Which Wideband gauge? AEM/Autometer?
Aug 5, 2007, 05:13 PM
#16
Also,
don't forget that none of you really need anything that accurate and it really doesn't matter in the bigger picture.
If you tune yourself, your goal is not for a specific AFR. If you're showing 5 counts of knock throughout the RPM range, hell you may want richen it a tad regardless of what your wideband reads.
How many of you are actually tuning yourself?
I do, and whether I'm tuning using my AEM or my LC-1 it makes absolutely no difference to me.
don't forget that none of you really need anything that accurate and it really doesn't matter in the bigger picture.
If you tune yourself, your goal is not for a specific AFR. If you're showing 5 counts of knock throughout the RPM range, hell you may want richen it a tad regardless of what your wideband reads.
How many of you are actually tuning yourself?
I do, and whether I'm tuning using my AEM or my LC-1 it makes absolutely no difference to me.
Still, conducting a test and not making it 100% fair is not good business...
Aug 5, 2007, 05:19 PM
#18
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Butthole, MA
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have met very few truly "fair" vendors/people who regardless of their vested interest will not bias their threads/posts/"experiments"
Aug 6, 2007, 11:27 AM
#19
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I am just curious:
What was unfair about that test?
During the test ALL devices were datalogged from their analog outs, not digitally.
The datalogged voltage values were then translated to AFR values as displayed on the respective units display.
So if a unit said 11.2 AFR ON ITS DISPLAY on calibrated gas with a calibrated AFR mix of 11.76, the datalogged voltage translation was adjusted to be translated to 11.2 as the respective units display said.
This was done with different lab gases as well to eliminate any possible gain errors, reading errors or ground offset effects in the datalogging equipment or hookup.
Each unit was tested with the sensor it came with.
In addition Ben Strader from EFI University was there during the entire test as independent verifier that everything was done fair and square.
Also, the test was NOT conducted by FordMuscle. It was done originally by a different magazine in which Innovate does NOT advertise. They decided NOT to run the article for whatever reason and gave the author a release to sell the article to somebody else, which happend to be FordMuscle.
I don't want to start any new fighting thread, but I just don't like accusations based on groundless conjectures that are distributed as fact.
- Klaus
I am just curious:
What was unfair about that test?
During the test ALL devices were datalogged from their analog outs, not digitally.
The datalogged voltage values were then translated to AFR values as displayed on the respective units display.
So if a unit said 11.2 AFR ON ITS DISPLAY on calibrated gas with a calibrated AFR mix of 11.76, the datalogged voltage translation was adjusted to be translated to 11.2 as the respective units display said.
This was done with different lab gases as well to eliminate any possible gain errors, reading errors or ground offset effects in the datalogging equipment or hookup.
Each unit was tested with the sensor it came with.
In addition Ben Strader from EFI University was there during the entire test as independent verifier that everything was done fair and square.
Also, the test was NOT conducted by FordMuscle. It was done originally by a different magazine in which Innovate does NOT advertise. They decided NOT to run the article for whatever reason and gave the author a release to sell the article to somebody else, which happend to be FordMuscle.
I don't want to start any new fighting thread, but I just don't like accusations based on groundless conjectures that are distributed as fact.
- Klaus
Aug 6, 2007, 05:21 PM
#20
Hi,
I am just curious:
What was unfair about that test?
During the test ALL devices were datalogged from their analog outs, not digitally.
The datalogged voltage values were then translated to AFR values as displayed on the respective units display.
So if a unit said 11.2 AFR ON ITS DISPLAY on calibrated gas with a calibrated AFR mix of 11.76, the datalogged voltage translation was adjusted to be translated to 11.2 as the respective units display said.
This was done with different lab gases as well to eliminate any possible gain errors, reading errors or ground offset effects in the datalogging equipment or hookup.
Each unit was tested with the sensor it came with.
In addition Ben Strader from EFI University was there during the entire test as independent verifier that everything was done fair and square.
Also, the test was NOT conducted by FordMuscle. It was done originally by a different magazine in which Innovate does NOT advertise. They decided NOT to run the article for whatever reason and gave the author a release to sell the article to somebody else, which happend to be FordMuscle.
I don't want to start any new fighting thread, but I just don't like accusations based on groundless conjectures that are distributed as fact.
- Klaus
I am just curious:
What was unfair about that test?
During the test ALL devices were datalogged from their analog outs, not digitally.
The datalogged voltage values were then translated to AFR values as displayed on the respective units display.
So if a unit said 11.2 AFR ON ITS DISPLAY on calibrated gas with a calibrated AFR mix of 11.76, the datalogged voltage translation was adjusted to be translated to 11.2 as the respective units display said.
This was done with different lab gases as well to eliminate any possible gain errors, reading errors or ground offset effects in the datalogging equipment or hookup.
Each unit was tested with the sensor it came with.
In addition Ben Strader from EFI University was there during the entire test as independent verifier that everything was done fair and square.
Also, the test was NOT conducted by FordMuscle. It was done originally by a different magazine in which Innovate does NOT advertise. They decided NOT to run the article for whatever reason and gave the author a release to sell the article to somebody else, which happend to be FordMuscle.
I don't want to start any new fighting thread, but I just don't like accusations based on groundless conjectures that are distributed as fact.
- Klaus
Like I said, both units are still quality...that test...out the window, do it again so people will stop referring to "The Test" as the absolute word.
Again, I don't care which is better...just do it properly
Aug 7, 2007, 11:02 AM
#23
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok....from the point I read "Zeitronix Software = Rating Poor" ...reasons hard to use and read, I stopped and thought...hmmmm ok...Then they rated the installation/setup as hard....I knew something was up...the results from there on hold no water with me.
Like I said, both units are still quality...that test...out the window, do it again so people will stop referring to "The Test" as the absolute word.
Like I said, both units are still quality...that test...out the window, do it again so people will stop referring to "The Test" as the absolute word.
As you know, opinions are like a***holes. Everybody has one and they all stink.
I just commented on the TECHNICAL aspect of the test.
- Klaus
Aug 7, 2007, 11:30 AM
#24
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=SophieSleeps;4612427]
If you tune yourself, your goal is not for a specific AFR. If you're showing 5 counts of knock throughout the RPM range, hell you may want richen it a tad regardless of what your wideband reads.
QUOTE]
Actually I tune myself and I tune around a specific afr (12.0)....then I build my timing maps around that afr and if i start to knock I will pull a degree of timing before the knock occurred and it usually goes away. I dont start adding fuel to cover up a knocking issue, I like a nice lean afr with a timing map built for that afr.
My vote is the LC-1 its inexpensive and works great....
If you tune yourself, your goal is not for a specific AFR. If you're showing 5 counts of knock throughout the RPM range, hell you may want richen it a tad regardless of what your wideband reads.
QUOTE]
Actually I tune myself and I tune around a specific afr (12.0)....then I build my timing maps around that afr and if i start to knock I will pull a degree of timing before the knock occurred and it usually goes away. I dont start adding fuel to cover up a knocking issue, I like a nice lean afr with a timing map built for that afr.
My vote is the LC-1 its inexpensive and works great....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
