Switching the 0-1v stock table with one that reads 0-5v?

[minigts]

I know this may be a long shot, discussed before and so forth, but how complicated would it be to swap the code for one of the different tuning softwares and insert a table to accept wideband values? Does that make sense? I mean I'm looking at this wideband I just bought and I know it only has 0-5v output (I'm assuming for a data logger to provide data on the wideband output), but if the stock computer had a table to read the 0-5v range for the values, could it not just use that table instead of the 0-1v narrowband to do it's calculations? Wouldn't it make the car more efficient? Am I asking too much? :) Please enlighten me.

[cordes]

I've talked about that with a couple of people in the past. IIRC the consensus was that it could be done, but is probably not worth the trouble.

IIRC the GM guys have done that.

[minigts]

Hmm, ok. Well I was just wondering. I have the 3" exhaust setup for the extra bung, but thought if it could be done or had been done, maybe I could just update my code and start using this thing with my current 2.25" factory exhaust. Oh well...

[cordes]

Hmm, ok. Well I was just wondering. I have the 3" exhaust setup for the extra bung, but thought if it could be done or had been done, maybe I could just update my code and start using this thing with my current 2.25" factory exhaust. Oh well...

Does your WBO2 have a NB output? I run my WB in the stock location and use the simulated O2 output to run the LM. No problems doing it this way. I believe there are several of us who do it like that with no ill effects. I know that Bucar and a couple of others say that they've had trouble with it though.

[minigts]

I got one of the ones Mr. X was selling. It has an output for a data logger, but not a simulated 0-1v output like what the computer will read. My guess is, IF it even read correctly it would read incorrectly and cause the car to run poorly. But I base that on the fact that the range for the factory one is under 1v whereas this can output over that. I have no idea what it will do. :S

[cordes]

I got one of the ones Mr. X was selling. It has an output for a data logger, but not a simulated 0-1v output like what the computer will read. My guess is, IF it even read correctly it would read incorrectly and cause the car to run poorly. But I base that on the fact that the range for the factory one is under 1v whereas this can output over that. I have no idea what it will do. :S

It will get a value outside of what it is expecting and throw an O2 code for (suck rich?)

[minigts]

Well that is what I was thinking, but what is the numeric range for the 0-1v for the narrowband the computer reads? I mean is 0-1v equal to 13-14 on a wideband? At WOT, it shouldn't matter, but cruising I don't know how the ranges would be mapped.

[black86glhs]

Someone hasn't made a table or a script to convert the 0-5V to 0-1V? With all the computer guys on here? Really? Get on the ball you slackers!!!!:eyebrows:;)

[minigts]

Someone hasn't made a table or a script to convert the 0-5V to 0-1V? With all the computer guys on here? Really? Get on the ball you slackers!!!!:eyebrows:;)

Well I didn't want to seem presumptuous, but I am a little surprised we haven't seen code or development for a wideband table integrated with the stock code. Just seems like it would be fairly straight forward, but I know very little about how code is written and the inter-dependencies.

[cordes]

http://mgcgti.com/NotesImages/Topic35NotesImage5.jpg

[minigts]

I can post pictures too.


http://generallordisimo.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/global-warming.jpg

[turbovanman²]

I really gotta try this 1 volt output thing.

Does it make that much of a difference in MPG?

[zin]

I seem to recall having this conversation before... I'm still too ignorant to understand why it isn't/can't be done by... I do understand why it can't be done easily... ;)

As I understand it, simply replacing the 0-1V signal from a narrow band with a "condensed" 0-5V signal wouldn't work due to the differences in the way a narrow vs. wide band produces it's signal.

A wide band will provide a steady 0-5V signal via the signal conditioner that the actual sensor plugs into, whereas the narrow band sensor sends it's actual raw voltage to the computer for analysis.

The raw voltage is basically 0-1V AC voltage, that is, the voltage swings above and below the "0" line, sometimes higher on the top than the bottom, the computer then takes the average (or whatever algorithm it uses) of the two spikes and uses that value.

It may be due to the hardware not being capable, or limitations on the amount of fuel that can be adjusted via O2 in the software... I don't know, but it is frustrating to know that pretty much all the other sensors are 0-5V normally, but we can't seem to integrate the 0-5V wide band signal to work.... But sometimes you just can't get that square peg in that round hole... no matter how big a hammer you have!:D

I'm sure Rob could do a better job of explaining the problems in making this work, he was a part of the other thread... the one I'm too lazy to look up right now!

Mike

[risen]

There was a whole discussion on here where frank did this. I don't recall whatever became of it but I do recall that it's not as simple as rescaling the table. If i remember correctly it's because there are constants in the cal that have to do with the kicks and the o2 ramp setup and they compare against the o2 adc counts. Search for the thread , all the info you need should be in there.

[cordes]

I really gotta try this 1 volt output thing.

Does it make that much of a difference in MPG?

It does not affect gas mileage.


There was a whole discussion on here where frank did this. I don't recall whatever became of it but I do recall that it's not as simple as rescaling the table. If i remember correctly it's because there are constants in the cal that have to do with the kicks and the o2 ramp setup and they compare against the o2 adc counts. Search for the thread , all the info you need should be in there.

My elephant memory recalls him trying to tighten up the oscillation of the O2, but I don't recall him attempting to convert to the 5v signal?

[DodgeZ]

cordes what AF do you see the MPG at?

[cordes]

cordes what AF do you see the MPG at?

A tad over 15: to one for the average of the oscillation. Anything higher than 16:1 and I start to lose drivability somewhat and it's downhill from there. I've found that ign. timing in vac plays a much more pivotal role in mpgs. I also noticed a big jump in mileage by running regular gas. That's a gas mileage monster application only though.

[DodgeZ]

http://www.boostsource.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Narrowband_Output_Graph.jpg

In the 14-15 AFR the narrow band more detailed then a wideband. Not by much but it is.

http://www.boostsource.com/?p=131

The Bosch wideband sensors suck. I wouldn't want to use it on a daily.

[boost geek]

I haven't been running an 02 sensor for a long time now, The AEM UEGO has 0-1 and a 0-5v outputs. ;)

[risen]

My elephant memory recalls him trying to tighten up the oscillation of the O2, but I don't recall him attempting to convert to the 5v signal?
My memory is notoriously faulty about some stuff, but the thread below has most of the info. I'd read that before chasing this any further.


http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27255

[cordes]

My memory is notoriously faulty about some stuff, but the thread below has most of the info. I'd read that before chasing this any further.


http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27255

I remember that, and thought that he couldn't get it to work so he just smushed the fluctuation. If anyone searches and finds otherwise please post up the link.

[risen]

I remember that, and thought that he couldn't get it to work so he just smushed the fluctuation. If anyone searches and finds otherwise please post up the link.

I actually just read the whole thread again, and I don't see any final statement about how it all turned out. It appears that the last code rev was able to handle a 0-5v input, but I don't see any confirmation that it works.

As a side note, I could put together some code for an arduino to take a wideband 0-5v signal in and map it to a narrowband 0-1v in pretty short order (less than a week for the code), if anyone is interested in that sort of solution. There would be some soldering involved but its pretty simple. The ecu can read the signal, it's just a matter of putting the time into the code for the cal.

[bakes]

There is other thing to consider like heater routines and other things to run a WB sensor .

[zin]

I actually just read the whole thread again, and I don't see any final statement about how it all turned out. It appears that the last code rev was able to handle a 0-5v input, but I don't see any confirmation that it works.

As a side note, I could put together some code for an arduino to take a wideband 0-5v signal in and map it to a narrowband 0-1v in pretty short order (less than a week for the code), if anyone is interested in that sort of solution. There would be some soldering involved but its pretty simple. The ecu can read the signal, it's just a matter of putting the time into the code for the cal.

I thought Rob might have said something about the d/a converter not being capable of that kind of resolution... But I could be confused...

Mike

PS I'm not poo pooing anything, I'd love to have wide band control... BTW, are we just talking about using the wide band to take the place of a narrow band, with the same target AFR limitations, or expanding the AFRs possible, ie, tell the ECU to hold a 12.5 A/F under XYZ conditions? (This is what I'm looking for...)

[shackwrrr]

I seem to recall having this conversation before... I'm still too ignorant to understand why it isn't/can't be done by... I do understand why it can't be done easily... ;)

As I understand it, simply replacing the 0-1V signal from a narrow band with a "condensed" 0-5V signal wouldn't work due to the differences in the way a narrow vs. wide band produces it's signal.

A wide band will provide a steady 0-5V signal via the signal conditioner that the actual sensor plugs into, whereas the narrow band sensor sends it's actual raw voltage to the computer for analysis.

The raw voltage is basically 0-1V AC voltage, that is, the voltage swings above and below the "0" line, sometimes higher on the top than the bottom, the computer then takes the average (or whatever algorithm it uses) of the two spikes and uses that value.

It may be due to the hardware not being capable, or limitations on the amount of fuel that can be adjusted via O2 in the software... I don't know, but it is frustrating to know that pretty much all the other sensors are 0-5V normally, but we can't seem to integrate the 0-5V wide band signal to work.... But sometimes you just can't get that square peg in that round hole... no matter how big a hammer you have!:D

I'm sure Rob could do a better job of explaining the problems in making this work, he was a part of the other thread... the one I'm too lazy to look up right now!

Mike

Slightly true, the sensor doesn't produce AC voltage by itself, it is usually DC. The switching from high to low is from the computer changing the fueling a little bit then seeing what happens. It does this over and over and then you have the oscillating signal (not technically ac, it doesn't pass 0). When doing a datalog of my WBO2 it does switch from high to low just like a NBO2 with the NB sim wire hooked up.

Now with the computer receiving this data in a 0-5v signal, I do not see any advantage. The signal would still be used the same way and mostly at cruise. The computer only needs to know if the AFR is higher or lower than 14.7. If you then gave the computer info over the whole AFR scale then now instead of a 14.3-15.1 swing you now have a 8-22 swing. So I don't think it does any good other than maybe for a WB that doesn't have NB sim capabilities but still it would be too much work for a WB that is only affordable because of that sale. After the sale not at of people are going to buy a 300 dollar wideband that does less than my 150 dollar techedge. I think they are good for a carbed vehicle or something that has multiple o2 sensors already installed and simulating 1 isn't going to change anything.

[black86glhs]

I like the LM doing the work. I don't have to add another box that can get fried or have a problem. That is my line of thinking. It isn't right or wrong, just how I view it. Also, in my case, I won't need two O2 sensors. Until it happens, I use both....lol.

[ShelGame]

I beleive our ECU can handle the 0-5V input no problem. The O2 now is simply fed into a A2D channel, those take 0-5V on all the other inputs (TPS, MAP, etc.). Our processor isn't sofisticated enough to allow different ranges on different channels.

The problem is, you'd have to completely re-write the entire fuelling code - except for maybe the main fuel lookups and modifiers. The closed loop control, idle control, and transient fuel would have to be re-done as they are all affected by the O2 controller.

I had written a routine to take the 0-5v WB signla and convert it to a NB signal. That way you could datalog the WB signal at WOT, and run it like stock off the NB signal at PT. But, noone was really interested in that type of a setup. It seems everyone wants WB feedback control instead. It's in the back of my mind do build a race-only 3D-based codebase for the SMEC and SBEC - someday - and I guess the WB could be part of it...

[RoadWarrior222]

I beleive our ECU can handle the 0-5V input no problem. The O2 now is simply fed into a A2D channel, those take 0-5V on all the other inputs (TPS, MAP, etc.). Our processor isn't sofisticated enough to allow different ranges on different channels.

I was scratching my head about whether it was a hardware thing or not, for instance, that the O2 input might have a transistor voltage amplifier circuit, so it takes 0-1V at the input but at the ADC it's 0-5V...

A clue to that would be the number of bits it uses. I don't know how many bits the ADC inputs are normally. For instance if it was 8 bit that would allow 256 different values or steps on the full range, but if it used just a portion of it for the O2, it might only have 51 bits/steps available for it, if it has the full 256 value range on the 0-1V input then that tells you there's hardware in the way between the input and the ADC.

[ShelGame]

I was scratching my head about whether it was a hardware thing or not, for instance, that the O2 input might have a transistor voltage amplifier circuit, so it takes 0-1V at the input but at the ADC it's 0-5V...

A clue to that would be the number of bits it uses. I don't know how many bits the ADC inputs are normally. For instance if it was 8 bit that would allow 256 different values or steps on the full range, but if it used just a portion of it for the O2, it might only have 51 bits/steps available for it, if it has the full 256 value range on the 0-1V input then that tells you there's hardware in the way between the input and the ADC.

No, it's a 5V range in the ECU. For example, 1v does not equal a count of ~255. It's more like 50. The normal middle range determination is looking for a count between 24-28 or about 0.5v on the input. I really don't think there's any hardware reason you can't run a WB 0-5V signal directly into the ECU...

[Aries_Turbo]

ive had good results with using the narrowband output from my techedge wideband in narrowband mode. you can scale the narrowband output table some to fool the ecu that its running richer than it is so that it lowers the inj pulsewidth in closed loop mode for more mileage. that works well for many.

Frank tried changing some values so the LM would accept the 0-5v signal but he really didnt know how all the fueling calcs worked like rob explained so it made the car run goofy and didnt work as planned.

he then tried to move the point where the O2 toggled to keep it leaner and has had mixed results.

if you made all the changes to the code, using the 0-5v afr signal would have better resolution than the 0-1v switch like output that the nbo2 outputs and you could achieve tighter fuel control.

my opinion? i wouldnt bother. :) for mileage gains, id scale the narrowband output on the wideband. it works.

if you are looking to have the wideband incorporated into the ecus datalog, i wouldnt. the ecu logs pretty slow still.

if you are looking for closed loop WOT fuel control, the ecu isnt set up for that and is a bit slow without lots of code mods. :)

brian the negative lol.

[RoadWarrior222]

Thanks Rob.

So does the software interpret the number straight for the calcs, or does it convert it to a lambda value, then work on that?


Edit: By the way if you stuck an inverting voltage amplifier in between the WBO2 and the ECU, would it be any easier? 'coz the NB goes 1.1 down to 0 and the WB the volts go up as you get leaner. If it was inverted so it went high to low, it might be easier to do?

[ShelGame]

No, it only looks at the voltage and interprets it accordingly. There's no conversion done at all on the signal.

It really wouldn't matter if you inverted it or not. Really, if we went to a WB signal, I would probably add a transfer function table in there to convert the WB voltage to an AFR. That way, if a different sensor with a slightly different X-fer function was used, it could be dealt with.

[black86glhs]

I beleive our ECU can handle the 0-5V input no problem. The O2 now is simply fed into a A2D channel, those take 0-5V on all the other inputs (TPS, MAP, etc.). Our processor isn't sofisticated enough to allow different ranges on different channels.

The problem is, you'd have to completely re-write the entire fuelling code - except for maybe the main fuel lookups and modifiers. The closed loop control, idle control, and transient fuel would have to be re-done as they are all affected by the O2 controller.

I had written a routine to take the 0-5v WB signla and convert it to a NB signal. That way you could datalog the WB signal at WOT, and run it like stock off the NB signal at PT. But, noone was really interested in that type of a setup. It seems everyone wants WB feedback control instead. It's in the back of my mind do build a race-only 3D-based codebase for the SMEC and SBEC - someday - and I guess the WB could be part of it...Rob, when I get ready to have you burn me a new chip, we will talk about this. I want to do like you and run a 2.5 bar and 18 psi. Tying into the WB and sending it to the LM would be fine with me.:D

[zin]

So... if it is relatively easy to add wide-band control, why aren't we doing that right now? I would love to be able to tell an ECU to maintain a specific AFR under various conditions! Such as 16-17:1 for light cruise (MPG), 14.7 for idle/mid load cruise and 11-12.5:1 for power... Even better if I can "uncap" the adaptives to learn a baseline and populate the database...

If all we are really talking about is the option to use a 0-5V signal vs 0-1V signal... I can see how there would only be mild enthusiasm.

Mike

[minigts]

Well I for one would like to see if it could or would be done simply for the fact of making it easier for those going to a wideband in the future, in addition to being able to use widebands that may not have the additional signal output to simulate the narrowband option. It seems it would be the next step or evolution with tuning to all the computers to utilize this information or at the very least incorporate it into the LMs. Maybe I am over simplifying this, but I think there would be a lot of interest from everyone if it was something that was doable. I mean to be able to swap O2 sensors and update the software seems like a better idea than having to have the additional O2 bung welded and run 2 sensors IF incorporating the 0-5v range would eliminate the stock O2. That and I personally like to run the least amount of additional wiring as possible. :D

I guess if it's possible and not terribly complicated, how come we aren't pursuing this idea? I use the term "we" loosely. hehe

[ShelGame]

So... if it is relatively easy to add wide-band control, why aren't we doing that right now? I would love to be able to tell an ECU to maintain a specific AFR under various conditions! Such as 16-17:1 for light cruise (MPG), 14.7 for idle/mid load cruise and 11-12.5:1 for power... Even better if I can "uncap" the adaptives to learn a baseline and populate the database...

If all we are really talking about is the option to use a 0-5V signal vs 0-1V signal... I can see how there would only be mild enthusiasm.

Mike

It's not easy to convert t oWB feedback. It's easy to allow the WB input. A very large portion of the fuelling code would need to be re-written to allow for WB feedback.

[minigts]

Can we start with Wideband input and go from there? :)

[zin]

Can we start with Wideband input and go from there? :)

I agree... Better to start somewhere than to try to have "everything", and elimination of the need for the second O2 or a NB capable WB fits this crowd (and me!) just right!

Mike

[Juggy]

why would u want to put your wideband so close to the turbo??
i cant see them lasting very long....they are suppose to be what? 18" away???

[Aries_Turbo]

they last ok, they just give you overheat and pid unlock errors depending on what unit you run.

yeah 18" at least and you can use a piece of copper like a large washer as a heatshield.

brian

[ShelGame]

I agree... Better to start somewhere than to try to have "everything", and elimination of the need for the second O2 or a NB capable WB fits this crowd (and me!) just right!

Mike

Yeah we can. Like I said, I offered many moons ago and noone was interested. I'll dig up the code again.

Just a reminder, it will be no different than running the NB output from a WB controller. The code will still work like it's a NB sensor.

Also, you will still need the WB controller. Our ECU doesn't have the capability to control a WB sensor. So, the heater and current controller have to be external.

[minigts]

Yeah we can. Like I said, I offered many moons ago and noone was interested. I'll dig up the code again.

Just a reminder, it will be no different than running the NB output from a WB controller. The code will still work like it's a NB sensor.

Also, you will still need the WB controller. Our ECU doesn't have the capability to control a WB sensor. So, the heater and current controller have to be external.

Thanks Rob and understood. For me and maybe for Zin, my gauge only has a 0-5v output to a controller for data logging IF you have one. This will be good for me to be able to be able to use the output to replace the narrowband and eliminate th stock o2. This would allow me to be able to use the wideband with my current setup until I get my 3" stuff installed. If you need guinea pigs, I will volunteer. :D

[ShelGame]

OK, let me check it out. SMEC or SBEC?

[minigts]

Damn Rob..... LM? :D Personally, this is for my GLHS. My Charger with the SMEC is out of commission for a bit. If you could maybe do it for one, see how it runs and then do it for another? I'd say whatever the consensus is for who would want it, i.e., if more people have SMEC/SBECs, then start there. I don't want to be TOO selfish. :p

[minigts]

Yeah we can. Like I said, I offered many moons ago and noone was interested. I'll dig up the code again.

...

Yeah, I don't know why people wouldn't do this. I can understand if it doesn't have the merit immediately because of needing to re-write the code to incorporate the information from the wideband to the ECU, but why not?! Why not start working to go this route? Why not reduce the number of parts on your car that are superfluous? Why not adapt to the way the electronics are going and UPDATE with the times? We're upgrading suspension, brakes, tires, intakes, exhausts, EVERYTHING except parts of the electronics? If we can and there would be gains in the long run (which it seems there would be), I'm for it.

[ShelGame]

Damn Rob..... LM? :D Personally, this is for my GLHS. My Charger with the SMEC is out of commission for a bit. If you could maybe do it for one, see how it runs and then do it for another? I'd say whatever the consensus is for who would want it, i.e., if more people have SMEC/SBECs, then start there. I don't want to be TOO selfish. :p

LM should still work, I think. The table lookup is the same, the only problem is RAM. I need an 'extra' ram location to store the WB variable. Might have to get creative...