Wideband O2 controller choices
 

hi everyone, after a lengthy hiatus I'm getting back into working on my 99 again.

I'm in the market for a wideband controller and there are quite a few options out now.

My 99 is daily driven in the summer and will be used for a few auto crosses and one or two track days a year. I intend to turbo the stock block(gt2560r @10-12 psi and hopefully 250 hp) and will be using an ms3 pnp tuned by myself.

Reliability and accuracy are my major concerns for a controller.

I see there are a few 4.9 LSU controllers. It will be nice to have a longer life sensor and no open-air calibrations. But to me, will it make a difference going from a 4.2 to 4.9 controller?

Also I've lost two lc-1 controllers on my other car (just randomly stopped working one day) and I've heard of others having issues with lc-1's. So innovate is not at the top of my list unless the lc-2 is really the bees' knees.

So far my options are aem uego, lc-2, glow shift (which I don't trust further than I can throw), zeitronix zt-3, plx dm-6, and prosport. Out of all of these I believe the lc-2 is the only 4-wire 4.2 sensor controller.

So any critical input on your controller would be greatly appreciated.

We have a discount running for what I believe to be the best wideband under $1,500:

The AFR500 is made by the benchmark company in high end calibration equipment (ECM) and offers the LSU 4.2 or several NTK sensors. No bells and whistles on this product, precision, accuracy and reliability are the only focus for this product.

For typical gas engine car use, the 4.9 isn't much different than the 4.2. However, as the aftermarket is maturing and Bosch is publishing better data, the control systems with the 4.9 sensor are better. Therefore the newest controllers with the 4.9 appear to be vastly better for response, accuracy, & reliability not due to sensor architecture but the aftermarket generally catching up.

The LC-1s were absolute trash. Innovate products have improved since then. The LSU 4.2 is 5 wire, not 4 wire.

The controllers that do not offer a free air calibration are basing their calibration on the factory resistor in the connector of the Bosch or NTK sensor. Sensors drift with age and it is possible to account for this drift. Unfortunately the aftermarket controls are still not fully capable and certainly don't offer a closed loop feedback with cal gas or a validation method. To make this simple, in a low cost aftermarket meter you want one with free air calibration capability.

Best of luck in your search!

Thanks. What about install? Does your product have any other selling points over the competition?

What about install? You install it? ;) Installation involves just power, ground, calibrating the sensor, and sticking it in a good exhaust location. If you want to use the analog output, it has that feature. If you use the analog output, you should check for ground offsets as you would with any analog input.

Here is the product & installation manual: google it

For the purpose of this forum, I will try to keep it brief. The AFR500 focuses ONLY on precise & accurate measurement with a long sensor life. The AFR500 & NGK Powerdex AFX before it have earned a stellar reputation among professional tuners. You can step up to a lab grade sensor with this unit and we recommend this controller to anyone under a $1500 budget or whose business doesn't justify the cost of an AFM1000 or Lambda Pro. This isn't a features focused product, it just does what it is designed to do with singular precision.

OP, I just was researching this and found out a couple things you might find as of use. 1) since last week all Innovate widebands are being shipped out with the 4.9 because the 4.2 is being phased out. 2) PLX said that if I am using a standalone ecu, the DM100 would be better but also, they offer the 4.9 w/controller minus the gauge I believe 3) for the innovate sidebands, the bosch 4.2 and 4.9 does has the same item number so the only way you can tell is by looking at the box. 4) Innovate & AEM said there are no gains significant enough to not buy a 4.2.

I don't really know the accuracy of any of this stuff so I'm just regurgitating what the companies said but I just went with the MTXL through 949 because they are supposed to have the updated ones because the restock every week so they don't have anything old. I went with the 4.9 because even if theres no difference, I want the updated sensor that I can buy replacements for.

Right. I'm just leery of the reliability of the lc-2 given that I've gone through 2 lc-1's in a very short time. But I like that it is meant to be mounted in cabin and there are less wires. The search continues.

The Innovate sales guy also talked a lot about how and why the LC2's hardware was not good. He insisted that the new LC2 and MTLX is miles ahead of the LC1 and the difference from going LC1 to LC2 or MTLX is not a matter of 4.2 to 4.9 sensor but the actual hardware.

Also I just noticed but man, what is with your log in name?.. It's gross man.

he likes wine.

I don't like wine.

I love it.

I just noticed your extremely high prop count. It's gro... nevermind.

Any other information besides what a sales guy told you? I've grown to not trust them after my second controller died and the only rational explanation I got was it broke because I was born or breathing or something.

Trust the engineer, not the salesperson. An adage that has worked wonders in technical fields for generations.

But what about the engineer who happens to be the salesperson? Or have they crossed over to the dark side?

trust the guy saying his much more expensive wb is better because he said so. lol

There is a line to the dark side. Dedicated sales engineers. Sales engineers no longer do engineering development work. If the engineer still does honest development work, you are still good.

;) I meant that statement disregarding any specific product. I strive to get through to developers most of the time I am working on something. Talking with the sales people is usually like talking into void. They want to meet sales goals and don't really think a thorough understanding of the product is the best way to do so. Every now and then you get a technically minded person or a engineer who switched sides later in a career and it all is well.

I use $1500 to ~$25,000 meters for professional calibration work & lab testing... I would call those much more expensive.

Not as much as the $300k+ machines my company makes :)

Awesome read

Haha, yeah. Engineers have torn that review to shreds forum after forum. It is a running joke among pros and you wouldn't catch any pro calibration engineer I've met near any Innovate equipment. Look at image 1 where they are holding a sensor in front of a cal gas tank... not how it's done, not even close. 9 sensors in one pipe in a similar but not the same area? No. No Control like proper lab grade test setup or proper gas control.

The winning unit is, by far, the worst of the group. Even other Innovate products are better than the LC-1 was, their early revisions were their worst meter. The older LM-1 before it was much better. Another note, for units that can control multiple sensors, some sensors are better than others.

That article does have some very good points about sensor aging, never have the sensor installed unheated, sensor temperature, & sensor pressure sensitivity.

This if from another thread:
The LC-1s were absolute trash. Innovate products have improved since then. When the LC-1 first came out, I sold a fair number with another company I worked for. Our failure rate was exceptionally high within the first few months. Noise problems, sensor failures, inaccuracy, software problems, communication problems, etc. Their LM-1 before the LC-1 was better and we were not expecting the LC-1 to perform so poorly. I suspect they revised their product but we stopped selling them quickly. Personally, I would just toss any LC-1 at this stage as nearly any controller is better.

I used the AFX in one of my previous builds and it didn't explode.

so post up proper documented testing?

I mean I want to believe you, but you'll need to be more convincing than "all the pros broz use it broz, so its da bes mayne" esp when its more expensive and I've re-read the description and advertising you keep posting up over and over and none of it sounds any better than fluffed up marketing/advertising/sales pitch

seriously. put up unbiased proof or.......

Simply put, I don't have such documented testing and nobody else does to my knowledge. To do it properly would take hundreds of engineering hours and something on the order of $30k+. The people who are capable of doing this work already have excellent, trustworthy equipment in hand from companies like Horiba & ECM. Additionally, I suspect anyone willing to do such testing will have a bias.

Do you think any of the sub $300 meters is the best available? Is an LC-1 just as good as a $500,000 analysis stack? Why not? Why does some measurement equipment go up in price so significantly? Why do you find that expensive equipment in the hands of OEM & professional calibrators instead of equipment like Zeitronix or Innovate? We aren't talking about forum kiddies here, we are talking about seasoned engineers. People whose livelihood and careers depend on the this equipment, not hobbyists.

If I broke down every individual thing Innovate is doing wrong and what ECM is doing right (the AFR500 / Powerdex AFX is an ECM product), I would simply be giving away the IP. The bottom line is that their control circuit still leads to less than optimal sensor control, leading to shortened life and inconsistent readings. The NTK sensor remains the preferred option where the Bosch sensor wins heavily on cost.

David Darge deals with some of it here:
Tuning: Dyno A/F vs Wideband A/F - Page 6

I don't believe I have a fiscal bias here as I could sell literally any meter. I also sell AEM, AiM, some Innovate accessories and could choose any meter on the market to recommend. The other meters have improved dramatically but I choose to recommend the AFR500/Powerdex specifically as the go-to budget meter for accuracy & precision. I actually need to add some new product online from AEM & AiM because they have the bells & whistles that people want. But when it comes to which meter is the most accurate & precise in this market segment, I will strongly recommend the AFR500 / Powerdex AFX). If the customer can afford it, I recommend the NTK Calibration grade sensor as this is the NTK sensor that built the stellar NTK sensor reputation.

Gone are the days of the LC-1 insane failure rates, AEM heater circuit driver melting a gauge, and generally poor design understanding of the sensors. The LSU 4.9 has brought a new era of precision largely due to better understanding and engineering on the backend. For typical performance applications, the LSU 4.2 & 4.9 don't have major differences but the aftermarket wants to push the 4.9 because it is cheaper.

My recommendation list for accuracy/precision (not software/features/aesthetics/other random criteria):

• $0 - read your plugs, listen for misfiring, using switching narrowbands to their maximum effect, monitor knock carefully. Use old school methods.
• $299 - AFR500 / (old Powerdex AFX) with Bosch sensor for street applications. Avoid leaded & race fuels.
• $349 - AFR500 / (old Powerdex AFX) with production grade NTK sensor for mixed applications
• $449 - AFR500 / (old Powerdex AFX) with calibration grade NTK sensor for validation / dyno / higher end applications
• $749 - AFR500 / (old Powerdex AFX) with lab grade NTK sensor for validation / dyno / higher end applications
• $+200 - AFR500 / (old Powerdex AFX) a modification with extended afr range and lambda readout (AFM1600 board change by ECM)
• $1700 - ECM AFM1000 with lab grade sensor - for sporadic high budget engines & validation
• $3500 - ECM Lambda Pro - for frequent high budget engines & validation
• $$$$ - ECM Lambda 5220 / Horiba equipment is equivalent - for professional level calibration when you plan to sell a product in volume or are at the top tier of motorsports or in lab/research environment
• $$$$$ - Full gas analysis stack for laboratory specific evironment / Horiba equipment is equivalent - the authority.

explain like im 5.... too tired to think.

Is it possible to use a higher grade lab type sensor with a.... mtx-l ? :)

That's exactly where I am now. Everyone says theirs' is the best but no one says why. There are no comparo's or hard data on why any of these are any different. At this point I'd rather have feedback from the community indicating whether their car blew up or the controller would act a fool at the most inopportune times.

I had an lc-1. Two controllers died. And both would love to give incorrect figures right before their deaths. The company told me to buy more crap and when I wouldn't they told me to go kick bricks. I didn't like that. I want my next wide band not to do that.

And now I'm getting to the point of wondering if either this degree of precision is necessary for our applications or most of these companies are clueless.

The other day I saw this:
(watch from 10:00 to 11:00 or you'll definitely have a stroke ). I was under the impression that tail pipe o2's are about as accurate as tuning a carb by ear. But apparently that's good enough for a tuning company that has the market on lock for quite a few models.

Regardless, who am I supposed to believe: a bunch of engineers that have more brains and schooling that do what is generally frowned upon or the enthusiasts that build cars out of wood and hopes that can take double the power under track abuse?

Buy a higher end unit that just focuses only on precision and accuracy with future sensor options. No.

Don't assume that COBB uses this method for the calibrations they send out en masse. You can run a tailpipe sniffer with compensation. Usually you see this with customer cars on dynos to get the cars in and out quickly in an economically fashion. The preferred method is closer to exhaust header and installed in the pipe.

Even the worst wideband is dramatically improved from a few years ago, even the Innovate stuff. For a naturally aspirated or low boost general daily driver car nowhere near the edge, you should be ok with any of them for general tuning. Read your plugs and use other validation methods if you go with the cheaper units. You can knock out a sensor quickly on even the best unit if your tune is so far off you are dumping raw fuel, have backfires, put the sensor in disconnected, etc. Be sure to get in the general ballpark before putting in any system.

Best of luck in your search!

Get an aem, connect 3 wires, and move on with life.
I refuse to use innovate until they figure out a way to not throw the stupid thing into "warmup" every single time you re-start it regardless of how hot the sensor actually is.

I mean my AEM and MXTL both are off in TS, and required the same amount of effort to get going. Between the 2 I like my MXTL a bit better, just because I like the gauge better. I would not suggest an LC1 to any one any more since now there are better ones out.

Just because the AEM doesn't actually show that it is warming up, doesn't mean that it isn't. The fact that it always shows 14.7 for the first few seconds of operation should give you a hint.

I'm not disputing that.
But 3-4 seconds is much less time than 10-15.
Maybe the LC2 is improved in that regard. I've not tried it yet.

It's definitely not 3-4 seconds.

On a hot restart the old LC-1 only takes 4 or 5 seconds to come back online. I'm usually not in boost within the first few seconds of cranking so I don't see how that matters to anyone... :dunno:

...because I'm not tuning while doing LeMans starts.

https://nineelevenophilia.files.word...mans-start.jpg

Sub 10-second warmup on an LC-1 here. Never noticed if the AEM in the last car was any faster, so clearly it didn't bother me.

Reference a really old post of mine. my LC1 warmup time was 7 seconds.

Too long. I grow a full beard in that time.

i couldn't grow a beard in 7 years, so Im good. and im not stuck with the worst gauge in the world.

The installation complexity is the same for nearly all controllers. Get XX unit, then connect power, ground, & sensor then read data.

All wideband sensors require warmup and none return accurate data when cold. Where they stop the countdown is a design side choice and arbitrary. The sensor is not warmed up in 3, 7, or 10 seconds and faster is certainly not better in this case. This is from another thread ( https://www.miataturbo.net/ecus-tuni...4/ ):

Warmup
All wideband sensors have a fixed heating element and need to be in their working temperature range to function properly. Most controllers go full power on the heater element immediately and then modulate down based on feedback. The Innovate LC-1 specifically modulates heater circuit in a way that causes premature sensor failure.

Whether a manufacturer chooses to show you a countdown or just immediately show values is just a choice. Functionally, at the sensor level, most are doing the same thing. Ones that show a countdown, I would argue, are the more intelligent manufacturers because they get the everyday people who don't know this to provide some basic sensor warmup, extending sensor life. No wideband sensor will work when you immediately fire it up cold and if you want your sensor to live longer and provide accurate readings, you should let it warm up electrically before firing the engine. We don't all have 5+ minutes to wait before firing our vehicles so, as long as you understand that the sensor needs to be up to temperature for accurate readings, you will be good. If you put the sensor in a place that is too cold, the heater element will have to overwork and my not be able to stay in its working temperature range, providing poor readings.

[¹] Citation Needed.

You might crack the top 10. The early failure rate of the LC-1 was catastrophic and the LM-1 was so much better. Maybe they resolved many issues mid-run. It is up there with old "wideband" gauges and sensors that either just extrapolate the analog range out of a switching narrowband or one of the Bosch highly tolerant narrowband designs.

The student designed controllers and breadboard controllers from people who don't understand the function of the pump cell typically take the cake. There are a surprising number of those projects out there. I still get frequent calls from people who think that wideband sensors just output voltage on a 0-1.2v scale like a standard zirconia cell or just magically dump 0-5v and don't think a controller is needed at all. So maybe that is the worst.

In the late 90s and early 2000s there were a few projects that cost thousands of dollars using the Horiba/NTK/Honda sensor that were pretty awful.

What part of the early failure rate over 10 years ago concerns me?

My first LC1 failed in 2007 actually--it was installed in a horrible location and is probably what lead to the failure. I had a replacement in a week which worked well until the day I pulled it out of my car in 2014. I plan to use it again eventually in my WRX.

the AEM uego gauge itself is awful--that's what i was referring to: it's ugly and bulky, and the refresh rate is slow.

Two things.

1. They improved it in later product.
2. I'm not in the habit of telling companies exactly what mistakes they made in design and telling them exactly how to correct it. Not for free that is. It is a function of my business. Design engineers don't, as a habit, give away IP for free... The exception is student events like FSAE where I do give away free design advice to students.

The failure rates on the early LC-1s were catastrophic, which they obviously worked to resolve. Most of the engineers I spoke to in the industry at the time were aware of the problem and just waited for Klaus to work it out.

Ok. More anecdotal proof on the early LC-1 issues but otherwise, I thought that is what you were referring to and did not choose to research your LC-1 replacement history. So, miscommunication it seems.

my other friend's LC1 died because he installed it near the turbo and it melted to death.

more proof.

You gehs want a video or something? It warms up and starts showing actual afr in 4 seconds or less :dealwithit:

My MTX-L on the other hand, was retarded slow. And I got it new. And from a reputable vendor. And it wasn't defective.

It's whatever, I don't even care what everyone else uses lol

You're missing the point. It is trivial to make a gauge that fires up and provides a value instantly. The sensor will be cold and the readings inaccurate until the sensor has warmed to operating temperature.

If you can wait 20-30 seconds, the sensor will live longer and provide better accuracy throughout its life.

What about when the sensor is already at operating temps and the stupid thing still makes you wait 20-30 seconds? Like on every single re-start or any time the controller loses voltage?

From cold it takes longer than the 20-30 seconds to fully reach operating temp.

The actual sensing element drops temperature quickly while unheated, so it can take some time to come back up to temperature after losing power to the heater circuit. So the answer varies based on the time unheated, the conducted thermal loss, & other variables.

It is possible to design a system that would track this with a RTC, keepalive memory, and/or evaluation of the sensor. It is simpler and cheaper just to have a countdown timer as low cost sensor insurance. The scenario of rapid power cycles while needing to provide accurate AFR data immediately after a power cycle is something of a low probability / fringe case that you generally wouldn't choose to put additional hardware on the board to deal with.

Is your car dying often enough that this is a genuine issue? What is the use case?

hot restart tuning. You turn off the car for 1 second and restart and it still waits that long. I can hot restart with an aem and have data within 3-4 seconds, that was never the case with the MTX-L. The sensor won't cool off in 1 second.

This is a genuine issue for me. And by issue I mean something that pissed me off.

lol.

I request video of an MTX-L taking 20-30 seconds to warm up on a hot restart. I've never seen this. In fact, i've never seen any wideband, ever, do this.

So I have an AEM Uego waiting to go into my new development car along with an MS3 Basic. I want to stick a recent Innovate product in there as well so I can compare the function of the two widebands for my own experience. My last Innovate wideband was a circa 2007 LC-1 (garbage). Do I want a current-gen LC-1, an LC-2 (grounding issues?), or an MTX-L?

The MTX-L is the UEGO competitor, so i'd say probably that.

Innovate tells people the new LC-2 is the beez kneez and way better than the 1, for whatever that's worth.

I drink the Koolaid, so that's what i'll be using in the Miatas. I like the way the MTX-L works, but i find the gauge fucking ugly.

I installed my LC-2 about 3 weeks ago on a pretty stock 1.6l NA, in preparation for my MS2. I have noticed a good 15+ seconds of warm up time with the unit (status light blinking and 7.4 displayed on the gauge).

I was really happy with the gauge and install directions overall, good troubleshooting tips and everything feels like decent quality (minus the crap plastic C-bracket that holds the gauge in). It is one of the cheapest units that even offers calibration, has decent software support, and a large user base. They also use a pretty common Bosche O2 that you can get almost anywhere if you have a failure, cross thread, ect.

This is my only experience with a Wideband directly. I have a friend that uses the AEM unit and seems to like it. I think at this price point they are all pretty similar, but try and stay away from the older (pre 2007?) LC-1 units, there are some write-ups about putting a 7xx+ ohm resister on them to function properly.

Did you wire the LC-2 directly to the battery with a relay? That's what the instructions specified for me, and it made a difference in warm up time and reliability.

Yeah, it did say that as a possible powered option. I didn't do that. I put in a "build-a-circuit" and wired it to a distribution block that powers all my gauges in the car. I like to try and keep things as modular as possible for troubleshooting and quick remove/replace options.
Attachment 233436

The start up time is really not a concern I have, but I can understand why others may want something more immediate...Merica!
Attachment 233437