Wideband Shootout.
06-29-07, 11:17 AM
#1
'Tuna'
Thread Starter
Wideband Shootout.
Check this article out.
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...tout/index.php
What's your opinion of this so called shootout. It's kinda funny which two units came out on top. I would like to know what was use as a reference for testing all the widebands other than the tester's opinion.
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...tout/index.php
What's your opinion of this so called shootout. It's kinda funny which two units came out on top. I would like to know what was use as a reference for testing all the widebands other than the tester's opinion.
06-30-07, 09:35 PM
#2
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
I think it's interesting, but it is my opinion that only the inept attempt to tune solely by AFR, so I don't see any earth-shattering value in this article's findings.
07-02-07, 01:14 PM
#3
'Tuna'
Thread Starter
07-02-07, 05:06 PM
#4
'Tuna'
Thread Starter
When doing a comparison, real data must be shown and published for the tests to be creditable. It would be nice to see data from all widebands reading the same gas at the same time. If you look at how the tests were conducted according to picture #1, each sensor is held up to the nozzle of the gas chamber individually.
If you look at the tip of an oxygen sensor, there are a series of inlets for gas the pass through.
Holding the sensor against the gas canister at an angle like the picture above will expose some portions of the sensor to free air making it difficult to get a true reading.
To properly perform a test like this, all sensors need to be suspended in a sealed enclosure purged of free air. Then the test gas must then be introduced and allow time for the entire chamber to equalize. The experiment then must be repeated and averaged over several samples of obtain an accurate result.
If you look at the tip of an oxygen sensor, there are a series of inlets for gas the pass through.
Holding the sensor against the gas canister at an angle like the picture above will expose some portions of the sensor to free air making it difficult to get a true reading.
To properly perform a test like this, all sensors need to be suspended in a sealed enclosure purged of free air. Then the test gas must then be introduced and allow time for the entire chamber to equalize. The experiment then must be repeated and averaged over several samples of obtain an accurate result.
07-02-07, 11:56 PM
#5
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
I was under the impression that they purged and flooded the 9-bung pipe with the test gas. Geez, I hope they didn't test them by simply holding them near the gas valve.
07-03-07, 11:49 PM
#7
'Tuna'
Thread Starter
Trending Topics
07-05-07, 08:05 PM
#9
'Tuna'
Thread Starter
07-07-07, 04:35 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-08-07, 11:35 AM
#12
'Tuna'
Thread Starter
12-27-08, 01:33 AM
#13
'Tuna'
Thread Starter
Back from the dead. 
The plot thickens!
http://www.modularfords.com/forums/s...1&postcount=84
Air Fuel Ratio Reference Information: Posted 9/25/08
There appears to be a great amount of confusion in the area of air fuel ratio (AFR) meter readings and accuracy. This issue is very simple and straight forward when facts are presented and opinions are not used. Hello to all who read this post as this is David Darge from Powertrain Electronics. My experience and background started in 1985 with being the only USA technical engineer for Horiba Instruments. Horiba held the first UEGO sensor patent (1978) and manufactured the world’s first AFR analyzer called MEXA-101 in 1985. This analyzer being the only solution and early on as over 500 units were purchased by GM, Ford and Chrysler for $10,300 each. I also worked at Whipple Industries and with Kenny-Bell for the past 16 years and have experience using AFR data for well over 6000 hours. In 1998 we decided to market the AFM1000 which is AFR analyzer that is OEM industry tested and recommend by Kenne-Bell and considered a standard by many professionals.
Last year we helped with a test of many AFR meters/analyzers at Westec Performance engine dyno where 10-sensors were installed into a single exhaust collector. All of the data was recorded by Opto-22 (a world leader in data acquisition systems) on a 16-bit DAQ system with isolated channels to prevent any possible offsets caused by ground loops. The reference analyzer selected was the ECM Model 4800 manufactured and supplied by the world wide leader of analyzers. The Model 4800 ($12,000) is used and certified by GM, Ford, Chrysler, EPA and validated by NGK the sensor manufacturer. In fact GM high performance engine assembly plant uses 12 of the 4800’s to test every LS7 or now the LS9 engines everyday. The below test data shows to be very interesting as each meter was tested at various AFR’s while monitoring the EGT and battery voltage throughout each test. The complete test data to be posted soon as below is listed a single test at 12.30 AFR. When tested at 10.50 AFR some of the meters showed richer not leaner as indicated by the data below.
Data averaged (200 samples)
Delta from master
AFR Analyzer AFR
12.30 ECM4800 0.00
12.27 AFM1000 -0.02
13.05 PLX M300 +0.75
13.02 Innovate LC1 +0.72
13.34 DynoJet Commander +1.05
12.80 FAST A/F Meter +0.50
12.74 PLX R500 +0.44
1097 EGT (deg F)
13.81 Battery (volts)
FAST is a trademark of Competition Performance
Dynojet Commander is a trademark of Dynojet
As you can see most of the meters show an AFR leaner from the reference analyzer. The values range from 1.05 AFR leaner to 0.02 AFR richer. The data was averaged to take out any single sample error. In fact in the past we experienced more than one AFR meter reading drifted from 1.0 to 2.0 AFR’s plus or minus over time. This makes it impossible for anyone to predict the actual AFR error based on time or previous experience. Some dyno operators claim they can calculate the AFR error and make a correction factor based on time but this is not feasible. One of the AFR meter company warns to not use when the EGT is above 1330 deg F and then sometimes shuts down where the AFM1000 functions well to 1643 deg F. The AFM1000 will provide repeatability of 0.5% over the life time of the sensor with accuracy of better than 1.5% when the air calibration procedure is performed.
The AFR Meter Shootout article in Ford Muscle Magazine is not a true test because a reference analyzer was not used and errors could be caused when a common ground 8-bit data logger was used. Also it is not a proper procedure to hold a sensor near a calibration gas and expect to obtain a reference AFR. You may ask, How would I know that? Well while working at Horiba I wrote the calibration test procedure the automobile OEMs preformed on the MEXA101 and this procedure was not used for this AFR comparison test. Did you ever think, What if poorly rated analyzers were the most accurate and the best rated analyzers were the least accurate? How would you know if this was a valid test unless one included a reference analyzer that is certified in the USA and Europe such as the ECM 4800?
There are many professionals such as Jim Bell at Kenne-Bell and many other professional Ford tuners or engine builders that recommend and trust AFR data provided the AFM1000 when the fuel is gasoline, ethanol or methanol. The AFM1000 uses the best NGK sensor, is validated, well engineered, manufactured and tested by the world wide leader in air fuel ratio analyzers. In fact the AFM1000 uses the same NGK laboratory grade UEGO sensor as the Horiba Mexa110 and the ECM 4800. If you depend on accurate AFR for your business or performance engine then I would recommend using the AFM1000 and trust the data from now on.
And the 'Devil's advocate answers!
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/f...ad.php?t=10082
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/f...ad.php?t=10130
The plot thickens!
http://www.modularfords.com/forums/s...1&postcount=84
Air Fuel Ratio Reference Information: Posted 9/25/08
There appears to be a great amount of confusion in the area of air fuel ratio (AFR) meter readings and accuracy. This issue is very simple and straight forward when facts are presented and opinions are not used. Hello to all who read this post as this is David Darge from Powertrain Electronics. My experience and background started in 1985 with being the only USA technical engineer for Horiba Instruments. Horiba held the first UEGO sensor patent (1978) and manufactured the world’s first AFR analyzer called MEXA-101 in 1985. This analyzer being the only solution and early on as over 500 units were purchased by GM, Ford and Chrysler for $10,300 each. I also worked at Whipple Industries and with Kenny-Bell for the past 16 years and have experience using AFR data for well over 6000 hours. In 1998 we decided to market the AFM1000 which is AFR analyzer that is OEM industry tested and recommend by Kenne-Bell and considered a standard by many professionals.
Last year we helped with a test of many AFR meters/analyzers at Westec Performance engine dyno where 10-sensors were installed into a single exhaust collector. All of the data was recorded by Opto-22 (a world leader in data acquisition systems) on a 16-bit DAQ system with isolated channels to prevent any possible offsets caused by ground loops. The reference analyzer selected was the ECM Model 4800 manufactured and supplied by the world wide leader of analyzers. The Model 4800 ($12,000) is used and certified by GM, Ford, Chrysler, EPA and validated by NGK the sensor manufacturer. In fact GM high performance engine assembly plant uses 12 of the 4800’s to test every LS7 or now the LS9 engines everyday. The below test data shows to be very interesting as each meter was tested at various AFR’s while monitoring the EGT and battery voltage throughout each test. The complete test data to be posted soon as below is listed a single test at 12.30 AFR. When tested at 10.50 AFR some of the meters showed richer not leaner as indicated by the data below.
Data averaged (200 samples)
Delta from master
AFR Analyzer AFR
12.30 ECM4800 0.00
12.27 AFM1000 -0.02
13.05 PLX M300 +0.75
13.02 Innovate LC1 +0.72
13.34 DynoJet Commander +1.05
12.80 FAST A/F Meter +0.50
12.74 PLX R500 +0.44
1097 EGT (deg F)
13.81 Battery (volts)
FAST is a trademark of Competition Performance
Dynojet Commander is a trademark of Dynojet
As you can see most of the meters show an AFR leaner from the reference analyzer. The values range from 1.05 AFR leaner to 0.02 AFR richer. The data was averaged to take out any single sample error. In fact in the past we experienced more than one AFR meter reading drifted from 1.0 to 2.0 AFR’s plus or minus over time. This makes it impossible for anyone to predict the actual AFR error based on time or previous experience. Some dyno operators claim they can calculate the AFR error and make a correction factor based on time but this is not feasible. One of the AFR meter company warns to not use when the EGT is above 1330 deg F and then sometimes shuts down where the AFM1000 functions well to 1643 deg F. The AFM1000 will provide repeatability of 0.5% over the life time of the sensor with accuracy of better than 1.5% when the air calibration procedure is performed.
The AFR Meter Shootout article in Ford Muscle Magazine is not a true test because a reference analyzer was not used and errors could be caused when a common ground 8-bit data logger was used. Also it is not a proper procedure to hold a sensor near a calibration gas and expect to obtain a reference AFR. You may ask, How would I know that? Well while working at Horiba I wrote the calibration test procedure the automobile OEMs preformed on the MEXA101 and this procedure was not used for this AFR comparison test. Did you ever think, What if poorly rated analyzers were the most accurate and the best rated analyzers were the least accurate? How would you know if this was a valid test unless one included a reference analyzer that is certified in the USA and Europe such as the ECM 4800?
There are many professionals such as Jim Bell at Kenne-Bell and many other professional Ford tuners or engine builders that recommend and trust AFR data provided the AFM1000 when the fuel is gasoline, ethanol or methanol. The AFM1000 uses the best NGK sensor, is validated, well engineered, manufactured and tested by the world wide leader in air fuel ratio analyzers. In fact the AFM1000 uses the same NGK laboratory grade UEGO sensor as the Horiba Mexa110 and the ECM 4800. If you depend on accurate AFR for your business or performance engine then I would recommend using the AFM1000 and trust the data from now on.
And the 'Devil's advocate answers!
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/f...ad.php?t=10082
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/f...ad.php?t=10130
Last edited by crispeed; 12-27-08 at 01:46 AM.
