Wideband shootout test
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,606
Likes: 98
From: Northern Virginia
Wideband shootout test
This is an interesting comparison test. I have a Zeitronix WB for the alky failsafe when I already have an LM-1, and was planning to get rid of the LM-1, but after reading this I think I'll continue to rely on the LM-1 for datalogging and tuning and just use the Zeitronix for the lean run protection:
Wideband comparison test
Wideband comparison test
Just so you guys know ... there is another test that puts the ZT2 way above the LM-1/LC-1 and I'm sure Scott will be here shortly to post those results, just like he has for every other one of these threads.
FWIW, both tests are flawed.
FWIW, both tests are flawed.
I will be interested to see comparison results. I would like to see if the Uego gets the same results in the other test.
Trending Topics
If you read the article, you'll realize that the bungs and pipe weren't used for the accuracy test ... the sensors were installed in the pipe for a short time and exposed to leaded fuel to simulate long term exposure to exhaust gas. The accuracy tests were done outside of that pipe using calibrated gases.
Also, from what I know, the mounting location (radial) doesn't change the readings. you mount your sensor between 10 and 2 to keep moisture from settling on it which could shorten the life of the sensor. It should read the same at 12:00 and 6:00 or anywhere else.
Also, from what I know, the mounting location (radial) doesn't change the readings. you mount your sensor between 10 and 2 to keep moisture from settling on it which could shorten the life of the sensor. It should read the same at 12:00 and 6:00 or anywhere else.
It's a nice thing to know that the AEM and Innovate products are accurate. The testers noted in the article that they had improperly installed the ZT2. And as previously noted the AEM datalogs very easily and works with our software. I dont know anything about testing methods but their method of using a control gas seems like a decent way to measure accuracy.
I've always wondered how accurate <$500.00 widebands are and evidently they are pretty accurate. When I went to EFI 101 the instructor talked about how vastly superior their wideband was (I'm thinking it was either an Autronic or Motec WB). Well come to find out it could only be about .10 +/- more accurate lets me know I made a wise investment in my Uego and LM1.
*also, not a stab at EFI university, the class was very informative and filled in a few blanks for me.
I've always wondered how accurate <$500.00 widebands are and evidently they are pretty accurate. When I went to EFI 101 the instructor talked about how vastly superior their wideband was (I'm thinking it was either an Autronic or Motec WB). Well come to find out it could only be about .10 +/- more accurate lets me know I made a wise investment in my Uego and LM1.
*also, not a stab at EFI university, the class was very informative and filled in a few blanks for me.
Last edited by Mr. Evo IX; Mar 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM.
You are right ... the calibrated gas is a great method of testing, but there were flaws in the test elsewhere that were uncovered after the article was published. They tested the sensors jsut as shown in the photo ... they simply held them up to the gas. there wasn't really any control for the flow rate of the gas or a way to keep free air from reaching the sensor.
On the last thread, I mentioned that they should have built a small rig to mount the sensor in so it would be exposed to the gas in a similar way as it would be in normal operation. It would have also been useful to regulate the flow and velocity of the gas. That would have been a nearly foolproof test and would have given excellent results. Scott (TTP) agreed as we both had similar ideas as to how the test could have been improved.
that said, I feel that the test that Scott posts everywhere has even more flaws.
On the last thread, I mentioned that they should have built a small rig to mount the sensor in so it would be exposed to the gas in a similar way as it would be in normal operation. It would have also been useful to regulate the flow and velocity of the gas. That would have been a nearly foolproof test and would have given excellent results. Scott (TTP) agreed as we both had similar ideas as to how the test could have been improved.
that said, I feel that the test that Scott posts everywhere has even more flaws.
Evolved Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 1
From: MA
someone should cross post to the old thread.
i also definitely remember the test scott posted being even worse.
edit: its funny - TTP is gungho about the zeitronix, so thats what they push, and obviously innovate pushes their's. innovate was highly involved with the testing in the posted article.
also - how did they determine the AEM's average latency with "no real logging capability" how do else would you measure latency without logging.
and what do they consider logging capability.
i also definitely remember the test scott posted being even worse.
edit: its funny - TTP is gungho about the zeitronix, so thats what they push, and obviously innovate pushes their's. innovate was highly involved with the testing in the posted article.
also - how did they determine the AEM's average latency with "no real logging capability" how do else would you measure latency without logging.
and what do they consider logging capability.
Last edited by EvoBroMA; Mar 12, 2008 at 12:19 PM.
I agree 100% that the testing of the Uego and ZT2 were not fair 
and should basically be disregarded. However it's easy to see that these modern widebands are a lot more accurate than I would have thought. Imagine if they are properly used and installed 
.
and should basically be disregarded. However it's easy to see that these modern widebands are a lot more accurate than I would have thought. Imagine if they are properly used and installed .