Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Discuss MegaSquirt, VEMS and other non-free hardware and software here.
HelmutVonAutobahn
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by HelmutVonAutobahn »

I guess they don't use it anymore.
Maybe they should. :) or... it doesn't really help.
User avatar
DelSolid
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by DelSolid »

Do my noise test results look reasonable to you? I went off the deep end making the installation as clean and noise free as possible. Even so far as setting the power supply voltage to 0.1v less than the battery volts (therefore just using it for support) and hooking up the PS leads to the side mount lugs and the device under test to the main battery posts. Some devices were still crazy noisy. I even purchased a second example of one of the test units because I was convinced that the first one must be faulty because it was so noisy. The second was every bit as bad. :(
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.
HelmutVonAutobahn
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by HelmutVonAutobahn »

For the ones that I have looked at, it looks pretty reasonable.

On your parts, did the change in noise ( CAN vs. analog ) owe more to the increased sample rate? Or, the analog stages ?
User avatar
DelSolid
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by DelSolid »

HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:For the ones that I have looked at, it looks pretty reasonable.

On your parts, did the change in noise ( CAN vs. analog ) owe more to the increased sample rate? Or, the analog stages ?
The CAN was transmitted and sampled at 100hz, versus 500hz for the analog so that may have had something to do with the improved signal clarity but I think the majority can be attributed to the removal of the analog output stage.
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.
User avatar
DelSolid
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by DelSolid »

DelSolid wrote:
HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:Does the PLX measurement include the little filtering capacitor that they include in the kit ?
No, not for this test and come to think of it, I don't believe the test unit came with one and the online instructions don't mention it (I just checked). I vaguely remember an earlier one having it but maybe that's just an implanted memory prompted by your question. I have not played with the PLX for something like 6 months so it certainly may have.
OK, more info.

My PLX SM-AFR Gen 2 (LSU4.2) kit included a parts bag that along with other stuff, contained 2 capacitors. Nowhere in the instructions does it say that they are included, or what they are used for.
My PLX SM-AFR Gen 3 (LSU4.2) kit didn't come with the capacitors and the instructions didn't mention any either.
My PLX SM-AFR Gen 4 (LSU4.9) kit didn't come with the capacitors and the instructions didn't mention any either.

There are old SM-AFR instructions still floating around on the web (V1.0 circa 2006) that reference the need for caps, have them listed as included in the kit and shows them on the hookup diagram. But the reference was removed from the instructions for the Gen2, while the caps were still included in the box. For the Gen 3 and Gen 4 there is no mention of them and none supplied.

Also, to confirm the response testing configuration and my noise testing measurements listed earlier in this thread, the PLX Gen4 SM AFR device tested was set up as directed in the manual, and an external cap was not supplied or used.

Of course, had an external filtering cap been fitted, it would have likely slowed down response time by some amount and reduced the noise by some amount, but that is the case with all units tested, not just the PLX.
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.
HelmutVonAutobahn
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by HelmutVonAutobahn »

Ok. that makes sense.
HelmutVonAutobahn
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by HelmutVonAutobahn »

Do you have the "unofficial" accuracy data ?
User avatar
DelSolid
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by DelSolid »

HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:Do you have the "unofficial" accuracy data ?
No. Nothing that would be of any use. All my data is from the response test rig and gathered over the course of a couple weeks of work. Over that time I changed the gas bottles multiple times and never recorded which bottle was used for which test since it didn't matter to the work I was doing as the data was normalized. While the gasses are all really close to each other (they need to be since they are cal gas), they are not exactly the same so there could be as much as a 0.5% error just between the bottles. Add that to the fact that I didn't follow a strict calibration procedure before testing each one and even used the same sensor for a few of the units rather than a brand new one each time and you can see why the data is not really useful.

The data gathered using the real gas, all from the same big bottle, is not my data and I wont be able to post that. I suspect there will be a 3rd party test done similar to the response test done then that data would be made public.
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.
HelmutVonAutobahn
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by HelmutVonAutobahn »

Conspicuously absent from the list are your 30-4110 gauges & inline UEGO.
It might help justify the price jump to the new models, if people knew the actual performance difference?
Or, are the older ones being phased out ?
User avatar
Hentai
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:35 pm

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by Hentai »

This applies to here and has informative data to his topic. On the NGK AFX\AFR500, AFR500v2, NGK AFRM, AEM X series widebands

http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthrea ... x-wideband
Post Reply