Naji,
It's easy to hide behind your computer, isn't it? Glad to see you realized your lies and manipluative posts will get you in serious trouble.

Who do you think are you taking to? Your students?
Do you use this kind of verbiage among your family, friends and professors? We will not tolerate your lies and your obscenity.

 

You guys are a bunch of cry babies. I will say it again, if you do not like the results go ahead and do your own shootout and use a better methodology than Kojima used. Then have any magazine publish your results. Good luck finding a magazine that will publish your results.

"Shut the hell up" is not an obscentiy. If it was, then it would have been bleeped by the evom censor software. So it is allowed.

I have not lied about anything. You guys are the ones who are throwing a hissy fit about the article and not me.

You are scared that your ONLY market will shrink since the publication of this article. You have no other significant market than the Evo, so you attack Mike Kojima and attack the article.

You guys are scared and that is why you have refused TWICE to have a head-to-head shootout with Innovate. Joe @ Innovate asked you to have a shootout and you rejected him. Mike Kojima asked you to have another shootout using mutually agreed upon methodology and you rejected him.

The best way to prove that the results of this article are flawed is to conduct another shootout using a MUTUALLY agreed upon methodology between the folks @ Innovate and yourself.

Saying that using another software to log your wideband causes inaccuracy does not make sense. We do it all the time. I have logged the LM-1 output with Evoscan and others have logged the ZT2 with Evoscan and Mitsulogger. Does that mean that the results that we are getting are inaccurate? Your software does not allow users to integrate MUT data with AFR data. That is why people use Evoscan and Mitsulogger. Are you saying that the data that they are getting is flawed because they have not used the ZT2 software?

 

We are talking about ONE parameter and that is the AFR. That is what this test is about. The test was about the accuracy of measuring AFR for all the units.

Both ZT2 and LC1 can log AFR. So why not have a head-to-head shootout? You are saying that the results of this test are flawed. Fine. Contact Innovate and tell them to do another test based on mutually agreed upon methodology.

Kojima said similar things about how hard the LC-1 was to install. And I agree with him. I do not like the LC-1 because it is very sensitive to grounding. I prefer the LM-1. The ease of install and use section of the article are subjective. What is easy for one person is hard for another.

 

There is not a sole "CUSTOMER" of Innovate in the entire world that would so adamantly argue over a manufacturer.

I am certain if we reviewed your bank statements we would see some healthy deposits from Innovate for your covert "under the table" public relations efforts you continue to deny.

Are you trying to avoid paying Evolutionm.net their vendorship fees? Certainly a manufacturer of the stature you described would not stoop so low as to use a proxy member/advertiser on their behalf to thwart paying for a real vendorship?

 

Is that the best response that you can come up with. This is laughable

I have ZERO affiliation with Innovate aside from using their products which I have fully paid for. Would you like to see the reciept for my LM-1? I can scan it and post it.

What I appreciate about Innovate is their customer service. Lately though they have been not so good

I was very impressed when Innovate created the plug-in for my Xede. Joe spent hours of his own time to get the Xede plug-in. That act of generosity grabbed my attention and loyalty.

 

Naji, your intentions here are questionable at best. You are again spreading wrong information. You are bringing up Evoscan and Mitsu logger, both log DIGTAL DATA from the serial port.
Take a basic physics course and you will understand how measuring analog voltage while running a current through a wire introduces a voltage offset, thus an error. Moreover using Innovate equipment to measure all other units is wrong on many levels (A/D conversion time, offsets and integrity. See my detailed post above.

 

Point well taken. But there is at least one end user who has used the analog port of the ZT2 and got accurate results. He posted in this very thread.

You say it is wrong, but you are a vendor and have a vested interest. The best way to find out if the methodology used by Kojima is flawed is to a head-to-head shooout with the Innovate unit using a MUTUALLY agreed upon method.

If as you claim that the method was wrong, then your unit should win the shootout using a much better method.

So how about it? Do you accept to have another shootout with Innovate? Or are you just going to complain about it on the forums?

 

*zeitronix unit hard to setup lol
*zeitronix software hard to use lmao...

I was sure i would see the Zt2 up in the top 3 at least...read all 6 pages...i was suspect from when I read "The included logging software was relatively difficult and lacked features" ...I stopped and thought, did they fail to send me all the software discs because they couldn't be talking about the "ZDL" disc I got...

nj1266 does seem some what biased with every word that he types, he tries to counter with attempts of showing that he is not biased "Lately though they have been not so good "However, he does state something that makes sense and will squash any conflicts or skepticisms we have on the test in question. He states "have a 1 on 1 shoot out" I have a zt2 and I would love to see how they fair against Innovative. Regardless of the outcome I am pleased with the zt2 unit, main factor, Value for Money.

Shoot out FTW.

 

Mike Kojima has responded to two issues that have been raised about his article. The responses can be read at the bottom of the Ford Muscle article that was linked to @ the begining of this thread

1. Holding the sensor in front of the bottle. Here is what he had to say on that:

"Our testing suggested that calibrated gas velocity was sufficient to completely fill the sensor’s measurement chamber, and exclude any free air. This appeared to be confirmed by the fact that Westec’s expensive ECM LambdaPro matched the exact lambda values of the calibrated gasses. We used 2 bottles of 1% tolerance calibrated lab gas from Scott Specialty Gasses. These were formulated to SAE standards for .8 lambda and .895 lambda (11.76 AFR and 13.15 AFR respectively). As an added data point, we used Westec’s LambdaPro during every round of testing (and it always matched the SAE gasses). There’s always room for improvement, but we believe that our methodology was a good and practical balance, and more precise than any tests we’ve seen in the past. Having said that, perhaps we should put together another comparison. As stated in the article, the question of accuracy over the life of the sensor is still open."

2. Using the analog port of ZT2 and others to measure AFR output as well as the issue of grounding the units. Here is what he had to say:

"Some question have come up to me about the test methdology, some of which was edited out for clarity. Here is here is the main part that was editied out. Test Methodology On the dyno we hooked all of the control unit’s power and ground wires to the battery and the battery to the dyno’s 150 amp power supply. The battery would act like a filter to help smooth and rectify the power to the control boxes and act as a very solid ground to avoid ground loop voltage differentials between the boxes. During the dyno testing, we logged data from all of the units. This gave us a chance to configure each unit’s analog outputs for data logging in the same way a customer would, and to compare response time (latency) and accuracy under various loads, sweeps, and conditions. We also verified that the logged data matched the values displayed on the various gauges and displays. Now I am not an electronics expert nor am I an EE but I think I could call myself an educated consumer and I ran the test using the equipment as a consumer might. It has been brought to my attention that there were several places that errors could have skewed the test results. The first being differenentials in ground loops. Although I tried to eliminate this by placing a battery between the power supply and the units themselfs, I have been told by several manufactures that this is not enough and that all units should have individual grounds and power with the same resistance in every units ground. I am reporting this complaint as it was brought to my attention by several companies who make these units. The second is that by using units analog outputs, the accuracy is only going to be as good as the interpolation between the points is going to be as well as an A to D conversion error. Now I am not smart enough in the field of electronic deisgn to argue for or against these points but more than one manufacture mentioned this to me and to be fair I must report this. I hope this clarifies some of these results and allows the more educated readers to more accurately draw conclusions to how good this test is."

3. This is also from Kojima regarding the use of Analog output that he sent to me.

"The logged data was indeed logged with a LMA-3. The LC-1’s outputs were also recorded analog via the LMA-3 to keep the playing field even, not digitally.
However, to eliminate false readings due to datalogging errors, each logged analog channel was adjusted with the LogWorks channel setup so that the logged and displayed AFR data in LogWorks was matching what was displayed on the devices own display where available. It was available of course for the ZT-2. So the logged data matched what the ZT-2 displayed on its screen. That was the basis of the accuracy comparison."

As you note in his first response he requested another shootout. Will ZT2 take him up on it?

 

Round and Round we go . Shoot out or let this post rest. If there is a shoot out I feel though that representatives from both companies should be there to do the setup and configuration of the devices to ensure everything is setup correctly.

 

I went through this on a local level myself in regards to reflashing. Since TTP and Jestr share the same local marketplace, an overzealous Jestr customer decided to take it upon himself to broadcast an unauthorized test where he wanted TTP and Jestr to have a test car make three passes at the track and declare a winner.

Besides driver consistancy and a number of factors, there was not much interest from either side.

Spoke to Jestr about it. He declined interest and we followed.

Our logic was "how does this benefit us". Each of us have our own following and competition in the marketplace is good. In the end, the consumer can decide on their own what they like about each reflasher's style and service and make their own determination as to the winner in their own mind. If the client is happy and perceived a great value, quality and accuracy, that is a win for their company.

 

I see what you are saying there TTP. But, this situation is a little different. There are claims by Zeitronics that the test results are not accurate and that the ZT-2 is just as good, if not a better unit than the LC-1 (not a quote ... just a summary). In this instance, why wouldn't he step up and test this? Only good can come of it for Zeitronics products since this test has already given a negative review.

I also agree that this test should be about AFR data. The other features of the ZT-2 are a great selling point of the device, but if the AFR reading is not as accurate then most consumers would shy away. I don't think there is a debate on the cost benefit of the ZT-2 unit if the user plans to log EGT, boost, or other values.

If you are wondering at all, I own the LC-1 unit. I'd like to think it's pretty good but it would be nice to see a properly administered test between the LC-1 and the ZT-2.

 

The independent shootout has been conducted.
http://www.zeitronix.com/press/index.htm
Moreover we constantly perform quality testing.
Recent innovate sponsored tests are manipulated and put not only ours but other quality units in a bad light. There were several respected units in that farce "test". At least Mr. Mike Kojima admitted that the results and scoring in his test were skewed. That took guts but he looked happy clearing his name. We were not the only ones contacted him about the details of this "test".
Nanji just want to see illegal dog fights and he is fueling this up.

 

^^ In 2004 . Its 2007. How can a customer be sure the facts are still the same ?

 

People read what they want to read ..

I posted this ....

But it was skimmed over for this

If you're happy with what you have .. then be happy ..

so what if you have a big *******?? If you're firing blanks .. you're still a dud ..