engine oil temp sensor

[Skeeve]

Thank you Greg and Skeeve for your summation. I appreciate it.

 

Can I throw a wrench into this discussion? One which will no doubt get this topic to the magic 60 pages Greg is hoping for..

 

I'm installing a factory race kit (1200 Sport) which includes a remapped ECU. What impact would these engine temp sensor modifications have on that mapping?

 

Not much, likely: the 1200 Sport has a closed-loop ECU iirc, so it'll automagically compensate for the lean-idle after a hard run that was the entire basis for Ratchet's embarking upon his experiments. It's already fueled leaner than the V11 engines by virtue of its later production, so I doubt you have the over-rich at startup mapping problem that plagues the V11 in cold climates that is the basis for substituting the solid brass holder.

 

In all, I think you should ignore this whole thread...

[Greg Field]

Good luck, Greg.

 

 

And the BQ curve goes vertical yet again.

 

I have already pointed out where you said you had a problem.

[Greg Field]

In all, I think you should ignore this whole thread...

 

Good advice for us all. Onward to 90 pages!

[Greg Field]

BTW, just to add fuel to the flames and confirm the foolishness of the square-tire, boxed-in-by-need-to-be-outside-the-boxism on display here, a customer with a Quota called today wondering what he could do to get his brass temp-sensor holder to retain more heat to return better fuel mileage. The sensor holder on his Quota was consistently 25+ degrees COLDER than even the fins on his bike's right head was. I pointed out to him what is so obvious to those who understand what is going on here: "Wrap some duct tape around it. Brass is a really good conductor of heat, and it has cooling fins." One of those asinine and smarmy winky emoticons is justified here, but I'm just not wired like those who so routinely over-use them.

[dlaing]

Thank you Greg and Skeeve for your summation. I appreciate it.

 

Can I throw a wrench into this discussion? One which will no doubt get this topic to the magic 60 pages Greg is hoping for..

 

I'm installing a factory race kit (1200 Sport) which includes a remapped ECU. What impact would these engine temp sensor modifications have on that mapping?

 

We'd really have to see the maps in the ECU. Is your kit's map similar to an MGS01 map???? Do you even retain the O2 sensor????

If it is like the MGS01 the following may help you.

As I posted earlier, the MGS01 gets no variation in fueling from the engine temp sensor, once it reaches a warm enough operating temperature.

See image:

 

In your case trial and error is best!

Ignore the theories (except for mine )

[Guest ratchethack]

I have already pointed out where you said you had a problem.

And yet, you STILL can't find one example of a mention of a PROBLEM that I ever had with the way my Guzzi ran from the get-go with the OE sensor/holder without taking my words out of context -- can you, Greg?

 

Let me guess -- though you've repeated your mischaracterization of my words many many times here, you STILL don't have the time, and you STILL won't make the effort to back up your false accusation with a direct quote?

[raz]

I shouldn't post in this thread but I stumbled over a relevant little piece of information while looking for something else.

 

 

This is from my Sporti/Daytona RS/Centauro WHB. The text about part 6A vs 6B (brass vs plastic) indicates that the change to plastic was not for cost reduction but rather some kind of emission issue.

 

Also, at one place they actually make a difference between the Sporti having an oil temp sensor while the V10 (with a sensor similar to your V11's) is called engine temp sensor. So they were not quite as confused as I thought a couple of hundred pages ago.

[Guest ratchethack]

I shouldn't post in this thread but I stumbled over a relevant little piece of information while looking for something else.

 

 

This is from my Sporti/Daytona RS/Centauro WHB. The text about part 6A vs 6B (brass vs plastic) indicates that the change to plastic was not for cost reduction but rather some kind of emission issue.

 

Also, at one place they actually make a difference between the Sporti having an oil temp sensor while the V10 (with a sensor similar to your V11's) is called engine temp sensor. So they were not quite as confused as I thought a couple of hundred pages ago.

Interesting, Raz. Makes perfect sense.

 

From my testing of the brass holder alongside the OE plastic holder this Winter, I found that since the brass sensor body is 1.4 oz of almost solid brass, and the brass holder adds another 2 oz., the entire 3.4 oz lump takes far longer to come up to something close to temp equilibrium with the head -- particularly compared with the 1 g. low mass GM/NAPA Echlin sensor/Delrin holder. In cooler ambient temps, this time interval stretches out considerably. The entire time it takes to warm up the 3.4 oz of brass, the sensor is telling the ECU that the engine is still not warmed up, and the ECU is still sending fat pulsewidth signals to the FI. Running over-rich over a prolonged startup interval = Not good for startup emissions testing (or mileage).

 

WRT the name change from "oil temp sensor" to "engine temp sensor", I reckon the significance here (or lack thereof) could very well have been due to a different supplier, a different translator, a different vintage grappa in the workshop, &/or in Tech Pubs -- or some combo of all of the above.

[Greg Field]

And yet, you STILL can't find one example of a mention of a PROBLEM that I ever had with the way my Guzzi ran from the get-go with the OE sensor/holder without taking my words out of context -- can you, Greg?

 

Let me guess -- though you've repeated your mischaracterization of my words many many times here, you STILL don't have the time, and you STILL won't make the effort to back up your false accusation with a direct quote?

 

 

QUote Ratchethack from 2007:

 

"Getting back to the topic of the thread, I've started to focus on this because I think I've got some symptoms of less than accurate sensor operation, per this thread and many previous posts on this."

 

You are saying there's a problem. I have provided no context. Therefore, I cannot have taken this out of context. QED.

 

Shall I find another? Probably, you have gone back and "sanitized" your other posts but missed this one. Bloviate on, though. We need 90 pages!

[Guest ratchethack]

QUote Ratchethack from 2007:

 

"Getting back to the topic of the thread, I've started to focus on this because I think I've got some symptoms of less than accurate sensor operation, per this thread and many previous posts on this."

 

You are saying there's a problem. I have provided no context. Therefore, I cannot have taken this out of context. QED.

 

Shall I find another? Probably, you have gone back and "sanitized" your other posts but missed this one. Bloviate on, though. We need 90 pages!

Hmmmmm. Let's see here.

 

My comment was specifically referring to the operation of the sensor.

 

Nothing there wotsoever about any "problem" with the way my Guzzi was running.

 

You say you provided no context, therefore you cannot have taken it out of context?!?!

 

How EXACTLY does that work, Greg?

 

Why would you so conspicuously choose not to provide the link with the quote, as I have done above quoting you? And why ALSO -- and so conspicuously (Part II) -- neglect to provide the date -- so the alleged quote can't be traced back for verification in its full original context?

 

Enquiring minds. . . (well, you know). . .

 

By all means, do try again -- this time try a little harder, and more honestly, por favor.

[GuzziMoto]

It seems that in one post, RH, you say that the stock sensor (with and/or with the brass holder) reads too hot. Then in another post, like this latest one, you say it runs too cold. Which is it?

I would agree that with the brass holder it would slightly slow down response, but that might be more due to the cooling effect of the brass holder then the mass of it. Brass conducts heat pretty well, that is why it cools down the sensor. That is why Greg has insulated his brass holder and tells others to do the same. Something that doesn't conduct heat well is often called an insulator.

At the risk of Ratchets wraith, I offer this.

Improving the accuracy of the temp reading is easily done with a few simple steps.

1. Improve the flow of heat from the head to the sensor. This can be accomplished with direct contact, although that may lead to issues with different expansion rates of the different materials. You could also fill the gap with a medium (like thermal paste)that conducts heat better then air. This is easy because most solids and semi-solids conduct heat better then air. Air does not conduct heat that well. In fact, it is often used as a component in insulation.

2. Minimize the loss of heat thru any avenue except the path between the sensor and the head, the very same path that you improved in step one. This is the part where people like Greg insulate their brass holders. It is also the one area where the plastic holder is superior.

 

Now I will duck and cover.

[GuzziMoto]

Getting back to the topic of the thread,

 

I've started to focus on this because I think I've got some symptoms of less than accurate sensor operation, per this thread and many previous posts on this.

 

Seems to me the brass holder solves the problem of the broken stock holder, but without something between the thermistor and the base of the recess in the holder, the key operating principle of faulty temp pickup will be the same with both the plastic and brass holder.

 

So if the original plastic holder is still intact, wouldn't the best approach be to simply take out the thermistor/sensor and dab in a dollop of thermo-goop and/or solid part to fill in the aforementioned gap and screw it back in, thereby solving the innacurate temp read problem?

 

Anyone out there take this approach?

 

Another thing: Would not anti-seize or thermal compound have a tendency to boil off, and/or leak out with thermal cycling over time? Never used anything like a thermal compound before -- it would seem that the stuff would be formulated to resist this, but not knowing a thing about it, I gotta ask.

 

TIA

Good lord RH. Here is the freakin post the quote came from.

Even I know what you said.

You also said before this that you have never heard of an issue with a V11 overheating. But that is another can of worms.

[Guest ratchethack]

It seems that in one post, RH, you say that the stock sensor (with and/or with the brass holder) reads too hot. Then in another post, like this latest one, you say it runs too cold. Which is it?

OMG GMoto, you're still completely lost, continuing to demonstrate an extremely primitive comprehension of heat flow.

 

For 3 months and over 100 pages now, we've been discussing LAG TIME in response of the OE sensor to changes in head temps. It's not simply a question of "too hot" or "too cold". Accuracy in monitoring head temp depends on temp changes IN BOTH DIRECTIONS -- UP AND DOWN -- on a timeline, as clearly explained ad nauseum.

 

I can't be bothered anymore trying to start over with you from square 1. You're on your own.

[Motomonster]

Hmmmmm. Let's see here.

 

My comment was specifically referring to the operation of the sensor.

 

Nothing there wotsoever about any "problem" with the way my Guzzi was running.

 

You say you provided no context, therefore you cannot have taken it out of context?!?!

 

How EXACTLY does that work, Greg?

 

Why would you so conspicuously choose not to provide the link with the quote, as I have done above quoting you? And why ALSO -- and so conspicuously (Part II) -- neglect to provide the date -- so the alleged quote can't be traced back for verification in its full original context?

 

Enquiring minds. . . (well, you know). . .

 

By all means, do try again -- this time try a little harder, and more honestly, por favor.

 

How do you experience "symptoms of less than accurate sensor operation" unless it was detected in the "way [your] Guzzi was running?" Did you remove the sensor and test it independently? What, aside from experiencing a problem, would prompt you to do this?

 

In any case, what is the genius-level distinction? That your Guzzi is one entity and the sensor is a separate entity and therefore a problem with the sensor is not a problem with your Guzzi? What about the ECU map that was made with the sensor? Is the ECU also a separate entity? How many things can we remove without actually getting to the bike proper?

 

Or, are you simply refusing to classify the above as a "problem" and are thus:

[Guest ratchethack]

Good lord RH. Here is the freakin post the quote came from.

Even I know what you said.

Do you have a point to make here, GMoto?

 

You evidently don't know what I said.

 

If you're trying to insinuate that I said I had a PROBLEM with the way my Guzzi ran a year ago, I don't b'lieve you (or Greg, or anyone else) can make that point from what I actually said -- since I clearly never said it.