Turbo Dodge Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm wondering if the LM can handle using the wideband as it only o2 sensor. We all know narrowand o2 arnt that accurate and with more accurate reading could make more power?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,473 Posts
Depends on the wideband you'll be using. Some could simulate a narrowband o2 output, some can't.

LM can't tell the difference between a simulated narrowband output or a true narroband 02 sensor, and accuracy would be exactly the same, provided both are in good working condition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Depends on the wideband you'll be using. Some could simulate a narrowband o2 output, some can't.

LM can't tell the difference between a simulated narrowband output or a true narroband 02 sensor, and accuracy would be exactly the same, provided both are in good working condition.
I'll be using AEM uego with the white wire on the WB going to the o2 pin on the ecu. So with the NB o2 being accurate to .7% and the WB o2 being accurate to .1% would it not tell the ecu a better AF?.:thumb:
 

·
Legendary Driver
Joined
·
10,948 Posts
There has been a couple people here who have tried running the stock ECU off the "simulated narrowband" output of the AEM and have NOT got it to be happy. So the odds are against you.

That being said both my cars run off the simulated narrowband of my Innovate Motorsports LC-1 just fine. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,473 Posts
I'll be using AEM uego with the white wire on the WB going to the o2 pin on the ecu. So with the NB o2 being accurate to .7% and the WB o2 being accurate to .1% would it not tell the ecu a better AF?.:thumb:
LM only care about two things: richer than 14.7 and leaner than 14.7.

LM won't be able to tell the difference between A/F 10 or 12, both are just "leaner than 14.7" to the LM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
even though the wideband is said to be more accurate its kind of a confusing statement because what is meant is that its more accurate over a much larger range, so for its intended purpose the narrowband is better for what the computer wants to see, there really is no benefit to using a wideband in this instance as tryingbe said the computer is just looking for less than 14.7 and more than 14.7 and thats all its really looking for and the stock sensor is hard to beat when functioning correctly as in swichting quickly back and forth rich to lean as the computer is trimming the fuel for the proper fuel mix under cruise and light throttle it is programmed for so theres really no magic bullet here, after watching my own widebband for the last 5 years the narrowband is obviously very good at keeping the mixture between 14.5 and 15.5 .

Not to mention that putting the wideband sensor in the stock location would cause the sensor to burn up very quickly.

and like said the o2 sensor has nothing to do with power enrichment only drivability
it is completly ignored under heavy throttle
 

·
Legendary Driver
Joined
·
10,948 Posts
I wish my g/f's 04 jeep would keep the mixture at 14.7 with it's stock O2's. I'd get 8% better MPG.

my 87 New yorker with a factory NTK 4 wire O2 also ran the car around 14.3 which is on the rich side.

I'd rather have the wideband sending a simulated signal to the ECU then I can manipulate the switch point.

I also like to get rid of the flow hurting stock O2 sensor. The better the flow after the turbine the better the flow before your turbine. Just ask Shadow :)
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top