is there a reason not to ditch AFR and use lambda?

 

Guess its just personal preference. I know how to read AFR's, and have no idea where to even start in lambda, so that would be a reason, I wouldnt be able to know what was going on.

 

ill teach you anything

 

lol free bump.... i use afr

 

double post, evom glitch

 

1.0 lambda = 14.7:1 for gas, 6.5:1 for methanol

12.5:1 for gas = 0.85 lambda

 

lambda as you know is the universal language of tuning. once you have it down you can tune any fuel or combination of them without fueling around with calculations.

I don't mix fuel so I took what felt easiest for me and concentrated on gasoline afr.

 

FWIW, widebands typically measure equivelency ratio, then use that to calculate lambda. AFR is then estimated by multiplying lambda by a fixed fuel multiplier (typically 14.7). So, if you are using AFR for tuning, you are already really using lambda, just multiplied by a fixed amount.

I actual find lambda a lot more intuitive than the psuedo AFR from a wideband. For me, mentally tuning to, say .78 lambda at different altitudes makes sense - I'm looking for the same mixture relative to stoich for the same relative efficiency. Using the same 'afr' seems wrong, because I am aware of the thinner air. Of course, using the same lambda or AFR will both *be* wrong at altitude if your wideband does not allow you to calibrate for the actual partial pressure at a given location.

-jjf

 

Correct, and in addition, if you are using meth you will still tune to the same AFR (gauge reading) that you use for gasoline alone because your wideband is still using the same fixed fuel multiplier. This causes tons of confusion in most meth tuning threads.

 

heres you a chart.....

 

so if somone was to swap over to E85 where like 8 or 9 or somthing is stoich how would i be trying to read that to tune under WOT sense my wideband only goes to 9.0 (have the ngk afx).