AEM vs Innovate
26-10-2011, 12:00 PM
#1
AEM vs Innovate
AEM UEGO
Innovate MTX-L
Nice and simple... Which ones best - in terms of wideband O2 gauges?
I am going to purchase one soon and had my heart set on an Innovate, but a quick google up revealed some bad press about them failing often and needing a re calibration...
Innovate MTX-L
Nice and simple... Which ones best - in terms of wideband O2 gauges?
I am going to purchase one soon and had my heart set on an Innovate, but a quick google up revealed some bad press about them failing often and needing a re calibration...
26-10-2011, 12:39 PM
#2
PassionFord Post Whore!!
I'm interested in this too, I'm looking at a techedge 2J2 (advised by karlos)
I will be using mine for part of the megasquirt installaton.
I also need to know if this can be used with a gauge also
I will be using mine for part of the megasquirt installaton.
I also need to know if this can be used with a gauge also
26-10-2011, 04:29 PM
#5
Regular Contributor
both are good .the inovate i thing is best and more expensive
26-10-2011, 05:21 PM
#6
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: worcester
Posts: 934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im, also using the techedge 2j2 and its a really good bit of kit. Just connect the blue wire to the pink megasquirt wire and away you go.
26-10-2011, 08:20 PM
#7
Advanced PassionFord User
i and crazycage use the innovate stuff as does rick and work fine for us and we give them some abuse, one thing to be careful of though is they don't like prolong periods of over fueling i.e in the 9's when your tunning your ms
Trending Topics
26-10-2011, 08:46 PM
#8
I've got an AEM, it seems okay, hasn't ever failed (touch wood), but the afr displayed on the gauge is different to the afr it ouputs by about .2 in some places. Easy enough to fix but annoying.
I think they all have bad reviews, the techedge unit has some awful reviews in places but lots of people find they work well. They are all probably pretty good these days, always get one with a Bosch sensor, and if you get one with a gauge make sure its easy to read, some gauges are really shit to read, the AEM is really good at this at least!
Rob,
I think they all have bad reviews, the techedge unit has some awful reviews in places but lots of people find they work well. They are all probably pretty good these days, always get one with a Bosch sensor, and if you get one with a gauge make sure its easy to read, some gauges are really shit to read, the AEM is really good at this at least!
Rob,
26-10-2011, 09:14 PM
#11
I've got this one mate:
http://www.jtote.com/product_info.ph...t3bbpcqrlhlbq0
It comes with silver and black face/bezel which is easy to change, the face is very easy to read at a glance (what you want when your mapping solo) and it self dims depending on light level so doesn't blind you a night.
Heres a shit vid of one in a cool sounding 350z
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTeiu...eature=related
Like i said its annoying its output is slightly off, but its not the end of the world as you can adjust megasquirt to read adjust for its slightly off out put. I decided the gauge was accurate and the output was mildly off.
Rob,
http://www.jtote.com/product_info.ph...t3bbpcqrlhlbq0
It comes with silver and black face/bezel which is easy to change, the face is very easy to read at a glance (what you want when your mapping solo) and it self dims depending on light level so doesn't blind you a night.
Heres a shit vid of one in a cool sounding 350z
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTeiu...eature=related
Like i said its annoying its output is slightly off, but its not the end of the world as you can adjust megasquirt to read adjust for its slightly off out put. I decided the gauge was accurate and the output was mildly off.
Rob,
27-10-2011, 06:01 PM
#13
15K+ Super Poster!!
Innovate monitors sensor health status. That's why the seem to fail more often. The sensors do not like rich mixtures or misfires (rev limiter) and do not last long in tuned cars. The innovate will give you a fault rather than giving an in accurate reading.
Rick
Rick
27-10-2011, 09:59 PM
#15
RS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: lincs
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27-10-2011, 10:29 PM
#16
cossie fan (unluckerly)
I put an innovate one in my cosworth all wired in nice all joints soldered nice earth and it was shit never worked totaly over complicated rubbish! took it out sent it back as the company i got it from ggr seemed totaly useless. Got a stack one very simple to fit and its never missed a beat!
28-10-2011, 07:25 AM
#18
Advanced PassionFord User
I had an innovate LM-1 in the XR2 to get the lambda reading for the mappable injection. Always had problems with lost sensor calibration and lost output programming. It's a known problem but looks like innovate isn't/wasn't able to cure it. Many others using the same injection had the same problems. I use aim LCU-one now and it's fine. Zeitronix units are cheaper and seem to work fine, also.
28-10-2011, 09:04 AM
#20
cossie fan (unluckerly)
28-10-2011, 11:59 AM
#25
cossie fan (unluckerly)
Last edited by ajamesc; 28-10-2011 at 12:35 PM.
28-10-2011, 03:56 PM
#27
mine is used with autronic sm4 and ive seen mark sheed who did my car say on here that the stack gauge is good but dose reed about .4 - .5 ish out on full boost against his autronics workshop equipment but he puts that down to the sensor not being as good as the sensor on his work shop one as that sensor costs about 800 pounds if i remember right
When i get mine on the rollers i think i'll compare readings
Rob,
28-10-2011, 04:04 PM
#29
cossie fan (unluckerly)
28-10-2011, 04:17 PM
#30
Happily retired
Have used the innovate against a proper unit was very innacurate & i was advised not to use it. Replaced with a Stack much better but anly to be used as a guide.
28-10-2011, 04:32 PM
#31
This article seems to suggest the innovate is quite good, the pic below shows the results
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...ebandShootout/
Shame the autometer isn't there as it sounds pretty good.
Its got to be said though that a tuners estimation of lambda sensor accuracy is only ever as accurate as their own sensor/controller, which will have been in heavy use for a number of years im sure.
Rob,
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...ebandShootout/
Shame the autometer isn't there as it sounds pretty good.
Its got to be said though that a tuners estimation of lambda sensor accuracy is only ever as accurate as their own sensor/controller, which will have been in heavy use for a number of years im sure.
Rob,
28-10-2011, 04:38 PM
#32
PassionFord Regular
I've heard some bad stuff about Innovate too but I used a MTX-L in my tbo Pinto and it was fine at least for the few hundred kilometres I got to drive last summer... Also liked the wiring & connectors it bundled with was a real "bolt on" job and easy to calibrate. Hopefully it will last next spring/summer too.
29-10-2011, 08:43 AM
#33
15K+ Super Poster!!
29-10-2011, 09:02 AM
#34
cossie fan (unluckerly)
29-10-2011, 07:16 PM
#35
15K+ Super Poster!!
That is all very well, no disrespect to Mark, but it doesn't mean a lot from an Instrument Engineers point of view. Far too many variables for a start. Stack, autometer, AEM, Zeitronix etc all use analogue controllers which derive a value based on the calibration resistor in the sensor. Sensors drift. The pro's change their sensors and pay a lot more to get accurate calibration values. The innovate does not use the calibration resistor.
Quote from Innovate tech docs:
The biggest difference is actually the (pat. pend.) measurement principle of the LM-1. Different from all other widebands it does NOT use the pump current as AFR indication. Instead it uses the sensor to form with the LM-1 circuit what's called a delta-sigma analog to digital converter. The difference is that the analog signal in this case is not a voltage or current, but directly the exhaust gas composition. This allows it to:
A: react extremely fast with no settling or overswing
B: be independent of electronic parts tolerances and drifts
C: compensate for sensor drift due to aging every time you do a free air calibration.
D: calibrate for the actual sensor characteristic independent of the factory calibration resistor, which is only correct when the sensor is new.
E: is much less susceptible to exhaust back pressure.
Another advantage of that measurement principle is automatic compensation for 'rich gas loading'. This is an effect most WB manufacturers do not compensate for or even know of. When a WB sensor is operating in a rich gas for a prolonged time (minutes), it's cells 'load up' and slowly drift, requiring more and more pump current. This will indicate richer and richer than it actually is. If the ECU is WB controlled in closed loop, the engine would actually run leaner and leaner to compensate.
The LM-1's measurement principle is not susceptible to that.
Quote from Innovate tech docs:
The biggest difference is actually the (pat. pend.) measurement principle of the LM-1. Different from all other widebands it does NOT use the pump current as AFR indication. Instead it uses the sensor to form with the LM-1 circuit what's called a delta-sigma analog to digital converter. The difference is that the analog signal in this case is not a voltage or current, but directly the exhaust gas composition. This allows it to:
A: react extremely fast with no settling or overswing
B: be independent of electronic parts tolerances and drifts
C: compensate for sensor drift due to aging every time you do a free air calibration.
D: calibrate for the actual sensor characteristic independent of the factory calibration resistor, which is only correct when the sensor is new.
E: is much less susceptible to exhaust back pressure.
Another advantage of that measurement principle is automatic compensation for 'rich gas loading'. This is an effect most WB manufacturers do not compensate for or even know of. When a WB sensor is operating in a rich gas for a prolonged time (minutes), it's cells 'load up' and slowly drift, requiring more and more pump current. This will indicate richer and richer than it actually is. If the ECU is WB controlled in closed loop, the engine would actually run leaner and leaner to compensate.
The LM-1's measurement principle is not susceptible to that.
29-10-2011, 09:20 PM
#37
15K+ Super Poster!!
You are pretty safe as you should take the readings as relative. If the engine is happy and cool enough the actual AFR is academic. If it suddenly changes, then look into it.
Rick
Rick
30-10-2011, 12:11 PM
#38
cossie fan (unluckerly)
That is all very well, no disrespect to Mark, but it doesn't mean a lot from an Instrument Engineers point of view. Far too many variables for a start. Stack, autometer, AEM, Zeitronix etc all use analogue controllers which derive a value based on the calibration resistor in the sensor. Sensors drift. The pro's change their sensors and pay a lot more to get accurate calibration values. The innovate does not use the calibration resistor.
Quote from Innovate tech docs:
The biggest difference is actually the (pat. pend.) measurement principle of the LM-1. Different from all other widebands it does NOT use the pump current as AFR indication. Instead it uses the sensor to form with the LM-1 circuit what's called a delta-sigma analog to digital converter. The difference is that the analog signal in this case is not a voltage or current, but directly the exhaust gas composition. This allows it to:
A: react extremely fast with no settling or overswing
B: be independent of electronic parts tolerances and drifts
C: compensate for sensor drift due to aging every time you do a free air calibration.
D: calibrate for the actual sensor characteristic independent of the factory calibration resistor, which is only correct when the sensor is new.
E: is much less susceptible to exhaust back pressure.
Another advantage of that measurement principle is automatic compensation for 'rich gas loading'. This is an effect most WB manufacturers do not compensate for or even know of. When a WB sensor is operating in a rich gas for a prolonged time (minutes), it's cells 'load up' and slowly drift, requiring more and more pump current. This will indicate richer and richer than it actually is. If the ECU is WB controlled in closed loop, the engine would actually run leaner and leaner to compensate.
The LM-1's measurement principle is not susceptible to that.
Quote from Innovate tech docs:
The biggest difference is actually the (pat. pend.) measurement principle of the LM-1. Different from all other widebands it does NOT use the pump current as AFR indication. Instead it uses the sensor to form with the LM-1 circuit what's called a delta-sigma analog to digital converter. The difference is that the analog signal in this case is not a voltage or current, but directly the exhaust gas composition. This allows it to:
A: react extremely fast with no settling or overswing
B: be independent of electronic parts tolerances and drifts
C: compensate for sensor drift due to aging every time you do a free air calibration.
D: calibrate for the actual sensor characteristic independent of the factory calibration resistor, which is only correct when the sensor is new.
E: is much less susceptible to exhaust back pressure.
Another advantage of that measurement principle is automatic compensation for 'rich gas loading'. This is an effect most WB manufacturers do not compensate for or even know of. When a WB sensor is operating in a rich gas for a prolonged time (minutes), it's cells 'load up' and slowly drift, requiring more and more pump current. This will indicate richer and richer than it actually is. If the ECU is WB controlled in closed loop, the engine would actually run leaner and leaner to compensate.
The LM-1's measurement principle is not susceptible to that.
Last edited by ajamesc; 30-10-2011 at 12:12 PM.
01-11-2011, 08:24 PM
#39
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
I have an Innovate LC-1 wideband O2 controller and an Innovate analog gauge.
These Innovate O2 widebands work very well.
One note: all wideband sensors cannot tolerate the same heat as the old narrowband sensors. The wideband sensors do not require high temperatures to read O2 levels accurately. I see way too many people positioning the wideband sensors in the same location as their old narrowband sensors. One should be at least 18" away from the turbo. Certainly not in the downpipe.
These Innovate O2 widebands work very well.
One note: all wideband sensors cannot tolerate the same heat as the old narrowband sensors. The wideband sensors do not require high temperatures to read O2 levels accurately. I see way too many people positioning the wideband sensors in the same location as their old narrowband sensors. One should be at least 18" away from the turbo. Certainly not in the downpipe.
01-11-2011, 09:18 PM
#40
cossie fan (unluckerly)
I have an Innovate LC-1 wideband O2 controller and an Innovate analog gauge.
These Innovate O2 widebands work very well.
One note: all wideband sensors cannot tolerate the same heat as the old narrowband sensors. The wideband sensors do not require high temperatures to read O2 levels accurately. I see way too many people positioning the wideband sensors in the same location as their old narrowband sensors. One should be at least 18" away from the turbo. Certainly not in the downpipe.
These Innovate O2 widebands work very well.
One note: all wideband sensors cannot tolerate the same heat as the old narrowband sensors. The wideband sensors do not require high temperatures to read O2 levels accurately. I see way too many people positioning the wideband sensors in the same location as their old narrowband sensors. One should be at least 18" away from the turbo. Certainly not in the downpipe.