Wideband O2 Shootout!
. Its 2007. How can a customer be sure the facts are still the same 1. They declare out of the blue that the NTK unit is the benchmark. WTF? Why? Is it because it is expensive? Is it becuase it is not available for sale to the public? Is it because that the OEMs use it?
2. They do not use caliberated gases as the benchmark. You need to know what is the lambda of the exhaust gases inorder to know if the widebands are close to the lambda coming from the exhaust gases. Without a caliberated gas benchmark you cannot tell which wideband is accurate and which one is not.
If Kojima's article has issues with its methodology, then this article is MUCH MUCH worse. It will not even pass muster as a project in a high school science class.
Last edited by nj1266; Jul 20, 2007 at 09:04 AM.
Zeitronix was competing against a Horiba unit that at the time cost approximately $35k.
No one was caught in the act of anything, however you enjoy trying to make it look like there was deception. The notion that you are attempting to make it look like we added colored text and imply that that was original formatting is deceptive in itself and defamatory. The article was highlighted where accuracies in AFR were within very close range and facts about the benchmark test unit were left out. The numbers themselves are difficult to understand without the notations.
It is not hard to see that I added COLORED text to the black text article in a different font and size. There is text written outside of the article as well. The article is hosted on MY OWN SERVER.
The facts of the article are accurate. None of the facts have been altered.
I never read any article noting the innovate was the best anything at the track.
No one was caught in the act of anything, however you enjoy trying to make it look like there was deception. The notion that you are attempting to make it look like we added colored text and imply that that was original formatting is deceptive in itself and defamatory. The article was highlighted where accuracies in AFR were within very close range and facts about the benchmark test unit were left out. The numbers themselves are difficult to understand without the notations.
It is not hard to see that I added COLORED text to the black text article in a different font and size. There is text written outside of the article as well. The article is hosted on MY OWN SERVER.
The facts of the article are accurate. None of the facts have been altered.
I never read any article noting the innovate was the best anything at the track.
1. You added "Horriba" next to the NTK unit when there is NO MENTION in the Import Tuner article that they used a Horriba and there is no mention that the NTK they used sells for $35,000. They only say that they used an NTK unit that is not available to the public and used by OEMs. That is it. They do not mention HORRIBA. You added this to the article. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE NTK THAT THE IMPROT TUNER ARTICLE USED WAS A HORRIBA AND THAT THE NTK COST 35,000?
2. The article does mention that the LM-1 is "this makes it the best track-tuning meter in the field." They also add that "the LM-1 also allowes you to caliberate the sensor just like the Motec unit."
I find it ironic that Zeb is the guy that exposed your deceptive doctoring of the original article, but I am very satisfied that he proved that you actually doctored the article beyond reasonable doubt.
Reading through more of the IT article showed that the test was a little more valid than I initially though. However, there seems to still be half a page missing from those scans. They did do multiple tests with the sensors in various positions which is good. In the second test you can see that the LM-1 was much closer to the benchmark than in test #1 which seems to indicate an issue with the flow. In test #2, the sensor that took the LM-1's place in the pipe didn't show the same shift in readings, so that seems to be inconclusive.
IMHO, I think a combination of these tests should be performed to really put the issue to rest. Mount the sensors in a pipe maybe 3 at a time the same distance from the source. Use calibrated gases for a verified mix. Check the sensors a few times against 3 or so different gas mixtures and maybe even rotate the pipe 120* between tests. Flow the gas at a rate reasonably close to actual engine exhaust flow. Log each sensor using the bundled software and manufacturer recommended electrical connections.
That wouldn't be too hard to do ... but someone has to step up and perform a solid test to put this to rest. If not, these same 2 tests are going to be brought back time and time again and this thread will repeat itself over and over.
IMHO, I think a combination of these tests should be performed to really put the issue to rest. Mount the sensors in a pipe maybe 3 at a time the same distance from the source. Use calibrated gases for a verified mix. Check the sensors a few times against 3 or so different gas mixtures and maybe even rotate the pipe 120* between tests. Flow the gas at a rate reasonably close to actual engine exhaust flow. Log each sensor using the bundled software and manufacturer recommended electrical connections.
That wouldn't be too hard to do ... but someone has to step up and perform a solid test to put this to rest. If not, these same 2 tests are going to be brought back time and time again and this thread will repeat itself over and over.
Now that your buddy Zeitronix posted the actual article and not an edited section like you did we know for certain that:
1. You added "Horriba" next to the NTK unit when there is NO MENTION in the Import Tuner article that they used a Horriba and there is no mention that the NTK they used sells for $35,000. They only say that they used an NTK unit that is not available to the public and used by OEMs. That is it. They do not mention HORRIBA. You added this to the article. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE NTK THAT THE IMPROT TUNER ARTICLE USED WAS A HORRIBA AND THAT THE NTK COST 35,000?
2. The article does mention that the LM-1 is "this makes it the best track-tuning meter in the field." They also add that "the LM-1 also allowes you to caliberate the sensor just like the Motec unit."
I find it ironic that Zeb is the guy that exposed your deceptive doctoring of the original article, but I am very satisfied that he proved that you actually doctored the article beyond reasonable doubt.
1. You added "Horriba" next to the NTK unit when there is NO MENTION in the Import Tuner article that they used a Horriba and there is no mention that the NTK they used sells for $35,000. They only say that they used an NTK unit that is not available to the public and used by OEMs. That is it. They do not mention HORRIBA. You added this to the article. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE NTK THAT THE IMPROT TUNER ARTICLE USED WAS A HORRIBA AND THAT THE NTK COST 35,000?
2. The article does mention that the LM-1 is "this makes it the best track-tuning meter in the field." They also add that "the LM-1 also allowes you to caliberate the sensor just like the Motec unit."
I find it ironic that Zeb is the guy that exposed your deceptive doctoring of the original article, but I am very satisfied that he proved that you actually doctored the article beyond reasonable doubt.
We do understand you are trying to earn your salary bonus from innovate hoewever and gotta do what you gotta do.
Zeitronix had more information available to them as they were a competing manufacturer in the test and advised that it was a Horiba wideband of said value.
Not only that but the Import Tuner 2004 study has a horrible methodology.
1. They declare out of the blue that the NTK unit is the benchmark. WTF? Why? Is it because it is expensive? Is it becuase it is not available for sale to the public? Is it because that the OEMs use it?
2. They do not use caliberated gases as the benchmark. You need to know what is the lambda of the exhaust gases inorder to know if the widebands are close to the lambda coming from the exhaust gases. Without a caliberated gas benchmark you cannot tell which wideband is accurate and which one is not.
If Kojima's article has issues with its methodology, then this article is MUCH MUCH worse. It will not even pass muster as a project in a high school science class.
1. They declare out of the blue that the NTK unit is the benchmark. WTF? Why? Is it because it is expensive? Is it becuase it is not available for sale to the public? Is it because that the OEMs use it?
2. They do not use caliberated gases as the benchmark. You need to know what is the lambda of the exhaust gases inorder to know if the widebands are close to the lambda coming from the exhaust gases. Without a caliberated gas benchmark you cannot tell which wideband is accurate and which one is not.
If Kojima's article has issues with its methodology, then this article is MUCH MUCH worse. It will not even pass muster as a project in a high school science class.
YEAH SPRAYING A WIDEBAND SENSOR IN FREE AIR STRAIGHT OUT OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A HELIUM TANK AT AN ARBITRARY FLOW RATE WITHOUT HAVING THE O2 SENSOR IN THE EXHAUST PIPE WHERE IT BELONGS IS THE BEST TESTING METHOD.
I think the forum has grown tired of your vendorship-eluding salesmanship. If you would like to be an INNOVATE VENDOR, please check with evom staff so they can get your business license information and fill out an application.
I am certain that you are on the payroll at Innovate. They should be dissappointed in your gamesmanship antics by now themselves.
I have stated many times that I added highlights to help readers understand the test. You CHOOSE to try and manipulate your sales tactics to make it look like we have tried to deceive someone with our vivid blue and red highlights over the black and white text. Please stop selling the Innovate products using your manipulative tactics.
We do understand you are trying to earn your salary bonus from innovate hoewever and gotta do what you gotta do.
Zeitronix had more information available to them as they were a competing manufacturer in the test and advised that it was a Horiba wideband of said value.
We do understand you are trying to earn your salary bonus from innovate hoewever and gotta do what you gotta do.
Zeitronix had more information available to them as they were a competing manufacturer in the test and advised that it was a Horiba wideband of said value.
Please have Zeb contact me so we can arrange a rep from ZT2 come to my house so he can check for himself.
I have ZERO connection to Innovate besides being a customer. I have said that multiple times. I do not sell Innovate products nor do I intend to sell Innovate products.
ZT had inside information that this was a Horriba
You want me to trust what you are saying after you were caught red handed doctoring an article and adding text that was not in the original article. 
Since ZT2 is in SoCal, they are welcome to come to my house and see if I have any Innovate products beside the one that I use on my personal car. They are also welcome to take a look @ my BOA account and see if their are any deposits from Innovate.
Please have Zeb contact me so we can arrange a rep from ZT2 come to my house so he can check for himself.
I have ZERO connection to Innovate besides being a customer. I have said that multiple times. I do not sell Innovate products nor do I intend to sell Innovate products.
ZT had inside information that this was a Horriba You want me to trust what you are saying after you were caught red handed doctoring an article and adding text that was not in the original article.
Please have Zeb contact me so we can arrange a rep from ZT2 come to my house so he can check for himself.
I have ZERO connection to Innovate besides being a customer. I have said that multiple times. I do not sell Innovate products nor do I intend to sell Innovate products.
ZT had inside information that this was a Horriba
You want me to trust what you are saying after you were caught red handed doctoring an article and adding text that was not in the original article. We are sorry Innovate did not fare as well in those ACCURACY tests.
Hey guys, this thread is going to crap real quick.
There is never going to be a winner in this argument as the pages and pages in this thread already demonstrate.
Let's just drop it and say that both the Zietronix and Innovate products have their place and leave it at that. They both have great products to tune by with many happy customers on both sides.
Perhaps in the future, there could be a test that is both fair and properly conducted by representatives of each respective company for their own products, but until that happes, what's the point of arguing? Let's just be happy that we, as comsumers, have a choice and no one company has a monopoly driving prices to a point where no one can afford them. Choice is good, competition is good.
Eric
There is never going to be a winner in this argument as the pages and pages in this thread already demonstrate.
Let's just drop it and say that both the Zietronix and Innovate products have their place and leave it at that. They both have great products to tune by with many happy customers on both sides.
Perhaps in the future, there could be a test that is both fair and properly conducted by representatives of each respective company for their own products, but until that happes, what's the point of arguing? Let's just be happy that we, as comsumers, have a choice and no one company has a monopoly driving prices to a point where no one can afford them. Choice is good, competition is good.
Eric
We were not caught adding any highlighted colored text to the black and white article. We never implied that the colored text in a different font was part of the article. In fact we advised many times that we highlighted the number closest to the benchmark AFR in order to illustrate which units were most accurate. ZEITRONIX AND MOTEC were the closest.
We are sorry Innovate did not fare as well in those ACCURACY tests.
We are sorry Innovate did not fare as well in those ACCURACY tests.
I CHALLANGE you to find these two mentioned in the article. You added them to add weight to the article. The article ONLY says:
1. they used NTK as a benchmark
2. That NTK is used by OEMs
3. That the NTK is an accurate benchmark
Here is the original table as it appeared in the article:
And here is what you posted:
I have no problem with you adding what was said in the text of the article to the table, but I do have a problem with you adding text that WAS NOT in the article to the table. So you added the following:
1. That the NTK unit was a HORIBA. Reading the full article it is clear that there was NO MENTION of Horiba anywhere
2. That the NTK unit was $35,000 when there was no mention in the article of the cost of the NTK unit
3. That the NTK is sold to OEM "manufacturers such as Ford, Chrysler, GM, etc. to develop ECU fuel maps."
When I called you on it in a thread similar to this, you denied it:
The facts of the article are accurate. None of the facts have been altered.
I never read any article noting the innovate was the best anything at the track.
I never read any article noting the innovate was the best anything at the track.
You also LIED when you said that there was no mention that the LM-1 was the best anything on the track. Here is what the article said:
"The best part about it is you don't need your laptop in the car to log. The information is stored in the meter and can later be downloaded to your computer. This makes it the best track tuning meter in the field."
So let me get this straight. ZT2 was involved in the testing for this article, but it is NOT biased. Did you not accuse the Kojima article of being biased becuase of Innovate's involvement? Talk about speaking in a forked tongue.
You did ADD the words HORIBA and $35,000 that WERE NOT anywhere in the text of the original article. There is NO mention of Horiba or $35,000 in the article.
I CHALLANGE you to find these two mentioned in the article. You added them to add weight to the article. The article ONLY says:
1. they used NTK as a benchmark
2. That NTK is used by OEMs
3. That the NTK is an accurate benchmark
Here is the original table as it appeared in the article:
And here is what you posted:
I have no problem with you adding what was said in the text of the article to the table, but I do have a problem with you adding text that WAS NOT in the article to the table. So you added the following:
1. That the NTK unit was a HORIBA. Reading the full article it is clear that there was NO MENTION of Horiba anywhere
2. That the NTK unit was $35,000 when there was no mention in the article of the cost of the NTK unit
3. That the NTK is sold to OEM "manufacturers such as Ford, Chrysler, GM, etc. to develop ECU fuel maps."
When I called you on it in a thread similar to this, you denied it:
You said that the FACTS were not altered, but they WERE. There was no mention in the original article of HORIBA.
You also LIED when you said that there was no mention that the LM-1 was the best anything on the track. Here is what the article said:
"The best part about it is you don't need your laptop in the car to log. The information is stored in the meter and can later be downloaded to your computer. This makes it the best track tuning meter in the field."
I CHALLANGE you to find these two mentioned in the article. You added them to add weight to the article. The article ONLY says:
1. they used NTK as a benchmark
2. That NTK is used by OEMs
3. That the NTK is an accurate benchmark
Here is the original table as it appeared in the article:
And here is what you posted:
I have no problem with you adding what was said in the text of the article to the table, but I do have a problem with you adding text that WAS NOT in the article to the table. So you added the following:
1. That the NTK unit was a HORIBA. Reading the full article it is clear that there was NO MENTION of Horiba anywhere
2. That the NTK unit was $35,000 when there was no mention in the article of the cost of the NTK unit
3. That the NTK is sold to OEM "manufacturers such as Ford, Chrysler, GM, etc. to develop ECU fuel maps."
When I called you on it in a thread similar to this, you denied it:
You said that the FACTS were not altered, but they WERE. There was no mention in the original article of HORIBA.
You also LIED when you said that there was no mention that the LM-1 was the best anything on the track. Here is what the article said:
"The best part about it is you don't need your laptop in the car to log. The information is stored in the meter and can later be downloaded to your computer. This makes it the best track tuning meter in the field."
The wideband readings are unaltered or changed. Highlighting the ZEITRONIX and MOTEC UNITS as being the MOST ACCURATE UNITS IN THE TEST FIELD via their close readings to the benchmark unit was done by me, not any other manufacturer. Purpose was to get to the point without having to decipher the readings.
One of the tested manufacturers had informed us that a Horiba unit was used as the benchmark AFR meter.
I have yet to read any article stating anything regarding Innovate being the best at any track tuning.
To reiterate, we sell AEM, Innovate, Zeitronix, amongst other widebands. If a consumer wants any wideband, we will sell it to them. Out of all the choices we have as a distributor and tuner, WE CHOOSE ZEITRONIX for its ACCURACY and FEATURES NOT AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER WIDEBAND SYSTEM.
Yes you have lied and you continue to lie. You said that there was no mention of the LM1 as the best of anything in the article and you just said it once again in this post. The Import Tuner article that you love so much clearly states:
"The best part about it is you don't need your laptop in the car to log. The information is stored in the meter and can later be downloaded to your computer. This makes it the best track tuning meter in the field."
The above is a direct quote from the article.
I am not talking about the highlighting. Why are you being so dense. I said that I had no problem with you adding to the table information that was in the article's text. That is not the issue.
That information is NOT mentioned in the article. Saying that you were told about it, does not absolve you of being a LIAR. You LIED and you got caught. There is NO MENTION of Horiba or of $35,000 in the original article. You made that stuff up. This is deception inorder to make the unit that you sell better than what the article said.
You LIE even when the evidence is starring you in the face. Here is the section where they said that the Innovate LM-1 is the best for the track. I took this image right from Zeitronix's web site. I added a green border so you can read it:
"The best part about it is you don't need your laptop in the car to log. The information is stored in the meter and can later be downloaded to your computer. This makes it the best track tuning meter in the field."
The above is a direct quote from the article.
The wideband readings are unaltered or changed. Highlighting the ZEITRONIX and MOTEC UNITS as being the MOST ACCURATE UNITS IN THE TEST FIELD via their close readings to the benchmark unit was done by me, not any other manufacturer. Purpose was to get to the point without having to decipher the readings.
One of the tested manufacturers had informed us that a Horiba unit was used as the benchmark AFR meter.
I have yet to read any article stating anything regarding Innovate being the best at any track tuning.
Last edited by nj1266; Jul 20, 2007 at 10:23 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
