CZ & Hymee Scanalyser?
#27
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sco
Here is a graph posted by Nemesis8 in this here: It's a third gear run on the stock fuel maps and a Revi intake and captured by sCANalyser. Notice his lambda gets down to about .78 (so approx 11.4 AFR). So that kills my idea that no readings below 12:1 is US fuel map related.
#30
Bigus Rotus
iTrader: (3)
I can't remember - I'm starting to lose my memory.
Anyway, I'll have to re-tune the map because of the new flash I will get this week. When SCO gets the knock-retard sensor in the sCANalyser software update, I will be one happy camper when it comes to tuning the upper end.
Anyway, I'll have to re-tune the map because of the new flash I will get this week. When SCO gets the knock-retard sensor in the sCANalyser software update, I will be one happy camper when it comes to tuning the upper end.
#31
Originally Posted by r0tor
my main concern is posts like this (and the next page) https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...&page=41&pp=15 of people saying that their a/f ratio's aren't even making it to .75 lambda (~11.0 afr) during normal driving conditions - ie not overheating the cat. I've seen this mentioned a few other places as well.
If you look at any dyno done on this forum, you typically do not get anything lower then ~12.2 at WOT. My personal car was around 12.5. My comment about the greddy was to put things into perspective since they need to add a bunch of fuel just to get under 12.0 to be safe.
Something just does not make sense about these readings or I am missing a something.
If you look at any dyno done on this forum, you typically do not get anything lower then ~12.2 at WOT. My personal car was around 12.5. My comment about the greddy was to put things into perspective since they need to add a bunch of fuel just to get under 12.0 to be safe.
Something just does not make sense about these readings or I am missing a something.
I've sen Ford engines with even worse (richer) lambda for catalyst protection back whern I worked there in UK (due to closed-coupled cat). I remember a 9.5 AFR!!! on a South American CE14 Escort engine. Totally unjustified though (a calibration error I think).
And I totally agree with Hymee, LAMBDA is the parameter that should be used in lieu of AFR as the stoechiometry AFR changes with different blends of fuel and with octane rating (different Hydrogen and Carbon content). The PCM actually uses Lambda as a main input, not AFR.
If you are more used to AFR, no problem but make sure you know the exact stoichiometric AFR of the fuel you're using when you're programming your PCM or Piggyback. And keep an eye on the catalyst bed temperature as above a certain temperature, the cat dies instantly.
And the figure you posted is definitely a switching HEGO type of sensor signal, not a wide-band UEGO as used as main sensor in the RX8 (the second sensor, after the cat, is a switching HEGO sensor). Most cars use standard HEGO sensors but UEGOs seem to become more popular now with new engine management techniques like DI and Lean-Burn... It was first available in production on Honda V-TEC engines in the mid-90s.
Fabrice (back from holiday)
Last edited by Rasputin; 07-27-2005 at 06:56 AM.
#32
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look at what real AFR's look like from dyno's...
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...ght=dyno+sheet
https://www.rx8club.com/attachment.p...chmentid=54799
ect ect...
they are not in the 11's....
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...ght=dyno+sheet
https://www.rx8club.com/attachment.p...chmentid=54799
ect ect...
they are not in the 11's....
#33
Administrator
the second one is saying 216hp where is the thread that is in?
the first thread the last dyno- 163 on a dyno jet means there is something wrong with the run. plus the a/f on that run never gets below 13 so that cant be right. its also very smoothed
also you will get different readings from a sensor in the back and a sensor up at the fron of the cat. im not taking sides mind you i just have issues with those to dyno charts
here's my recent chart from scanalyser
the first thread the last dyno- 163 on a dyno jet means there is something wrong with the run. plus the a/f on that run never gets below 13 so that cant be right. its also very smoothed
also you will get different readings from a sensor in the back and a sensor up at the fron of the cat. im not taking sides mind you i just have issues with those to dyno charts
here's my recent chart from scanalyser
#36
Administrator
Originally Posted by dannobre
I think you will notice the flat spots at the bottom of the valleys.....and at the 85K+ area...the sensor is maxed out in those areas...or the PCM doesn't read higher than that.....
Not relavant I know...we don't want it that rich anyway.....:D
Not relavant I know...we don't want it that rich anyway.....:D
"my main concern is posts like this (and the next page) https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...3&page=41&pp=15 of people saying that their a/f ratio's aren't even making it to .75 lambda (~11.0 afr) during normal driving conditions - ie not overheating the cat. I've seen this mentioned a few other places as well.
If you look at any dyno done on this forum, you typically do not get anything lower then ~12.2 at WOT. My personal car was around 12.5. My comment about the greddy was to put things into perspective since they need to add a bunch of fuel just to get under 12.0 to be safe.
Something just does not make sense about these readings or I am missing a something.
If you look at any dyno done on this forum, you typically do not get anything lower then ~12.2 at WOT. My personal car was around 12.5. My comment about the greddy was to put things into perspective since they need to add a bunch of fuel just to get under 12.0 to be safe.
Something just does not make sense about these readings or I am missing a something.
#38
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zoom44
yes we've talked about that before. maybe i am not understanding what rOtor wrote when he posted
because I have yet to find a single one, yet everyone using the scanalyzer is posting extremely low lambdas/afr.
Only FI cars are in the 11's and thats because they had to use a piggyback to get that low.
#39
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rasputin
And I totally agree with Hymee, LAMBDA is the parameter that should be used in lieu of AFR as the stoechiometry AFR changes with different blends of fuel and with octane rating (different Hydrogen and Carbon content). The PCM actually uses Lambda as a main input, not AFR.
If you are more used to AFR, no problem but make sure you know the exact stoichiometric AFR of the fuel you're using when you're programming your PCM or Piggyback. And keep an eye on the catalyst bed temperature as above a certain temperature, the cat dies instantly.
If you are more used to AFR, no problem but make sure you know the exact stoichiometric AFR of the fuel you're using when you're programming your PCM or Piggyback. And keep an eye on the catalyst bed temperature as above a certain temperature, the cat dies instantly.
for the last time, the only afr ratio you are ever going to see displayed from an instrument is a constant x lambda. I can show you guages from the same manufacturer that read in lambda or in afr - they are the same damn guage except for the scale written on the guage face. So in all reality it doesn't make a single difference if someone gives you an afr from a guage or a lambda from a guage because the afr was derrived from a constant that everyone in their brother uses for gasoline and therefore makes no frikkin difference for tuning.
I don't care about slight chemical variations in the gas formulation effecting the tru afr because the damn guage isn't smart enough to correct for that - your just getting lambda given to you in a different scale!!!
#40
Modulated Moderator
iTrader: (3)
For me the ONLY thing important is that the engine doesn't knock with the A/F, or Lamba that I tune too.
I could care squat what the # is...A/F...or Lamba...as long as I can measure a repeatable value to tune too.
The problem I see is....does the PCM dump raw sensor data from the sensor...or use a corrected value based on the lack of linearity of the stock WBO2 sensor....
So far I can only see that Canzoomer found the Lamba and A/F values out of the scan tools WAS NOT linear in the areas I want to tune too.....and he applied adjustment tables based on comparrisons with a corrected Lamba meter.
Until I see anything to the contrary.......the output is NOT LINEAR...and both the CanScan and Scanylyser are uncorrected in the areas I want to tune too
So be careful out there guys...
This weekend Nemesis and I will post runs of lamba values from both sensors...and see how they compare to the corrected values from the CZ software. I just wish my WBO2 meter was here :D
I could care squat what the # is...A/F...or Lamba...as long as I can measure a repeatable value to tune too.
The problem I see is....does the PCM dump raw sensor data from the sensor...or use a corrected value based on the lack of linearity of the stock WBO2 sensor....
So far I can only see that Canzoomer found the Lamba and A/F values out of the scan tools WAS NOT linear in the areas I want to tune too.....and he applied adjustment tables based on comparrisons with a corrected Lamba meter.
Until I see anything to the contrary.......the output is NOT LINEAR...and both the CanScan and Scanylyser are uncorrected in the areas I want to tune too
So be careful out there guys...
This weekend Nemesis and I will post runs of lamba values from both sensors...and see how they compare to the corrected values from the CZ software. I just wish my WBO2 meter was here :D
#41
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dannobre
The problem I see is....does the PCM dump raw sensor data from the sensor...or use a corrected value based on the lack of linearity of the stock WBO2 sensor....
Originally Posted by dannobre
Until I see anything to the contrary.......the output is NOT LINEAR...and both the CanScan and Scanylyser are uncorrected in the areas I want to tune too
Last edited by sco; 07-27-2005 at 06:53 PM.
#42
Modulated Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Sensors are adjusted to be linear so the results of the guages/ outputs are RELEVENT and REPEATABLE...so they can be calibrated between brands and units
This goes for any guage/sensor in any industry.........
The difference between .75 and .76 Lamba should be the same as the difference between 1.15 and 1.16 Lamba.....
I think you will find that commercially available WBO2 meters use software calibration to achieve this linearity :D.
otherwise why bother ?
This goes for any guage/sensor in any industry.........
The difference between .75 and .76 Lamba should be the same as the difference between 1.15 and 1.16 Lamba.....
I think you will find that commercially available WBO2 meters use software calibration to achieve this linearity :D.
otherwise why bother ?
#43
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The results can be relevant and repeatable without a linear conversion. What needs to happen is a certain current reading from the sensor always returns the correct lambda reading. What's important is that the lambda reading is correct. If the lambda reading is correct then sampling in the same way with a different (correct) sensor should produce the same results. A linear conversion is not required to achieve this.
The graph I posted is of a capture I did over a number of minutes.... it was a drive through city streets. Lots of acceleration and deceleration, some WOT some not, and some closed loop. Notice how clean the graph was despite readings in different scenarios. This shows that the conversion was consistent.
The graph I posted is of a capture I did over a number of minutes.... it was a drive through city streets. Lots of acceleration and deceleration, some WOT some not, and some closed loop. Notice how clean the graph was despite readings in different scenarios. This shows that the conversion was consistent.
#44
Modulated Moderator
iTrader: (3)
So how does a non-corrected sensor output the correct Lamba if the output is not correlated to the current output ?? I must be stupid or something cause I don't get it...............:D
I can see how you would always recieve the SAME Lamba from the SAME current without a correction...just not the CORRECT lamba???????
I can see how you would always recieve the SAME Lamba from the SAME current without a correction...just not the CORRECT lamba???????
#45
Sorry to jack the thread, but this discussion reminds me a little of the V!shnu VS Dyn0flash threads on the EVO boards.
It is really funny...
Great info from both sides BTW!
It is really funny...
Great info from both sides BTW!
#46
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dannobre
So how does a non-corrected sensor output the correct Lamba if the output is not correlated to the current output ?? I must be stupid or something cause I don't get it...............:D
#47
Modulated Moderator
iTrader: (3)
This is too funny :D symantics it is :D I wasn't implying that there would be a formula....just a data conversion :D
So...does the " lookup table" correct the values in the PCM..and supply corrected values to the output of the scan tools???
Or are the outputs uncorrected current values from the sensor as they appear to be...as you said yourself that they mimic the sensor output expected from the factory service manual??
So...does the " lookup table" correct the values in the PCM..and supply corrected values to the output of the scan tools???
Or are the outputs uncorrected current values from the sensor as they appear to be...as you said yourself that they mimic the sensor output expected from the factory service manual??
#48
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand what you mean by "correction"? What gets "corrected" and why does it need to be "corrected"?
The data reported by the PCM and in accordance with the OBD spec is sensor current reading as well as the corresponding lambda value.
The data reported by the PCM and in accordance with the OBD spec is sensor current reading as well as the corresponding lambda value.