Wideband O2 Shootout!
Wideband O2 Shootout!
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...tout/index.php
Not sure if its a tritech, but here you go.
8 different widebands tested on Accuracy, Latency, Display, Ease of Use and Software.
I find the results quite interesting.. when some vendors on this forum swear by some of these widebands that had less than stellar results.
Just glad to see I have been using one of the best WBO2's out there. Which scored highest on these tests
.
Not sure if its a tritech, but here you go.
8 different widebands tested on Accuracy, Latency, Display, Ease of Use and Software.
I find the results quite interesting.. when some vendors on this forum swear by some of these widebands that had less than stellar results.
Just glad to see I have been using one of the best WBO2's out there. Which scored highest on these tests
.
Trending Topics
Glad you posted that, was making me worry about my Zeitronix 
The article you posted looks better IMO, as they spaced the sensors better. And having one meter to bench mark off of is better IMO than trying to use some gas
Not to mention, this one actually posts raw data, not just dots and circles
The article you posted looks better IMO, as they spaced the sensors better. And having one meter to bench mark off of is better IMO than trying to use some gas
Not to mention, this one actually posts raw data, not just dots and circles
"use some gas"
Glad you posted that, was making me worry about my Zeitronix
The article you posted looks better IMO, as they spaced the sensors better. And having one meter to bench mark off of is better IMO than trying to use some gas
Not to mention, this one actually posts raw data, not just dots and circles
The article you posted looks better IMO, as they spaced the sensors better. And having one meter to bench mark off of is better IMO than trying to use some gas
Not to mention, this one actually posts raw data, not just dots and circles
You did well in chemistry didn't you?
I posted this test on another forum and got responses questioning the array of the sensors in the pipe. People stated that them being grouped so closely would throw off the results. I think some people don't understand that the sensors were only in the pipe for 1 hour and only to simulate being installed on a vehicle over time. The results of the test aren't based on the values taken while the sensors were mounted in the pipe. the sensors were tested in a controlled environment (outside of the pipe pictured) against a scientifically verified mixture.
What TTP does not tell you is:
1. This article dates back to July 2004. At that time there was no LC1. Today there is an LC1.
2. This article was modified by TTP to include the words "Horiba" next to the table.
3. This article did not follow a scientifc methodology of comparing the results of the wideband meters against a gas of know Lambda/AFR. They simply decided to use the "Horiba" as their standard. Why is the Horiba the standard? Is it becuase it is expensive?
1. This article dates back to July 2004. At that time there was no LC1. Today there is an LC1.
2. This article was modified by TTP to include the words "Horiba" next to the table.
3. This article did not follow a scientifc methodology of comparing the results of the wideband meters against a gas of know Lambda/AFR. They simply decided to use the "Horiba" as their standard. Why is the Horiba the standard? Is it becuase it is expensive?
Glad you posted that, was making me worry about my Zeitronix
The article you posted looks better IMO, as they spaced the sensors better. And having one meter to bench mark off of is better IMO than trying to use some gas
Not to mention, this one actually posts raw data, not just dots and circles
The article you posted looks better IMO, as they spaced the sensors better. And having one meter to bench mark off of is better IMO than trying to use some gas
Not to mention, this one actually posts raw data, not just dots and circles
If you read the new shootout you would note that they made TWO tests. The first test was done against caliberated gases for accuracy. And the second test was done on the dyno with all the sensors plugged in. That was NOT the only accuracy test.
In the article posted by TTP, there is no such distinction. They did NOT use caliberated gases to test for accuracy. They simply used what TTP says is a Horiba unit as the benchmark. But why is this the benchmark? Is it because it is expensive? Does expensive mean accurate?
Last edited by nj1266; Jun 28, 2007 at 01:18 PM.
I'm a mechanical engineer, work on electro-chemical systems, I know a thing or two about bench marking sensors and using calibration fluids/constants
The article and the "data" it presents sucks ***. It would have been better to use a single W/B as a standard (you could compare it to the calibration gas), then use that as a bench mark as to compare all of the other meters.
Not only that, but the first article doesnt provide a single real data point, just rough estimations and silly full and half-full circles. Where the sensors off by through out the entire test? Just during start up? What were the avg afrs recorded? They went through such lengths to get the calibration gases and such, yet couldnt find the room in the article to post a single real data point?