner and leaner after each run, but it's a pretty old sensor.

Now looking at the new AEM x-series line & the 14.7 kits to test out.

Cheers
Dave


How did you find the Techedge units compared the rest? I have a few TE 3H1, 2J1, 2Y9, 2Y0 and an LM-2, looking at the AEM X-series gauge currently for a new install.


Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:18 am
Profile
TO92 - Vaguely active

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:43 pm
Posts: 3
Hi guys,

Sorry to bump an old thread (blame Fred :D ) - I thought I would put up a link to a wideband/display unit open source kit I have been working on for a while.

Basically it features two identical LSU4.2 controller circuits, a jumbo LCD display as well as CAN and WIFI comms. One of the more interesting features is the use of both single ended and differential mode ADCs and also DACs that are all on chip with the Freescale Kinetis micro.

These features are becoming pretty common with the new ARM based micros and could be a good way to go in simplifying UEGO control.

I hope it gives some people inspiration or a cool project platform to try out UEGO control strategies!

Here is the link:
http://www.mdac.com.au/gp-meter-6-0/

Matthew


Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:29 pm
Profile
TO92 - Vaguely active

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:03 am
Posts: 2
Location: in the shed
Hello All,

First off, what a great thread, thanks to all the excellent contributors.

Has anyone found the ZFAS®-U2-SM out in the wild and trilled one?

https://www.ngkntk.co.jp/english/produc ... xygen.html

A UEGO with attached CAN from NGK/NTK.

_________________
Cheers
John

EsCos - turning dinosaurs into smiles


Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:15 am
Profile
TO92 - Vaguely active

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:03 am
Posts: 2
Location: in the shed
I have been looking at UEGO controllers and note that one manufacturer, who is disliked around here, does a unit for the LSU ADV

That manufacturer claims the LSU 4.9 response times extends with use, while the LSU ADV does not.

See Cl. 2.2.5 Page 11 of 26
EDIT: Broke link on purpose: www.ecotrons.com/files/ALM-LSU-ADV%20Manual.pdf

This raises the question of why - sensor characteristic or controller characteristic, or marketing BS?

I found some interesting Ford OBD info that covers UEGO operation and fault monitoring.
http://www.fordservicecontent.com/ford_ ... SM1604.pdf

Ford are looking at switching response times, UEGO bias and ambient air O² readings. So they obviously think it necessary to monitor the LSU 4.9 and NTK equivalent over time.

In the Bosch LSU ADV Y 258 K01 024-000 document attached, Cl. 3.8 Page 13 of 25, they state the response time is the same before and after their test bench run. The documents for the LSU 4.2 and 4.9 appear to be silent on this detail. For OEM's doing closed loop fuel with UEGO instead of HEGO, response time is important as implied by the Ford doc.

Has anyone tried well used LSU 4.9's on their controllers to see what sort of degradation has occurred?

Any fast response LSU ADV controllers out there or under development?

My interest is from the standpoint of having a controller/uego that is stable over time, rather than chucking money at replacing UEGO's if they do indeed get sluggish or biased.


Attachments:
File comment: Y 258 K01 024-000
TKU LSU ADV Gasoline.pdf [366.19 KiB]
Downloaded 23 times

_________________
Cheers
John

EsCos - turning dinosaurs into smiles


Last edited by Fred on Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Break link to ecotrons scammer website.

Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:11 am
Profile
TO220 - Visibile

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:27 am
Posts: 13
Just saw this video come up on facebook:

Innovate announcing the MTX-L+
Apparently has better heater control and analogue output speed...wonder how it'll stack up against the competition.

https://www.facebook.com/innovatemotorsports/videos/1345086372190396/


Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:20 pm
Profile
LQFP112 - Up with the play

Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am
Posts: 100
Yep. Saw that on SEMA news.

Maybe they have been reading this forum :) Speed and heater control were probably their #1 and #2 problems.

The claims look a bit funky, though. A 4ms response time means that they should be able to resolve single cylinder AFR on a 4-cyl ( or 1 bank of a V8 ) engine up to 7500RPM ! That seems insane.


Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:35 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 339 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF. ColorizeIt.