In reply to engiekev :
Up until the last year or so, we have always recorded the analog output of the a/f meter. And we've never seen any problems with that signal- to the point of comparing the data to emissions benches that do a very fine calculation of the exhaust.
So whatever the problem is, it's unique to innovate.
And not that anyone cares- this is what I got to buy 100 or so of back in the late 90's- http://www.ecm-co.com/product.asp?lpro
People didn't like them as you could not mount them easily in place where you could see them. Personally, I would rather use a computer to do data acquisition than my eyes and memory.
And looking at that picture closer- man, how things have not changed. I have some blue boxes that look just like the 1000 series, including the blue connector, and they date from the early 90's. Whoever made those must have sold that design to ECM. Which is fine, that's a great box, heavily developed by people I used to work with. And was the basis of some questioning of a 14point7 kit I got, as it looked identical to what was developed. (to people who actually know circuits- not me).
I'll look into using an AFX system- but don't put too much into the display- that's a pretty simple device that can be contracted to anyone- volts in to numbers on a display.
The problem isn't unique to Innovate, it's a grounding issue caused by the user. Generally easily fixed or calibrated, most are too lazy and just end at "they don't match @#$()@#$"
I have mounted by two NGK AFX where I can't see them anyway, and just input them into the ECU and let it do it's job. If there is a problem the ecu reacts to that input, and if it can't handle it there is a big red light that goes off that I can choose to ignore (and usually do, the driver always knows best).
If 14point7 is copying what ECM did, it's no surprise that they work well. I do like the AFR500v2 tuning methanol and fuel blends when configured properly, few widebands can be used that low lambda.
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
I remember Pete's post about that- and I don't think he was doing it wrong.
In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :
Indeed, and there has been much gnashing of teeth over it. The extra fun bit is that the error appears to not only be a skew that cannot be corrected with a 2 point recalibration, but is also affected by if the engine is running or not. Between that and the bizarre injector waveforms, I think the problem is inside the MS box, like the internal grounding scheme is insufficient.
So I'll try to summarize and you guys tell me if I'm wrong.
- NGK > LSU 4.9 > LSU 4.2
- digital (canbus) > analog with good grounding scheme > single ground analog, as long as you have hardware that can deal with digital
- sensor failures from moisture and heat shock are more common with older sensors, and are related more to the controller. Ballenger > 14point7 > AEM > Innovate
Reasonable consensus around this?
In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :
My personal experience suggests that the 4.2 sensors are more robust with respect to abuse tolerance. The 4.9 sensors are smaller and probably faster reacting, but this needs a more sophisticated controls strategy than cheap controllers seem to provide.
In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :
I prefer Bosch sensors. Better repeatability and less hysteresis. But I also look at the WB and NB as a set.
I guess I’ve been lucky with my Innovate MTX-L. Been using it for years with my mega and Microsquirts.
Only had to replace 1 sensor. I did use a Bosch replacement.
Pete, which ms are you on? I have seen some v3 built with some odd components mixed in the various circuits now and again like wrong resistor wattage/tolerance that causes issues. Usually r4/7 on the clt/iat being generic but with diy built you never know.
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
It's an MS2/Extra firmware, on a 3.57 board. Oddly, I requested that DIYAutotune mod the board for me for four ignition outputs, that I never used because of various reasons irrelevant to thread. (In other words, I'm still fuel-only) The sensor ground is isolated from the power ground, the AEM unit's sensor ground is connected to the MS's sensor ground, and the AEM's power ground is connected to the MS's power ground, at the battery, and they are both powered up by a relay coming off of the battery.
Made no significant difference compared to everything grounded together at the same point on the engine, and powered up via a fuse block powered up off of the ignition switch, but I at least have the knowledge that I tried to make it "best".
(thread alluded to before)
Part of the reason I did all this was that I have a remote battery, and I noted significant voltage ripple at the positive battery point underhood (400mv or so!) and only had 15mv of ripple at the battery. Replacing the "faulty" alternator actually made ripple go up to 600mv, so I put the old one back in. I moved all the computer power and grounds to the battery after doing everything I could to clean up/replace all connection points between the battery and the alternator to no effect. In the future I'd like to mount a second lawn and garden battery underhood, strictly as a noise reduction device. (Main battery is a Group 34 because big mammajamma) Or I might leave well enough alone and quit berking with the car and focus on my other ones.
For sure, it has me thinking of one of those lithium batteries for my other RX-7 and leaving the battery underhood. Picking one up feels like you are picking up an empty battery shell! But sooooo expensive.
