Acceleration Enrichment Map-2004 Rosso Corsa

[Yam350]

Sorry to go slightly off piste…….would there be any benefit to retro fitting a lambda sensor to an earlier model. I’m asking as I’ve bought a mistral crossover which has a lambda sensor port (currently blanked )

[audiomick]

7 hours ago, Yam350 said:

... any benefit to retro fitting a lambda sensor to an earlier model....

The 15M ECU can, as far as I know, not take an input from a Lambda sensor. If anyone knows different, please say so.

That means, to have any benefit from the Lambda sensor, you would have to change to the 15RC ECU from the later models.

 

EDIT: no, wait, there is one possible benefit. If you were to want to start modifying your map, the ability to mount a Lambda sensor would make it possible to use a Lambda mapper to see what effect any changes have had.

[Lucky Phil]

6 hours ago, audiomick said:

The 15M ECU can, as far as I know, not take an input from a Lambda sensor. If anyone knows different, please say so.

That means, to have any benefit from the Lambda sensor, you would have to change to the 15RC ECU from the later models.

 

EDIT: no, wait, there is one possible benefit. If you were to want to start modifying your map, the ability to mount a Lambda sensor would make it possible to use a Lambda mapper to see what effect any changes have had.

Yes Mick you would need the 15RC ecu to run Lambda. Strange how my bike runs and rides perfectly without Lambda as did the WSB race bike I worked on at one point. On the WSB spec bike one of the mapping mods needed after the usual dyno tuning to Lambda output was for the rider who in various areas needed something other than what was best torque/stio correct to get the throttle feel he needed.

Phil   

[Meinolf]

Hi,

as rightly pointed out the 15M has neither the internal connection from the Lambda voltage signal pin to the PCB nor the code neccessary to process the signal if it were to arrive. And the RC code can't be uploaded to the 15M w/o bricking it.

But, the real problem lies elsewhere. The V11 engine was not designed with a Lambda of 1 as permanent value over a range of rpm/TPS in mind. It runs quite well with Lambda 1, but even slight changes to 1.03 are instantly and clearly noticeable. Not favorably, mind. The CARC models in contrast work well and one doesn't notice the same degradation. During my tests I oftentimes had entire regions of Lambda exceeding 1.1 without even noticing it, only the logged data did show it.

So, upgrading to closed loop absolutely requires a cylinder selective tuning of the fuel values to achieve a synchronized Lambda no higher than 1 on both cylinders. Which in my case extended over many months of datalogging and analysis.

Also consider the reason why a constant Lambda 1 and there closed loop operations were introduced before starting this journey. Emission control was the driver. The catalysator works best at 1 and has the highest conversion rate. If the cylinders are selectively tuned anyway to allow a closed loop operation, then closed loop is not required and the catalysator isn't there anyway.

Cheers
Meinolf