Ummm ...

"To further control the study we used Westech's expensive ECM LambdaPro which read dead-on for both of the gas controls."

Also, the "Silly half-circles" represent real data. Take a look at the legend for the chart. I'll admit, it's a +/- range, but it's a perfectly acceptable way to represent that amount of data without covering the page with numbers.

 

Thats not real data, that +/- could have happened for a split second, and once the sensor reached steady state it may have been dead on. Sure its great the aem and lm-1 did very well even with this test vehicle, but for the most part they may all be the very close in reading with a few having a couple random spikes that can easily be considered sensor noise.

+/- means nothing without a full log vs time

I really dont like how the second set of sensors is directly behind the first either.

 

Dude, do you even understand the test? They tested the sensors in their ready state against calibrated gases.

Take sensor X, let it warm up, and expose it to an 11.6 AFR and see what it reads. The sensor reads correctly or incorrectly. The graph represents how far off the sensor was during those tests. I believe the +/- value is an average of the 2 tests (before and after exposure to the race gas).

 

Reading is understanding ...

The sensors were only in the pipe for 1 hour to expose them to leaded race gas. While they were in the pipe, they were tested for things other than AFR, such as response time. The AFR results only refer the the readings from the calibrated gas, not from the exhaust pipe.

 

I find it hilarious that innovate bought a 1/3 column ad payable to fordmuscle along this page here:



They also have google ads below that.

Biased marketing at it's best! Everyone is for sale...

 

I just refreshed that page like 8 times and didn't get an Innovate ad in the big boxes or the Google box.

EDIT: Wait, I finally did after changing to a different tab and refreshing a few more times.

 

Google ads are served up from keywords.

If you go to this page on the predator gas/diesel tuning product you will see the google ads change to diesel related ads:

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

It also has a mustang in that article and a 175x385 ad comes up about a mustang which leads me to believe those ads are also being served up via keywords. I also saw an innovate ad there too.

Welcome to the internet.

 

Is that all you can come up with???

So the fact that:

1. You posted an article that dates back to July 2004 and DID NOT tell us
2. You edited the article and added text to it and DID NOT tell us
3. You posted an article that declared the LM-1 the best for tuning on the track and DID NOT tells

All that you have done does not constitute bias, but buying adds in magazine does constitute bias.

So basically when a car mag declares the Evo a winner in a shootout with an STI and takes ad money from , then we should not believe them because they are biased? So the STI, by your logic, is a better car than the Evo???

 

So the actual test was done holding the sensor next to the gas cylinder like its shown in the picture?

 

lol..nice...lets just assume how the actual test was conducted

 

Bryan, Since you have the zeitronix, have you ever logged it against the readings you get from your MDs wideband? Notice any .54 +/- swings?

 

I know right. I thought that was ridiculous also. At least spray it down the pipe with a fitting or something to mimic a 90* angle and proper velocity.

 

Heh, actually I have seen 11.9-12.0 when the innovate said 11.6-11.7 but I don't really want to get in that argument, but I have a hard time not being honest when somebody asks.

The only time I have seen that difference is when going leaner on my personal EVO. At normal pump gas AFRs they seem to be spot on. This is anything but a scientific test though as one is at the tailpipe and one is in the downpipe.

 

You're right, I'm assuming. At least my assumption is based on what I read in the article and not on the first picture and graph I only looked at long enough to see that it didn't support my decision.

I didn't do the study, so I don't know. If I would have performed the tests, I would have mated the valve to a pipe with the sensor installed just as it would be on a vehicle and let the gas flow over the sensor as it is designed to work.

 

This is exactly what I described. Took it a step further with the velocity of gas flow also.

I am glad we share the same view on the testing method preference.