Glens, I feel&nbsp\\; your theory.&nbsp\\; It's like me tyring changing peoples mind in buying a "repairable" car a BMW.&nbsp\\; this days people spend 40-60K on a car when it's time to do the scheduled maintenance that another 3-4 hundred out the door.&nbsp\\; Why not buy one at the same range and not pay for the schedule maintenance.&nbsp\\; Similar senario with the XIED's riders are happy with the result but not willing to see everything involves.&nbsp\\; Understanding the system function and how it is design but our enviroment this days is all about the instant result hence what the XIED's gives us.
&nbsp\\;
I for one am the same, buy something that will improve mileage, performance and not dig deep&nbsp\\;into my pocket I am happy even though there's great deal to consider.&nbsp\\; I am new to the V-Twin world, if this is about the comflex system that most BMW and Porsche equip with I'll be in the same position as you.&nbsp\\; Thanks for being the "Guy" across the river screaming to let us know there's a better way to get across.&nbsp\\; I sure would like to hear what's your inputs on the "Rare Earth Magnet" theory about improving fuel consumption.

 

Here is a long and drwn out link on the 02 Sensor&nbsp\\;\\\\\\;Ied's being used right here on the forum. Its a couple days read:
&nbsp\\;\\\\\\;https://www.hdforums.com/m_2836828/tm.htm
&nbsp\\;\\\\\\;
Here is some info on how and why our engines are hot from the factory:
http://www.nightrider.com/biketech/hd2007HD_heat_00.htm
&nbsp\\;\\\\\\;
Rather than listening to bable about what we "think" we know. Lets read what it is.
&nbsp\\;
And whenever&nbsp\\;someone tells me incorrectly what&nbsp\\;02 sensors do? I stop listening.

 

Can't you do the same thing by making adjustments to the PCIII (If you have one)?

 

I have a couple of questions.
Assuming that a bike is running aftermarket slip-on exhaust, and a more free breathing inlet air filter. (which seems to be the case in 90% or more of the bikes)
And, going with the given knowledge of Adaptive Fueling, and changing the mixture across the entire range.
&nbsp\\;
1. Since the bike runs better with more fuel in the closed loop, why would you think that more fuel would not be needed in the open loop?
Afterall, the modifications to exhaust and intake which require more fuel are still in place.
&nbsp\\;
2. Exactly how much time would you estimate that the average rider spends riding the bike in the open loop scheme of operation?
And, for how long a period of time at each instance?
&nbsp\\;
It seems to me, from my limited understanding of the system of operation, that the increase in fuel across the entire spectrum is (for the most part) a non-factor.

 

I'll add my $.02, based on what I've read here and searched out by asking and reading up.&nbsp\\; Just like anything else in life there is not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" configuration, but there appears to be an "optimal" situation or an "acceptable" one.&nbsp\\; Ok, we all know a fuel management system and a knowledgable tuner is the optimal solution.&nbsp\\; We also know some systems are more tunable than others, i.e., Fuel Pak vs. PCIII.&nbsp\\; At the low end, we have IEDs and XIEDs, a realtively inexpensive, "quick fix", while not optimal, they appear to be acceptable and an improvement.&nbsp\\; In the mid range, a simple fuel management system, maybe also an IED or XIED, a little more money, a little more robust.&nbsp\\; Then, the sky is the limit, but with a higher end tuner, more flexibility, finer tuned, yet more money again.&nbsp\\; Personally, I started with a FuelPak, simple and cheap, but I started thinking about adding XIEDs and up goes the price $100 and now I'm adding another variable and some have issues, some don't.&nbsp\\; Then I think, man, the cost of the Fuel Pak and the XIEDs, I could have just bought a PCIII from Jamie at Fuel Moto and be done with it.&nbsp\\; So, for me personally, I think I am going to wait on the IEDs, get the PCIII, tune it well and ride the hell out of it.&nbsp\\; Like some have said, I'm not sure I want to throw a few bandaids on my $20K investment when I can total the cost of the bandaids and&nbsp\\;have a more robust system.

 

Could one use this in lieu of the mapping download if you added a aftermarket air cleaner and exhaust?&nbsp\\;

 

It is not about what O2 sensors do. It is about what the ECU does with the information. You either do not care (which is fine, but do not call me out about it when I mention how the system works, just say you do not care) or you do not want to know (which is fine, then do not read it, and do not call me out about it when I mention how the system works, no need to say you do not want to know and have not read it).

And if you do not want to read babble about it, then why provide those links so that others can read it?

Motorboatn SOB, yes and no. You can definitely provide the proper fuel most everywhere with the PC-III with virtually any combination of engine components, as opposed to just the closed-loop areas (which really are used the bulk of the time anyway) with just the standard IED on an otherwise completely stock engine package.

The PC-III is perhaps the best of the piggyback-controller systems. But it also forgoes the corrective capabilities which properly monitoring O2 sensors can bring to the table. Like in my examples above, if your fuel pressure regulator goes weak you will then run leaner proportionately everywhere with the PC-III because the engine computer does not know something fundamental has changed. If you are astute you will notice something is off a little and maybe look into it (which actually is a good thing in a way, since you might not know it for longer with the whole system working, maybe to the point of getting stranded somewhere).

Using the PC-III is akin to having an (albeit a user-adjustable) engine management system just like was on the bikes up through 06 (for Dynas, 05).

The engines actually run very well from the factory considering the constraints H-D is under. It is questionable to say that if kept in proper running order they would not last hundreds of thousands of miles completely stock because of the tuning.

When we go changing the way the engine runs, it really would be best to do so in a way that ensures the longevity is not decreased. Sure, just bolting on this or that seems to not be problematic for now, but who can say that side-effects will not show up after the 2-year warranty has expired? Not that the factory would be obliged to stand behind a modified engine anyway, much less stuff that was done ad-hoc. (And don't tell me you can just remove this or that before taking the bike in, H-D are not all complete idiots.) Think of what it would cost to rebuild the top-end out of pocket. Wouldn't it seem more responsible to spend less than a couple hundred extra bucks up front and avert the situation, not to mention having an engine that runs even better than just better?

I would not buy a used 07 or 08 Harley unless I knew specifically what the owner had done to/with the engine while they had it. I suppose many of you do not consider your purchase to be something you will be riding for decades to come (or at least until the fuel supply runs out). For those of you that don't give a damn what you might be doing to the engine because you are only going to ride it a couple years anyway before you offload it onto someone else, I have to say I'm not impressed with your character.

If you do care about your engine, or even just other people who might end up with it, please carefully consider your options.

frog13 has the right, healthy, attitude.

With just the stock components, the more fuel in closed loop is great if it can be reliably provided (as I have said, I feel the extreme IEDs flirt too heavily with that ability). It will degrade the performance in the open-loop areas but that might be okay if not very much time is ever spent there. But with aftermarket breathing gear, you are changing the flow characteristics of the engine in ways that are disproportional to the way the EMS thinks they are shaped. It will thus provide variously-incorrect amounts of fuel.

What's more, since we know (and we do know) the way the system works between the closed/open-loop areas, we must understand that disproportionate fueling within the closed-loop areas will have a greater, even more disproportionate effect on the disproportionate-to-start-with open-loop areas if we allow the system to use its O2 sensors.

Suffice it to say that it is even more irresponsible to utilize an IED with non-stock breathing components without another means of controlling fuel, than it is merely irresponsible to use non-stock breathing components without another means of controlling fuel.

This is a good point. I like it. I have mentioned it several times myself. In terms of just the standard IED and completely stock breathing apparatus it is a very valid point to make. The validity level drops as other parameters change, though.

Well, I conversely feel that the full-spectrum increase is a highly variable factor, as outlined above (and many, many other places around these parts [primarily, but not just by me]).


Listen, folks. I am not saying these devices are junk and have no valid use. I had seriously considered making my own late last summer. But they are not a new idea, and in fact the makers of our Delphi engine management system very likely took them under consideration when they designed it. You see, they have a mandate from the EPA that our systems be difficult to modify. By doing it the way they did with the narrow-band O2 sensors and the Adaptive Fueling, they have thrown a wrench into using relatively ancient voltage-dividing networks between the sensors and the control unit. Using such a network relegates the system, as a whole, to working non-optimally.

That is okay if you want to do it without having your head buried in the sand. Just think of all the possible ramifications when taking your decision, okay? If you spend the majority of your time in closed-loop operation, you might just build up a nice layer of soot on the piston and roof of the combustion chamber. Over time, this might slightly increase your compression to both good and bad effect. This might result in chunks of it breaking off and bouncing around, etc. when you do open her up hard on occasion.

There is a fair possibility of unwanted side-effects long-term when using this type of device. I do not want to play that game myself. I have purchased my bike to use until I no longer can ride.

And one other thing. I freely admit there are some lightly-theoretical aspects to what I am saying about the way our system works. But they apply to some of the minute, specific little details deep down inside, stuff you might see with a good magnifying glass. The bird's-eye view is correct. Trust me on this. What happens in Vegas might stay in Vegas, but what happens in closed-loop on our systems affects open-loop too.

 

Obviously you have not read the nightrider link or choose not to, either way is fine with me as well. And your being pretty flippant about what someone else knows and doesnt know.
Posting things like "this could or might happen some day" is all I have read so far from you.
Doesnt wash.

 

I have read that page before, but for your benefit I just did so again. It primarily discusses tests performed at idle with and without the wide-band sensor in place of the stock narrow-band unit. Also, he doesn't use the term, but mentions the limp-home (failsafe) AFR and how it can sometimes be encountered at idle.

It also discusses the ramifications of the 110 engine.

What are you seeing there pertinent to this discussion? I'm not seeing anything.

Certainly no discussion there (or anywhere on the entire site as of a week or so ago) of how the ECU uses Adaptive Fueling now in the 06 Dynas and 07+ other models. Especially how this would interact with either any of the IEDs or the wide-band module under normal use (beyond idle).

Why don't you ask him to explain the concept to you, and how the Delphi uses it?

To the first point, all I can go by is what I hear them saying. If they say nothing, I have no way to determine one way or the other and I respond in kind. If they say something that is incorrect, I have to assume they do not know and I try to help them learn if I can. Maybe we can both walk away with greater understanding if we inspect the topic together and discuss it rationally?

To the second point, all I can say is you must really be skipping over a lot of the words in their various combinations and structures.

To the last point, I have nothing to say.

 

My old grandfather used to say:
"Canoe long in tooth, Make much noise, Go nowhere."