New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings
08-25-2002, 02:57 PM
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings In the older version of AutoTap they looked like this in a log:
O2 B1S1 O2 B2S1
0.1 0.52
0.185 0.155
Now with version 2.02 I get:
O2 B1S1 O2 B2S1
1.8 1.1
0.6 3.6
And in the new format/values/whatever the number doesn't go higher than 3.5. Do I just need to adjust by a thousand?
O2 B1S1 O2 B2S1
0.1 0.52
0.185 0.155
Now with version 2.02 I get:
O2 B1S1 O2 B2S1
1.8 1.1
0.6 3.6
And in the new format/values/whatever the number doesn't go higher than 3.5. Do I just need to adjust by a thousand?
08-25-2002, 07:11 PM
#2
Staging Lane
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Dover, DE
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings Are you using windows version? If so, I have the same problem. Try using dos only. I'm getting a 3-3.6 avg. out of them. I was told today, that it is the windows version of Atap. It has numerous bugs. I'm going to try it too. Let me know how it works etc.
08-25-2002, 09:59 PM
#3
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings Same here. Problem is, I don't think the newest hardware works with the DOS software and the DOS version isn't avaiable for download on the website. I posted the situation on Autotaps forum but so far no response.
Doug
Doug
08-26-2002, 07:55 AM
#4
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings My impressions from the new version of AutoTap is that the developers violated every programming rule there is.
Found the DOS version on the diskette. It loads and runs fine in Windows XP and the O2 data is now correct. So we know it was not bad sensors. I've got the old cable. I was getting ready to upgrade the cable but I am holding off. I would upgrade the cable now only for EFILive or I may go with LS1Edit.
The DOS version was easier and it was faster to navigate and set up a configuration than the Windows version (1 or 2) is.
Found the DOS version on the diskette. It loads and runs fine in Windows XP and the O2 data is now correct. So we know it was not bad sensors. I've got the old cable. I was getting ready to upgrade the cable but I am holding off. I would upgrade the cable now only for EFILive or I may go with LS1Edit.
The DOS version was easier and it was faster to navigate and set up a configuration than the Windows version (1 or 2) is.
08-26-2002, 10:10 AM
#5
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings I know the site says you don't need the new cable to run 2.02, but I wonder if that's part of the problem. Are these problems there if you're running the new software and the new cable?
08-26-2002, 10:24 AM
#6
TECH Addict
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: College Station, Tx
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings This is a bug in Autotap, and no, the new cable does not solve it. I just started using EFI Live V5 and can say without hesitation it is a 1000x better package.
Chris
Chris
08-26-2002, 01:24 PM
#7
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings Jeff at Autotap said it was a bug and that they were working on a fix that will be out with the next upgrade "soon". I think that in the hurry to get a Windows version out, they missed a few things(sounds like Microsoft). Hopefully they will have the new update out quickly, but I'm willing to wait as long as it works properly. Just wished I was aware of the problems before I purchased it, I would have went with EFILive. It's a $120.00 upgrade and may do so yet.
Doug
Doug
Trending Topics
08-26-2002, 03:46 PM
#8
Oz Director
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings I'm a beta tester for EFILiveV5 here in Downunder and the product is solid as a rock, you willn't find any problem's like you are having with Autotap Version 2.
I offer my help but was refused by them, i was going to help for free, and still was told no.
Go luck to them to in the future in fixing it, they always seem to have a product with bug's in it, so it will be the same old Autotap with a new interface parameter's and that all, and i forgot you trusty bug related software.
Guy's jump over to the new EFILiveV5 you don't know what you are missing out on.
It have and excellent excel export to help you with tuning your car with LS1EDIT.
Here a photo of the export to excel.
<img src="http://holdenls1.com/Temp/Export.jpg" alt=" - " />
Here the actual file in Excel.
<img src="http://holdenls1.com/Temp/Export1.jpg" alt=" - " />
<small>[ August 26, 2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: SIKLS1 ]</small>
I offer my help but was refused by them, i was going to help for free, and still was told no.
Go luck to them to in the future in fixing it, they always seem to have a product with bug's in it, so it will be the same old Autotap with a new interface parameter's and that all, and i forgot you trusty bug related software.
Guy's jump over to the new EFILiveV5 you don't know what you are missing out on.
It have and excellent excel export to help you with tuning your car with LS1EDIT.
Here a photo of the export to excel.
<img src="http://holdenls1.com/Temp/Export.jpg" alt=" - " />
Here the actual file in Excel.
<img src="http://holdenls1.com/Temp/Export1.jpg" alt=" - " />
<small>[ August 26, 2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: SIKLS1 ]</small>
08-26-2002, 05:19 PM
#9
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings 1,0000 times better,
The claim is it was designed for LS1 GM cars, yet I notice most of the PIDs on the above, shows SAE generic PIDs and not GM's
Also the 02 state in the above are in mv,
so the sheet reports the engine is at idle, engine load is only 3%, LTFTs 6% lean but STFT say 0, but the AFR reports rich, but 1 cycle goes to 23.8:1, but 02s are 900 to over 1000 mvolts, but the MAF reports about 8 then jumps to 43 but was less then 900 RPMs, yet says load increased from 3 to 16 %, Yet MAP shows 98 but then goes to 34.
Yea, thats perfect <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Funny I tested this scanner brand again last week on my Corvette and it still would not stay connected and several of the PIDs were still not scaled for American cars correctly, we do not use metric here.
The claim is it was designed for LS1 GM cars, yet I notice most of the PIDs on the above, shows SAE generic PIDs and not GM's
Also the 02 state in the above are in mv,
so the sheet reports the engine is at idle, engine load is only 3%, LTFTs 6% lean but STFT say 0, but the AFR reports rich, but 1 cycle goes to 23.8:1, but 02s are 900 to over 1000 mvolts, but the MAF reports about 8 then jumps to 43 but was less then 900 RPMs, yet says load increased from 3 to 16 %, Yet MAP shows 98 but then goes to 34.
Yea, thats perfect <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Funny I tested this scanner brand again last week on my Corvette and it still would not stay connected and several of the PIDs were still not scaled for American cars correctly, we do not use metric here.
08-26-2002, 05:38 PM
#10
TECH Addict
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: College Station, Tx
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings 1000x is obviously a non-quantitative number - but to be more precise, I will just say it is much better than autotap.
I recently used it last weekend with the V2 autotap cable (Team ZR-1: were you perhaps using the V1 cable?) - update speed is about doubled, and the only connectivity issue I had was that the cable had to be plugged in after the car was turned in. other than that I never lost connectivity, had logging issues, etc.
One of the best features of this software is the summary table options available, which function much like a pivot table in excel. Additionally I understand that EFI Live will soon allow users to define their own calculated parameters from logged parameters, as well as perform averaging, etc. This would allow you to "log" gm/cyl, etc. directly - this is an amazing ability for the LS1 IMHO.
Chris Bennight
I recently used it last weekend with the V2 autotap cable (Team ZR-1: were you perhaps using the V1 cable?) - update speed is about doubled, and the only connectivity issue I had was that the cable had to be plugged in after the car was turned in. other than that I never lost connectivity, had logging issues, etc.
One of the best features of this software is the summary table options available, which function much like a pivot table in excel. Additionally I understand that EFI Live will soon allow users to define their own calculated parameters from logged parameters, as well as perform averaging, etc. This would allow you to "log" gm/cyl, etc. directly - this is an amazing ability for the LS1 IMHO.
Chris Bennight
08-27-2002, 02:14 AM
#11
Restricted User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings Hi John,
I know you're a lot smarter than the comments you posted make out. I think you know this already but I'll add this info for the benefit of others:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
so the sheet reports the engine is at idle, engine load is only 3%, LTFTs 6% lean but STFT say 0, but the AFR reports rich</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most anybody can see that the first 10 frames show the classic engine cranking then starting signature. No-one would attempt to use the readings from the fuel/02 sensors during that time.
Even the PCM bypasses ESC mode and is in open loop while cranking and immediately after starting.
You have said this yourself many times - the AFR is a commanded AFR not a reported AFR. The PCM will ALWAYS command a rich fuel setting at startup.
STFT will read 0 in open loop mode.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">but 1 cycle goes to 23.8:1, but 02s are 900 to over 1000 mvolts</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again it's due to cranking/starting the engine.
The 23.8:1 is a commanded value not a reported value.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> but the MAF reports about 8 then jumps to 43 but was less then 900 RPMs, yet says load increased from 3 to 16 %, Yet MAP shows 98 but then goes to 34. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously the throttle has been cracked open at that frame - because by the very next frame the engine speed has jumped 300 rpm's. The MAF will shows a momentary large increase as the intake manifold "uses" the air in the intake ducting.
Then you will see MAP drop as the engine speed causes more vacuum.
I can see no problem with those figures (but I will also add I am a computer programmer not an engine tuner - so just because I can't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one)
Also be careful how you analyse SIKLS1's data because SIKLS1 may or may not have a supercharger fitted. Sometimes he does sometimes he doesn't. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
John, something to try with Ease - log the first 50 frames of a cold crank and start on your Corvette and post the exported excel data similar to what SIKLS1 has done.
I would genuinely be interested to see the difference. I am not an engine tuner, you are, so you know more about this stuff than I do - I am always ready to learn something new.
Regards
Paul
I know you're a lot smarter than the comments you posted make out. I think you know this already but I'll add this info for the benefit of others:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
so the sheet reports the engine is at idle, engine load is only 3%, LTFTs 6% lean but STFT say 0, but the AFR reports rich</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most anybody can see that the first 10 frames show the classic engine cranking then starting signature. No-one would attempt to use the readings from the fuel/02 sensors during that time.
Even the PCM bypasses ESC mode and is in open loop while cranking and immediately after starting.
You have said this yourself many times - the AFR is a commanded AFR not a reported AFR. The PCM will ALWAYS command a rich fuel setting at startup.
STFT will read 0 in open loop mode.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">but 1 cycle goes to 23.8:1, but 02s are 900 to over 1000 mvolts</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again it's due to cranking/starting the engine.
The 23.8:1 is a commanded value not a reported value.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> but the MAF reports about 8 then jumps to 43 but was less then 900 RPMs, yet says load increased from 3 to 16 %, Yet MAP shows 98 but then goes to 34. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously the throttle has been cracked open at that frame - because by the very next frame the engine speed has jumped 300 rpm's. The MAF will shows a momentary large increase as the intake manifold "uses" the air in the intake ducting.
Then you will see MAP drop as the engine speed causes more vacuum.
I can see no problem with those figures (but I will also add I am a computer programmer not an engine tuner - so just because I can't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one)
Also be careful how you analyse SIKLS1's data because SIKLS1 may or may not have a supercharger fitted. Sometimes he does sometimes he doesn't. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
John, something to try with Ease - log the first 50 frames of a cold crank and start on your Corvette and post the exported excel data similar to what SIKLS1 has done.
I would genuinely be interested to see the difference. I am not an engine tuner, you are, so you know more about this stuff than I do - I am always ready to learn something new.
Regards
Paul
08-29-2002, 08:29 AM
#12
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings Well all is well again with the DOS version. Incorrect O2 sensor readings in AutoTap v2 make it useless.
So, with EFILive you get all the same logging features of AutoTap? You just need to upgrade the AutoTap to v2 and buy EFILive? That is another ~$275!
Do you get logging capabilities with LS1Edit?
So, with EFILive you get all the same logging features of AutoTap? You just need to upgrade the AutoTap to v2 and buy EFILive? That is another ~$275!
Do you get logging capabilities with LS1Edit?
08-29-2002, 10:33 AM
#13
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings On the www.starrperformance.com.au site you can get the upgrade registration for $120.00 if you already have Autotap v2.x stuff.
Doug
<small>[ August 29, 2002, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Jocko1960 ]</small>
Doug
<small>[ August 29, 2002, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Jocko1960 ]</small>
08-30-2002, 02:12 AM
#14
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Team ZR-1:
<strong>1,0000 times better,
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cool, but is that even a number? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> J/K
How much is EFI Live and who sells it? I don't have autotap or even a laptop yet. But it's the next couple of things on my list.
Derrick
<strong>1,0000 times better,
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cool, but is that even a number? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> J/K
How much is EFI Live and who sells it? I don't have autotap or even a laptop yet. But it's the next couple of things on my list.
Derrick
08-30-2002, 07:30 AM
#15
TECH Resident
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Richmond, VA Where fast cars, well......are hard to come by.
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings You don't need v2 hardware for efilive unless you want bi-directional controls. You can also order at www.autotap.com
08-31-2002, 10:19 AM
#16
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New AutoTap = different O2B1S1 readings The $120 is for the standard version. If you order the hardware upgrade from AutTap you can get the EFILive Pro version for $194.95. From what I can tell this may be the cheapest way to get EFILive with bi-directional capability.
