O2 Sensor to run Wideband and Simulate Narrowband

[Nate355RS]

I've been doing some searching around and I've seen a number of threads on this topic. And in every thread there are multiple people saying it can be done, and multiple people saying it can't. Hopefully you guys can give me a definitive answer

What I'd like to do is install a wideband into the stock front 02 sensor location and have it simulate a narrowband 02 signal to the ECM and send a wideband signal to my gauge. This way I can run closed loop and keep an eye on my actual AFR at the same time.

As of right now the car is tuned with a HKS VPC and seems to run ok but I'm flying blind without a wideband. I know ECMLink can simulate narrowband off the 5v signal, but it's a little out of my price range at the moment.

Is this possible? And if so what sensors can do this?

This is on a 1992 1g Talon.

 

[Carlz0r]

I can't speak as to whether or not it's the best option, but I have a Prosport Evo wideband and it has narrowband and wideband outputs in addition to the gauge output. I have the narrowband output wired up as my front O2 sensor and I'll be wiring the wideband output into my rear O2 sensor so that I can log my wideband values with evoscan (I'm running a flashable 98 ecu).

 

[Seamus]

pretty much any wideband controller on the market these days can do it. I don't know where you saw peop[le saying it can't be done.

 

[Dsmkauai]

The innovate mtx-l does this and is a simple install and setup.

 

[Nate355RS]

pretty much any wideband controller on the market these days can do it. I don't know where you saw peop[le saying it can't be done.

There are a few threads floating around, mostly saying it can't be done without Link. But there is usually someone who chimes in and says the WB controllers can do it on their own. Just wasn't sure who was right.

This thread for example http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/maintenance-repairs/448954-innovative-mtx-l-help.html

Looks like I'll be getting the MTX-L

 

[snowborder714]

I'd suggest getting the LC-1 as it's a better option than the MTX-L because of the sensor ground wire that should be hooked up for it (MTX-L doesn't have this).

 

[jpmxrider489]

I am using the AEM uego wideband it I have had no problems.

 

[Nate355RS]

Does the AEM have the ground that snowborder714 was talking about? And can it send a narrowband and wideband signal at the same time?

The LC-1 looks like it does what the others do, but it's about $60 more expensive. I'm just not sure if it's worth the extra money.

 

[Seamus]

Does the AEM have the ground that snowborder714 was talking about? And can it send a narrowband and wideband signal at the same time?

The LC-1 looks like it does what the others do, but it's about $60 more expensive. I'm just not sure if it's worth the extra money.

The lc1 is basically the cheapest widebanf on the market. I use it and it is superior to the mtxl and AEm in response as well.

 

[Nate355RS]

Where are the LC1s cheaper than AEM or the MTX-L? I'm seeing the MTXL and the AEM wideband kits as being $179 and every LC1 kit as being $249 and up.
EXTREME PSI : Your #1 Source for In Stock Performance Parts

 

[Nate355RS]

I just talked to an AEM dealer and he said with the UEGO you can switch the voltage input between narrowband and wideband but it is an either / or, not both at the same time.

So it sounds like you CANNOT do this with the AEM UEGO.

 

[snowborder714]

Have you checked ECMtuning or eBay for the LC-1 kit?

 

[gophishy10]

The innovate mtx-l does this and is a simple install and setup.

I also have the mtx-l (in front o2 position) and it works great for narrowband sim and wideband. I believe the software for the mtx-l has a narrowband sim function built into it.

 

[MY1GDSM]

I just talked to an AEM dealer and he said with the UEGO you can switch the voltage input between narrowband and wideband but it is an either / or, not both at the same time.

So it sounds like you CANNOT do this with the AEM UEGO.

Regardless you won't want a AEM gauge it will be nothing but problems in the end as said above... .

The response rate of them Is VERY Slow in comparison to any other gauge on the market.

Just do some looking around and you can find a Lc-1 from a vendor here or on Ebay for nearly the same price and it will be the best for the car and able to do what you're looking too and even if you pay a bit more it's more then worth it.

Though I don't honestly recommend narrowband simulation as your stock o2 will do its job rather well and gives you something to use as a reference if you have an issue with the wideband.

 

[Melbowski]

I was using my AEM wideband as a narrow band for a while when my stocker crapped out. It works just fine. The downside is that it has only 1 extra output which I need for logging.

If you run it as a narrowband simulater the gauge still shows wideband output and there's a rotary switch on the back to change the extra output to a narrowband simulater that you wire into the stock ECU. You can even still log in this setup via a serial port, but who has those these days?

Honestly I plan to switch to the MTXL in the future, since it has faster response, a wider AFR range, and two outputs. However, as it stands my AEM hasn't given me any issues, so I'll keep using it for now.

Basically all the widebands on the market can simulate a narrowband sensor so long as it has an adjustable output (which they almost all do). They will all show wideband AFR on the gauge in this mode, only the secondary output is affected. The reason people typically go against it is A) having the O2 sensor that close to the turbo shortens the sensors life-span and B) it leaves you nothing to compare the wideband to so you just have to hope it's right. Good luck in whatever option you choose.

 

[ed1380]

Mtx-l all the way. Has more outputs, can be programmed, and costs the same as the aem. Also the replacement sensors are easier to get/cheaper for the mtx-l.

I run mine in the stock o2 sensor position with narrowband signal going to front o2 and wideband signal going to rear o2 for logging.

 

[snowborder714]

Check out this thread for why I'd say go with an LC-1 over an MTX-L for all those considering it.
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/ecmlink-tuning-log-file-advice/449404-ready-tune-ready-learn.html

 

[snowborder714]

Check out this thread for why I'd say go with an LC-1 over an MTX-L for all those considering it.
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/ecmlink-tuning-log-file-advice/449404-ready-tune-ready-learn.html

 

[MY1GDSM]

I was using my AEM wideband as a narrow band for a while when my stocker crapped out. It works just fine. The downside is that it has only 1 extra output which I need for logging.

"It works just fine" is not a reason to buy one though... .

And as well this is not the only downside.

If I get some free time maybe I can post some screenshots of logs of a AEM Vs LC-1 Vs MTX-l to demonstrate the difference in response time of the AFR.

Trust me when I say if you a have choice go with something Innovate not AEM

 

[c2ypt1c]

Where are the LC1s cheaper than AEM

Amazon, directly from Innovate (search for innovate wideband). The replacement sensors are exactly the same for the LC-1 and MTX-L. I'm biased toward the LC-1 because it's what I run. Also, you should read that link snowborder posted...

Either way, Innovate > AEM, in terms of awesomeness

 

[Nate355RS]

Ok, seeing this graph of the MTX-L response time sealed the deal for the LC-1. I'm convinced now that the wideband is something I want to do once and do right.
MTX-L

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

LC-1

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

 

[spadepro22]

Check out this thread for why I'd say go with an LC-1 over an MTX-L for all those considering it.
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/ecmlink-tuning-log-file-advice/449404-ready-tune-ready-learn.html

This link can be misleading. The response time that was posted in my thread was when the actual software for the gage wasn't set causing a very slow response time. After I went and changed the response setting it was reading pretty fast and steady. Not saying its faster than the lc-1 because I never seen there response time, but its definitely not slow as pictured in the link. When the CORRECT settings in the mtx-l are set right its is a pretty good wideband to me.

If you check out the logs before the correct settings and the logs after the changes where made, you can see the difference in the response time and the way it reads on te screen. I choose the mtx-l because there has been know problems with the lc-1 crashing and there is less equipment/wiring involved with the mtx-l.

 

[Nate355RS]

That's a good point now that I look at the logs. I've read so many reviews and info saying this wideband is better than that one, and this one is good for simulation but you don't want to do simulation, or I've had such and such wideband for 5 years and had no problem.

I really think for what I want to do, the LC-1 isn't going to let me down. I found a deal on ebay for a LC-1 for $157 shipped with a DB guage, controller, o2 bung, and software. I pulled the trigger on it so it should be here by Wednesday

 

[Melbowski]

"It works just fine" is not a reason to buy one though... .

And as well this is not the only downside.

If I get some free time maybe I can post some screenshots of logs of a AEM Vs LC-1 Vs MTX-l to demonstrate the difference in response time of the AFR.

Trust me when I say if you a have choice go with something Innovate not AEM

I meant that it worked fine for narrow-band simulating in response to Nate:

I just talked to an AEM dealer and he said with the UEGO you can switch the voltage input between narrowband and wideband but it is an either / or, not both at the same time.

So it sounds like you CANNOT do this with the AEM UEGO.

I do not endorse AEM's wide-band; with other better options in the same price range there's no reason to get a sub-par gauge. I don't feel it's a bad unit, but reviews and testing have shown that it is not the best of what's available. That said, I did not have that information years ago when I bought it, nor has it given me any problems thus far. Honestly I'm still happy with the unit even knowing it's not the best; to each his own.

I do however whole-heartedly agree to go Innovate over pretty much anything on the market, and as stated, I plan to replace the AEM with the MTXL in the future. I like the LC1, but I just like the MTXL better for its additional features, in particular the outside LED sweep (which I've grown very accustomed to via the AEM). I'm willing to settle for slightly lower cycling rates to have the features that I want, though I still think the yellow display was a poor color choice...