LSU 4.9: MTX-L or AEM UEGO? - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


ECUs and Tuning Discuss Engine Management, Tuning, & Programming

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-30-2015, 07:07 PM   #1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,062
Total Cats: 48
Default LSU 4.9: MTX-L or AEM UEGO?

I have searched and can't find much useful information on the newer versions of these.

It seems both Innovate and AEM have switched over to the LSU 4.9, so that is a non-issue.

The Innovate has a logging software that can be done through a serial port (I have old laptops around, no issue there). The AEM can be logged, but doesn't seem to have a program for it?

Both do 0-5v analog out and narrow band simulation. Though it seems the Innovate does both at the same time while the AEM can only do one at a time.

Anyone have experience with both of these? The Innovate claims to be the faster of the two, but I don't know how important that actually is.


For application, I will be supercharging my 1990 and want to be able to keep track of AFRs. I will eventually have a Megasquirt as well, likely a DYDPNP2.

Thanks,
x_25
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 08:10 PM   #2
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Azusa, CA
Posts: 1,376
Total Cats: 80
Default

I have an AEM. I like it since it's easier to set up without needing a free air calibration.

I'm probably going to switch to an innovate since it compatible with the tinyIOx serial AFR to CAN device to give digital CAN signal to the ECU rather than the analog signal.
cyotani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 08:22 PM   #3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,062
Total Cats: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyotani View Post
I have an AEM. I like it since it's easier to set up without needing a free air calibration.

I'm probably going to switch to an innovate since it compatible with the tinyIOx serial AFR to CAN device to give digital CAN signal to the ECU rather than the analog signal.
As far as I know, the MTX-L with the LSU 4.9 sensor doesn't need the free air calibration? Or am I completely off my rocker (entirely possible).

From what I am reading, the Innovate units have more support out there it seems. Hmm...
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 08:25 PM   #4
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 13,780
Total Cats: 1,106
Default

Both work fine. Neither is more accurate then the other since they both use the same sensor. Any talk from Innovative or AEM saying otherwise is bs advertising. Bruce from Bowling and Grippo has done a few presentations on O2 sensors over the years at MS Megameets. The take away is that any wideband setup costing less then 5grand is marginal at best. There are to many factors that are not accounted for to make them overly accurate. Here is a good read from B&G about widebands.

Saying all that, I have moved to liking the AEM over the MXT-L. The reason is because it displays a reading faster then the MXT-L. While it is not an accurate reading due to needing to heat up, it does help tuning hot restarts and such a bit easier.
shuiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 09:17 PM   #5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,062
Total Cats: 48
Default

Shuiend. Awsome info, thanks. So basically, just go with whichever I think looks better. Leaning toward the AEM right now, but I may just get the MTX-L since it can use 4.2 or 4.9 sensors and log a bit easier.

My brain is fried from too much school work to read that link right now, but I will power through it at work tomorrow if I have time.
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 09:20 PM   #6
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof
iTrader: (3)
 
psyber_0ptix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,713
Total Cats: 320
Default

I have the MTX-L lsu 4.9; If i where ever to switch, I'd go with AEM
psyber_0ptix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 09:23 PM   #7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,062
Total Cats: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psyber_0ptix View Post
I have the MTX-L lsu 4.9; If i where ever to switch, I'd go with AEM
Any particular reason?
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 09:31 PM   #8
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof
iTrader: (3)
 
psyber_0ptix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,713
Total Cats: 320
Default

I've always had terrible luck with sensors crapping out prematurely.
psyber_0ptix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2015, 03:33 PM   #9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,062
Total Cats: 48
Default

Went for the AEM. Mostly because I like the look a little more and hear the support from AEM is better than from Inovate. If I have some time tonight I will start a build thread where I can ask stupid noob questions and get yelled at for doing everything wrong.

Thanks for your help guys, much appriciated.
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2015, 05:02 PM   #10
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 17,999
Total Cats: 1,466
Default

AEM doesn't allow for free air calibration. I won't buy it ever cuz of that.

Though there might be a new one that does.


After more research I retract that statement completely. For both 4.2 and 4.9 sensors.

Last edited by aidandj; 12-17-2015 at 07:14 PM.
aidandj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2015, 06:58 PM   #11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,062
Total Cats: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aidandj View Post
AEM doesn't allow for free air calibration. I won't buy it ever cuz of that.

Though there might be a new one that does.
Neither does any system using the LSU 4.9. They calibrate it at the factory using a precision resister instead of having a reference air cell that can have problems. It is more or less the same sensor every OEM uses now.

Bosch LSU 4.9 is superior to LSU 4.2 sensors - ECOTRONS
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2015, 07:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,272
Total Cats: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by x_25 View Post
Neither does any system using the LSU 4.9. They calibrate it at the factory using a precision resister instead of having a reference air cell that can have problems. It is more or less the same sensor every OEM uses now.

Bosch LSU 4.9 is superior to LSU 4.2 sensors - ECOTRONS
I upgraded my MTX-L from a 4.2 sensor to 4.9 (just a firmware update and a new cable required) in the hope I wouldn't have to do any more free air calibrations. The controller still required me to do one when I first plugged the sensor in.
timk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2015, 07:10 PM   #13
FAB
Fab9Tuning.com
iTrader: (4)
 
FAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 943
Total Cats: 394
Default

I've used all of them, AEM UEGO 4.9, AEM X Series 4.9, AEM WB Failsafe 4.9, Innovate 4.9, Innovate Boost Controller/WB 4.9.

I've had issues with each, AEM voltage output sensitivity (WB Failsafe gauge, regardless of grounding and voltage supply quality, Innovate's delayed start up/output signal causing correction issues during start up. Otherwise the Innovate is a great setup, just not friendly with the specific setup on start up.

Overall I'd have to say I'm a bigger fan of the AEM gauges. This new X Series is promising and is actually faster than it's competition. It will also be going in the Fab9 EFR Boosted NC..

Attached Thumbnails
LSU 4.9: MTX-L or AEM UEGO?-23448867659_8b76c73e07_z.jpg  
FAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2015, 07:15 PM   #14
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 17,999
Total Cats: 1,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timk View Post
I upgraded my MTX-L from a 4.2 sensor to 4.9 (just a firmware update and a new cable required) in the hope I wouldn't have to do any more free air calibrations. The controller still required me to do one when I first plugged the sensor in.
DIYEFI.org Forum - View topic - New wideband controller ALM compared to Innovate LM-2

Innovate doesn't use a calibration resistor. Thats why.
aidandj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2015, 07:31 PM   #15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,062
Total Cats: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aidandj View Post
Well that is a handy thread. Explains why the LC2 in my friend's car was only reading full rich or full lean when he got it and it worked fine after a calibration.
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AEM FIC delayed throttle response nelson8708 AEM 8 03-09-2016 06:34 PM
Help! Ignition timing on MX5 Turbo, MS2PNP PendleMotorcycles MEGAsquirt 27 01-08-2016 06:58 PM
TunerStudio CAN exchange log? russian MEGAsquirt 13 12-05-2015 06:37 PM
Don't miss: Black Friday Sale at CARiD! carid Official Miata Turbo Vendors 0 11-27-2015 11:11 AM
Megasquirt PNP and turbo manifold Nick WTB 0 11-25-2015 02:29 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM.