AEM Wideband
#1
Running Guns & Moonshine
Thread Starter
AEM Wideband
I was told that the AEM widebands are not super accurate and can be off by a full point. Is there experience out there to back that up?
If so, what is a more accurate or faster reading WB sensor to run? And do they all share a common wiring connector, or would I need to splice one in? What I run is the AEM Failsafe. If that is a Bosch sensor, is an Innovate sensor compatible or would I need to splice it?
The whole point of buying and installing an AFR monitor is to get it right. No point if it is not accurate.
If so, what is a more accurate or faster reading WB sensor to run? And do they all share a common wiring connector, or would I need to splice one in? What I run is the AEM Failsafe. If that is a Bosch sensor, is an Innovate sensor compatible or would I need to splice it?
The whole point of buying and installing an AFR monitor is to get it right. No point if it is not accurate.
Last edited by Tusc; 05-13-2018 at 01:20 PM.
The following users liked this post:
CorvetteBrent (05-14-2018)
The following users liked this post:
CorvetteBrent (05-14-2018)
#3
Running Guns & Moonshine
Thread Starter
Thanks for the reference. Glad to know!
#4
Supporting Vendor
I read plugs when I track tune cars. I've track tuned some fast cars that run AEM widebands and there isn't any large delta between what I see in the plugs and what the widebands are reading. Unless you're trying to take the tune to the edge, the AEM should do you fine. I have had problems with headers that have the bottoms of the 4.9's facing upstream because it seems to burn them out with a quickness, much quicker than the 4.2's. I have also begun spacing out the sensors to where the very tip is parallel to the exhaust perimeter to prevent them from getting too hot. They still read quickly and seem to last longer before producing 'off' readings.
Bret
Bret
#5
Melting Slicks
Temperature changes wideband reading due to the way it works.
It isn't the "AEM" control system, its the sensor itself; if you want a sensor that does not 'calibrate' (you do, trust me) then its worth the small price of not being able to over heat the sensor dramatically.
It says in the instructions to place sensor far from high heat. Usually 3-5 feet downstream a turbine. If you follow instructions it will work great.
It isn't the "AEM" control system, its the sensor itself; if you want a sensor that does not 'calibrate' (you do, trust me) then its worth the small price of not being able to over heat the sensor dramatically.
It says in the instructions to place sensor far from high heat. Usually 3-5 feet downstream a turbine. If you follow instructions it will work great.
#6
Running Guns & Moonshine
Thread Starter
Good to see a fellow Brett out there, even if you spell it funny.
So I shall keep and love the 4.9
All things being relative, I'll let the sensor build the map and keep it as a guide. But I'll see if there is a change when I tune for the methanol and check my readings vs what the tuner plugs in with. That will settle my curiosity.
So I shall keep and love the 4.9
All things being relative, I'll let the sensor build the map and keep it as a guide. But I'll see if there is a change when I tune for the methanol and check my readings vs what the tuner plugs in with. That will settle my curiosity.
#7
Melting Slicks
Oh I like to take the car to a dyno just as a 'double check with their wideband' make sure the two are close. Dyno will like to read couple points leaner is normal.