Help with AEM 0300 set up math

[2000ss]

I'm not sure how the same voltage could give you more accurate readings on Lambda or AFR. The Lambda formula is the same as the AFR formula divided by 14.65.

(2.3750xV+7.3125)/14.65 = 2.3750/14.64xV+7.3215/14.65 = 0.1621xV+0.4990

However the error will appear smaller in Lambda.

well i decided i might as well learn for both ways (lambda vs AFR) i set the lambda charts up the same way as i did the AFR chart's is this correct ? xl22.pngchart.pngerr xl2.pngxl2.png

[gtstorey]

You last image shows it missing a parenthesis, I don't know if that causes HPT any problems or not, since it should calculate fine without any parenthesis.

[2000ss]

lol i tried a log with both set up in my scanner and my afr error could be right car is showing its running lean by about 18% (i think thats what the 18% means) but the lambda is reading 1 and lambda error is reading -92 or -93 so i know that one is way off

i also swapped around the ground to the low reference ground on the AC port

i might see if i can change the polling speed of my scanner for the afr error because it seems a bit slower than the gauge itself





** so i was just playing with the scanner options and when i change the value from 14.6 to 14.7 i believe it may be closer in line with the gauge i have to double check but my stoich in my ecu is set to 14.63 should i change it also or am i chasing my tail ?

[gtstorey]

You likely need to carry these out to more decimal places. Make sure your channels has enough decimals also.

It's hard to tell what is going on without seeing the actual readings (AC Voltage and Commanded Values) that are being used to get "18%" "1" and -92 or -93". Pick out some points and post them.

You can put the formulas into a spread sheet and use the voltage readings and commanded values to check the calculations.

[2000ss]

ok i will be on lunch in the next 45 mins so i will go for a drive and log

ill double check my all the settings i have while i work

[2000ss]

cc.hpl

i didnt have a chance to log until after work but here is a quick scan

[gtstorey]

Can't check your math without the math parameters being saved and posted. Probably need to post your saved graphs as well.

The quick checks that I did indicates the narrow bands and ac voltage are following each other. It also indicates that it going lean every time you are getting on the throttle. I don't know what you are doing as far as dialing things in, but you don't need to go heavy on the throttle until you get things closer.

Also, this file is not registering anything but a 1.00 lambda commanded. So any error calculations may not be correct, depending on how everthing else is set up.

[Hondaeater]

cc.hpl

i didnt have a chance to log until after work but here is a quick scan

In the scan, yep things need calibrating. It is working fine but need to verify to your gauge's reading in car.

Pic refers to 8 min 50 sec in log.... 15.06/14.63 = 1.029 Lambda and yep that works out in scanner so verify to what your gauge is reading please.

[Hondaeater]

You need to download and put these into user math section in Tools.

In case you don't know how, download them into a folder of choice. Go into Scanner and Tools tab>>Math Parameter> scroll down and pick a User Math # that is blank inside expression. When you select a blank one, the Open Math parameter folder is not greyed out anymore. Click it migrate to the downloaded User maths from this post and open it and it populates the User math. The name should show up, but if not label in that field.
There is an AC AEM AFR and AC AFR error maths
There is an AC AEM EQ ratio and AC EQ error maths.
The unit for each of these is One ()
Hope this helps.

[2000ss]

Can't check your math without the math parameters being saved and posted. Probably need to post your saved graphs as well.

The quick checks that I did indicates the narrow bands and ac voltage are following each other. It also indicates that it going lean every time you are getting on the throttle. I don't know what you are doing as far as dialing things in, but you don't need to go heavy on the throttle until you get things closer.

Also, this file is not registering anything but a 1.00 lambda commanded. So any error calculations may not be correct, depending on how everthing else is set up.

yes i seen on my gauge the afr would go up in the 20's when i would get on the gas pass 40%

You need to download and put these into user math section in Tools.

In case you don't know how, download them into a folder of choice. Go into Scanner and Tools tab>>Math Parameter> scroll down and pick a User Math # that is blank inside expression. When you select a blank one, the Open Math parameter folder is not greyed out anymore. Click it migrate to the downloaded User maths from this post and open it and it populates the User math. The name should show up, but if not label in that field.
There is an AC AEM AFR and AC AFR error maths
There is an AC AEM EQ ratio and AC EQ error maths.
The unit for each of these is One ()
Hope this helps.

so do you want me just to use these math equations instead of the ones i made ?

[gtstorey]

If it was me, I would load them and compare to the ones you made so you can see any mistakes you made. Pay attention to all of the settings, not just the math equation.

[2000ss]

If it was me, I would load them and compare to the ones you made so you can see any mistakes you made. Pay attention to all of the settings, not just the math equation.

I think i messed up a couple Spaces and parentheses like you said in a earlier post because hondaeater's math made everything come together accurate gauge and scanner better than i had it

[Hondaeater]

Are they not the same? Run both, yours and mine and see if same results and then compare all of them to what's on your gauge. We're just trying to make sure that what's on the gauge and what's coming through your scanner is the same values. Sounded like you were having some different results higher lean afr on the scanner and normal on your gauge.

[2000ss]

Are they not the same? Run both, yours and mine and see if same results and then compare all of them to what's on your gauge. We're just trying to make sure that what's on the gauge and what's coming through your scanner is the same values. Sounded like you were having some different results higher lean afr on the scanner and normal on your gauge.

mines are not dead accurate i keep seeing about .4-1.2 afr change when my values are entered without the spaces and parentheses