So....
Installed the powercommander V, and pod filters on bike, and took it into shop to have bike tuned. Prior to installing the PCV and filters, bike ran fine. No issues.
However, an issue has come up...
The bike starts fine and idles smoothly... However, the tuner found that when the bike is at approx. 2500 RPM and stays at this constant RPM for about 30 seconds, a check engine light will go on, and the bike will start to pop.
We were playing around with all reasons why this could happen. With the PCV isntalled, or not, the same problem occurs. Bike starts up and runs fine, no check engine light. I run the bike up to 2500 RPM and hold it there. Approx. 30 seconds later, a CEL comes on, and the exhaust starts to pop. The error code is for the lambda sensor.
The only reason we could come up with why this was happening is that there is an issue with the ECU going from closed loop to open loop. But... why??? I think that the popping is an air/fuel problem due to pod filters(bike is just too lean), but why the CEL issue and why at a constant RPM??
The tuner said he was unable to tune out the issue. No matter what he did, the CEL light would still pop on and bike would start to pop. Once bike was restarted, CEL was gone and bike was running smoothly again.... Until it was at a constant RPM after about 30 seconds.
Out only speculation is that the O2 sensors are getting too hot due to a lean condition, and/or are damaged. We are dumbfounded why we suddenly get a lambda error when it switches from closed to open loop. This never happened prior to pod filter/PCV install.
The tuner also mentioned he was getting a voltage fluctuation from 0-1 volts on the throttle body sensor, but we do not know if this is normal... We checked and rechecked the TPS(PCV plugged in and removed) and no change.
One solution that we could come up with is just to simply have the ECU re-mapped to eliminate the 02 sensors... However, we do not want to do this unless there are other issues...
Any ideas/advice???
why not just get the o2's removed? it is the better solution in the long term. with the o2's installed you cant completely tune the bike, and going through the trouble of pod filters & such doesnt make much sense then. good luck!
With your PCV, you've got the so-called optimizers plugged inline with the fuel injectors? You made sure you have them connected correctly and not mixed up front with rear?
Specifically what error code is the ECU recording?
After Rexxering my stock closed loop away I initially had CEL coming on and ECU clocked "lambda slow response" error codes P0133 & P0153 when crossing the threshold from original open loop back into closed loop rpm range. Rexxer fixed this issue in a later revision. But..... these "lambda slow response" errors only occurred after I removed the redundant stock O2 sensors, makes me wonder if you have yours connected correctly? In my case though, there was no popping or any real symptoms, just the erroneous error codes and CEL.
does the 696 come with the O2 optimizer package, like the 1100 PCV does?
and if so, did he leave the proper setting in each of those slots (up to 55% and 4500 rpm i think)? You can't tune them any more.
Quote from: mattc7 on May 15, 2011, 06:27:59 AM
does the 696 come with the O2 optimizer package, like the 1100 PCV does?
Yup - no actual hardware differences between M696 and M1100 PCV.
Quote from: mattc7 on May 15, 2011, 06:27:59 AMand if so, did he leave the proper setting in each of those slots (up to 55% and 4500 rpm i think)? You can't tune them any more.
The proper setting being zero. Although I wonder if it would really matter.... if you entered values which caused the FI to run richer in the closed loop than the ECU would like, once the 02 sensors detect and report the verboten rich condition, the ECU will simply lean it out again. In a self-defeating circle. Perhaps though if you entered large enough values you could get to a point where the ECU was no longer capable of negating 'em.... and not understanding why things are too rich (according to its world) flag a CEL?
Appreciate the response..
We checked and double checked the o2 sensor connections.
We even completely removed the powercommander and the optimizers and was experiencing the same issue. So we know it's not a powercommander issue. The error code was for the "lamb" so we know the issue is with the o2 sensors somehow... but why?
What would cause this error other than faulty o2 sensor? When at a steady RPM it kicks on. Not revving the engine and not at idle.
The only OTHER thing I can think of, is that during the pod filter install I had my pipes ceramic coated. This install/un-install if the o2 sensors could of damaged them I do not know for certain, but it's possible... But wouldnt this throw a code at all times? Mixing them up would not change anything? Only mixing up the connections front to the back, back to the front.. correct?
I am going to have my ECU re-flashed this week.... Maybe this elimination of the 02 sensors will remove this issue, however, I do not want to simply mask the problem or have a reflash done if it does no good....
So.. A thought and if anyone can chime in if I am completely wrong let me know....
The stock 696 ECU is in closed loop prior to 4500 RPM(possibly 5500 on 696). Thus, when the tuner was attempting to correct the issue at 2500 RPM he was working pointlessly because that RPM range cannot be mapped... You might be able to plug in values, but the ECU will not recognize them.
Now, with the pod filters/stacks on the bike, it is running even leaner than before. The o2 sensors dont kick on and start reading the exhaust until it reaches 300 degrees... So, at idle and in short rev's the bike it not putting out enough temperature to activate them, however, at a constant RPM(in this case 2500) the exhaust reaches the 300 degree mark, activating the o2 sensors, which then send a signal to the ECU telling it that it is way too lean... Thus causing the "lamb" error code.
I don't know why once the CEL pops on the bike starts to pop, but I am thinking that once the ECU gets the lambda error it starts to correct the issue somehow and is causing the sudden popping of the engine....
I could be wayyyyyy off in this theory, but it seems somewhat logical to me...
I am going to just have my bike reflashed and eliminate the o2 sensors and see if the tuner can then map the entire RPM range.
Im all outta ideas at the moment and seriously frustrated.
Quote from: DoWorkSon on May 15, 2011, 08:47:40 AMWhat would cause this error other than faulty o2 sensor?
The ECU's inability to bring fuelling within range.
O2 sensors: "hey its still bloody lean down here, send more fuel!".....
ECU: "bullshit, it
cant be still under 14.7:1 with all the additional fuel I'm ordering up"....
O2 sensors: "telling you man, we're still detecting
way under.... send MORE..."
ECU: "Hey... we have a situation going on with these idiot O2s.... Flag the CEL and get this checked out...."
Quote from: DoWorkSon on May 15, 2011, 08:47:40 AMWhat The only OTHER thing I can think of, is that during the pod filter install I had my pipes ceramic coated. This install/un-install if the o2 sensors could of damaged them I do not know for certain, but it's possible...
Did you remove the lambda sensors yourself..... or did you entrust the task to somebody else?
Quote from: DoWorkSon on May 15, 2011, 08:47:40 AMMixing them up would not change anything? Only mixing up the connections front to the back, back to the front.. correct?
Correct.
So anyway, in the stock closed loop (so under 4500 or 5500 or whatever it actually is on a 696) the PCV achieves nothing. Notice I didnt say that it does nothing. The correct values to be entered in this area is zero. Anything else is just giving the ECU work to do cancelling out what you just asked the PCV to deliver. So, when your Dyno guy was attempting to correct for your lean sate @ 2500 he was WASTING HIS TIME.
In the closed loop the ECU is aiming at AFR of 14.7:1 and all the stock O2 sensors do is report either lean (under 14.7:1) or rich (over 14.7:1) causing the ECU to regulate fuelling accordingly.
Forget the PCV and O2 optimizers for a moment. Lets attempt to problem solve by getting back to basics. And lets assume for a moment that your Lambda sensors are working fine (I'm trying to understand your problem myself as I go here).... After you fitted the Pod filters, the ECU will of course still be aiming for 14.7:1 regardless. How will it achieve that ratio? It asks the O2 sensors whats going on down there. If they're screaming "still lean".... maybe, the ECU mapping doesnt provide for the possibility that so much fuel could be needed to get to its target. And so it cracks a "does not compute", flags the CEL and logs a lambda error. Yup, I'm happy with that theory.
But then consider this: The optimizers work by telling lies to the ECU. The lie they tell is that "things are leaner down here than the O2 sensors are saying", tricking the ECU to fuel up some more to around 13.6:1 (whilst actually believing that its still achieving the leaner 14.7:1). And so since with the optimizers fitted its possible to ask the ECU to "overfuel" (whilst still believing that its not doing so), you'd think that without the optimizers (as discussed above) the ECU would respond to "too lean"by just adding more fuel until it gets to 14.7:1. Thus undermining my previously happy theory. make the beast with two backs.
The connectors where the PCV plug into the FI loom are really flimsy (the pins bend if you look at them the wrong way)... you checked for pin damage here?
If the O2 sensors were damaged when you removed 'em then that would be an explanation for whats going on..... but is that really likely?
make the beast with two backs it. If you're gonna reflash the ECU to eliminate the stock closed loop then the inputs from the lambda sensors will cease to be an issue. Do that [evil].
the other item to think of is the inability of the FI to provide enough flow.
Quote from: Raux on May 16, 2011, 03:12:33 AM
the other item to think of is the inability of the FI to provide enough flow.
Unless I'm very mistook, the FI throttle bodies are the same on M696 and M1100. And mine fuels up just fine.
I could understand the FI's management (the ECU) being incapable of allowing fuelling in excess of predetermined perameters.... yet mine never had any issues of this kind. There are other airbox elimination pod filter kits out there for M696 which work fine with stock ECU + PCV + O2 optimizers. So I dont think its a shortcoming of the FI's ability to deliver per se.
Quote from: ungeheuer on May 16, 2011, 04:34:34 AM
Unless I'm very mistook, the FI throttle bodies are the same on M696 and M1100. And mine fuels up just fine.
I could understand the FI's management (the ECU) being incapable of allowing fuelling in excess of predetermined perameters.... yet mine never hand any issues of this kind. There are other airbox elimination pod filter kits out there for M696 which work fine with stock ECU + PCV + O2 optimizers. So I dont think its a shortcoming of the FI's ability to deliver per se.
Correct, I know the waspworks kit works for the 696.. And it's essentially the same exact setup. So why the error on my bike? If this was a universal problem I would be more inclined to think it was as simple as the ECU going retarded and throwing a code... But, I have yet to hear of a similar problem. And why the popping once the CEL is thrown??? The bike runs fine and then after about 20 seconds I get the popping and a CEL. Is the ECU trying to do something causing the popping?
I think the simple solution is to eliminate the o2 sensors, and have the entire RPM range mapped. Im just afraid of an underlying problem.
Quote from: DoWorkSon on May 16, 2011, 10:57:44 AMI think the simple solution is to eliminate the o2 sensors, and have the entire RPM range mapped.
+1
Finally got ECU back from desmoworks with the reflash. Installed it today and bike ran perfectly fine. All the other issues I had experienced were eliminated. Thank god
Good news [thumbsup]
So now you can dump the stock O2 sensors and the Dynojet optimizers and map your PCV throughout the whole rev range [evil].
Quote from: DoWorkSon on June 02, 2011, 01:08:57 PM
Finally got ECU back from desmoworks with the reflash. Installed it today and bike ran perfectly fine. All the other issues I had experienced were eliminated. Thank god
Great news! I've been watching this thread to see how things panned out. Have you noticed any differences with the pod filters and the PCV remap?
Quote from: DoWorkSon on June 02, 2011, 01:08:57 PM
Finally got ECU back from desmoworks with the reflash. Installed it today and bike ran perfectly fine. All the other issues I had experienced were eliminated. Thank god
Great News! I bet you were tearing your hair out during this whole ordeal.
I'm still curious why the ECU could not adjust the closed loop to solve the lean issue.
I had mine reflashed and 02's deleted by Anthony also. Let me know if when you unplug and remove the 02's you pull a code. I have not removed mine yet because, well I'm lazy.
Quote from: Veloce-Fino on June 03, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Great News! I bet you were tearing your hair out during this whole ordeal.
I'm still curious why the ECU could not adjust the closed loop to solve the lean issue.
I had mine reflashed and 02's deleted by Anthony also. Let me know if when you unplug and remove the 02's you pull a code. I have not removed mine yet because, well I'm lazy.
Im not an expert on the ECU but aren't there pre-set parameters for the ECU in closed loop as far as the A/F ratio and it won't adjust? I think the ECU was getting a funky signal from the o2 sensors once they reached 300 degrees(when they turn on) and the ECU was throwing a code and trying to fix the problem some how.... Who knows. It could have been something as simple as a crossed wire, damaged o2 sensor, or maybe even the different mid-pipe I had for my exhaust... It's beyond me..
I took off the o2 sensors and ran the bike for awhile... No codes. I bought two oil drain bolts for 2 bucks each. They are the same size as the o2 sensors. We put those in the space where the o2 sensors were and they worked very well in plugging the existing holes.
So, tuner has the bike over the weekend and hopefully I will have it back in running shape by next week!
ups, got it late, but it only makes sense that installing pod filters will make the mixture way lean, the o2 sensors will go way out of it's pre-programmed parameters or comfort zone (because is way lean) and the ecu will think that the 02 sensor is faulty due to the milivolts output from the sensor beeing out of range.
glad your bike runs fine now!
Quote from: devimau on June 03, 2011, 11:59:32 AM
ups, got it late, but it only makes sense that installing pod filters will make the mixture way lean, the o2 sensors will go way out of it's pre-programmed parameters or comfort zone (because is way lean) and the ecu will think that the 02 sensor is faulty due to the milivolts output from the sensor beeing out of range.
So how come mine worked fine?
@Ung:
Aren't you running stock mid-pipe and slip ons? It is entirely possible we had the O2 sensors wired backwards- we were never able to get a straight answer on what "O" and "V" represent to make sure which one was which. If that were the case, it WOULD be causing the condition described whereby the ECU was adding fuel but it wasn't changing reading properly at λ so it was adding even more OR the reverse, it was attempting to lean the mixture coming out of closed loop and since λ wasn't detecting the change was attempting to lean even more and creating a VERY lean condition.
Either way, the combination of a λ CEL and the fact that removing O2 from the ECU fixed the symptom, it had to have been something with those- since we based how we had them hooked up on the PC instructions I'm not entirely sure we didn't have them mixed up.
Could the difference be as simple as the closed loop and stock maps on 1100 ecu are richened up for the added displacement and other features of that engine VS the 696. I still haven't heard anybody chime in who has actually done the mods Brian has and what their results are so we have nothing to compare it to...
o = horizontal cyl
v = vertical cyl
Quote from: 2-Skinny on June 04, 2011, 08:11:39 AM
@Ung:
Aren't you running stock mid-pipe and slip ons? It is entirely possible we had the O2 sensors wired backwards- we were never able to get a straight answer on what "O" and "V" represent to make sure which one was which. If that were the case, it WOULD be causing the condition described whereby the ECU was adding fuel but it wasn't changing reading properly at λ so it was adding even more OR the reverse, it was attempting to lean the mixture coming out of closed loop and since λ wasn't detecting the change was attempting to lean even more and creating a VERY lean condition.
Either way, the combination of a λ CEL and the fact that removing O2 from the ECU fixed the symptom, it had to have been something with those- since we based how we had them hooked up on the PC instructions I'm not entirely sure we didn't have them mixed up.
Could the difference be as simple as the closed loop and stock maps on 1100 ecu are richened up for the added displacement and other features of that engine VS the 696. I still haven't heard anybody chime in who has actually done the mods Brian has and what their results are so we have nothing to compare it to...
λ --- Half-Life, Great game series.
Also, Ung, didn't you have a DP ECU before doing the install of everything? That would certainly have a richer base tune.
It could be a whole array of things causing the error. But, got a call from tuner and he said it's running good and it's all dialed up ready to go, so whatever the issue was, it was fixed with the ecu reflash. Can't wait to ride! It's been way too long
Quote from: DoWorkSon on June 04, 2011, 05:51:14 PM
It could be a whole array of things causing the error. But, got a call from tuner and he said it's running good and it's all dialed up ready to go, so whatever the issue was, it was fixed with the ecu reflash. Can't wait to ride! It's been way too long
Do you have any dyno results?
Quote from: asherrick on June 04, 2011, 06:14:19 PM
Do you have any dyno results?
+1 interested to see if the exhaust we have combined with the intake makes around stock #'s
Remember, the HP/TQ #'s Ducati states are probably mildly exaggerated. Maybe 1-5 HP/ft-pd
No results yet. Just spoke to tuner briefly. He has a lot of experience tuning(30 years) but mainly on harleys. We will see this week what the numbers are.
Quote from: DoWorkSon on June 04, 2011, 06:48:30 PM
No results yet. Just spoke to tuner briefly. He has a lot of experience tuning(30 years) but mainly on harleys. We will see this week what the numbers are.
Same number of cylinders, should be fine. ;D
Quote from: 2-Skinny on June 04, 2011, 08:11:39 AM
@Ung:
Aren't you running stock mid-pipe and slip ons?
Termi Full System here.
Quote from: Raux on June 04, 2011, 08:26:21 AM
o = horizontal cyl
v = vertical cyl
What Raux said [thumbsup]
Quote from: Veloce-Fino on June 04, 2011, 04:20:29 PMAlso, Ung, didn't you have a DP ECU before doing the install of everything? That would certainly have a richer base tune.
I did have DP ECU correct. But M1100 DP ECU's retain the stock closed loop and O2s still aim @ 14.7:1 AFR, neither richer nor leaner than with the stock ECU. Same on M696.
Since there's uncertainty about whether the Lambda connectors (and therefore maybe the Dynojet Optimizers) were correctly orientated (coulda been bass-ackwards), I'm putting my money on that. Anyway, doesnt matter now since the reflash deleted this issue [thumbsup].
Ever get those dyno results?
Quote from: ivn on July 13, 2011, 05:49:29 AM
Ever get those dyno results?
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=49753.msg910118#msg910118 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=49753.msg910118#msg910118)