|
|
Wait....that means.....I'M FAMOUS!! My pic is in a sticky! :pimp: :fluffy: :moon: |
Originally Posted by thunder550
Damn! I knew posting that pic was a bad idea!! :jest: :jest: :jest:
Wait....that means.....I'M FAMOUS!! My pic is in a sticky! :pimp: :fluffy: :moon: :) :jest: stickythunder550 |
Excellent non-biased info. :judge:
|
btw, I emailed Dynojet already about this article. Told them I am very displeased and was looking for a reply from them on how their product stood up. $500 bucks for a pretty poor finish IMO. A good thing about my Dynojet is I have no ground offset issues with my tuning software.
|
But look at the picture of how they supposedly test accuracy. Are they really trying to tell me that holding up a sensor to a tank of room-temperature gas and then cranking the valve open is going to give anything resembling a repeatable result?
I mean the article itself mentions the necessity of keeping the sensor where it can stay warm enough, and every manufacturer says the same thing. And then there's the probability of pulling in fresh air with it. They shoulda used that 9-in-1 pipe, blocked it and then flooded it. |
READ THE WHOLE STORY!!!
After testing with lab gas the sensors were run-in for an hour with race fuel, on a test engine (Westech just happened to have a Chevy motor in the dyno room that day.) The run in simulates the wear and tear a sensor goes through with live fuel and heat conditions. |
Good find Thunder!!
|
Originally Posted by 1FUNZ71
READ THE WHOLE STORY!!!
After testing with lab gas the sensors were run-in for an hour with race fuel, on a test engine (Westech just happened to have a Chevy motor in the dyno room that day.) The run in simulates the wear and tear a sensor goes through with live fuel and heat conditions. |
I wrote dynojet an email. I will copy and past. You gotta read bottom up.
Thanks for passing this along Dewey, we appreciate it. I wasn't aware of this test, and I am a little concerned with the outcome myself. I can guarantee you that when we perform random sampling with "calibrated gas" (13.083 AFR petrol / .89 lambda), the sensor included with each WBC is +/- .05 AFR. Bosch actually "calibrates" each and every sensor that goes out the door, the critical "trim / cal resistor" value is actually unique to each sensor. Since we only perform random sampling on the sensor, we are actually relying of Bosch's QC measures, and to be frank, they're quite good at what they do. You're correct, sensor accuracy / error is very critical, that's why over 4500 Dynojet dynos all over the world use the same technology that's incorporated in the WBC. We make a living manufacturing and selling dynos and power enhancement devices (ie. Power Commanders), and each one of these systems / devices relies on accurate AFR readings. The sensor that most company's use is the same family of sensor that we've used since 1997, so we have years of testing and confidence in our product. I will agree that a shortcoming of the WBC is that there isn't a way to diagnose the sensor integrity. When used with unleaded fuel, the sensor is designed (by Bosch) to provide years of trouble free, accurate readings. We do allow the end user to "calibrate the sensor", in fact, the only way to do this is to remove the "trim / cal resistor" and allow the software to "skew", or compensate for a sensor that is reading incorrectly or failing. It's best to replace the sensor at a service interval that makes sense based on your driving style and application. I personally have supercharged and turbocharged vehicles, and as a matter of habit, I'll change the sensor every 12k miles or yearly, whatever comes first. I'll check into the latency of the 0-5v output for data acquisition purposes. This test indicated the 0-5v analog output, which you would use to send the signal to a separate device (datalogger, etc etc), had a latency of 500ms. I've posed this question to our engineering group to see if they have any feedback. Regards, Dan Hourigan Vice President Dynojet Research Inc. From: dewmanshu [mailto:dewmanshu@deweygibson.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:04 PM To: tech@widebandcommander.com Cc: dewey@bowenelectric.net Subject: comparing different widebands You guys have any input on this article by FordMuscle Magazine? http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2007/06/WidebandShootout/index.php I have owned your wideband for almost 2 years and I gotta say, that data depresses me. Nothing in the world would bother me more when it comes to tuning my truck than an error adjustment on my wideband. That could cause me to blow my motor. I am not bitching, too much, but curious what your take is. Please respond “to all” so I can get this at work as well. Dewey Gibson |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands