For those searching for a wideband meter
For those searching for a wideband meter
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Ouch, accuracy of + / - .54 AFR ?!
Maybe I shouldn't have gotten a zeitronix.
Though when I compared my AFR from the GST dyno to my ZT-2 logs, it was spot on. Accurate to about 0.1 AFR.
Maybe I shouldn't have gotten a zeitronix.
Though when I compared my AFR from the GST dyno to my ZT-2 logs, it was spot on. Accurate to about 0.1 AFR.
Last edited by turbotiger; Jun 27, 2007 at 10:35 PM.
.
Trending Topics
Comparing your ZT2 results to another wideband results is not accurate because you do not know which one is off. You need to do what they did in this article, ie, compare the wideband results to calibrated gases. What they did was take a gas tank that had a set known AFR and then they measured which of the widebands can read that AFR to the closest extent possible.
(LC1)
It appears there is more than one accuracy test in circulation...
Hmm, interesting enough Innovate was less accurate on this particular test.
Take these accuracy tests for what they are worth. I would wonder if Innovate is a paying advertiser in FordMuscle magazine? My instincts would say they are.
Just judging by the methods used in both tests, I'd think the FordMuscle test would be more accurate since they used an exact known mixture in a controlled environment. The opposite could be argued that the test TTP linked to is more accurate since it's a real-world example. However, the exhaust gasses from the R32 may have variation, so going strictly on numbers, I'd bet on the FordMuscle test.
It appears there is more than one accuracy test in circulation...
Hmm, interesting enough Innovate was less accurate on this particular test.
Take these accuracy tests for what they are worth. I would wonder if Innovate is a paying advertiser in FordMuscle magazine? My instincts would say they are.
Second, You modified the actual magazine and added the words "Horiba" to it. JJF caught you in the act changing the magazine.
Third, This test that you post about does NOT use a gas of known lambda/AFR to gauge accuracy of the widebands. Who set the NTK (which you claim is a Horriba) as thge standard for accuracy? Is it because it is expensive? Is that the measure of accuracy?
Fourth, The same article that you posted also states that the LM-1 is the best AFR meter for track use. You do not mention that. You simply skip over it.
Here is what jjf said about your article:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive that you are referring to a 'shootout' that appeared in the July 2004 issue of IMPORT TUNER magazine. I think that magazine is actually a pretty good example of what I am talking about. Of course, we sell things, so marketing is not going to complain about an article that states that our LM-1 is the "best track-tuning meter in the field" (as this one did). However, we strive to be technically honest so we are quite open in questioning the methodology used in this particular test.
I won't go into agonizing detail, but the article states that a non specific NTK product was used as the reference standard. Your distributer has annoted the article to indicate that this was a "Horiba" unit. However, if it was a Horiba UEGO based meter, not a five gas analyzer, we would seem to be talking about an instrument that Horiba specs to .45 AFR accuracy, and then only with regular calibration. From the text, it appears that no attempt at validation of the instrument occurred (I believe Horiba recommends validating the instrument with calibrated gasses).
In addition, measurements were taken simply by visually reading gauges. The author(s?) note that this led to some confusion as to rather something was fast, or wrong. It also fails to account for instrument latency. At any instant in time, the instruments listed can be shifted in time by up to .75 seconds from each other. So, the way we see it, you have a triple whammy of no meaningful baseline, acknowledged errors in sampling, and no effort to account for individual instrument delays.
I won't go into agonizing detail, but the article states that a non specific NTK product was used as the reference standard. Your distributer has annoted the article to indicate that this was a "Horiba" unit. However, if it was a Horiba UEGO based meter, not a five gas analyzer, we would seem to be talking about an instrument that Horiba specs to .45 AFR accuracy, and then only with regular calibration. From the text, it appears that no attempt at validation of the instrument occurred (I believe Horiba recommends validating the instrument with calibrated gasses).
In addition, measurements were taken simply by visually reading gauges. The author(s?) note that this led to some confusion as to rather something was fast, or wrong. It also fails to account for instrument latency. At any instant in time, the instruments listed can be shifted in time by up to .75 seconds from each other. So, the way we see it, you have a triple whammy of no meaningful baseline, acknowledged errors in sampling, and no effort to account for individual instrument delays.