The Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Forum
Galant VR-4 Forums » Galant VR-4 » Technical Discussions » WB set to lean out cruising?
Previous thread Next thread

WB set to lean out cruising?

Member ++

Galant VR-4 org Post #: 811619 posted 07/16/09 09:04 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
"If you're using a WB to simulate the narrowband you can change the cross-over point. Then you could get better gas mileage in closed-loop since it would target say 16:1 instead of 14.7:1"

Originally stated here click

Is this just as good as editing the tables? What kind of mileage is anyone actually getting with WB set to 16:1?

"Is that Spool Drool? EWW!"
90GGSX Blue-Chesapeake
91GVR4 Nile Black-Sidney (Sid)

Posts: 525 | From: Blackwood, NJ | Member Since: 11/21/08 | IP: ( | Report this post to a Moderator


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 811623 posted 07/16/09 09:13 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I believe the optimal afr for fuel economy was found to be 15.3:1.

I found v8's...

Posts: 982 | From: Shithole Wisconsin | Member Since: 01/30/07 | IP: ( | Report this post to a Moderator


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 811728 posted 07/17/09 09:09 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I have a buddy that has a 300 hp B16A Civic, with a 50-trim on it.

At part throttle he gets around 15.6:1 and returned 38 mpg.

| | | IP: ( | Report this post to a Moderator


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 811788 posted 07/17/09 11:50 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
The thing I don't like about changing the crossover point is that it will change ALL your closedloop operation. I'm not sure of the affect that could have on idle quality or driveability. It *could* cause a nasty, harsh transition when the ECU switches from a very lean closedloop to the richer openloop maps.
You also may no longer have any reference to tell if your closedloop tune is OK, as the fueltrims could become meaningless. Try it and let us know.

| | | IP: ( | Report this post to a Moderator

Flagration Member

Galant VR-4 org Post #: 812011 posted 07/17/09 09:05 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post   
Each different engine probably has it's own optimum lean burning AFR in the 15-17:1 range based on a whole bunch of different factors (mostly engine design, although it may change with compression and plenty of other things).

If you're tuning the tables to provide a constant AFR across the board at low loads anyway, you'll end up with essentially the same thing. Keeping it locked in open loop, you could theoretically find the optimum AFR at different part-throttle loads. But without spending the time to actually tune it to your engine, there won't be any consistent, repeatable advantage. Engine performance is does not vary that much on hair-splitting differences in AFR. The only real advantage of locking in open loop is having finer control over the timing curves, which are much more influential than A/F ratios (MBT or mean best timing still applies regardless of the engine's operating load and conditions).

It shouldn't be too much of a problem on closed to open loop and vice versa - I had initially thought it would be, but our ECU already has "tip-in" enrichment and leans out on "lift-off" based on the TPS, and the fuel dumped in under load is quite a lot compared to even the fuel used under cruise at 14.7:1. It has this feature mostly because of the fact that in a MAF based system, there *is* a delay in airflow detection from the sensor to the throttle body. To compensate for it, the ECU adds or subtracts fuel based on the rate at which the TPS voltage changes. Coincidentally, even though a blowthrough setup is supposed to have better response, since you can't fiddle with the tip in, it will overcompensate when you mash the throttle, or lift off rapidly.

Fuel trims should work fine too, since all they're doing is trying to flow the right amount of fuel to reach a certain A/F ratio. The computer trims are dumb and don't care what mixture it's targeting - all it cares about is that it flows the right amount of fuel to make the O2 sensor happy and hit the right A/F ratio. Since the WB can simulate a narrowband at all, it should work fine.

Trivia section:

It is interesting to note that a narrowband oxygen sensor is actually a miniature fuel cell that burns CO and O2 to produce CO2. It generates an electrical voltage that corresponds to the amount of O2 and CO2 in the exhaust stream, which incidentally can be corresponded to AFR. But it's not actually a linear relationship, which is precisely why it is accurate only around the point it is tuned for, where it outputs 0.45 volts (which is not quite 14.7:1, but it's close enough in that range).

A "wideband" sensor is not actually a sensor that somehow detects differing gas concentrations directly. What it actually does is that it uses a normal narrowband sensor, but instead of simply exposing it to free exhaust stream, it uses a fancy electronic device called an "ion pump" to either restrict or pressurize flow to the narrowband sensor to keep it's output in the .45 lambda range. Since the sensor only absorbs oxygen and CO2, it essentially fakes a stoichimetric ratio at the sensor.

The way it actually "senses" is that the current draw of the pump required to "bump" the voltage output of the sensor to the correct value can be mapped to determine the A/F ratio of the gas that the pump draws from. Even though it's not linear, it's repeatable. (not a big problem for electronics - sensors like thermocouples, MAP sensors and mass-airflow sensors are also non-linear, but also have repeatable outputs)

The wideband requires a "controller" that in a way acts just like the closed loop system in your engine - if the sensor is too lean, it increases the pump flow, and if it's too rich, it restricts it. Instead of applying "fuel trims" to correct it's behavior, it keeps track of what the fuel trim would "need to be" and uses that to report the voltage to the gauge,logger, etc. Coincidentally, it's because of this that it has to be calibrated every so often. It cannot "trim" its own control system.

1269/2000 Summit White

Edited by Dialcaliper (07/17/09 09:26 PM)

Posts: 1284 | From: Mountain View, CA | Member Since: 06/22/07 | IP: ( | Report this post to a Moderator

Pages: 1
Previous thread Next thread

Extra information
0 registered and 14 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Galant Moderator:  curtis, steve, atc250r, jcgalntvr4-244, cheekychimp, jepherz, Rausch, toybreaker, iceman69510, pot, FlyingEagle 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 1324

Rate this thread

News & Events: News | Events
Galant VR-4: Newbies | General VR4 Discussions | Technical Discussions | How To and Info Archive
Marketplace: Parts For Sale | Cars For Sale | Good Guys | Bad Guys
Community: Members' Showcase

Contact Us | Privacy statement

Generated in 0.063 seconds in which 0.039 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Turbo powered.

Hertz's Galant VR-4 Page