ECUs and Tuning Discuss Engine Management, Tuning, & Programming
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

LSU 4.9: MTX-L or AEM UEGO?

 
Old 11-30-2015, 06:07 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,452
Total Cats: 71
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  
Old 11-30-2015, 07:10 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Azusa, CA
Posts: 1,409
Total Cats: 110
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  
Old 11-30-2015, 07:22 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,452
Total Cats: 71
Default

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  
Old 11-30-2015, 07:25 PM
  #4  
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 14,390
Total Cats: 1,328
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  
Old 11-30-2015, 08:17 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,452
Total Cats: 71
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  
Old 11-30-2015, 08:20 PM
  #6  
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof
iTrader: (4)
 
psyber_0ptix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,499
Total Cats: 490
Default

I have the MTX-L lsu 4.9; If i where ever to switch, I'd go with AEM
psyber_0ptix is offline  
Old 11-30-2015, 08:23 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,452
Total Cats: 71
Default

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  
Old 11-30-2015, 08:31 PM
  #8  
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof
iTrader: (4)
 
psyber_0ptix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,499
Total Cats: 490
Default

I've always had terrible luck with sensors crapping out prematurely.
psyber_0ptix is offline  
Old 12-17-2015, 02:33 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,452
Total Cats: 71
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  
Old 12-17-2015, 04:02 PM
  #10  
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,481
Total Cats: 1,628
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 06:14 PM.
aidandj is offline  
Old 12-17-2015, 05:58 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,452
Total Cats: 71
Default

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  
Old 12-17-2015, 06:01 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,276
Total Cats: 34
Default

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  
Old 12-17-2015, 06:10 PM
  #13  
FAB
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (4)
 
FAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 967
Total Cats: 419
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  
__________________

ACCESS TO OVER 500 BRANDS AND WE WILL PRICE MATCH - EMAIL FOR PRICES
Please EMAIL us, we strongly prefer this over a PM for conversation tracking.
FAB is offline  
Old 12-17-2015, 06:15 PM
  #14  
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,481
Total Cats: 1,628
Default

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  
Old 12-17-2015, 06:31 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 1,452
Total Cats: 71
Default

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  
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nelson8708
AEM
8
03-09-2016 05:34 PM
PendleMotorcycles
MEGAsquirt
27
01-08-2016 05:58 PM
russian
MEGAsquirt
13
12-05-2015 05:37 PM
carid
Official Miata Turbo Vendors
0
11-27-2015 10:11 AM
Nick
WTB
0
11-25-2015 01:29 AM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: LSU 4.9: MTX-L or AEM UEGO?


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.