Isn't That Lean?
Originally Posted by EFIxMR
FYI not all bosch widebands are made equal not even all NTK widebands are made equal. The bosch sensor from VW can be low quality. Wideband sensors come in different grades of accuracy.
This is a verified fact from my back to back testing using an innovate wideband both with a bosch sensor from innovate, and a vw bosch sensor bought online against the built in Motec PLM inside the Dynapack control unit, and a handheld PLM.
For best results it is better to buy the sensor from innovate. They are more expensive, but definately more reliable, IMHO.
This is a verified fact from my back to back testing using an innovate wideband both with a bosch sensor from innovate, and a vw bosch sensor bought online against the built in Motec PLM inside the Dynapack control unit, and a handheld PLM.
For best results it is better to buy the sensor from innovate. They are more expensive, but definately more reliable, IMHO.
Zeitronix states in the instruction manual to only use LSU Bosch Sensors.
This is what came with my ZT2 from Road Race Engineering.
Same sensor as Innovative.
Part Number 0 258 007 057/058 Same as LSU 4.2
VW1.8T and 2.8L VR6 Golf, Jetta and Turbo Beetle, VW part # 021-906-262-B, (AWW & AFP motors only) Bosch US part # 17014.
Other O2 sensors compatible with Innovative.
NTK L1H1 L1H1
Bosch LSU4 0 258 066 066
.
Last edited by Spec'd; Jul 7, 2006 at 05:03 PM.
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
NJ, do you think it's in any way related to your fairly low boost?
The chart below is from my 91 custom map and has similar boost, but the AFR is way lower by 7k rpm than the 93 map that shiv has on his web site.
Last edited by nj1266; Jul 7, 2006 at 05:05 PM.
Originally Posted by Spec'd
Sorry my mistake. 
Originally Posted by nj1266
I do not think it is since I get similar boost on my custom 91 map but my AFR is about 1 point less than with the off-theshelf 93 octane map.
Timing , a/f's or both... just curious.
.
Originally Posted by nj1266
I uploaded a V330+ 93 octane map from Shiv's website for catback and downpipe 2005 EVO. My car has a catback, downpipe, K&N filter and JDM DV.
I am currently mixing 91 octane with 100 octane to get 93 octane gas. So I decided to use the off-the-shelf map.
I did my first log and I think I am running lean. Here are the table/chart A lot of 12+:1 afrs as you can see. Isn't that too lean even for 93 octane?
This is a third gear pull to redline.
I am currently mixing 91 octane with 100 octane to get 93 octane gas. So I decided to use the off-the-shelf map.
I did my first log and I think I am running lean. Here are the table/chart A lot of 12+:1 afrs as you can see. Isn't that too lean even for 93 octane?
This is a third gear pull to redline.
As mentioned above, I have also have noticed that if I lower the boost tables my AFRs will be higher. Datalogs confirmed this was a result from the engine running on a lower load area of the map.
Originally Posted by Spec'd
What did you adjust on your custom 91 ?
Timing , a/f's or both... just curious.
Timing , a/f's or both... just curious.
Originally Posted by Jorge T
I have noticed an .5 AFR difference between the Works and Stock air filters in my car, and the K&N must be similar. AFAIK the base maps are tuned with the stock air filter, reason why you may be seeing high AFRs. Try running the stock A/F to verify how much iAFRs change on your car.
As mentioned above, I have also have noticed that if I lower the boost tables my AFRs will be higher. Datalogs confirmed this was a result from the engine running on a lower load area of the map.
As mentioned above, I have also have noticed that if I lower the boost tables my AFRs will be higher. Datalogs confirmed this was a result from the engine running on a lower load area of the map.
The boost is similar on both maps.
Originally Posted by nj1266
The car was custom tuned from scratch by Tuning Technologies in Colton CA. The tuning included incresing the boost by 1-2 psi from stock, pulling fuel to lean out the mixture (but not as much as shiv's off the shelf map), and pulling timing which is about the same as the 91 octane Shiv map.
I see, thanks for curbing my curiousity.
.
Originally Posted by nj1266
Good point. I am going to put the stock filter back in and do a log with the fuel map unchanged and see what I get.
The boost is similar on both maps.
The boost is similar on both maps.
Real good points. Now I'm curious again.
I run an HKS Hybrid Super filter, very unrestrictive.
.
Probably just your filter, put the stock one back in. The base map your running was set using the oem filter. I know your afr's were good on 91 octane, but just give it a try it only takes a minute. A few years ago Shiv tuned my car in Portland when I made the mistake of using a Ralliart filter and not bringing my stock one with. He had a difficult time adjusting everything for it I remember. Next time around with the oem filter, I had much better luck.
Last edited by boostedwrx; Jul 7, 2006 at 05:39 PM.
Your 91 looks pretty healthy. As much as I would want to go for 91.
Remember the stock maps were supposed to be programmed for 93.
IMO, I would rather run the 100 fuel in your 93 off the shelf.
Especially in this hot weather.
One has to wonder if Jorge T's theory is right about stock vs
aftermarket panel air filters.
.
Remember the stock maps were supposed to be programmed for 93.
IMO, I would rather run the 100 fuel in your 93 off the shelf.
Especially in this hot weather.
One has to wonder if Jorge T's theory is right about stock vs
aftermarket panel air filters.
.
Originally Posted by nj1266
It is an Innovate LM-1 unit and the software is Logworks. Really good unit. Zeitronix is good as well, but the software on the Z is weak. Not many options.
I have looked at the v330+ 91 octane off-the-shelf map and they have identical fuel maps. So it seems that both the 91 and 93 octane versions of the v330+ would run lean.
I will remove less fule from the Fuel/MAF table and see if I can bring the nunmbers down to 11.5:1 accross the board. If that does not work, I will go back to my custom 91 map and run 93 octane.
I have looked at the v330+ 91 octane off-the-shelf map and they have identical fuel maps. So it seems that both the 91 and 93 octane versions of the v330+ would run lean.
I will remove less fule from the Fuel/MAF table and see if I can bring the nunmbers down to 11.5:1 accross the board. If that does not work, I will go back to my custom 91 map and run 93 octane.