AEM 30-0334 AFR problem

I'm trying to set up for logging/histogram of AFR error with AEM x series UEGO 30-0334 Wideband Hptuner MV12 (non-pro-version). I've read and re-read all the posts I can find here on the subject. Its supposed to be pretty much plug and play. I'm using post 2008 Canbus OBD2 (2010) pass thru. My understanding is that that this WB will work with my MV12 non-pro version correct? I've read countless posts and watched videos etc, and cannot get it to graph display AFRerror. Is it possible with the nonpro version?? I have the WB identified (correctly I believe) in the channel list as WB EQ Ratio 1 (SAE) sourced from the OBD controller, 02 sensors location. I have both AFR commanded and EQ ratio commanded in the channels list. I changed units in channel list for WB Eq to AFR. I cannot get a reasonable value for AFR error in the tables.

One post I read addressed creating a new user math based on the afr error math. My default afr error math has the first line (50120 afr sensor) pink as in not valid. I copied that math expression to create a new one and then changed that sensor ID value to 50127.238 (from the variable wizard) and its no longer pink. I used that user math expression for the parameter in a table for afr error. (units percent). That did not work (the 50127 identifies as a EQ ratio sensor ). My formula being 100 * [50127.238] ? [commanded afr] / [commanded afr]. Is the problem that the sensor is still identified as eq error sensor with lambda value?
What am I doing wrong? I get a value in the table for AFR error of -92, obviously not right. My AEM guage will report AFR, why can't I get my table to display AFR error?

Now my EQ ratio error appears to be working correctly and I guess I can use those values for adjusting trims except I'm a bit confused as I show the correct commanded AFR of 14.4 (from my stoich setting) but the eq ratio commanded shows 14.7 . So is the error it is reporting relative to the 14.7 value rather than my desired 14.4? Do I need to modify the math expression to correct if so how? And will the EQ ratio error also account for PE changes? One thing I did note is that the Eq math expression (that appears to work) has a ID value of 50199 for that sensor, wondering if I should be using that value for that sensor in the AFR math formula rather than 50127?

I'm sure someone has got this to work properly??? Any assistance appreciated. Note: I've done VE and MAF tuning with the narrowbands, now I'm trying get wideband tuning for mid to upper RPMs so i do have some basic working knowledge of HPtuners.

Do you have the WB, by itself, logging ok ?

100 * ([50119.238] - [50118.238]) / [50118.238] or 100 times (EQratio - wb) divide by wb = error, use the brackets in maths, just use eqratio and lambda for the maths as its easiest and u can always change it after to show afr if u have to but error percentage is same either way

I've never had an issue with the 30-0334. Make sure you're logging the actual AFR in your channels. You have to log either AFR or EQ ratio to get the error math to work correctly. What are you trying to tune? Can you post your channels file?

Thanks for the responses. I really do appreciate it.
In the channels list i have WB EQ Ratio 1 (SAE), i realize i can change to units to afr for that channel. Yes the WB by itself appears to be logging. The actual AEM WB interface in the channels list (x series UEGO (30-03xx) does "grey out" when i vehicle connect, i assume this is normal? When i say the wide band appears to be logging is i can get an eq ratio error that looks perhaps correct using the standard eq ratio maths. I reckon i can use the eq ratio error for adjusting the tables, it's just that i am familiar with the afr error method, and not at all with eq ratio error. So even if i change the WB units in the channels list to AFR, the reported error for EQ is correct?, I can't get any afr error math to function. That is what had me confused, even though i specify afr for units in channels list, i can't get afr error, but can get EQ ratio error that appears correct when compared to narrowband readings at the same freq (maf tuning)

i will try 07GTS suggestion also. I'm tuning a crate lsx376/480 engine, 2010 vintage, that unfortunately has a ls2 tune that i have been struggling with. I grabbed some stock ls3/480 tables to use (VE etc) but even those were waay off. Was hesitant to narrow band tune mid to upper rpms since the tables were so far off in the lower rpms so I've acquired a WB. It's just that all the tuning I've done with narrow band was using afr error.

to: 07GTS, thanks. Yes that math formula is the stock eq ratio error formula. That does work and gives me a reported error for the tables. (so it doesn't make a difference if i change units in the channel section to afr or lambda for that WB? that change is only for displayingthe value in the channels list and does not affect logging?) Anyway as you say, since it is a percentage, I can use it in the manner as i would the afr error? I was just confused and perplexed on how to get reported AFR error. For some reason it seems i need to just use EQ ratio error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danall

Thanks for the responses. I really do appreciate it.
In the channels list i have WB EQ Ratio 1 (SAE), i realize i can change to units to afr for that channel. Yes the WB by itself appears to be logging. The actual AEM WB interface in the channels list (x series UEGO (30-03xx) does "grey out" when i vehicle connect, i assume this is normal? When i say the wide band appears to be logging is i can get an eq ratio error that looks perhaps correct using the standard eq ratio maths. I reckon i can use the eq ratio error for adjusting the tables, it's just that i am familiar with the afr error method, and not at all with eq ratio error. So even if i change the WB units in the channels list to AFR, the reported error for EQ is correct?, I can't get any afr error math to function. That is what had me confused, even though i specify afr for units in channels list, i can't get afr error, but can get EQ ratio error that appears correct when compared to narrowband readings at the same freq (maf tuning)

i will try 07GTS suggestion also. I'm tuning a crate lsx376/480 engine, 2010 vintage, that unfortunately has a ls2 tune that i have been struggling with. I grabbed some stock ls3/480 tables to use (VE etc) but even those were waay off. Was hesitant to narrow band tune mid to upper rpms since the tables were so far off in the lower rpms so I've acquired a WB. It's just that all the tuning I've done with narrow band was using afr error.

---

Use AFR error since you want to tune using AFR. Just set up a Graph for it and use the AFR error math. But it's strongly suggested to use Lambda and EQ error

Jaydubb71: thats the problem, i can't get a graph to show afr error. I can only get eg ratio error, but I'm assuming since it is a percentage error i can use that (eq error) directly to adjust the tables just like i would afr error?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danall

Jaydubb71: thats the problem, i can't get a graph to show afr error. I can only get eg ratio error, but I'm assuming since it is a percentage error i can use that (eq error) directly to adjust the tables just like i would afr error?

---

If you can't get AFR error, use EQ error. NA? Set HPT to 1.176 PE EQ and use Lambda. You'll be shooting for .85 Lambda and the EQ error will give you the percentage for correction. Lambda is way easier, especially if there's any alcohol in the fuel. Works for E85 also.

percentage error is the same if its calculated using AFR or lambda as the calculation

Thanks, its taken me a while to arrive at that very simple point.
The problem is eq ratio is totally confusing to me. Now afr is very understandable as it represents a very real relationship, the actual amount of air in direct relationship to fuel...pretty straightforward. Then someone came along and decided, lets represent that stoich point of 14.68 as number 1, to me a totally arbitrary relationship. Then they called it lambda, which being the 11th letter of the Greek alphabet makes no sense. It could have been number 2 or 10 or whatever although with 1 it makes it easy to calculate the deviation from 14.68. Then someone comes along and says lets do the inverse of that relationship and call it eq ratio....now I'm 2 steps removed from the original concept of actual parts of air/vs parts of fuel. Totally confusing as hell for me. I know immediately in my mind what afr of 12.5 or 15.1 is, I'm totally lost if someone says i have a eq ratio of 1.163.

Anyway at least i got that off my chest. For those with the patience to read my query and respond, really thanks.

Thanks, its taken me a while to arrive at that very simple point.
The problem is eq ratio is totally confusing to me. Now afr is very understandable as it represents a very real relationship, the actual amount of air in direct relationship to fuel...pretty straightforward. Then someone came along and decided, lets represent that stoich point of 14.68 as number 1, to me a totally arbitrary relationship. Then they called it lambda, which being the 11th letter of the Greek alphabet makes no sense. It could have been number 2 or 10 or whatever although with 1 it makes it easy to calculate the deviation from 14.68. Then someone comes along and says lets do the inverse of that relationship and call it eq ratio....now I'm 2 steps removed from the original concept of actual parts of air/vs parts of fuel. Totally confusing as hell for me. I know immediately in my mind what afr of 12.5 or 15.1 is, I'm totally lost if someone says i have a eq ratio of 1.163.

Anyway at least i got that off my chest. For those with the patience to read my query and respond, really thanks.

If i could take back that last post i would, i just finished the excellent post (2015) by Keith at HPtuners on Eq ratio etc. It finally clicked and made the above post look pretty dumb...sorry about that.

This might help you understand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IuYRVgMlDg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrOFuKP4Tjg&t=2s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danall

If i could take back that last post i would, i just finished the excellent post (2015) by Keith at HPtuners on Eq ratio etc. It finally clicked and made the above post look pretty dumb...sorry about that.

---

I just saw this. LOL! Its all good. LOL! It took me a while to get it too. But since I have been doing a lot of E tunes lately, I had to change my train of thought and Im glad I did. Lambda is SOOOOO much easier. Ive been using Lambda for about 2 years now, IIRC...