Avoid OMNI MAP sensors - other suggestions?

[biglady112]

Pretty sure you can find at least one in the 1,800 posts I have here.

I would also like to see you get off my nutsack one single time. You have been chasing my handle around for years. Maybe get a life and avoid mine.

I will take care of that for you. Blocking you now so I don’t have to deal with your nonsense anymore.

 

[Ludachris]

@303_2G - did you completely resolve the issue?

Brett and Steven...

 

[GST with PSI]

Brett and Steven...

My apologies, Chris. Apparently you and Steve are buddies, which somehow implies he has some sort of credibility, even though still, he's added zero value to this thread after half a dozen posts.

Perhaps you can ask him kindly to examine the logs provided and give some tangible feedback that doesn't include any mention of how great he thinks he is?

 

[Ludachris]

Everyone knows what I'm going to request here - please keep it civil. Take bar fights (or arguments) outside. The back and forth banter and attacks take away from the Q&A in the thread, no matter how well intentioned it is or what justification is used. Please respect the establishment.

 

[Stapl3]

What's your issue with being asked to verify the input voltage? I'm trying to see in your log where the Omni sensor is reading incorrectly? Literally, every time you give the car a throttle input the sensor responds immediately. Your log clearly shows that, even at the 300 second mark where you say the issue is and the sensor is "dead". It's responding just as I would expect it to? Additionally, the raw voltage and sensor reading track the same, which is what I'd expect to see with how you have the sensor configured in ECMlink:

The sensor flat lines and gets stoned at -28.9.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[biglady112]

The sensor flat lines and gets stoned at -28.9.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Hmm. Shocking. The fact it is down/off more than it is on is the dead give away. More eloquent than I stated. I just didn’t feel the need to go as far as you did with the screen shot. Yet, another of the hundreds if not thousands of Chinese Omni sensors to take a dump.

 

[Stapl3]

Something must have happened with the quality control over the years. Omni was the go-to sensor on the Link forums [as I recall] about a dozen years ago when I got mine, which I never had a problem with.

 

[biglady112]

Something must have happened with the quality control over the years. Omni was the go-to sensor on the Link forums [as I recall] about a dozen years ago when I got mine, which I never had a problem with.

Not in my experience. They have been terrible from the onset. They were a cheaper option and Tom and Dave offered the plug and play harness for them and the GM map sensors. Everyone was always so worried about wiring in their own pigtail it was just the east button for most.

That being said, I have never seen a GM/NAPA branded 3 or 3.3 bar sensor ever fail. Ever. Infact, I always just get one locally at NAPA when I see the 4 bar sensors fail when they come in. Unless the car is enough of a hot rod that it probably needed a 5 bar sensor anyway.

I generally draw the line at 500hp with the plastic sensors if the customer absolutely insists. If I have my way, which I usually do, I put the transducers on as low as 14b cars. And in 24 years I have never seen a stainless or brass transducer fail.

For dsmlink cars I have been pushing the Kavlico transducers since the day speed density became an option. I have personally seen at least 40-50 local cars have failures. With 10-15 of those being Hondata cars.

 

[GST with PSI]

The sensor flat lines and gets stoned at -28.9.

Indeed. The OP hasn't actually assigned a display name to the MDP input so, it's pretty hard to tell what the sensor is actually doing. That being said, it's not doing absolutely nothing.

Here's another screenshot of my car. The "Omni4Bar" reads -27.9 the entire time during a 3rd gear pull, yet the MAP (the captured/named pressure value) reads actual boost pressure.

Log pull:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

My sensor config:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

OPs sensor configuration:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Long story short, the reading I see in the OP's log still doesn't definitely indicate the sensor is bad, IMO. Like I said before, a log of the car actually running under boost would be much easier to make a more definitive determination from. Additionally, unless the OP assigns the sensor a name and then captures that in a log, the values shown aren't going to be a ton of help.

My car has been running on a 4 bar Omni sensor for damn near 10 years. Is the AEM sensor nicer and likely more accurate? I'd say so. If mine ever shits the bed, I'll likely upgrade to an AEM. What blows my mind is that people have tools like ECMlink, yet it's rarely leveraged to it's full capacity to troubleshoot seemingly simple issues. People would rather say shit like "XYZ sensors are junk because the internet says so, so just buy ZYX sensor and it will fix your issue". Shit like that makes zero sense to me when you have tools at your disposal to tell without a doubt whether a sensor is at fault, and then not spend money unnecessarily. But hey, if that's what people wanna do, by all means.

 

[GST with PSI]

Hmm. Shocking. The fact it is down/off more than it is on is the dead give away. More eloquent than I stated. I just didn’t feel the need to go as far as you did with the screen shot. Yet, another of the hundreds if not thousands of Chinese Omni sensors to take a dump.

Wrong again. Imagine that.

@303_2G go assign a name to your MAP sensor, configure ECMlink to capture that value, then go get a log where the car makes some boost. That will be an easy way to clear things up.

 

[DreamChaser7]

I just hope whatever tuner I find to set my car up in the future can figure these things out and I don’t have to weed through all of this to figure it out myself, cuz I’m kinda discouraged now. Guess I’m going to have the Omni I already bought and an AEM on hand to make sure it’s good to go.

 

[GST with PSI]

I’m kinda discouraged now

Why so?

 

[DreamChaser7]

Why so?

I thought I had this one right. When I ordered the Omni 4 bar for DSM at the time it seemed like everyone had that in their build list. Now I find out it’s most likely not the way to go. Trying to build from the ground up with the best I can. Trying to do all the reading and research I can manage. Don’t get me wrong I love the platform and learning curve, hell I didn’t know what SD was three years ago, just a little discouraging to spend money and find out later I was most likely dumb when I had the option for something better, and conflicting arguments make it hard to tell which way to go sometimes. It’s all good though, in the end a hundred something bucks won’t matter much compared to….

 

[chrisman287]

I just hope whatever tuner I find to set my car up in the future can figure these things out and I don’t have to weed through all of this to figure it out myself, cuz I’m kinda discouraged now. Guess I’m going to have the Omni I already bought and an AEM on hand to make sure it’s good to go.

Don’t worry man. If the thing fails you just have something better on hand and you’ll be fine. That’s my plan too.

 

[Imback]

Indeed. The OP hasn't actually assigned a display name to the MDP input so, it's pretty hard to tell what the sensor is actually doing. That being said, it's not doing absolutely nothing.

Here's another screenshot of my car. The "Omni4Bar" reads -27.9 the entire time during a 3rd gear pull, yet the MAP (the captured/named pressure value) reads actual boost pressure.

Log pull:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

My sensor config:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

OPs sensor configuration:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Long story short, the reading I see in the OP's log still doesn't definitely indicate the sensor is bad, IMO. Like I said before, a log of the car actually running under boost would be much easier to make a more definitive determination from. Additionally, unless the OP assigns the sensor a name and then captures that in a log, the values shown aren't going to be a ton of help.

My car has been running on a 4 bar Omni sensor for damn near 10 years. Is the AEM sensor nicer and likely more accurate? I'd say so. If mine ever shits the bed, I'll likely upgrade to an AEM. What blows my mind is that people have tools like ECMlink, yet it's rarely leveraged to it's full capacity to troubleshoot seemingly simple issues. People would rather say shit like "XYZ sensors are junk because the internet says so, so just buy ZYX sensor and it will fix your issue". Shit like that makes zero sense to me when you have tools at your disposal to tell without a doubt whether a sensor is at fault, and then not spend money unnecessarily. But hey, if that's what people wanna do, by all means.

I'm not going to go into the log but at the end of the day the OMNI sensors do have a high failure rate and i also have been running into issues with them since they first came out. I have personally replaced a bunch of them on friends and customer cars. If i was dead set to figure out if it was the sensor i would bench test it. Here are the voltage x pressure rates. These are in kpa you can simply convert it to psi if you don't know how to work with kpa. I do agree that sometimes testing makes sense but if i schedule time on a dyno to tune a car i'm not going to start testing the sensor.

Volts (3 BAR) 0.777 1.572 2.367 3.162 3.957 4.752
kPa (3 BAR) 50 100 150 200 250 300


Volts (4 BAR) 0.563 1.168 1.774 2.379 2.984 3.589 4.195 4.800
kPa (4 BAR) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

 

[Stapl3]

Indeed. The OP hasn't actually assigned a display name to the MDP input so, it's pretty hard to tell what the sensor is actually doing. That being said, it's not doing absolutely nothing.

Here's another screenshot of my car. The "Omni4Bar" reads -27.9 the entire time during a 3rd gear pull, yet the MAP (the captured/named pressure value) reads actual boost pressure.

Why does the name of the sensor matter? Isn't that just an arbitrary thing? I see Omni4bar displayed in his log, it's not dimmed out as a value to see, so what exactly is the issue?

Why did you put Omni Power 4-bar assigned to front o2 AND baro? Seems redundant? Is there a benefit to this? I would think your Omni4bar value is always at -27.9?

 

[GST with PSI]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

To sum up my thoughts: All sensors fail, regardless of brand and what you read on the internet (such as threads titled "Avoid OMNI MAP sensors"). Not shitting on the OP, I just think such a frank opinion should come with more definitive troubleshooting, as to not mislead others. I definitely don't discount his issue with customer service if it in fact went the way he says.

Suggestions here from multiple people can assist in the diagnosis of said failing sensor. Or you can just throw parts at the car with no diagnosis required. Either can work.

Why does the name of the sensor matter? Isn't that just an arbitrary thing?

It doesn't really matter, and yes, it's arbitrary at the end of the day. It just makes reading the log easier. It's certainly not a requirement, and you can dig out the same data either way.

Why did you put Omni Power 4-bar assigned to front o2 AND baro? Seems redundant? Is there a benefit to this? I would think your Omni4bar value is always at -27.9?

No, there's no benefit. I used to swap my MAP sensor between different inputs to run other sensors when needed. I was trying to show what a completely dead input looks like.

I'm not going to go into the log but at the end of the day the OMNI sensors do have a high failure rate and i also have been running into issues with them since they first came out. I have personally replaced a bunch of them on friends and customer cars. If i was dead set to figure out if it was the sensor i would bench test it. Here are the voltage x pressure rates. These are in kpa you can simply convert it to psi if you don't know how to work with kpa. I do agree that sometimes testing makes sense but if i schedule time on a dyno to tune a car i'm not going to start testing the sensor.

Volts (3 BAR) 0.777 1.572 2.367 3.162 3.957 4.752
kPa (3 BAR) 50 100 150 200 250 300


Volts (4 BAR) 0.563 1.168 1.774 2.379 2.984 3.589 4.195 4.800
kPa (4 BAR) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Great point, and suggestion.

 

[chrisman287]

7 years maybe, I tried the Omni , then a lower resolution 3.5 bar from on green performance and both failed quickly. I reinstalled this one and never had any issues.

Question, did you have to set it up any differently in link or just defined it as an AEM unit?

 

[danl]

You set up the auber instruments 5 bar just like the aem 5 bar. It can be defined as aem 5 bar.

 

[crispyimmy]

my Omni 4 bar came with my car (bought Jan 2021), went bad by July so i ordered a new one. Barely driven the car over the past year and this summer its been acting up again and cutting out and seriously causing problems / stalling me on the road. Considering switching to the AEM as well or otherwise. I was wondering/hoping if I could use the same MAP sensor for the boost gauge as well. I currently have the AEM boost gauge but not the Tru-boost.

 

[curt-s]

No, a MAP signal is absolutely not necessary to make the car run. Albeit, the car won't run well, but it will (rather should) run. The issue you're describing doesn't sound like a MAP sensor issue, or at least, not exclusively.

If I had to guess, your tune is likely...Well, how should I say this, all f***ed up. Post a log (doesn't even need to be while the car is running) and I can possibly confirm my assumption.



Definitely curious about this little tidbit?

I know this is old but .. my signal wire was grounding out on my MAP sensor harness due to "oops I forgot to move the heatshrink over those bare wires.." and I couldn't even start the engine. If it manages to start because the wires weren't touching, the vibration immediately made them contact and *poof* it would stall out.