You're personal opinion/experience is irrelevant, since there is no reference. Also, I'm almost positive all of those kits use the same exact wideband oxygen sensor which further invalidates your statement. You're coming off a bit like George here.

Comparison with lab grade sensors is the reference. Greg Banish is far more knowledgeable and experienced than you (or I) in this subject, so I'll take his word (among others) on the matter.

 

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.

As an addendum to this post, Mr. Darge has privately communicated that for the budget minded consumer and performance enthusiast, the NGK AFX (which is nothing more than an AFM-1600 with a modified display), tho not as accurate as an AFM-1000, is the best and most reliable of the "budget widebands" on the market. Although the AFX comes with a Bosch sensor by default, it is recommend to upgrade to the NTK sensor (approx. $150).

 

so i assume from the copy and paste from above you dont have any experience of your own.

 

Here is an interesting article. This one all use the same bosch sensor so it really tests the hardware.

http://m.innovatemotorsports.com/res...B_Shootout.pdf

 

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?

 

Something else to contemplate for those with FI, from Greg Banish's book.

 

I think your missing the point of the article i posted. it has nothing todo with the sensor. It has todo with the controllers. Soooo you can have the best sensor but a crappy controller. That is what that article shows it takes the sensor out of the equation. It shows the variation between all of them. Also it is kinda odd that in your article shows the ngk being the best but another article shows it the worst.

I have never said which one was better. I just said which one i liked the best out of the ones i personally tried.

 

If you read the excerpt above it states that the methodology for that test was faulty and further more no reference analyzer was used. The NGK was using the cheaper bosch LSU4 sensor. How can you assess the accuracy of a wideband if there's no reference? Do you understand that concept?

I'm not posting bullshit here, and I'm not bringing and of my experience with the Bosch (Innovate) or NTK sensor in here. I spent quite a few hours researching and reading about widebands prior to purchase of the NGK based on data and opinions of high ranking people in the industry.

Also, just to add, I'm sure we can recall those situations with people blowing motors under boost yet "the AFR was perfect." Let me propose that, in fact, the AFR was not perfect. In fact, it was possibly way off. In the above test I posted, the Bosch sensor in the LC1 (very common WB) was 7/10 of a point off reference. Combine that with error from back pressure and the true AFR could be well over 1 point higher than thought.

This will be my last post in this thread. Anyone with reading comprehension should be able to make an educated decision, or at the minimum, have the information needed to search further.

 

Sorry i am stupid. I dont get the concept....

 

My PLX seems to work fine for me. All i can compare it to is the factory narrowband O2's at part throttle. My data log shows 14.6 in closed loop. If its off by a couple tenths under boost i will never know. It works for me