Accuracy - LSU 4.2 vs 4.9
04-27-2017, 09:56 PM
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Accuracy - LSU 4.2 vs 4.9
Hello TGOers. Have a bit of an "issue" I'm seeking advice on.
I recently reconfigured my exhaust from 1 5/8 shorties into a Y-Pipe, to 1 3/4 longtubes through 2.5 duals with an X-Pipe. As part of this upgrade, I figured why not run two widebands so I could monitor each bank independently.
I was running my autometer wideband gauge off of an LSU 4.2 just after the Y, but with the new setup I relocated the O2 to the passenger side bank and installed an Innovate LC-2 (LSU 4.9) to monitor the driver side bank. Both sensors are installed into the reducers just after the collectors.
The Innovate wideband controller I picked up off eBay. It looked to be in very good condition for $60, however, the seller advertised it as, "Reads about 1 point off, causing engine to run rich". Knowing how many variables come into play with the install, I decided to take a gamble.
When I received the package, everything looked to be in extremely good condition. The controller itself and all the cables were included in the original box, in their original bags and looked brand spanking new. The sensor itself had obviously been used, but looked like it had very, very little wear.
I hooked everything up accordingly and here is where my question arises. There is indeed a difference between the readings of the two widebands. The Innovate controller reads around .5 - .8 LEANER than my autometer wideband gauge which runs off of an LSU 4.2 oxygen sensor. Please note that during the install, I replaced the LSU 4.2 oxygen sensor with a brand new unit, so we can go ahead and eliminate any wear and tear from the equation on the 4.2 side.
Also note that all my interior gauges as well as both widebands are wired directly to the battery positive and ground with solder and heatshrink. So, we can eliminate any poor connections as well.
The O2 sensors are properly sealed to the exhaust and the correct calibration procedure was performed on the Innovate controller. No exhaust leaks either. The header flanges were both sealed with felpro 3 piece metal gaskets and copper RTV. The collectors were sealed with copper gaskets and copper RTV.
It seems that at WOT, the two sensors give or take report within the same ballpark as each other. At cruise or idle is when the .5 - .8 discrepancy comes into play.
Just wondering if there are any differences here between the two sensors/controllers that I should be aware of or if I should be looking elsewhere.
Thanks in advance.
I recently reconfigured my exhaust from 1 5/8 shorties into a Y-Pipe, to 1 3/4 longtubes through 2.5 duals with an X-Pipe. As part of this upgrade, I figured why not run two widebands so I could monitor each bank independently.
I was running my autometer wideband gauge off of an LSU 4.2 just after the Y, but with the new setup I relocated the O2 to the passenger side bank and installed an Innovate LC-2 (LSU 4.9) to monitor the driver side bank. Both sensors are installed into the reducers just after the collectors.
The Innovate wideband controller I picked up off eBay. It looked to be in very good condition for $60, however, the seller advertised it as, "Reads about 1 point off, causing engine to run rich". Knowing how many variables come into play with the install, I decided to take a gamble.
When I received the package, everything looked to be in extremely good condition. The controller itself and all the cables were included in the original box, in their original bags and looked brand spanking new. The sensor itself had obviously been used, but looked like it had very, very little wear.
I hooked everything up accordingly and here is where my question arises. There is indeed a difference between the readings of the two widebands. The Innovate controller reads around .5 - .8 LEANER than my autometer wideband gauge which runs off of an LSU 4.2 oxygen sensor. Please note that during the install, I replaced the LSU 4.2 oxygen sensor with a brand new unit, so we can go ahead and eliminate any wear and tear from the equation on the 4.2 side.
Also note that all my interior gauges as well as both widebands are wired directly to the battery positive and ground with solder and heatshrink. So, we can eliminate any poor connections as well.
The O2 sensors are properly sealed to the exhaust and the correct calibration procedure was performed on the Innovate controller. No exhaust leaks either. The header flanges were both sealed with felpro 3 piece metal gaskets and copper RTV. The collectors were sealed with copper gaskets and copper RTV.
It seems that at WOT, the two sensors give or take report within the same ballpark as each other. At cruise or idle is when the .5 - .8 discrepancy comes into play.
Just wondering if there are any differences here between the two sensors/controllers that I should be aware of or if I should be looking elsewhere.
Thanks in advance.
05-09-2017, 03:25 AM
#2
Re: Accuracy - LSU 4.2 vs 4.9
Yes, the Innovate is junk, see attached test by an independent lab. The LC-2 isn't any better. I've tested more than a few against others and they're always different.
Stick with the Autometer.
Last edited by efiguy; 05-09-2017 at 03:29 AM.
05-11-2017, 09:58 AM
#3
Re: Accuracy - LSU 4.2 vs 4.9
I have been using the PLX devices controllers for years and they are EXCELLENT. We use them for tuning. Check them out:
https://www.plxdevices.com
GD
https://www.plxdevices.com
GD