Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My fuel economy on the highway is still at about 11L/100km for an R33 gtst with very smooth and small throttle openings - i.e not good for a 2.L 6 cylinder (A 3.8 commo can do better)

I have hooked up a Powerfc and you can do a sensor check - at idle the 02 sensor varies between 0.1v and 0.9 v like it should :)

However, it seems to stay on say for example 0.85v for about 1 second or so then drop to the 0.1v or thereabouts. I was reading on the web and found that it should be about 300ms for a healthy sensor...

Anybody that has put a new one in noticed a change in reaction time and fuel economy?

Sorry the other thread is getting huge. This thread may help people to determine if it is worth replacing as I read a lot of people replacing with no change :)

Minimum and maximum sensor voltages are just part of the picture. How fast these transitions occur is an equally important measure of O2 sensor health. Lean-to-rich and rich-to-lean transitions should occur in 300mS or less; anything greater may indicate a worn or contaminated sensor. An oscilloscope or graphing multimeter is essential for this test.

Seems like because ours are heated they generally have a longer life...

Heated oxygen sensors have smaller slots in the protective tube at the tip. This limits the amount of exhaust that reaches the sensing tube, and limits the contaminants that can reach the sensor and diminish its response. Consequently a heated O2 sensor may last 100,000 miles or more.

o2 sensor info

Edited by benl1981

Drive along at light load at 2500rpm or so, and it should crosscount back and forth quite rapidly.

At idle, if the sensor is a bit old, it will be quite un-responsive and make it difficult to determine what happening.

So yeah, check it as your drive along, that way there is alot more hot gas flowing past the sensor and the response should be quite rapid!

On a standard ecu and mild car, it should be in closed loop right up to 0 vacuum on the boost guage.

Thanks RB - yeah at 2500rpm it was fairly quick at oscillating back and forth.

I guess I'll see on the dyno if it is actually holding 14.7 AFR though.

Hey RB acan you check my last post in the thread Crap fuel economy (in Gerneral Maintenance area)..thought you may know.

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


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...