Wideband AFR Shootout

[GurgenPB]

Hey Guys

This confirms pretty much everythign i have been saying about the Innovate! Motorsporsts wideband o2 sensor products.

Here is a shootout that was done by Ford Muscle magazine (unbiased).

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...tout/index.php

Here is a quick snippet:



P.S. For all those that were defending Zeitronix a while back, here is a quote from the article:

"The Zeitronix exhibited accuracy of +/- .54 AFR, and gradual lean drift under some conditions. The included logging software was relatively difficult and lacked features. "

... not to mention PLX (+/- 1.00 AFR)

[THE TECH]

Hmm...for how much of a PITA it is to install and use the Innovate, I'll stick with my FAST.

[failsafe306]

I thought the PLX would be far better than that, +/- 1.0 is pretty nasty

I'll stick with my AEM though. Although the latency is almost 1/2 a sec

[paranormal]

i still to this day.. 2 years now have not had my Innovate working.. hopefully gtm can get it working soon. the aem serial gauge is going in too so ill have that reading also

[gNaRKiLL]

I dont see how the afr's could differ that much. I mean all your really paying for is an a/d convertor, with a built in calibration curve for the specific type of sensor that it requires. The only thing I could think is that some of these companies use lower bit a/d convertors than others which would cause the accuracy to drop significantly. Interesting find though but I really dont see how they could differ that much unless they are doing what I stated above.

Innovate does have some really nice software though and they make it really easy to hook right up to your computer.

[stormcrow]

i'm still partial to NTK based sensors (for longevity and accuracy) over the bosche based systems... but, the innovate is what i have for the moment... i wonder how long it will last (the sensor) on C18... only time will tell...

[booger]

I'll atest to the Zeitronix being off . My shop had a brand new Inovate W/B on his dyno . We both logged runs . My Z was off by at least .50 of a point most of the time...mine on the lean side.

[GurgenPB]

Originally Posted by gNaRKiLL

I dont see how the afr's could differ that much. I mean all your really paying for is an a/d convertor, with a built in calibration curve for the specific type of sensor that it requires. The only thing I could think is that some of these companies use lower bit a/d convertors than others which would cause the accuracy to drop significantly. Interesting find though but I really dont see how they could differ that much unless they are doing what I stated above.

Innovate does have some really nice software though and they make it really easy to hook right up to your computer.

We are talkign about objective data here... how can one assert that one unit performes in a certain way vs another unit going by 'feel' is beyond me.

The accuracy has nothing to do with the A/D converter actually, it's how the pump current is applied and regulated (from what i understand) is what makes one controller better than the other. A/D has to do with the accuracy of retaining and transmitting the values to the display device.

as far as the ease of installation is concerned... think about this for a second...the innovate is harder to install given the multitude of grounds that you have to connect, namely the separate heater and system ground. This is a high precision device and in order for it to be high precision this is absolutely required...think of the OEM WB sensors, they all have descrete grounds going to the ecu (with the built-in controller), this is wha it takes to be accurate. I'd rather spend 30 extra minutes to actually read the instructions and wire two extra wires and be able to COUNT on my sensor than save the 30 minutes and be off by up to a full point.

[QuadCam]

anyone ever compare the Innovate to the TXS Tuner Wideband?

[IIQuickSilverII]

Originally Posted by failsafe306

I thought the PLX would be far better than that, +/- 1.0 is pretty nasty

I'll stick with my AEM though. Although the latency is almost 1/2 a sec

yeah thats BS..i got the plx r-300(i guess not the m300) and i read 0.10-0.25 in accuracy with what the real A:F was on the dyno

[GurgenPB]

Originally Posted by IIQuickSilverII

yeah thats BS..i got the plx r-300(i guess not the m300) and i read 0.10-0.25 in accuracy with what the real A:F was on the dyno

A/Fs on the dyno are NOTORIOUOSLY wrong. IMHO you can't trust them period.

[THE TECH]

Originally Posted by GurgenPB

A/Fs on the dyno are NOTORIOUOSLY wrong. IMHO you can't trust them period.

Also since most dyno places use the tailpipe sensor, readings will be different than those further upstream in the exhaust system.

[IIQuickSilverII]

ill check with my data long on the utec.. i am pretty sure its accurate though cause i test it in a couple of places

[GurgenPB]

Originally Posted by THE TECH

Also since most dyno places use the tailpipe sensor, readings will be different than those further upstream in the exhaust system.

Absolutely, that too!

[IIQuickSilverII]

ill try to post the info with pics later...bt i am at 0.09-0.21 with he utec datalog

i think maybe its the m-300 unit and not the r-300 unit the one that sucks with the plx thing

[KPierson]

Originally Posted by GurgenPB

The accuracy has nothing to do with the A/D converter actually, it's how the pump current is applied and regulated (from what i understand) is what makes one controller better than the other. A/D has to do with the accuracy of retaining and transmitting the values to the display device.

From what I have read, it has more to do with the heater circuit. The heater must maintain a constant temperature for accuracy. If the temp varies at all, the measurements will be off. So, I'm guessing it would come down to who has the best tuned PID heater loop.

[tyrone coupe]

The 0.5 difference is quite possible on Zeitronix based on the data I have logged and the info given to me when my car was tuned.

Tuner said 11.9 mid tappering to 11.4 on Top.

I seem to be logging 12.5 tappering of to around 12-11.9 on the Zeitronix.

I am boosting 8 psi which is spot on to what the car was tuned.

I have however found that the ease of use is extremely user friendly especially setting the warning parameters etc.

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by THE TECH

Hmm...for how much of a PITA it is to install and use the Innovate, I'll stick with my FAST.

Innovate is easy to install and set-up I didnt have issues with mine and I hate any kind of electrical/wiring. I guess spending another 20 minutes on an install isnt worth accurate A/F's

[Audible Mayhem]

the innovate and the tuner wb from turboxs are very very similar, thats pretty much the combo i use to tune twin turbo cars and cars with dual exhausts....


i cant believe aem came in second, i truely hate that wideband cause it jumps around sooo much, i think maybe its just the delay when it displays and it is catching up....

[THE TECH]

Originally Posted by Alberto

Innovate is easy to install and set-up I didnt have issues with mine and I hate any kind of electrical/wiring. I guess spending another 20 minutes on an install isnt worth accurate A/F's

It's possible that Innovate has changed what you have to do to install their units in recent years since the last time I installed one.