Wide Band Poll

[exploder]

ive been happy with my plx dm100

[GAMEOVER]

You regret not dropping $3500 for this?

If I need to replace my LC-1 I will go with the AEM 30-4100
The accuracy and speed are close to the LC-1 and
maybe it doesn't eat sensors like it.

Holy Shitnizz!!! I didnt know the Lambda Pro was $3500. I thought it was close to the LM-2 in price....
"INNOVATIVE" ALL THE WAY!!!

[mr.prick]

$3500 is too much accuracy for me too.

[joecar]

That's out of my budget.

[Bruce Melton]

As a freqent plug and play user, I like the LM-2 best, with serial connection to V2. Tracks right with dyno WB AFR.

Previous LM-1 was ok and so so was PLX (after serial mod).

To avoid significant lag with any of these, serial connection is essential, IMO.

[mistermike]

Lambda Pro has no RS 232 output. That's a deal breaker for me. I have a pair of first gen LC1's still going strong.

Innovate sells huge quantities of LC1's. Naturally some of them will fail and some will be sold to morons. However it is human nature for someone to selfishly believe that their broken unit is representative of thousands of others. Statistically, unhappy customers are 10 times more likely to speak up than satisfied ones. When was the last time someone started a thread entitled: "My XYZ is working fine. Just thought I'd let you know."?

Most of the problems with Innovate are ground offsets and idiot owners. Following instructions or using V2 serial input takes care of the first, a good slap takes care of the latter.

I wouldn't buy a paper clip from AEM. They stole the design of the Versafueler and dared the patentholder to sue them. That puts them permanently on my bad guy list.

[RWTD]

The NGK AFX is the most accurate of all the budget widebands. With that being said, I thought I'd share this information given on ModularFords.com by David Darge of Powertrain Electronics.

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/s...91#post1225791
(post #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.

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).

[joecar]

RWTD, welcome to the EFILive forum...

[98 tigershark]

If thats even worth talking or arguing about seriously, I am going to go back to a Carburetor and sell all the junk that I have spent thousands on and then I will send the bill to innovate for damaging my motor with a known piece of junk. Not!!!!! This is ridiculous and we need a beer summit.
LOng live PLX , innovative and all of the peice of crap sensors all of us tuners have used for years.
Frankly I tried to be polite and asked not to have my equipment insulted and if this is how to teach people by calling their tuning equipment junk teach some were else!!! I hate know it alls that insult my stuff!!!
Ticked off
98 tigershark

[RWTD]

If thats even worth talking or arguing about seriously, I am going to go back to a Carburetor and sell all the junk that I have spent thousands on and then I will send the bill to innovate for damaging my motor with a known piece of junk. Not!!!!! This is ridiculous and we need a beer summit.
LOng live PLX , innovative and all of the peice of crap sensors all of us tuners have used for years.
Frankly I tried to be polite and asked not to have my equipment insulted and if this is how to teach people by calling their tuning equipment junk teach some were else!!! I hate know it alls that insult my stuff!!!
Ticked off
98 tigershark

Well, if that's the "mentality" you want to exhibit, then I'll happily insult you.

EFIL and HPT both give us the ability to properly tune, but using subpar quality materials to do it with makes zero sense. I assume you'd rather the manufacturers to tune like you, 'eh? What's the old adage, anyone can teach a monkey...