[Gmecm] Re: Fuel Economy

Wed Sep 21 04:11:35 UTC 2005

Thanks Mark, I should have been clearer.  I knew it wouldn't be a 
drop in replacement...  Didn't mean to light any fuses.  Your 
description of the Zeitronix box sounds cool.  U got a web link?  How 
much u give 4 it?

On 17 Sep 2005 at 9:09, Mark Romans wrote:

> 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 at starstream.net>
> To: <gmecm at 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 at telusplanet.net>
> > To: <gmecm at 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 at diy-efi.org
> >>> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gmecm mailing list
> >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gmecm mailing list
> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm