Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Which Wideband Should i Get

  1. #1
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    53

    Which Wideband Should i Get

    I see two AEM wideband kits. which one should i get and what is the differences between the two. ill proubly be tunning through the ac pressure switch even though i have the pro version. AEM 30-4110 or AEM 30-0300 x series? thanks.

  2. #2
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    763
    both will work fine - i personally have the 4110 and haven't had any issues but to me it looks like the x series gives you a little more options like how it displays afr to the hundredths of a % (11.76 as opposed to the 4110 that would read 11.8) and it seems to have a wider scale it can read also and a dimming feature but again either or will work fine
    https://www.aemelectronics.com/produ...ntroller-gauge - Xseries
    https://www.aemelectronics.com/produ...uego-afr-gauge - 4110
    Last edited by TCSS07; 12-16-2018 at 04:32 PM.

  3. #3
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    213
    I like the LC-2 from Innovative. I've had good luck with it and prefer it as I can recalibrate it.

  4. #4
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    599
    The 30-4110 is, pretty much, a dead end product, by now. In your specific application, it lacks the analog output ground offset compensation ( which is very important for A/C pressure input use ). Also, if you have the pro-link, IIRC, you can have it read the 30-0300/0310 CAN data directly. Which is even better than the 30-0334 OBDII interface.

    The LC-2 has ground offset issues; as it shares the analog ground and power ground through the same wire. Same issue as the MTX-L . Re-calibration can be useful. But, the LC-2 can't tell you when a sensor needs calibration, like a 30-0300/0334 ( which, also, can do free-air calibration ).

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    213
    True on the ground offset issues. I always use the serial port.

  6. #6
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    I hate innovative wideband. I've tuned hundred cars and I won't put up with it.

    anyone thats used an AEM and knows how to tune cars will also hate Innovtive's dumb setup

    A guy came to to me couple months ago with R32 GT-R skyline RB26dett Haltech p&p ecu, put a single greddy turbo on it....

    Had an Innovative wideband. Holy crap I suffered through it for the first 20 minutes then told him to get an AEM and let me know

  7. #7
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by kingtal0n View Post
    I hate innovative wideband. I've tuned hundred cars and I won't put up with it.

    anyone thats used an AEM and knows how to tune cars will also hate Innovtive's dumb setup

    A guy came to to me couple months ago with R32 GT-R skyline RB26dett Haltech p&p ecu, put a single greddy turbo on it....

    Had an Innovative wideband. Holy crap I suffered through it for the first 20 minutes then told him to get an AEM and let me know
    What don't you like about them? The only problem I had way finding a serial to USB adapter that worked. Ground offset issues when using analog yes but that's why I switched to serial.

    What else am I missing out on and not realizing?
    Thanks

  8. #8
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    I already created a bunch of these old perhaps similar responses but heres another one anyways. its 3 main point 123. as usual no spell check, minimal punctuation informal (internet cats)

    1. startup delay time is terrible. You wait 30 seconds with an innovative. AEM because of the sensor they use is around 5-10 seconds I never measured but its like 1/3 the time. He had wired it to 12v so everytime I want to flash the ecu or anytime the engine stops the wideband reset 30 seconds delay. Half of the time was spent waiting for the wideband.

    2. Calibration is questionable attribute, that is added on. What air are you really calibrating to? You will never be really sure if the wideband is telling the full truth or not.
    Real "wideband" are very expensive, the true gas analyzing equipment etc units are warranted when engines very expensive. If the engine is cheap enough, it is ok to rely on entry level wideband option. It is really our only best friend in the car world from diy perspective, and an essential center piece of tuning information that we rely on heaaavilyy. So you will use the 'best one'.

    There is no benefit to calibrating I can see. except to waste time trying to find "normal" air to calibrate to. What mountain peak will you choose and how will you know if the computer is interpreting that exact point you have chosen without a secondary confirmation wideband?

    So really with an LC-1 you still need the AEM, 3 feet down the tube to confirm the LC-1 is working right. Or a dynometer wideband. right, a second opinion now is needed because you went and 'calibrated' something who knows what. In the case of used sensors which- once you are at the point you have 3 used sensors sitting around. You may realize you could have just got the AEM and kept the 1 sensor in the there and been done. The approach is different if you plan to tune everything yourself. In that case, you will experience the LC-1 and then try the AEM eventually and either notice the incredible difference, or if you are not sensitive to the changes you will not notice.

    if you trust the thing and its brand new sensor. Lets say ok, I did free air standing here in the parking lot. And I assume the wideband is working and its brand new.
    Indeed, if you can keep the motor running for 30+ seconds, you can maybe start to tune the engine.
    But, 3. the reaction is slow, the numbers changed poorly. The reason I can say that in a judgemental fashion is because I have experience with many different kinds of instrumentation designed to amplify signals for people to 'view' properly, and the performance of what I am seeing leaves something to be desired, if in comparison to the AEM surely, but also just in general. I find the AEM sensor is a much more capable, responsive display behavior, with a proper reaction of the signal displayed from the gauge, when I expect air fuel to change, and anticipates distance of exhaust sensor placement from the cylinder head in terms of time t transient delay I pay close attention and tune based on data often after the engine has already 'created' the data, tuning is sometimes consciously aware of around 450milliseconds to 550milliseconds at 900rpm on a warmed turbine but could be 1000ms or 1200ms on a quiet cold freshly started engine at 10*C in a reasonable downpipe placement (3 feet from the turbine) at low rpm. When you want to tune those regions just after a cold start and you are waiting 30 seconds to even just start using the wideband, it isn't really helpful now is it. Key 12v is for installs that are finished, done, tuned. Not a tuner's friend, for a person that just wants a wideband and isn't really using it the way a tuner would like to most of the time. And so now you have to special wire it to have constant power, and then they tell you don't run the wideband without running the engine also. So now you have a sensor with constant power and the engine isn't running all the time, how long will it last like that? I am sure 30 seconds won't hurt but seriously how does somebody wind up in this position to begin with?

    Basically it behaves poorly compared to the other gauge units (99% AEM) I can't remember the names of any other oddballs and we always used the dyno anyways before any final high number was appreciated. Actually I do recall autometer's strange dial gauge was useless to me. I forced myself to use that but lol at the needle approach. Once you get used to the AEM's entry level cheapest $120 NEW sensor behavior its hard to use the innovative, or that autometer style, or to tell the customer hey btw pls change this critical part that is "working fine". I do warn them if the build isn't started but many people already built the thing and are now just looking for someone to finally tune it so they already bought the sensor.

    so, 1 2 3

    also lol @ ground offset and serial. Serially keep it simple IMO
    Last edited by kingtal0n; 12-17-2018 at 08:17 PM. Reason: dont tell anybody you are using serial

  9. #9
    Senior Tuner cobaltssoverbooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    4,452
    What a joke... innovate uses the same Bosch lsu 4.2 and 4.9 sensors that aem and other companies do. The 4.9 is the better unit unit to run if you get options. This is because the 4.2 uses reference air as a calibration target and the 4.9 uses reference current as a calibration target. Since calibration air changes you can see why Bosch redesigned the sensor to reference off of current instead of a constantly changing reference air. This is why the previous poster has complaints.. likely doesnt understand widebands enough to know exactly why he is experiencing the things he has issues with. Also, provided little to no proof in backing up his claims.
    Will both models work? Yes, and both work well when calibrated correctly.
    Why the varying wait times at startup? It's reserved for sensor circuit checks, element temperature control, etc. They all have different algorithms as to when they are deemed ready based on manufacture test settings for a gauge restart. Different companies, different coding and paramaters.
    Wiring is also critical to that delay people complain about. Wire to the wrong feed signals and you end up cycling the shit out of a gauge and being forced to sit through it's wait times and coded startup times.

    Personally after using my aem eugo for 6 years I prefer my innovate sensors because I can monitor them over a can network and make adjustments to the internal calibration through innovate sensor software. To me it's a benefit because I know how to use the innovate options for my personal advantage. I currently purchase the lsu 4.9 versions to help ward off the free air calibration shift that Bosch has been trying to avoid.

    Choose one of the common manufactures:
    Aem eugo
    Innovate mtxl or lm2
    Daytona sensor systems

    Any of these three will do everything you need them too and accurately. Pay attention to the installation Instructions, read up on how to properly transform a wideband channel in hptuners, and if you don't have the pro edition read on how to use an egr port as a signal source for the scanner. You do this and you will be fine.
    Last edited by cobaltssoverbooster; 12-17-2018 at 10:35 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    all I see is bunch of excuses for innovative being terrible.

    It doesn't matter whether I have a PhD in the field or if I am a typical consumer. Experience is the same.

    My suggestions are based on what I've seen. Here is what I see, the practical application is:
    A typical buyer knows nothing of these "algorithms" does not know much about "shielding" and "ground offset". They are ignorant of frequency interface, transient delay, the whole thing is a mysterious soup. 95% of typical buyers just want to plug in 3 wires and done. 3 wires and its good for 5-10 years with gasoline if installed correctly, it boots up in 5 seconds and responds the way you need it to.

    If you are one of the 5% of power users that needs to send his wideband data over some kinda of network to 3 other super computers to tune the car and you have a degree in electrical engineering so you can diagnose and propagate the poorly conspired conglomerate that is what innovative calls a wideband sensor... then by all means....

  11. #11
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    213
    Interesting information. I really don't have a start up delay on mine though. Maybe six or eight Mississippi's. I do like how I can configure the sensor and I guess I didn't have hard facts on free air calibrating but it's always given me peace of mind. I do have a hard time understanding how inaccurate it can be compared to AEM though when there using the same sensor? This discussion makes me want to buy one and hook them both up to compare. My Innovative is coming up on 3 - 4 years now. I'm putting together a motor for my brothers Ford truck and need to adjust parameters once completed. If the AEM proves that much better I'll remove the innovative and install it in his F150.

  12. #12
    Senior Tuner cobaltssoverbooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    4,452
    Same oem Bosch sensor. I don't know how you think they are so different when the damn components are so similar they post the same voltage scales in the manuals. PHD or not your just dragging the hell out the analitics of the industries leading wideband manufactures. Its an engine not a space x rocket with top of the line sensors and computing.

    I tune to the tenth of an afr because that's where my accuracy vs performance gain tapers off. The variances of engine load makes it hard to tune in a hundreth of an afr. Any of the mentioned sensors will outperform the needs of a tuner. Your PHD doesn't mean diddly shit in the land of limited accuracy.
    Last edited by cobaltssoverbooster; 12-18-2018 at 02:16 AM.

  13. #13
    Advanced Tuner Billf6531's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    605
    Just another data point.

    I've used the Spartan2 for quite a few years. https://www.14point7.com/

    Dynojet sells a cylinder of test gas to confirm the accuracy of a wideband. The shop I do some tuning at has a tank of it. I used to test the w/band each time I used it. Never varied in accuracy. I no longer test it each time. The transform for the Spartan2 is the PLX settings.
    Best regards,
    Bill
    Silver 2003 C5 roadster, M6, Euro red/amber tails, Z06 Ti mufflers, Z06 2 cat H-pipe, Z06 airbox, and HPTuners s/w - available to any Corvette or other GM vehicle in Calgary, and also for Ford and Dodge products, including Cummins

  14. #14
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    aw sorry pls dont get mad

    this isn't about the sensor obviously. This is about two different companies version of the same thing, a gauge. And performance of the gauge is dependent on the controller. The controller is a microprocessor, or several. Usually there are "IC" components mixed in with the microprocessor. The performance of the innovative microprocessor is probably the real issue.

    I can tell the difference at the gauge between the two. If you took their names off I could tell which was the innovative by the behavior of the gauge.
    The innovative always seemed sluggish and unsettled to me.

    I owned the original Innovative unit, LC-1 I think, it was 2002 or 2005 when widebands first came out. It had electrical issues, would blow when the car cranked on several cars and innovative kept fixing them for free just send it back.

    Electrical isn't easy. I can tell they just barely have a marketable item and somehow managed to keep people fooled with the calibration nonsense that AEM never heard of lol.

  15. #15
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Billf6531 View Post
    Just another data point.

    I've used the Spartan2 for quite a few years. https://www.14point7.com/

    Dynojet sells a cylinder of test gas to confirm the accuracy of a wideband. The shop I do some tuning at has a tank of it. I used to test the w/band each time I used it. Never varied in accuracy. I no longer test it each time. The transform for the Spartan2 is the PLX settings.
    See. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Things can get way out of hand complicated with widebands for what most people really want/need is just a 3-wires done gauge.

    The minute you start talkin' bout tanks of compressed gas and laser calibration you could be already stepping off the dyno with the car already dialed in

    because secondary dyno wideband verification is worth 1000% more than any calibration effort,

    its reserved for absolutely $$$ installs as I am sure I mentioned. Engine is $547,144.00 then you can use a $7274.16 gas analyzer tool and $58,475 dynometer till ur hearts pounding

  16. #16
    You up on that mountain again Kingtalon?

  17. #17
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    Quote Originally Posted by 85K5Jake View Post
    You up on that mountain again Kingtalon?
    Damn not trying to be. Sorry if it seems like that for whatever reason.

    Just plain common sense I am using here, used both brands, understand control well enough to know what I am looking at.

    One consistently gives good results (aem)
    one consistently let me down over the years, every single time (innovative)

    Just my experience
    some people may not notice the inferior performance etc... but I do because that is how I tune most cars initially. I'm old school from back before we did the wideband logs etc... so gauge performance was all I had.

  18. #18
    I got an AEM just off of recommendations. Seems to work pretty well. It is fast to read and initially startup

  19. #19
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by momotunes View Post
    Interesting information. I really don't have a start up delay on mine though. Maybe six or eight Mississippi's. I do like how I can configure the sensor and I guess I didn't have hard facts on free air calibrating but it's always given me peace of mind. I do have a hard time understanding how inaccurate it can be compared to AEM though when there using the same sensor? This discussion makes me want to buy one and hook them both up to compare. My Innovative is coming up on 3 - 4 years now. I'm putting together a motor for my brothers Ford truck and need to adjust parameters once completed. If the AEM proves that much better I'll remove the innovative and install it in his F150.
    Okay. I just welded my sensor bung on the same pipe but opposite side. LC2 is in the 3 o'clock and AEM is in the 11 o'clock positions. I had my innovative controller to the blank switch on power on my BCM prior. For testing purposes I hooked both innovative and AEM straight to the battery with relay harness using switched on power from that power point on the BCM. My log with the innovative remained unchanged. What's interesting though is my data points are different between the two controllers. In my log, I've always had a brief moment in VVE mode only (open loop) where I would idle at 14.7 from idle and it jump up to 15.4 four for a brief moment when starting to accelerate (like maybe a second) before it would come down to 14.7. I always figured this was the way I had my EOIT set up as from idle to throttle I have a difference to reduce fuel smell at idle. Also, throttle response remained unchanged and no hickups. I lived with it because after that brief moment my AFR would return to 14.7 and my error percentage everywhere else was -0.6 to -1.1 with most being in the -0.6 range of course weather depending. Closed loop, I didn't have any issues. With my AEM, the lean transition wasn't there as much. It would jump up to 14.9 but my idle AFR showing 14.4 vs 14.7 with innovative. My error percentage on the AEM showed about the same everywhere else though but data point between hard acceleration areas showed more error percentage than the innovative. Otherwise I showing -0.9 minimum to -2.1. Yeah not exactly the same but similar. For testing purposes and since I'm putting one of these in my brothers F150 when I'm done with his motor I bought a replacement sensor to replace the four year old innovative sensor. Data remained the same which was good :-). I decided to retune using the AEM only. I didn't spend enough time tunning before weather got colder but hit most cells. The results turned out pretty good. My brief lean transition is pretty much gone now. I'm now jumping to 14.9 in that problem area.

    Another interesting note is rapid acceleration areas with the AEM was more consistent. LC2 varied between pulls but stayed pretty close. AEM pretty much had no changes.

    AEM Pros over innovative -
    Easier to install/wire
    Data is a little more consistent
    PE areas over multiple pulls remained consistent
    Can bus hookup is nice. My laptop only has two USB ports on opposite sides so only using one was nice.
    Startup time was a tad faster

    Innovative Pros over AEM
    I think the gauge looks better (I know, I know doesn't count)
    Programable and can calibrate sensor.
    Reliable (based on my experience. I hear a lot of people talking about widebanda only lasting a year at most.
    Cheaper
    More flexibility since controller is separate from gauge

    I ended up drinking the AEM kool-aid. I honestly cannot tell a difference in how the ride drives. They both feel the same and the resulting data changed on my tables is tiny but hey it was something. I'll use the LC2 for my brother's truck and when I buy another AEM to replace my portable innovative set up I'll follow up his tune with that to compare.

    I didn't rent a Dyno for this test so can't say how the results would have been but I feel like they would be similar. I'm not sure why the two reacted differently. I understand the innovative having it's own controller separate from the gauge but I feel that shouldn't matter since HPT is reading straight from the controller.

    Anyways these are just my observations.

  20. #20
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    Quote Originally Posted by momotunes View Post
    Okay. I just welded my sensor bung on the same pipe but opposite side. LC2 is in the 3 o'clock and AEM is in the 11 o'clock positions. I had my innovative controller to the blank switch on power on my BCM prior. For testing purposes I hooked both innovative and AEM straight to the battery with relay harness using switched on power from that power point on the BCM. My log with the innovative remained unchanged. What's interesting though is my data points are different between the two controllers. In my log, I've always had a brief moment in VVE mode only (open loop) where I would idle at 14.7 from idle and it jump up to 15.4 four for a brief moment when starting to accelerate (like maybe a second) before it would come down to 14.7. I always figured this was the way I had my EOIT set up as from idle to throttle I have a difference to reduce fuel smell at idle. Also, throttle response remained unchanged and no hickups. I lived with it because after that brief moment my AFR would return to 14.7 and my error percentage everywhere else was -0.6 to -1.1 with most being in the -0.6 range of course weather depending. Closed loop, I didn't have any issues. With my AEM, the lean transition wasn't there as much. It would jump up to 14.9 but my idle AFR showing 14.4 vs 14.7 with innovative. My error percentage on the AEM showed about the same everywhere else though but data point between hard acceleration areas showed more error percentage than the innovative. Otherwise I showing -0.9 minimum to -2.1. Yeah not exactly the same but similar. For testing purposes and since I'm putting one of these in my brothers F150 when I'm done with his motor I bought a replacement sensor to replace the four year old innovative sensor. Data remained the same which was good :-). I decided to retune using the AEM only. I didn't spend enough time tunning before weather got colder but hit most cells. The results turned out pretty good. My brief lean transition is pretty much gone now. I'm now jumping to 14.9 in that problem area.

    Another interesting note is rapid acceleration areas with the AEM was more consistent. LC2 varied between pulls but stayed pretty close. AEM pretty much had no changes.

    AEM Pros over innovative -
    Easier to install/wire
    Data is a little more consistent
    PE areas over multiple pulls remained consistent
    Can bus hookup is nice. My laptop only has two USB ports on opposite sides so only using one was nice.
    Startup time was a tad faster

    Innovative Pros over AEM
    I think the gauge looks better (I know, I know doesn't count)
    Programable and can calibrate sensor.
    Reliable (based on my experience. I hear a lot of people talking about widebanda only lasting a year at most.
    Cheaper
    More flexibility since controller is separate from gauge

    I ended up drinking the AEM kool-aid. I honestly cannot tell a difference in how the ride drives. They both feel the same and the resulting data changed on my tables is tiny but hey it was something. I'll use the LC2 for my brother's truck and when I buy another AEM to replace my portable innovative set up I'll follow up his tune with that to compare.

    I didn't rent a Dyno for this test so can't say how the results would have been but I feel like they would be similar. I'm not sure why the two reacted differently. I understand the innovative having it's own controller separate from the gauge but I feel that shouldn't matter since HPT is reading straight from the controller.

    Anyways these are just my observations.
    Bravo *claps hands* this is the first direct comparisons I've ever seen. thank you so much for doing this.

    observations
    -The controller is the issue. Its simply a programming thing. Innovative can't afford a team of amazing programmers... AEM has them basically on stand by, designing standalone and meth system etc

    -not sure I would say Innovative is more 'reliable' than AEM... what is that based on... Sure it can be reliable but is it "MORE" reliable than AEM? idts as its mostly the same hard parts

    -not sure the innovative being 'calibrateable' is such a good thing either, iirc its for wear/tear compensation and maybe altitude related... imo a gimmick since AEM take it anywhere and it lasts 10 years or w/e. and its such a hassle once the sensor is in the car and used, and then you aren't sure "is it calbrated right?" Hmm IDK Stop and check the plugs... Hmm Still cant really tell.. okay change the sensor change the plugs... lets go again... oh dear lord...
    Last edited by kingtal0n; 12-23-2018 at 11:21 AM.