Zeitronix WB Settings in v1.5

[redhardsupra]

Try Chad's settings and see if they work for you first.
They might be perfect, but they might be off, but if you get me logs from both hpt and zeitronix logger, i can get you your own custom formula, which should result in a very good match.

The main difference in my approach vs Chad's was that he was trying to get AFR on the WB and HPT to agree, while I was trying to figure out a more universal formula based just on calibration numbers i've obtained. So while his might be better for the one case we've worked on in this thread, Z5 or Z7 should be a generally good match for anybody. See how they work for you.
Marcin

Does everyone agree with the settings above? I'm getting ready to pull a trigger on a Zeitronix WB, but don't want to do it if the bugs in the setup haven't completely been worked out.

If you guys have any tips on what to look for in a used Zeitronix WB with LCD display, please let me know. Feel free to PM me if you don't think it's appropriate to post here. Thanks!

Eugene

[leaftye]

Thank you! Honestly I didn't read anything but the last two pages of this thread, but now I know enough to buy a Zeitronix. I promise I'll read this entire thread and related threads before posting dumb questions...sorry, can't guarantee to suppress the dumbness!

[BLOWNZ06]

Well I got mine installed today, EIO is awesome, I have my boost sensor wired in as well.

I will try to get out and drive it around tomorrow logging both the Zeitronix software and the HP tuners software.. should be interesting.

The software it SOOOOOOOOOO far beyond LS1 Edit, it is crazy.

[BLOWNZ06]

Ok I went out today and drove around a bit.

I logged about 20 mintues of total data on the Zeitronix as well as the HP Tuners software. Here is what my observations were:

Between 10.80 and 11.30 .. a deviation of about 0.30
Between 11.50 and 12.00 .. a deviation of about 0.20
Between 12.00 and 12.40 .. deviation very small, less than 0.20

Above 13.0... deviation observed of about 0.40 to as high as 0.60

I tried to take some snap shots at a given RPM, etc, the sampling rate of the two different softwares seems to be different as well as the smoothing taking place in the readings. In all cases the HP Tuners read a bit richer to the Zeitronix. At idle the readings were very hard to compare, I just did my best to take an average. They move around very quickly.

With what I saw today during my tuning, I have decided that it is close enough for me to just use the HP Tuners to tune with. I will post additional results once I have the readings from the dyno wideband as well.

[black02ss]

What formula did you use?

[BLOWNZ06]

What formula did you use?

The one from my original post.

[black02ss]

For experiment sake, try my formula and see what you come up with please.

[BLOWNZ06]

Yeah ok.. Not a problem.

If its dry tomorrow I will give it a shot.

I will roll back through the posts and find it.

I want to try the fuel pressure one I have now as well.

It is nice to have boost with the WB and everything right in on place.

EDIT: I went back and pulled up your numbers from the previous post.. I overlayed them and on the surface it looks like your numbers are about 0.3 differenct from mine.. should get better results than with my formula, just off of the top of my head. I will let you know for sure.

[black02ss]

EDIT: I went back and pulled up your numbers from the previous post.. I overlayed them and on the surface it looks like your numbers are about 0.3 differenct from mine.. should get better results than with my formula, just off of the top of my head. I will let you know for sure.

I know personally on two different cars that there is less then a 0.1 difference throught the AF Range. If you look back in this thread, you will see that I "thought" your formula was off by 0.3. Why, I am still trying to figure out. The only thing I can come up with is the reference data that Zeitronx supplies with their kits, is inaccurate. It would be nice to see if mine is consistant on three different cars. Thanks!!

[BLOWNZ06]

Yes I cannot figure out why either.. I went through last night and rechecked my math and the trendline I added.. all looks right. But real world data will show that your is better, I think... I will have an answer tonight.

Could be a difference in the output.. something, I don't know.. don't want to think too hard about it.. if we come to the right conclusion that is all that matters..

[BLOWNZ06]

Well I installed your formula and went around drove around for about 30 minutes.. this included a lot of full throttle pulls and some driving around and some idling.

At idle your formula seems to be very close.. maybe closer than mine, kind of hard to tell.

At part throttle again.. hard to tell.

At full throttle I could not see any real difference from mine to yours from 10.8 to 11.2 but it seemed to diverge a lot for anything above that.

At my reading above 12, yes I was above 12.. 8.8 pounds of boost in 25 degree weather... it was big time off.. the Zeitronix said 12.4.. your equation said 12.90 to 13.25

I have to say though.. it is odd to try to read between the two of them. The sampling rate seems much different .. I logged RPM in the Zeitronix as well and there are places where it says I was at 7000 RPM, which is improbable as the HP tuners shows me never going past the rev limiter, except once.

I have to say that I am impressed I was not getting at knock, I did back the timing down in the upper blocks to 18 degrees.

One other note in this weather with the headers now installed.. I am maxing the MAF at about 5000 RPM.. before without the headers it was only maxing it at about 6000-6200

Maybe I need the speed density upgrade afterall.

Here are my logs though so you can make your own decision.

HP Tuners log
http://www.usionline.net/011705.1.hpl
Zeitronix log
http://www.usionline.net/011705.z1.zto

Let me know what you think. Like I said the sampling rate seems to be much better in the HP Tuners.. the Zeitronix seems to be smoothing a lot.

I am going to go back the original formula I was using since it was calculated directly from the Zeitronix data.

[redhardsupra]

try my formulas, Z5 and Z7, they should be more universal. Chad 'massaged' his formulas to be close to zeitronix numbers, I did mine completely off the calibration numbers, so even though it might not work as perfect for Chad, but it might work better for you. let us know how it goes, i'm still curious how they work outside of excel.

[BLOWNZ06]

The formula I made originally came from the Zeitronix data as well.

I went back through the numbers tonight I came up with a new set of numbers, I will try this tomorrow.

I will let you guys know what happens.

[black02ss]

Thanks Nick and keep me posted.

[BLOWNZ06]

Also I contacted Zeitronix last night sending them a spreadsheet with all of my calculations from their data, etc.

I explained what we were trying to do, etc.

They have been very responsive lately, maybe I will have an answer today.

[BLOWNZ06]

Well as far as I am concerned I am done. This worked very well for WOT tuning. I have put three graphs here in the first picture. I put an explanation on each of them.

I put a second set of charts that showed my final calculations and the formula I used.

I also posted the text file so that no one else would have to type it in if they wanted to use my formula.

At WOT I think the information looks great.. as for the other points, you can make your own judgement, I think if you are doing a speed density tune and using the histograms, driving around and getting 30-40 minutes of data will get you reliable results at idle and part throttle as well.





http://www.usionline.net/zeitronix2.txt

Good luck to all and I can try to answer any questions you have.

[Magic_Chicken]

So what formula and data points did we all decide to use here? All the links to everything don't work anymore.

[BLOWNZ06]

So what formula and data points did we all decide to use here? All the links to everything don't work anymore.

0,8.87
0.1,9.45
0.2,9.79
0.3,9.98
0.4,10.09
0.5,10.16
0.6,10.23
0.7,10.33
0.8,10.46
0.9,10.63
1,10.82
1.1,11.04
1.2,11.28
1.3,11.52
1.4,11.77
1.5,12.00
1.6,12.23
1.7,12.45
1.8,12.66
1.9,12.86
2,13.08
2.1,13.33
2.2,13.61
2.3,13.95
2.4,14.36
2.5,14.86
2.6,15.45
2.7,16.14
2.8,16.94
2.9,17.83
3,18.78
3.1,19.75
3.2,20.69
3.3,21.51
3.4,22.11
3.5,22.34
3.6,0.00
3.7,0.00
3.8,0.00
3.9,0.00
4,0.00
4.1,0.00
4.2,0.00
4.3,0.00
4.4,0.00
4.5,0.00
4.6,0.00
4.7,0.00
4.8,0.00
4.9,0.00
5,0.00

This is what I have been using and in my conversations with Zeitronix he said "thank you for the very accurate polynomial" I calculated these points in the correct format for HP Tuners from the formula that Zeitronix looked at. I have been using this since I put that link up there.

[Billf6531]

Thanks Nick, you're a good man. A few months from now, when the snow disappears, I'll be using this.

[black02ss]

This is the set that I am using along with 2000FireHawk and it has the cloest averages then anything else we have tried.

0,9.78
0.1,10.07
0.2,10.23
0.3,10.33
0.4,10.39
0.5,10.46
0.6,10.56
0.7,10.68
0.8,10.83
0.9,11.01
1,11.22
1.1,11.44
1.2,11.68
1.3,11.91
1.4,12.15
1.5,12.37
1.6,12.58
1.7,12.79
1.8,13.00
1.9,13.21
2,13.43
2.1,13.68
2.2,13.98
2.3,14.32
2.4,14.74
2.5,15.24
2.6,15.84
2.7,16.52
2.8,17.31
2.9,18.18
3,19.11
3.1,20.08
3.2,21.03
3.3,21.89
3.4,0.00
3.5,0.00
3.6,0.00
3.7,0.00
3.8,0.00
3.9,0.00
4,0.00
4.1,0.00
4.2,0.00
4.3,0.00
4.4,0.00
4.5,0.00
4.6,0.00
4.7,0.00
4.8,0.00
4.9,0.00
5,0.00