Some would argue (including RB Racing) that cloosed loop tuning has its own advantage, ability to quickly adjust to atmospheric pressure and extreme accuracy of narrow band sensors to name a few. I am one of the few lucky ones who have no problem with extreme engine heat on my stock tune 2012 Fatboy 103" but I own brand new uninstalled FL-Xied and also have a brand new uninstalled PV2. Normally peeps would ditch the Xied and use PV2 entirely but since I have both and have no desire to sell the Xied to recoup some money, can I use both? Tune area outside of closed loop with PV2 and leave the closed loop area alone (except for Timing tune) and let the narrow band sensor with slight trickery from Xied handles the closed loop area. Based on previous experience tuning my now sold 2010 FLHTP 103" with PV alone I really saw no benefit in richening the closed loop area to below 14.0 except for wasting fuel and adding heat, if I don't need anything below 14.0 for closed loop area isn't Xied the best solution while still retaining the benefit for narrow band sensors extreme accuracy?? If the theory works then it supposed to be "best of both world" scenario? Please enlighten me with your wisdom folks 😁

TIA!!

 

It will be interesting to see what our experts say, but I can see no benefit or purpose in using two devices at the same time. Sure as eggs is eggs they are programmed differently! Regardless of what you feel, decide which you prefer to use and remove the other. HDF has a For Sales section - or buy a second bike.....

 

I don't see why they can't work together, if we don't touch the closed loop fuel mapping area on PV, then the area would essentially be stock mapping which would work perfectly with Xied. The only problem I can see is if PV2 use mandate the removal of stock O2 sensors, but if PV2 have the option to either remove or retain the stock O2 sensors then it should work and I am willing to give it a try since I have both anyway. Now the question is, would PV2 allow the retaining of stock O2 sensors? I can't remember since it's been a long time since I last touch PV. The ultimate goal here is to have your cake and eat it too.

 

I must confess I don't see why more than one is a good idea. Let us know how you get on! If you put too much icing on your cake you won't be able to get hold of it to eat.....

 

I asked engineering about this years ago. The answer was that because the narrow band signal is slewed from the XIED that trying to shift it more with, at that time, the Race Tuner, that the control could be lost because the system would have difficulty with a narrow band sensor being shifted that far. I never verified it.

 

I gave my xeid away when I got my pv2. The xeid tricks the pcm into thinking the bike is running leaner than it really is so the pcm adds fuel until it achieves the 14:xx tricked value.

With the pv2 you set whatever value you want in any given cell, if you auto tuned correctly the pcm will use its own calculation to achieve that value. Of course if you set that value outside the narrow band range there will be no way for the pcm to verify and make adjustments if needed.
The stock tune hits areas outside of the O2 sensor range so it isn't that big of deal.

The xeid is nice and tricks the pcm to add more fuel but they aren't needed when you use pv2.

 

Yes seems like conflict of interest to me too. Run it the right way with a tuner

 

They are only a resistor, and an O2 sensor only reports a voltage signal to the ECM. If the sensor is putting out a voltage of 778 mV and that voltage goes through the resistor and it reduces the voltage to 747mV. The ECM is going to see the sensor is reporting 746mV which equates to 14.59:1 instead of what is actual of14.45:1. If the CLB tables are set to switch around 778 with the resistor in place. To report 778. The sensor would need to produce a voltage of 793mV. (14.31) This is assuming a linear change for easy explanation. So, in theory it looks like we can "trick" the ECM to run in a richer area for the closed loop. Simple right? BUT the ECM isn't that simple. There are other things in the mix as well. Fuel adder tables are based on the ECM not being tricked. Adaptive learning is based on the ECM not being tricked. Transition fueling is based on the ECM not being tricked.


Based on mapping VE while tricking the ECM. VE's are going to be set with a bit lower number than they would. Anytime we are not in closed loop we are back running on VE's. In closed loop operation in areas of cruise where we are trying to still get some fuel mileage might be in a leaner condition than we want as we are transitioning through these cells in open loop. Next logical thing to do would be add to the accel table to make up for this fuel, but how is that going to affect the throttle response in the area out of closed loop?