O2 Optimizer on 2V Norge

[Huzo]

Pete do you think you could reduce consumption to less than 5.5 l/100 k, without it being lean enough to ping ? That's what mine was doing and used to average out to 5.0-5.3 l/100km @ 100km/hr. I had it looked at in Melbourne and the guy stopped the pinging, but now uses around 5.6 l/100k as he said it would.

[Jerryd]

Jerry, i will look at the dipswitch settings,  they are sti stock.  I suspect they are very close if not the same for 1200.   Ill post them tomorrow

Thank you!

[pete roper]

Get a decent open loop map in it and it will neither detonate or slurp fuel.

[Huzo]

Oh, ok thank you. I'll find where I can achieve that an get it done. Thanks.

[Xlratr]

I think 5.5l per 100km is not unusual. It depends on your riding style and short vs long trips, but I don't think you'll get it a *lot* better than that. (Although maybe the 2v is different). You can fine tune some areas of the map and work on the temperature tables but at the end of the day a slightly more power oriented AFR has to use a bit more fuel than stoich. That's why it's called AFR.
Pete, I'm surprised the bike you mentioned was covered in soot at that level of fuel consumption. Of course maybe it was just ridiculously rich at idle? Hhmm.

[pete roper]

Nah, the two valves are a lot more frugal, really. It's all down to the combustion chamber design and cam timing. Not so much that the 2V is particularly economical but the 4V is wasteful and thirsty.

Pete

[Xlratr]

OK. I have no experience with the 2v. But it does make less power, so that has to make some difference.

[beetle]

Not much to do with power. As Pete said, it's all about the head design and valve timing.

[Xlratr]

Not much to do with power. As Pete said, it's all about the head design and valve timing.

But that's what helps make more power. And more (used) power means more fuel.

[beetle]

No. That's a simplistic approach. More torque means more power. If the 8V produced torque based in the amount of fuel it used, it would be good for 140 HP.

[Xlratr]

No. That's a simplistic approach. More torque means more power. If the 8V produced torque based in the amount of fuel it used, it would be good for 140 HP.

No, torque plus rpm makes power. All things being equal, if you can get more air and fuel into the combustion chamber, in the right quantities, it will make more power. Nothing is for free.

[beetle]

 

No, torque plus rpm makes power.

Gosh. Really? I didn't know. I always thought it was unicorns. 

[pete roper]

No, torque plus rpm makes power. All things being equal, if you can get more air and fuel into the combustion chamber, in the right quantities, it will make more power. Nothing is for free.

Yes, but the issue is that the 8V, because of its side draught head design and long valve overlap has pretty ordinary volumetric efficiency. That's the the reason why open pipes and aftermarket air *Filters* are so manifestly unproductive. They simply encourage charge transition further reducing VE, especially at certain engine speeds and throttle openings. It's a lovely motor but in the grand scheme of things it isn't terribly efficient and that is the reason why more thought has to go into making it work well rather than simply following the old 'Open 'er up and pour in more fuel' philosophy.

Pete

[Jerryd]

Jerryd, it's not hard to flash the map using GuzziDiag. All you need are the cables.

If you like, I'll modify the latest factory 2V Norge map to stop the popping for you.

Beetle, I appreciate your generous offer. I've never used DuzziDiag and wouldn't know where to start. I'd hate to mess up what I already have.

Back in the day, and Pete would remember it, we had another portable reflash device that we used. Can't remember the name? Pete reflashed my old '07 Norge  when he was here, and it never ran better. Strong, no popping, etc.

Jerry

[Xlratr]

Yes, but the issue is that the 8V, because of its side draught head design and long valve overlap has pretty ordinary volumetric efficiency. That's the the reason why open pipes and aftermarket air *Filters* are so manifestly unproductive. They simply encourage charge transition further reducing VE, especially at certain engine speeds and throttle openings. It's a lovely motor but in the grand scheme of things it isn't terribly efficient and that is the reason why more thought has to go into making it work well rather than simply following the old 'Open 'real up and pour in more fuel' philosophy.

Pete

Oh, I'm sure there are more efficient engines out there. I don't want to labor the point (and it's off topic anyway), but regardless of whether the VE of the 8v is good or not, one of the reasons it makes more power than the 2v will be that it can get more air and fuel to ignite at the right time. The laws of physics apply to this motor too. To make more power you need more energy. But I take your point that charge transition may result in worse fuel economy on top of that.

I won't be changing the valve timing on my 8v, and there's not too much I can do about VE, but I *can* make sure that there is the *right* amount of fuel in the chamber when the spark comes. And if the ratio to air is good, then the more the better (from a power point of view).

[Wayne Orwig]

I believe over cooling has a big impact too. They have to dump a lot of cold oil around the exhaust ports to keep them from being damaged at higher power. And/or maybe to keep down the pollutants from too hot a combustion chamber. But that means it is over cooled under normal use.
On my commute to work, my Stelvio often gets less than 30MPG when the outdoor temp is below freezing. But it gets closer to 40MPG in the summer. Oxygenated fuel around here likely plays a part in that too, but the cold certainly has a big impact.
One day I am going to make a cover for the oil cooler for the winter rides.

[beetle]

OMG, one major contributor is the poorly designed stock temperature correction tables in the map.

[RANDM]

Interesting thread. Most of my F.I. knowledge, which is only
basic, comes from looking for an answer to the R1150Rs
surging problem. If I remember it correctly the ECUs work
differently - I assume in an Apple/Microsoft sort of way, but
don't know for sure.

A lot of different approaches were tried on the 1150s but the
only one I saw that provided any documented evidence was
Roger04RT who did exhaustive research using a 911 and an
Innovative Motorsports LM1 programmable wideband sensor
setup to show exactly what the ECU was doing.

It's interesting that, for the BMW at least, attacking the
problem from the O2 sensor seems to be the way to go
as all other approaches get "adapted" out. The way to go
was to adjust the AFR point that the sensor was switching
at from 14.7 to around 13.8 and let the computer do it's
thing. Anything like an air temp fooler or high pressure fuel
pump ect was read by the computer as a fault that was
adapted out after a few tanks of fuel to return the AFR
to 14.7 - changing the AFR that the ECU was reading wasn't.

As my understanding of FI is only basic, if anyone has experience
of both I'd like to learn more about why what works on one doesn't
on the other?

Maurie.

[oldbike54]

No. That's a simplistic approach. More torque means more power. If the 8V produced torque based in the amount of fuel it used, it would be good for 140 HP.

 I get your point Mark , it is all about proportion .

 Dusty

[oldbike54]

No, torque plus rpm makes power. All things being equal, if you can get more air and fuel into the combustion chamber, in the right quantities, it will make more power. Nothing is for free.

 OK , Mark will call me pedantic , but the formula is HP = Torque X RPM over 5252 .

 Dusty

[beetle]

Yes Dusty. As Pete mentioned, the VE of the 8V is a bit ordinary by way the head design and long valve overlap. I hesitate to mention it 'cos all the haters will hate on it even more.   

[beetle]

OK , Mark will call me pedantic

Pedant!

[pete roper]

Yes Dusty. As Pete mentioned, the VE of the 8V is a bit ordinary by way the head design and long valve overlap. I hesitate to mention it 'cos all the haters will hate on it even more.   

Which is also one of the reasons I believe that the 'Target' AFR's you aim for are often a far cry from what are always touted as the theoretical ideal? It was one of the things I learnt early on when looking at lambda readings on a dyno and comparing them with plug readings. It was obvious that despite what the technology was telling me what was happening within the combustion chamber was far from *Ideal*. For those that doubt? If you accept that charge transition is going to contribute to lower VE also consider what the 'Missing' charge is going to do to the lambda readings in the exhaust pipe......

Pete

[oldbike54]

Pedant!

 

 On a serious note , the last generation of V10 F1 engines circa 2000 were  more fuel efficient than the earlier versions , despite being capable of 19,000 RPM bursts . So yeah , combustion chamber design plays a big role .

 Dusty

[beetle]

It's interesting that, for the BMW at least, attacking the
problem from the O2 sensor seems to be the way to go
as all other approaches get "adapted" out. The way to go
was to adjust the AFR point that the sensor was switching
at from 14.7 to around 13.8 and let the computer do it's
thing. Anything like an air temp fooler or high pressure fuel
pump ect was read by the computer as a fault that was
adapted out after a few tanks of fuel to return the AFR
to 14.7 - changing the AFR that the ECU was reading wasn't.

You can't do that with the stock Guzzi sensor. Although I know nothing about BMW's (and don't care to), the narrowband signal from the sensor is (simplified) 'rich/stoic/lean'. The ECU trims 'more fuel' and 'less fuel' over a long steady throttle to the point where the signal is mostly 'stoic'.

The best way to do it is to add a wideband sensor with a simulated narrowband output. You program the wideband controller to set the 'rich/stoic/lean' points at the AFR of your choosing and the ECU will happily trim the AFR to goodness.

[beetle]

Which is also one of the reasons I believe that the 'Target' AFR's you aim for are often a far cry from what are always touted as the theoretical ideal? '

Yes. I'll say no more as all the 'experts' will set about to decry me.

[bad Chad]

still looking for it, but I'll find it!

[pete roper]

All it takes is a bit of analytical and critical thinking. I can understand your reluctance to try and explain further though as stepping away from accepted orthodoxy is very effective troll-bait!

Pete

[Lcarlson]

Interesting thread. Most of my F.I. knowledge, which is only
basic, comes from looking for an answer to the R1150Rs
surging problem. If I remember it correctly the ECUs work
differently - I assume in an Apple/Microsoft sort of way, but
don't know for sure.

A lot of different approaches were tried on the 1150s but the
only one I saw that provided any documented evidence was
Roger04RT who did exhaustive research using a 911 and an
Innovative Motorsports LM1 programmable wideband sensor
setup to show exactly what the ECU was doing.

It's interesting that, for the BMW at least, attacking the
problem from the O2 sensor seems to be the way to go
as all other approaches get "adapted" out. The way to go
was to adjust the AFR point that the sensor was switching
at from 14.7 to around 13.8 and let the computer do it's
thing. Anything like an air temp fooler or high pressure fuel
pump ect was read by the computer as a fault that was
adapted out after a few tanks of fuel to return the AFR
to 14.7 - changing the AFR that the ECU was reading wasn't.

As my understanding of FI is only basic, if anyone has experience
of both I'd like to learn more about why what works on one doesn't
on the other?

Maurie.

I am running the AF-XIED 02 manipulator recommended by Roger04RT following his studies referred to above ( on my R1150R).  Don't know if this one of the devices considered to worthless/harmful junk by the experts here, or not. I'd be interested to know.  My experience has been that my bike does run better with the device, smoother and with strikingly stronger pull off the bottom. No bad side effects in the several thousand miles that I've bee using it.

[CalVin2007]

All it takes is a bit of analytical and critical thinking. I can understand your reluctance to try and explain further though as stepping away from accepted orthodoxy is very effective troll-bait!

Pete

   Yes, but it sure is fun when you do all the "stupid" things the trolls decry as ridiculous aberrations of accepted practices and yet the machine you do these silly things to runs off and hides from their "properly" prepared slugs.  Oh, so sweet!

  Terry (fellow rule-bender)