[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gmecm] Re: Fuel Economy
Hi Darrell: I stick with my statement as to your specific question.
>> Interesting idea about using a WBO2 sensor, has anyone actually tried
>> this? I mean replacing a stock NB with a WB on a stock computer? That
>> in combination with changing the voltage threshold may allow you to set
>> the AFR to a slightly leaner mixture overall.
Obviously if you add an interface box you can use a wb output into a narrow
band
input. I have a Zeitronix Wide band and it allows me to input a SIMULATED
narrow band signal into the stock ecm while using the WB to datalog actual
afrs.
Sorry I got cranky about being "Corrected" for my errors. (LOL!).
SOME people don't realize that word semantics are critical when you are
typing.
"Clarification" would have been a better word sincce I wasn't technically
wrong in
the first place.
Good luck on your projects!
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Romans" <romans@starstream.net>
To: <gmecm@diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Fuel Economy
> No No No! You can't run a wide band in place of a narrow band.
> The Wide band puts out a somewhat linear 0-5 v output.
> The narrow band puts out a non-linear 0-1 v output.
> I was datalogging with diacom with one pc and the wide band
> with a 2nd pc, datalogging the wideband afr, lamda, rpm and tps.
> Then going back and looking through each datalog and comparing screens to
> set the afr's.
> Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Darrell" <ndarrell@telusplanet.net>
> To: <gmecm@diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Fuel Economy
>
>
>> Cowen: (and all)
>>
>> Well, you are right, second times the charm. Thank you for responding
>> anyway, and getting a little action going on the thread. A lot of this
>> information will be useful, thanks to all who posted on the topic. Some
>> of it went way over my head, but I'm here to learn.
>>
>> Interesting idea about using a WBO2 sensor, has anyone actually tried
>> this? I mean replacing a stock NB with a WB on a stock computer? That
>> in combination with changing the voltage threshold may allow you to set
>> the AFR to a slightly leaner mixture overall.
>>
>> I was thinking more of optimizing the ignition advance, perhaps advancing
>> the timing a bit on light throttle acceleration, tweaking the
>> deceleration enleanment up a bit, that sort of thing.
>>
>> Definitely the low restriction exhaust system will help, I used to drive
>> a Camaro with cheap turbo mufflers, when the mufflers blew out my gas
>> mileage went up by 10%! Also thinking about 1.6:1 rockers for the
>> exhaust valves to increase the flow a little.
>>
>> Not sure what I can do on the intake side, haven't really researched
>> what's available for that engine, but I suspect not much. Perhaps some
>> 3.1l parts, I've heard that 3.1l heads make a fairly big difference. A
>> straighter intake tube with smooth sides rather than the ribbed stock
>> hose may help as well, and perhaps a larger diameter MAF. I'd actually
>> like to get rid of the MAF altogether.
>>
>> I tend to agree with Bruce's observation, if you make more power, you
>> need to get into the throttle less for the same effect, and fuel economy
>> is tied to engine RPM and throttle position... That is, if you can
>> resist the temptation to put your foot in it.
>>
>> On 15 Sep 2005 at 16:33, Cowen wrote:
>>
>>> Wow! A bit of vigorous action on this topic! This IS
>>> my first rodeo, at least in this arena, and normally I
>>> might not have responded to Darrell, but it seemed no
>>> one else was, so I gave it a whirl. I thought I put
>>> in enough "maybes" to draw out some clarification from
>>> the experts... Well! I have been severely chastised
>>> for some poor writing skills!
>>>
>>> GAS said:
>>> > NB more sensitive at what ratio? On what WB sites
>>> > are you referring
>>> > to?
>>>
>>> Not "NB more sensitive" at some other ratio, I
>>> understand NB to be very limited. I meant to suggest
>>> that WB might allow closed loop with leaner AF ratios
>>> than stoich, which would be a probable benefit because
>>> although stoich is chemically the best ratio, "best"
>>> ratios vary depending on your needs, for power,
>>> emmissions, economy, driveability, etc...(hence PE
>>> mode).
>>>
>>> What sites? I have to admit, I've only skimmed some
>>> of the WB sites found in a Google search, I don't have
>>> any suggestions for which is most detailed... But
>>> don't worry, none of them I saw are trying to use NB
>>> sensors outside stoich!
>>>
>>> Gas also said:
>>> >The NB sensor is a switch centering around, and
>>> > being most
>>> > sensitive at stoich. It's sensitivity deteriorates
>>> > the farther from stoich
>>> > (either direction) the AFR. There are NB O2 sensor
>>> > voltage to AFR
>>> > curve charts on the net, that verify this. By
>>> > design, NB sensors need
>>> > not be accurate at AFRs away from stoichiometric.
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying and expanding on exactly what
>>> I'd said about NB O2 sensors!
>>>
>>> GAS continued:
>>> > There is WB O2
>>> > sensor technology
>>> > however, that allows for PCM closed loop operation
>>> > at ratios leaner
>>> > (or richer) than stoich.
>>> >
>>> > GAS
>>>
>>> Again, my case stated more eloquently. Now I know why
>>> no one else responded to Darrell! :)
>>> **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors'
>>> Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gmecm mailing list
>>> Gmecm@diy-efi.org
>>> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm@diy-efi.org
>> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm@diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>