^^^ To Zeitronix and TTP Engineering:

I'm not going to say that you guys aren't pushing the best wideband product(s), since I really don't know that for sure either way, but you're really not helping yourselves with your posts. Instead of trashing that previous test, and the Innovate products in general, maybe you should perform an unbiased and documented test of your own to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that your product is the best. As a designer and manufacturer of your own wideband products, then I'm sure you have the testing equipment to perform such a test. Quite honestly, I don't know why you wouldn't already have the data on that to be able to share with any and all of your existing and potential customers. For example, I work for a very large electrical engineering manufacturer, and our R&D group(which I am not part of) knows exactly how we stack up against ALL of our major competition with regard to just about every variable of electronic performance. So....lets turn this into an opportunity for Zeitronix to sell us all on how the Zt-2 is the only way to go.

 

This is what innovate did. Used their equipment to test everybody else. I'm not going to lower myself to such standards.
Here you go. _Independent_ test where non of the manufacturers were involved or present:

 

Thanks for sharing the testing information. I'm not sure it answered more questions for me, than it potentially raised though. And I'm curious as to why you think that performing tests to determine how your product stacks up compared to the competition would exemplify lowered standards? If the goal is to provide the highest quality and highest accuracy wideband system on the market, wouldn't you want to perform testing to ensure your product performs better? I would think you would have a certain incentive to prove that in your own lab, i.e. how do you know what you need to improve without knowing what, if anything, needs to be improved?

 

You have totally missed the point.

The tests were conducted using logworks as a datalogger. Logworks is a program from Innovate.

Why the hell would you test a TurboXS wideband through a PLX datalogger when the TurboXS has its own software which is better than the PLX datalogger?

This is essentially what has transpired.

Zeitronix has its own proprietary datalogging software, yet they did not even load the program and test it. They used the zeitronix wideband with their crappy Innovate logging program. How are you going to test accuracy and latency with a logger from the competing company?

Its the dumbest test I have ever heard of.

Zeitronix widebands have the best proprietary software in the industry yet the software was not even used in the test.

Then they took it a step further down bull**** lane and stated that the unit was hard to use. How can the unit be difficult to use if you didn't even use the PROVIDED DATALOGGER FROM THE MANUFACTURER?

You connect a red wire, a black wire and open the datalogger program!

You do not even need to press a button to start logging! It starts automatically!

 

Give it a rest already - all modern A/F meters do a great job at reading A/F... Most people, including myself, could care less about all of the other options or features...

I have had bad luck with the Innovate going threw O2 sensor frequently, but I never had a compliant about it's ability to read A/F...

 

Can you explain why you think there are difference in the test results from a technical standpoint and what are the differences between your current model and previous model that were done to improve performance and why were they needed. Why would using a different brand of data logger to monitor the analog voltage out using a simple look up table give better results with some units than others. Its just voltage going in to make a logged result. If there was error, wouldn't the error be the same for everything tested? To challange the validity of the test these sorts of question must be answered other than making insults and calling things bull****. The readers here are smarter than that, they like me want to know answers with a technical base even if they are your opinion.

Instead of launching personal attacks you should be explaining the improvements and virtues of your product by presenting test data that you probably have from doing benchmarking and testing in development. That is the type of response that will earn you respect and show that you do indeed make a superior product.

I also made several editing changes to the story at your request yet you still feel the need to make personal attacks to my integrity. I will not go to that level myself but why don't you show some data and give some objective reasons why there are variables in testing. I chose to run the article because in my opinion, our test conditions were electrically cleaner than the end users car so if a unit can't perform well on the dyno due to ground loop variation and noise in the power circuit and inducted current in the messy wiring, then how is a unit going to perform in real world conditions, probably even worse.

My personal opinion is that some units are more sensitive to installed conditions like electrical noise and cleanness of ground. In a consumer product that is used in a car which is not a very electrically clean environment, a product has to be pretty robust in its resistance to such environmental factors. Some of the units do it better than others.

Please let the readers of this thread know in your technical opinion as an EE and designer of these units how this test could be intentionally cheated to alter the results? Please let the readers know how carelessness on my part could have messed up the results and how things like temporary messy wiring on a bench would be any different from how a typical user of your product would stick your (or any other) unit in a random car for a tuning session. How would a power supply with excess capacity connected to a battery be worse of a power souce than a normal car's battery connected to an alternator controled by a voltage regulator? Would that not be less electricaly clean and a less forgiving environment that the dyno cell?

Give some technical engineering reasons why my test is not valid and why the Import Tuner test is more accurate. I would like to know for my information on testing electronic stuff in the future. I am sure the readers of this thread would as well. The Import Tuner test did not make an effort to have a control or a calibration source like we did, we used two sources, a master reference grade NTK meter and a calibration gas as a sanity check. The Import Tuner article has no such control point and only compares variability between the units themselves with no reference point for accuracy. That is a major flaw in the testing in my opinion. In my opinion the Import Tuner article was an easier, cheaper to run test.

I am not being defensive. I want to understand what I did wrong. I want to give you a chance to show that there are valid technical reasons for test variability other that being sour because your old style unit performed poorly in the way I tested it.

Of all the manufactures, you are the only one who has personally attacked me on a public forum. In the future if I ever test any of your product again, I will make sure I will invite you to personally oversee and help me run the test so you will not complain or feel unfairly treated. I feel that its pretty darned hard to cheat on something like this and that variably can only happen due to a flawed test.

My common sense feeling as an engineer (but not an EE) tells me that our test environment was probably better that a typical end users car as far as electrical cleanness. So maybe our test was flawed but how is this worse than typical customer use? I also feel that if you won our test, you would be happy even if you felt the test was flawed.

 

Actually, no. I understand your point, and your reasons for feeling that way. Therefore, if you/Zeitronix have a problem with their test results and methods, then do one of your own, or at least pay an independent lab to do it for you. And like I've previously stated, I find it odd that Zeitronix hasn't already done that, or is at least unwilling to provide the results of that test if one has indeed occured. Until then, you and Zeitronix will continue to appear to be going with the liar, liar, pants on fire approach. So....quit it, get the test done, and give me some confidence that I would be smart to buy the Zt-2 instead of one of the competitor products.

 

I agree, even if the data presented was from your own testing, it would still be considerably better and way more credible than just questioning what I do from intangible viewpoints. It would be more credible to challenge the test from a technical standpoint as well. I respect that sort of challenge to my ability and can admit that I am wrong if shown quantitative evidence. I am sure the others here can respect that as well.

Like the article said, the information was old and new better units are now on the market.

 

Wish the Import Tuner article would have gone into more detail with regards to setup and calibration. Don't know what type of fuel they used either. They also did not test for response time. I guess we can assume all the sensors were new.

Based on the info in that article, the two tests were run under different parameters (meaning not directly comparable), with the test in the MotoIQ article having used leaded fuel for a set run time to 'age' the sensors.

 

The biggest thing I see with the IT article that limits the usefulness of the information is that there is no control or reference sample. I guess you could use the Motec NTK combo as almost that as it has a reputation for being very accurate, not reference grade but as good as a consumer unit can get.

 

edit

 

Zeitronix FTW!

 

Zeitronix has been the best i've ever used... for the price you really get a lot as well.

I now only use Zeitronix as "I think it's the best out there!"

I've had it in my lancer, my gsx, my SRT-8, even my F-150! It's just to damn good not to use.

I say if you think there's a problem with it or don't like something about it "DON'T BUY IT!" Otherwise get it and you'll be happy for years to come.

By the way... my Zeitronix from back in 2002 is still in operation. I did have to buy an O2 sensor once but other than that it's never skipped a beat. Since then it's gone thru so many updates that it's only gotton better! My last purchase was mid 2009 for my SRT-8.

 

I've been procrastianting bout this for awhile and I think am rdy to pull the trigger

 

i'm selling my LC1 to buy a Zeitronix... Innovate sucks