Jump to content
BMWSportTouring
roger 04 rt

Introduction and O2 Question

Recommended Posts

legarem

Hi Roger

 

Every time I do a change I reset the Motronic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Then after removing the second IAT sensor, you should ride for a tank of fuel before assessing pinging, it may improve. Or, since there's no real harm to keeping the second IAT, if you have it located in the airbox or intake, you might just want to enjoy your success.

 

Since you're riding at an AFR of 12.9, which is lambda=0.88, you need at least 12% more fuel than the fuel table specifies. If you also run fuel with ethanol, you need an additional 4%. This means you want 16% more fuel than your stock fuel table is programmed for to get to 12.9:1 AFR.

 

Your 3.5 bar regulator (8%) and second IAT (6%) add 14% so you get to about the right point. Your Motronic only needs to add the remaining 2% through adaptation.

 

Why not just enjoy the ride now?

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legarem

Why not just enjoy the ride now?

 

Hi Roger

 

No ethanol gas here unless we really want to choose this gas on some gas stations. My bike has 101 000 kms and fuel tank hoses looked like new last year.

 

As everything now works as it never worked and I will not know why the pinging is gone. That's what i'll do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legarem

With an AFR of 12.9, I do 42 MPG. That's great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesW

Hi Marc,

I could live with that mpg and it is about the same as I get at 12.9 which is 41 mpg.

 

Thanks for that info.

Edited by JamesW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legarem

Just done 49,44 MPG today with a tank, two on the bike on country roads at speeds between 60 - 75 MPH. Temperature was 85 F

 

I'm amazed !

 

just some rare little hints of high speed pinging. Motor is strong and so smooth. I'm now really in love with this bike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Mixture Adaptation, Short/Long Term Trims, ECU Learning Exposed by the GS-911!

 

The Short Version

The GS-911 now reports long term trims for the BMSK which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the BMW fueling strategy includes Long Term Trims, learned in Closed Loop by using the stock O2 sensor, which are applied to the entire fuel table. This means that the ECU learns about all fueling errors and most attempts to alter fueling on a stock bike. It learns about fueling changes (other than those made to the O2 sensor) and brings them back to stock.

 

 

The Long Version

For the past four years I've been explaining how the Motronic, BMSK and BMSX use the narrowband O2 (lambda) sensor to control combustion AFR in the Closed Loop area of the fuel table to accurate achieve lambda=1 (14.7:1 AFR for gasoline). It also allows those ECUs to learn how much correction is required throughout the Close Loop area and to therefore "learn" long term correction factors (mixture adaptations) that are applied throughout the fuel map--at idle, acceleration, all the way to full throttle--all the time.

 

Measurements reported throughout this thread have demonstrated the effects of this "learning" and many readers here have come to realize that our BMW motorcycle ECUs perform this powerful function. It allows the ECUs to adapt to changing conditions in the engine as it wears, as the fuel injectors and air filter accumulate deposits, imperfections and errors in all sensors, voltage deviations (even due to a failed alternator), fuel pressure changes, and even adapt to gasoline with ethanol.

 

This mixture adaptation also limits the ways in which you can alter fueling: modify the air temperature sensor and the ECU corrects fueling. Change the fuel pressure regulator and it learns about and fixes that too. Even modify values in the ECU fuel table in the onboard chip, and it corrects for that. However, alter the O2 sensor for richer or leaner fueling and the ECU obligingly shifts the entire fuel table automatically. (Another way to alter fueling successfully is to disconnect the O2 sensors & add a piggy back controller. This approach puts the ECU into a Limp-Home mode.)

 

In spite of the Bosch and BMW documentation mentioning mixture adaptation and long term trims, and even given the measurements of it shown in this thread and others, there are still many riders who aren't fully convinced. After all, until now there haven't been any gauges or displays which explicitly show the long term and short term trims at the heart of this "learning" capability.

 

Recently Hexcode SA, maker of the powerful GS-911 diagnostic tool, have added new realtime values to the long list reported for the BMSK ECU. In addition to the short term trims shown for the Closed Loop area (Lambda Correction Factors 1&2), the GS-911 now reports four new long term trims: Additive Trims 1 & 2 and Multiplicative Trims 1 & 2. The "1" trims are for the right cylinder and the "2" trims are for the left cylinder.

 

A colleague in the UK who has an R1200GS and owns a GS-911 and dual LM-2s (which can record AFR data and other info for both cylinders) with Wideband O2 sensors added to each exhaust. He took a ride the other day and sent in the LM-2 and GS-911 data, which includes a 13 second wide-open-throttle (WOT) run in 6th gear. This 6th gear "pull” shows for certain that long term trims exist and that they are applied to open loop fueling, right up to WOT.

 

Have a look at the table below. The data clearly shows the BMSK going open loop (highlighted in yellow) where the lambda control factors set to 1 (set to 1 there is no increase or decrease in fuel due to the immediate values of the O2 sensor) and clearly shows the application of the Long Term Multiplicative Trim at WOT. To understand the Multiplicative Trim, the number in the Injection Time column is multiplied by the number in the Multiplicative Trim column. Taking the first highlighted row, the 10.56 mS injection time is multiplied by 1.12 for the right cylinder and by 1.03 for the left cylinder resulting in Injection Times of 11.8 mS for the right cylinder and 10.9 mS for the left cylinder. In other words, the long term trim learned at lower power levels has been applied to this Open Loop area of fueling.

 

If you’re surprised that there is this much difference between the left and right cylinders, he confirmed that left and right cylinders had AFRs which tracked each other very closely by making an actual AFR measurement on both cylinders at the same time the GS-911 data was gathered.

 

Going a bit further, the multiplicative trim is not a single value for the whole but map but a table of values (how many have not yet been determined). There are 5 different long term multiplicative trims in this "pull" between 1800 and 4700 RPM. So the long term trim table is quite a bit larger than we'd expected.

 

There are also two long term additive trim types, for which there is a corresponding table of values. These additive long term trims affect small throttle angles and idle. The multiplicative trims affect cruising, acceleration and wider throttle angles.

 

[summary]

This new GS-911 capability is an exciting development in the understanding of BMWs fueling strategy. It demonstrates clearly the complex ways in which its ECUs process data gathered in the Closed Loop fueling area and apply it to the entire fuel table, including acceleration and starting. At the moment, Hexcode has not added the collection of this data for the newer liquid cooled Boxers or for the older Motronics but the effect of the trims has been accurately measured on all bikes. If you care about this make sure to let Hexcode know that you’d like to see this data for your bikes too. (The BMSK is used on many different BMW bikes including the F800GS.)

 

As I receive more data from the field, I will add any important insights that are found.

 

 

GS911mixtureadaptationproof.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

The bike in the table above shows an average trim of 1.08 for the right cylinder and 1.03 for the left cylinder. He has an AF-XIED installed on setting 7 and has measured it with an LM-2 showing about 6% added fuel.

 

If you subtracted that 6% from each side the trims would look like 1.02 on the right and 0.97 on the left, suggesting that the right cylinder naturally runs 2% lean and the left runs 3% rich. To me that seems like a reasonable spread. Our R1150s don't have dual O2 sensors so we could expect left right imbalances of this much or greater, which can't be "trimmed out" as on the R1200, a big plus for the 1200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider

Morning Roger

 

Don't forget that on the 1200 the evap purge hose only hooks to ONE side TB (no crossover hose like on the 1100/1150).

 

I presume all the 1200 bikes have evaporative emission controls by now.

 

Be interesting to see if the trims change if the purge hose is moved to the other side TB.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Good morning DR,

You raise an excellent point and I don't know whether the BMSK strategy is to let the Evap Purge change the Long Term Multiplicative Trim or not. The could take one of three approaches: ignore updating the LTMT when the purge is open, update it and let that role into the average, or keep a separate table of "adjustment" trims for the Purge Valve.

 

One thing we know for sure is that opening the purge does influence the Lamba Control Factors which are short term trims. In the chart below, opening the purge valve at idle results in a change to the idle actuator settings (it closes a little when the valve opens) and AFR (as seen by the LCF adjusting). The LCF reduces from 1.10 at idle with the valve closed to 0.90 with the valve opened, meaning not only does it need less air on the left, but less fuel as well.

 

I went back and checked the full data set, in the data on trims above, the purge valve was not opened during the WOT or at any time during this UK riders testing. (Do the UK R1200s have canisters?)

 

Since the Left Cylinder Trim is smaller, it suggests that the mixture on that side is, on average, richer.

 

All interesting, thanks for mentioning it.

RB

 

R1200GSColdStartDave.jpg

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider
. (Do the UK R1200s have canisters?)

 

Morning Roger

 

I really don't know but most of the world has adopted evaporative emission control by now (evaporative emissions are one the biggest polluters) so my guess would be the UK R1200 does have a canister.

 

Maybe the bike's owner can tell us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt
...

 

Maybe the bike's owner can tell us?

 

Good idea ;) I'll check & also go back over more of the data he sent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Afternoon DR,

 

Here is what the owner said about his bike:

 

"My bike is a 2009 R1200GS, full Remus exhaust system, stock paper element air filter.

 

No charcoal canister, I don`t think they are fitted to any UK bikes. We still don`t have emissions tests on bikes at the annual MOT inspection."

 

So it may be that on his bike the BMSK knows about the absence of the Canister and never tries to open the purge.

 

When I get some data from a US rider, we'll see how those trims look. Terryckd has a camhead with dual LC-1s so his data should be well adapted and interesting.

RB

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trobinson

I thought I'd post this to this old thread since it definitely applies.

 

One of the forum members was generous enough to give me his LC-1 as he had switched to the LC-2. I installed it yesterday and took the bike for a ride this morning. For some additional background I've been riding my '96 R1100RT w/o a CCP pretty much since I got it a couple of years ago. First this was because I didn't know anything about it. Then because the bike ran better w/o it. With a CCP (actually a jumper configured for it) it would pop on deceleration and power wasn't as good as I thought it should be. That said my impressions are below.

 

Filled the tank and went on a 98 mile ride through Texas hill country. Some twisties, plenty of highway speeds, and a few hils. Obviously I was looking for improvement and to be honest I didn't get a WOW, but rather a very cool, this bike is running noticeably better, feel. :grin: Now remember, I've been riding this bike w/o a CCP pretty much the entire time I've owned it.

 

Impressions:

1. Idle is smoother. Almost don't notice it running!

2. Power is smoother and stronger.

3. Engine is smoother throughout although still buzzy at 5k rpms and up. A run to 95 was much improved and much smoother though. I generally didn't like taking it above 80 or so because of this.

4. Deceleration is good with no popping. With the standard O2 sensor and a jumper installed for the CCP it would definitely pop on decel.

5. On/off throttle is better. First gear is definitely still a sharper transition, but it is easier to control.

 

I can't thank the guy enough for letting me have the LC-1. I'm gonna have to get a laptop so I can hook it up with logworks and see just what I'm running at as well as a GS-911 so I can see what the Motronic is doing. I need to clean up the install at a later date (right now the LC-1 is under the seat with the cable tie-wrapped to the frame) but will do this next time I have the tank off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trobinson

I forgot to mention my fuel economy on this ride was 47mpg! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Hi Tom,

Glad to see that you made a successful installation of the LC-1, which someone kindly donated to you. It's not a small job to install it and nurture it. The same results you're seeing can also be obtained with an AF-XIED, without the programming and wiring.

 

I'm curious what lambda setting its on an hope that you can post some of that info.

 

Here is a link that will get you to the part of this thread where an LC-1 was first installed on an R1100RT: http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=848073. Go to post 848073.

 

The coding plug that will work best is a 30-87 jumper (yellow plug) and I hope that is the one you're using.

 

When you can get a notebook PC or a cold start log in your garage, it will be interesting to see how your bike is interacting with the LC-1. You will need a serial to USB cable if you don't already have one, or a serial port on your PC if it's older. You can now learn a lot about how your bike fuels, enjoy!

 

Added: Regarding the buzz above 5K, that might improve if you had your injectors cleaned and flow tested. With good matching, the buzz is less. It might also improve over time as you run several tanks of gas. During that time your Motronic will develop short term and long term trims that will spread the extra fueling from the Closed Loop area into the Open Loop part of the fuel map, at wider throttle angles and higher RPMs. With the added fuel in the Open Loop area, your combustion will be less sensitive to the fueling differences that may exist between the left and right cylinders.

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider
Clip-- Engine is smoother throughout although still buzzy at 5k rpms and up. A run to 95 was much improved and much smoother though. I generally didn't like taking it above 80 or so because of this.

 

Morning Tom

 

That 5K up engine buzz is mechanical not fueling or engine control related. Just a common factor in a 2 cyl boxer with large pistons (all the 2 cyl BMW boxers have it, some worse than others).

 

Your BMW 2 cyl boxer have 2 somewhat large pistons that completely come to a stop then restart in the opposite direction twice per revolution. So, even though the BMW boxer engine is inherently balanced there is still that disturbance (buzz) caused from both pistons starting & stopping at end of stroke. Then to make it feel even worse those large pistons are not directly across from each other as the 2 cyl BMW boxer is a 360° firing engine (both pistons go out together & come in together) so they can't be on the same crankshaft journal. Due to this piston off-set there is rocking couple as the pistons start & stop so that adds even more to the rider felt high RPM buzz.

 

BMW sort of addressed the high RPM buzz on the 1200 boxer by adding a balance shaft but it is only a single balance shaft & seeing as the engine is inherently balanced that balance shaft only split the disturbance (lowered it's peak) so the peak buzz is less but still there.

 

You really can't so much with the high RPM engine buzz but you can help the rider felt input by playing with bar end weights & bar mounting (basically turn the handlebars into tuned absorbers), changing foot placement on the foot pegs, try different boots & socks, etc. (basically you can't change the high RPM mechanical buzz but you can sort of change the way that buzz disturbance enters your hands, feet, & butt)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Morning DR,

No doubt what you say about inherent buzz. However it can be significantly amplified by unequal combustion.

 

I found that my engine was noticeably smoother at high RPMs after richening my fueling. There was also a smoothness improvement after I rewired all my ignition coils through a separate relay.

RB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trobinson
Hi Tom,

The coding plug that will work best is a 30-87 jumper (yellow plug) and I hope that is the one you're using.

 

When you can get a notebook PC or a cold start log in your garage, it will be interesting to see how your bike is interacting with the LC-1. You will need a serial to USB cable if you don't already have one, or a serial port on your PC if it's older. You can now learn a lot about how your bike fuels, enjoy!

 

Hi Roger,

 

I'm using a jumper from 30 to 87/87A. The parts fiche does show only 30 to 87, but says with mixture control and cat. Unless they mean an O2 sensor is installed and not the CO pot I don't have mixture control (no CO pot). I'll try changing it to just 30/87 and see how it behaves. I tried finding the post in one of your threads that went through all the CCP configurations, but was unsuccessful. Do you know where it is?

 

Regarding getting data I will try that with my desktop in the next week or so. Just a pain to lug it down to the garage and connect everything up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trobinson

Hi DR,

 

I understand the nature of the beast. I never felt it much in the hands or feet, but more through the whole bike. Now it is much better and hopefully as Roger says will improve with adaptation and maybe a little playing with the LC-1. We'll see.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider
Hi DR,

 

I understand the nature of the beast. I never felt it much in the hands or feet, but more through the whole bike. Now it is much better and hopefully as Roger says will improve with adaptation and maybe a little playing with the LC-1. We'll see.

 

 

Afternoon Tom

 

Unfortunately the mechanical part is there to stay (just a fact of the BMW 2 cyl boxer design).

 

With good fuel tuning you can probably attenuate the audible part but the mechanical part is going to produce that higher RPM buzz regardless of the fueling. (just back drive your engine on a dyno with fuel & spark shut off & you will still find that same boxer buzz)

 

I'm not sure I understand feeling it through the whole bike?-- In order to feel it then it must be getting to your body through your body contact points like hands, feet, or butt.

 

If some or most of the buzz goes away when you take your hands of the bars at high RPM then it is transferring through the buzzing bars, if the buzz lessens when you take your feet off the pegs at higher RPMs then you are getting some of the buzz through the foot pegs. If you can change the buzz by (lightly) placing your hands at the very ends of the bars (on the bar end weights) then bar end-weight tuning will probably help your (perceived) buzz.

 

On some BMW boxer bikes you can move your hands to the very outer ends of the bars (on the weights), then play with your feet position on the foot pegs (usually way out on the ends & reduce the weighting a little) & that can significantly reduce the felt buzz. The basic engine buzz is still there but you have changed the chassis tuning enough to dampen the felt buzzing entering your body.

 

If you move your butt to the rear seat at high RPMs & that changes the felt buzz then some is entering through your front seat as well.

 

You are probably getting the buzz entry through all body contact points as well as some audio.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trobinson

I guess through my butt would be the best way of putting it and certainly some through my hands, but also through my knees at the tank. I'll have to pay more attention next time. I know it's not as bad as my 500 ninja was which I felt through my hands and feet quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt
Hi Tom,

The coding plug that will work best is a 30-87 jumper (yellow plug) and I hope that is the one you're using.

 

When you can get a notebook PC or a cold start log in your garage, it will be interesting to see how your bike is interacting with the LC-1. You will need a serial to USB cable if you don't already have one, or a serial port on your PC if it's older. You can now learn a lot about how your bike fuels, enjoy!

 

Hi Roger,

 

I'm using a jumper from 30 to 87/87A. The parts fiche does show only 30 to 87, but says with mixture control and cat. Unless they mean an O2 sensor is installed and not the CO pot I don't have mixture control (no CO pot). I'll try changing it to just 30/87 and see how it behaves. I tried finding the post in one of your threads that went through all the CCP configurations, but was unsuccessful. Do you know where it is?

 

Regarding getting data I will try that with my desktop in the next week or so. Just a pain to lug it down to the garage and connect everything up.

 

Tom,

Here is the link: http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=760243&page=1.

 

I later realized that the coding plugs were less structured than I thought, which you can see nearer the end of the above thread. Still, for your R1100RT, 30-87 is the correct plug.

 

30-87-87a is the correct plug for a closed loop R1100GS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trobinson

Thanks Roger. I also found the thread on adv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider
I guess through my butt would be the best way of putting it and certainly some through my hands, but also through my knees at the tank. I'll have to pay more attention next time. I know it's not as bad as my 500 ninja was which I felt through my hands and feet quite well.

 

Afternoon Tom

 

Just keep in mind that the more you pay attention the more that you will tune into the buzz, then the more it will bother you.

 

Some riders just jump on the BMW boxer bike & ride it morning till night & never notice the buzz, once someone points it out they go looking for it & find it (then it's there forever)

 

Kind of the same way with the BMW boxer surge, it doesn't bother most riders until they go looking for it, then it seems they find it on every ride thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trobinson

DR,

 

Agreed. I try not to look for things and just ride. Gotta work enough paying attention to riding skills and the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Quick update: Since I've just taken delivery of a late model R1200RTW, I will test out the AF-XIED on it (with the latest adapter modules that work around a new BMW O2 sensor test) and then add LC-2s to start logging fueling.

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

I've begun to lambda-shift (add either an AF-XIED or Innovate Motorsports LC-2) my new-to-me 2001 R1150GS and have found some problems and differences from the 2004 R1150RT that was the test vehicle for this thread.

 

On the RT, the O2 sensor is located ahead of the catalytic converter just beyond the point where the two header pipes merge. On the 1150GS, the O2 sensor is located inside the cat, between the points where the two headers enter the cat. This is a more distant location from the cylinder head, with different temperature. As a result, the Closed Loop period at idle is much slower (about 5 seconds, as opposed to about a second on the ‘04RT). The ‘01GS users an older, slower responding thimble-style O2 sensor (the ‘04RT had a faster planar-style).

 

While setting up and testing an AF-XIED on the ‘01GS, I realized that I could only get the GS to enter Closed Loop (key to having a functioning install) up to setting 5. Above that it flat-lined and registered a too lean mixture. The reason was that my O2 is original, therefore old and tired. Having my ‘04RT O2 sensor on hand, I swapped it in and found that I could get Closed Loop up to setting 9 on the GS, which is plenty rich.

 

I'll do some riding now and see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

I did some riding at setting 8 and although the bike ran better, the old RT sensor (see prior post) doesn't quite have enough juice and I got a couple “O2 sensor shorted to ground” errors in the GS-911 log. After that I cleared the errors and switched to setting 7. That did the trick and the bike pulls great from idle on up, with no errors

 

With the engine hot I checked the TB balance and noted that idle before the AF-XIED was 1100 RPM. On setting 7 the idle jumped to 1200/1250. The idle speed increase is a simple way to show that the AF-XIED is adding low end torque from idle on up.

 

While performing the TB sync to reduce idle back to 1100 I also checked the TPS setting using the GS-911, it was at the bottom of the green range with the engine off. Checked with a DVM (engine off), it was 301 mV. With the engine idling, the TPS voltage was 268 mV, likely due to TB shaft wear. The blue paint on the TB stops was intact but there was no paint on the TPS screws. After adjustment, the TPS voltage read 345 mV at idle, which is center of the range.

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Since my two old narrowband O2 sensors only get me to AF-XIED setting 7 (5-6% added fuel)—and in fairness the bike runs well on that—I either needed to get a new O2 sensor or buy an LC-2 Wideband system if I wanted to try anything richer. I've also been curious about how this older GS (2001) is fueled compared to my former 2004RT (dual plug) so I opted to buy the LC-2, which includes the ability to datalog AFR in realtime and then plot riding logs. Plotting riding logs of AFR is the acid test for what a bike's AFR is or isn't doing and has been invaluable for me in the past, especially when I wanted to test the claims of a fueling mod, coding plug or Open Loop.

 

I already had all the miscellaneous parts needed for the project (OEM connectors, cable, sheathing and a serial to USB cable for programming) so I bought the LC-2. I've added LC-2s before and went right to it—pulled the tank, rear silencer and catalytic converter and got out the soldering iron, shrink tubing and PC. A few hours later the LC-2 was installed (hardest part was figuring where to lay all the cables), and set to lambda=0.92 (8% more fuel).

 

Once everything is installed, the Wideband O2 (Bosch LSU 4.9) needs a free-air calibration. Rather than pulling the exhaust a second time, I stuck a vacuum cleaner into the rear silencer, opened the throttle and bumped the rear wheel until I found a spot where one cylinder had intake and exhaust valves open at the same time and drew fresh air through.

 

Below is a photo of the finished install, the small controller sits on the air box. As time allows I want to run logs and see what differences there are for the three CCP options on my particular GS: European (no plug), US (yellow) and Swiss (beige).

 

2001R1150GSLC2.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesW

Hi Roger, Hope this isn't too far off subject but I'm totally convinced the EV14 injectors on the '93RSL have allowed me to run much leaner AFRs with great performance and no sign of surge idle is also very smooth. I'm at 13.6:1 right now with no need to run an AFR of 12.9:1 as I did when on the EV1 injectors. Not sure if I'll try for a leaner AFR. Also noticed less throttle sensitivity at low speed around town. What I have is a very smooth well behaved early oilhead. I would highly recommend the EV14 matched injectors for $200 from tills.de without hesitation.

 

All's well on this side of the continent and am really beginning to bond with the FJR. At first I wasn't sure if I'd made the right move and I missed the '04RT but after a few modifications to the FJR ( center stand, rear shock, bar risers, Michelin PR tires, and Russell Sport saddle ) I'm not missing the RT much at all. My FJR is a 2010 generation 2 machine and I replaced the center stand and shock with OEM units for a generation 3 (2013-present) with great results. I like Yamaha's philosophy of continuous product refinement with new parts that fit the previous year bikes. No need to always buy new to get improved performance. This is kind of off subject and I apologize.

 

Have a great 4th :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesW

Went for a spirited ride to check out my leaner AFR settings the last couple of days and I got 48 mpg! My trip was from the Central Oregon Coast over the Cascade Mts then across the Northern Great Basin, some call it the high plateau, to Burns, Oregon a distance of 370 miles from Florence. From Bend to Burns on US20 temps were in the 90s with a very strong wind from the south and me headed east. Speed was from 75 to 90 mph and I got 48 mpg!! The bike has never run better in all respects. I could run non-stop between fill-ups. I think 13.6:1 AFR could easily be increased to 13.8 which would be a good setting at higher elevations. The EV14 injectors are what made the difference. Before I never got above 41 to 43 mpg and the bike never ran as strong. On a ride like this the mpg figure would have been more like 39 mpg.

 

I'm kind of proud of myself for be able to make a two day trip (750 miles round trip) like this in two days at my age of 75. :D

Edited by JamesW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Yup Jim, EV14 injectors are off topic but at 75 you're allowed to be enthusiastic. There's no real mechanism by which you should get over 20% better gas mileage—no matter what injectors half of the fuel is sprayed at a fully closed intake valve and much of that fuel is vaporized. But I can see an argument for better cold starting.

 

At 13.5:1 on the LC-2, the R1150GS is running great. Starts in under a second, idles smoothly hot or cold, and has that great low torque from lambda-shifting. Next up is running a full tank of fuel with Techron Concentrate, see if that does anything (like cause the idle to increase a bit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesW

Evening Roger. I was thinking that the 4 port EV14 injectors would operate better than the single port EV1 units (better fuel atomization) which would, as you say, improve starting but also contribute to smoother running in general which might make it easier to eliminate surging at leaner AFR settings on the LC-2. Before now I had to run closed loop AFR of 12.9:1 and never realized mpg figures close to 50 mpg. I've programmed one LC-2 channel for 13.8 and will take a 150 mile ride tomorrow. Now that you mention it I did add Techron concentrate to my first tank of fuel on my trip. I have long used Techron in my rolling stock a couple times a year.

 

I also wonder if the Motronic 2.2 has an elevation sensor? I think the 2.4 Motronic does. My idle speed was set at 1100 RPM at sea level but dropped to 900 revs at 5K feet elevation. Humidity was also much lower at about 20% on the high plateau.

 

I would have a hard time living at high elevation with such low humidity. I had a severe nose bleed in the motel before I left on my return trip to the coast caused by the dryness and elevation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesW

Took the ride today with passenger (wife) with AFR set to 13.8:1 and had no issues. Couldn't tell any difference at 13.8 compared with 13.6:1. Fuel economy was quite good at 49 mpg so no complaints. Not planning to go more lean as I'm satisfied with the performance in all respects. The only thing that could possibly account for the observed performance at these AFR settings is the matched EV14 injectors. Well worth the $200, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

I'm pretty sure all the Motronics have barometric pressure sensors and even if they didn't, Closed Loop operation will get the mixture to whatever your setting is. The lower idle speed is simply caused by less air entering at the lower barometric pressure at higher altitudes. R1200 bikes solve this problem with idle stepper motors. For our oilheads, at higher altitudes you could back out the BBSs a quarter or half turn if you notice a lower idle and then restore the setting when you get back to your normal altitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

I've run a few tanks of gas on the '01 GS with the Innovate LC-2 at lambda=0.92 (which is 13.5:1, 8% richer and the equal of 8 or 9 on the AF-XIED) and find I'm getting about 42 mph (summer) for non-highway driving. The pull between 1000 and 3000 is much stronger, no surging, the engine is smoother and around town I'm running a gear higher. Looks like I'll keep it at 8% richer.

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

The 2001 GS is running pretty good and I could leave well enough alone ... but who does that? As I've noted before in this thread matched fuel injection at all pulse widths and all RPMs is exactly as important as a good TB balance any time you're running much leaner than Best Power mixture which is around 13:1+/-. Further, on the Oilheads, unlike the R1200s, there is only one O2 sensor which means that the Motronic has no way to get the left-right fuel balance fixed with the sophisticated trims of the R1200. (As an aside, in a discussion with Hexcode, there are so many trims on the R1200 LC bikes that they don't think its worth their effort to report them.)

 

That means my next step should be to get the injectors cleaned and tested for matching. With that thought in mind, I've decided to buy a pair of matched injectors. If I was in Europe, Tills.DE would ship me a set, in exchange for mine for about 80EU. However, for US customers the only option is new R1200 units and adapters. After several email exchanges with Jürgen to clarify some points, I've decided to spring for a pair of them and test them on both the 2001GS and the 2017RTW (that's right, it too might benefit from a set of matched injectors).

 

After the install, I'll publish some plots of the initial fueling differences on the '01GS.

 

Here is a short summary of the discussion with Jürgen:

 

—Matching at a range of RPMs and injector pulse widths is critical to a smooth running engine at all power settings.

—Finer atomization is a smaller, side benefit that helps with starting and idle while the engine is cold.

—Well matched EV6 injectors would produce a smoother engine than unmatched EV14 (R1200) injectors at the tolerance limits. (That's how important matching is.) They don't offer matched EV6 injectors outside Europe.

—R1200 injectors turn on faster than R1150 or R1100 injectors but not as much faster as I'd estimated. (I will measure this myself by looking at unadapted AFRs.)

—Matching of injectors on a new water-cooled R1200RTW is also likely to improve the engine.

 

As a result of the clarifications, I've ordered a set of matched R1200 injectors and adapters. They should arrive in a few days.

 

They'll get installed on my 2001 GS first and I'll make some measurements to see how much extra fuel they add before adaptation, then see what running differences I can detect—with the LC-2 set at 8% extra fuel (current setting)—especially at higher power and under acceleration. Later in the year I'll take the same injectors and try them on my 2017 RTW which is running with AF-XIEDs on setting 7.

 

 

Edited by roger 04 rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesW

Morning Roger, Good point about fuel injector matching. The $200 I invested in new matched injectors from Tills.DE was the best two hundred bucks I've invested in my R1100 besides the Innovate LC2. Thanks so much for all your help.

 

I should also say that my R1100 is more sensitive to precise valve adjustment than was my '04 twin spark RT. Actually quite a bit more. Too bad there isn't some way to install a second O2 sensor on the oilhead. If you could average the signal from two O2 sensors but I fear that is wishful thinking.

 

I think I'm just going to enjoy riding my R1100 and leave further tinkering alone....I think?

 

Wait a minute! The exhaust gases from both cylinders are mixed ahead of the O2 sensor. Just look at the head pipes. So in affect the single O2 sensor is already sending a mixed signal to the ECU so forget my rambling in the second paragraph above. Also, to say that the left side just goes along for the ride isn't exactly true either since its exhaust gas is influencing the input to the ECU from the O2 sensor in combination with the right side exhaust. I think I'm having another senior moment.

Edited by JamesW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

My R1200 hand-matched injectors arrived yesterday. The kit is quite well packaged in a blue plastic tray (with the original new injector boxes) and it's neatly organized. There are extra O-Rings, which weren't needed. Visually, the spray head on the R1200 looks just like my stock R1150 EV6s. The specs in the package are 0.5% matched at 2000 RPM and 1% matched at 8000 RPM.

 

Installation on my 2001 R1200GS was very easy and took about 15 minutes because I took my time. Everything fit very well. There are not instructions to lubricate the O-Rings but I used a film of fresh motor oil and they fit easily. Removal of the old EV6 injectors took a good strong twisting pull since they'd been in there since the bike was built in 2000. Take care not to break the plastic fuel distributor. Also take care to get the spring clip properly aligned so that it sits in the injectos's groove AND captures the fuel distributor head fully. When properly aligned you get a nice “snap”.

 

Because I've got an Innovate Motorsports LC-2 Wideband O2 sensor in the exhaust I'm able to very accurately measure AFR in very small increments of about 12.5 mS (0.012 seconds).

 

I began testing by resetting the Motronic to clear all its long term trims since I want to isolate and measure just the injectors. I run with a 30-87a coding plug (on my bike that's the Swiss Plug, as opposed to EU or US). Also, I had run the tank to empty and filled it with fresh fuel the night before.

 

Before installing the new injectors, I recorded the startup AFR on a “cold” engine at 80F which had sat overnight. The AFR reading averaged 12.65:1 for the first few seconds and the Motronic was Open Loop. This told me what the injectors do without interference from the Motronic's Closed Loop program.

 

Next, after resetting the ECU again and waiting a few hours for it to cool down I ran another cold start with the R1200 injectors installed. The bike started nicely and my first reaction was, that's a smooth cold idle. I looked at the AFR for the first few seconds and it averaged 11.75:1. This explained the soft, smooth sound after starting since the bike was running with a wonderfully rich (almost too rich) mixture. (This will disappear after the Motronic has learned about the extra fuel.)

 

The difference in AFR computes to 8% more fuel at idle. This is likely due to the faster switching times of the more modern R1200 EV14 injector and implies that they turn on 80 microseconds faster assuming the flow rates are the same. I'll look at that more as I have time.

 

During hot idle I checked to see if the finer spray translated into more torque. The test is easy, measure the idle speed in closed loop with the old, then the new injectors. If the idle speed increases, there's more torque at the same AFR. The result was that the idle speed was unchanged at 1100 RPM for old and new alike.

 

(The idle speed torque test is a good indicator. As an example if I set hot idle to 1100 RPM at an AFR of 14.7:1, and then richen the mixture to 13.5:1 with either set of injectors (and I tried both pairs) the idle speed increases from 1100 to 1200 RPM which indicates that a richer mixture creates more torque—as we know it does.)

 

Next I will try some riding tests before the Motronic has had time to adapt and see how the matching has affected engine smoothness. I'm expecting good things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

I got out for an hour's riding and made some tests of the new injectors. I was careful to warm up the engine, reset the Motronic to clear all the fueling longterm trims that it might have learned in the previous tests and then do some riding in as many Open Loop areas as I could while the long term trims were being rebuilt.

 

My particular engine has always felt fairly smooth and I didn't expect to notice improvement but after only 10 minutes and below half throttle, it was clear that the engine was much smoother. I could feel it in the handlebars, in the frame and could even hear it in the exhaust. It was like I'd had an engine transplant.

 

I also made some tests at or near WOT while the longterm trims were reset. At WOT, I believe I felt less buzz but around 6500 to 7000 RPM there has always been some, and there was still some light buzz. I'll evaluate this further, waiting for the longterm trims to develop and see if there is any further improvement.

 

Next I ran some other tests near WOT. I found a long incline, upshifted until I was in 6th gear ("E" on the '01GS). After slowing to 2000 RPM, I cranked the throttle wide open. It's a hard test but one that my bike loves when the mixture is set to 13.5:1. Usually, it literally surges forward. But this time, although my mixture is still 13.5:1, the longterm trims hadn't richened the fueling yet. I wanted to see if the R1200 injectors alone, with their finer spray pattern, would boost the high power torque they way that the LC-2 does. The short answer is that the engine didn't like this at all and balked a bit until the engine reached 2500 RPM or so.

 

My early testing so far says that the R1200 hand-matched injectors have made a remarkable improvement in engine smoothness (and starting) and seem well worthwhile to me. Though for more torque between 1100 to 3500 RPM, you've got to add more fuel via lambda-shifting (LC-2, AF-XIED). Overall I give these injectors two thumbs up.

 

Today or later in the week I'm going to make some further smoothness tests. Since the LC-2 can be programmed to simulate a richer or a leaner O2 sensor, I will set the AFR to 16.2:1 (10% leaner than stock) and test smoothness during cruise. For anyone who wants to read about this here's a good link: Why Engines Run Rough Lean of Peak. Running leaner than stock creates a demanding test of left/right AFR imbalance. I'm expecting good things with these new injectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

After riding for an hour yesterday, the long term trims have begun to develop. As a result of that, this mornings cold start AFR increased as expected from 11.75:1 yesterday to 12.45:1. This is a result of the Motronic learning the richer fueling (at idle) of the R1200 injectors.

 

Next I reprogrammed the LC-2 from 13.5:1 to 16.2:1 to see how smoothly (or not) the engine idled with the matched injectors and a very lean mixture. The result was quite good. Even running 10% leaner than stock, the engine idled surprisingly smoothly. This is a very good indication of the quality of matching--when you're lean of 14.7:1, imbalances in injection result in rough running.

 

One side note, when running that lean, you have to readjust the BBS because at 16.2:1 because the power drops off a lot. With the fast idle lever up, the idle was about 2000 RPM at a mixture of about 13:1 but when the bike went closed loop, the RPM dropped off quickly to 1500. As a result, rather than resync the TBs, I'll just ride with the fast idle lever up to get a good idle, when I test cruise performance at 16.2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Here's a plot of the bike entering closed loop at 16.2:1. You can see then end of the cold start enrichment on the left at a bit under 13:1, then the Motronic leans the mixture and finally stable closed loop at 16.2.

 

r1200inj16.2.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

I took a half hour ride down the highway at 16.2:1 to see how smooth the engine was with a very very lean mixture because at that setting, injector matching is critical.

 

The result was that I found the engine to be normally smooth, a good indication that the injectors are well matched. The fuel economy at this setting would be about 10-15% (4-6 mpg) better than my normal mixture of 13.5:1. (I'm tempted to try 15% lean which would be an afr of 16.9:1 !!, I'll post comments if I try it.)

 

The other thing I noticed was that torque below 3500 rpm was abysmal. This is not a fault of the injectors, but rather an indication that a fine spray and 1st class injector matching won't deliver the torque improvements of an LC-2 or AF-XIED.

 

Bottom line: I believe the injectors are very well matched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesW

Hi Roger, That pretty much agrees with my experience. I'm sticking with 13.8:1 which delivers good mileage and performance with the matched injectors. I can't complain about 50 mpg. Am curious what your new wethead would do with matched injectors.

 

One thing I've wondered about is how effective the two O2 sensors really are versus the single O2 sensor used on previous models. With the flat twin exhaust from each cylinder coming together before the single sensor it seems to me fuel trim would be close enough between cylinders. Could it be the new ECU that replaced the old Motronic is what accounts for better performance?

Edited by JamesW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyS
Am curious what your new wethead would do with matched injectors.

 

Me too. I'd love to see some Wethead injectors tested to see if there is much variance. I am inclined to think that the Wethead units will be much more closely matched from new than the Oilhead ones were.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt
Hi Roger, That pretty much agrees with my experience. I'm sticking with 13.8:1 which delivers good mileage and performance with the matched injectors. I can't complain about 50 mpg. Am curious what your new wethead would do with matched injectors.

 

One thing I've wondered about is how effective the two O2 sensors really are versus the single O2 sensor used on previous models. With the flat twin exhaust from each cylinder coming together before the single sensor it seems to me fuel trim would be close enough between cylinders. Could it be the new ECU that replaced the old Motronic is what accounts for better performance?

Am curious what your new wethead would do with matched injectors.

 

Me too. I'd love to see some Wethead injectors tested to see if there is much variance. I am inclined to think that the Wethead units will be much more closely matched from new than the Oilhead ones were.

 

Great minds think alike! I've discussed this with Jürgen at Till.de and plan to remove the injectors from the 1150 this winter and then install them in the RTW. If two R1200 injectors are at the tolerance limit, there will be an imbalance that can lead to roughness, at least initially.

 

However, ...

 

The R1200RTW (all the water-cooled bikes) has a huge table of RPM/TPS-based Multiplicative and Additive Trim factors. Further, the algorithms for each O2 sensor “talk” to each other and as a result there's an extensive amount of balancing done. Sometime later this year I'll give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyS
However, ...The R1200RTW ... Sometime later this year I'll give it a try.

 

Haha, I knew I could count on you!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roger 04 rt

Someone reading the thread may be thinking, “That bike's running so lean he's going to burn it up.” It turns out that as long as I keep the engine below half throttle, my CHTs (cylinder head temperatures) and EGTs (exhaust temps) are all substantially lower than running stock mixtures. The reason is that the extra air cools the exhaust and the lower power produces lower combustion temperatures than 14.7:1.

 

Today I tried my final (for now) test/measurement. I wanted to see how much leaner than 16.2 I could get the system to go. At about 16,6:1 the bike idled fine but the Motronic short term trims wouldn't reach my 15% lean goal. The bike ran, the engine was smooth but the Motronic ran out of range.

 

The Motronic is reset again, cruise AFR back to 13.5:1 and it's off for some riding later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×