Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyko
That has got to be very involving what you doing. Consider the amount of time a OEM company will spend testing maps in real conditions. From sea level to 12000 feet and from 70 degrees to –40.
I believe that closed loop O2 system is not reliable enough for a 2-stroke or even a four-stroke yet, this is why you do not see any manufactures using them even though it can make more power. There already has been a wack of R&D on this.
Realistically a learning system that utilizes wide band data and a map sensor to build your maps is the way to go, than you are not relying 100% of the time on a O2 sensor that is going to get a drop of water on it and bust up.
This is just my opinion but good luck with it.
|
100% close loop might not be the right term for all of us......close loop will be on an average of 50- 60% load on the engine(about just before boost starts),then compensation charts will take over, so the ecu(like turboed cars) won't take care of the o2 sensor. basicaly, closed loop at idle up to about 4000 rpm(just an average) then open loop for the rest......all kind of security will be programmed to make sure you do not melt pistons wide open ect...would be foolish to base injection on an o2 alone!
as far as oem company testing 70 to -40 and altitude ect.....well they spend most of the terrain (field) testing to fine tune suspension,chassis,track....but engine. most of the r&d on the engine is done in house on engine dynos,90% of the work actualy......fine tuning on the field after(and this is more for cold start purposes). remember oem companies as a lot of regulation to meet,and a lot of expections toward the hp race engage between them,on top of it, the cost of the final product is a BIG concern for them.......so it is for us but simply not as important as for them. a standalone like vi-pec is top of the line ecu with so much more possibility, don't even compare oem from cat or poo to the vi-pec product.