Anyone share experiences with the Twin Scan II tool?

Thank You

 

well I'm not a pro at it but my buddy and I are currently tuning my bike. I have an 06 SG that Iadded O2 sensorsto the exhaust. We are adjusting the VE tables to hit he (current)HD AFR. Once we get that nailed, we may play around with the AFR table to make it more richer (since Harley starts out lean). BUT we seem to think the AFR (richness/leanest) at the high RPM and the HIGH Throttle positions are good as-is. So we may justplay with the AFR at idle up to cruising speeds. I'd like some feedback too if anyone thinks I'm on the right track, or not!!!

It seems to be a great system.......I have a SERT. After collecting data, we compare it to the SERT map, and make adjustments from the data collected. After I add the new map, I ride/collect alot of data and do it all over again untill the numbers are somewhat stable!!!!!! I ride with my lap top, so I can stop and dump data when I think the duffer is full.

 

Sounds like you're on the right track to me. But wouldn't it behoove you to get it all done in one day in as short a time-frame as possible, so weather conditions and stuff don't mess with you?

How long does it take to hit each VE cell? If you can get through them fairly quickly you can do some simple math between the set and read AFRs and adjust the VEs accordingly, then make another run to confirm. Maybe I'm thinking it's a lot easier than it really is...

VE=87.3%, AFR=14.3 but measures 14.1 would mean VE should be (14.1×87.3)÷14.3=86.1 is what I'm thinking.

Get that done and then just plug in the AFRs you want should get it.

[edit: dang, it's back to the way I had it at first. When I posted and looked at it again I thought for a moment I'd had the AFR fraction inverted, but this is correct.]

[more edit: here's a couple examples, one going each way:

 

I have been using the twinscanII to tune with the SERT since early spring and have done around 10 bikes, it is very straightforward and works extremely well, as for its simplicity, it calculates and tells you in a table that matches the SERT VE which cells are rich or lean and by what percentage to change each cell, the hard part is getting the bike to run in each cell without lugging or safely taking it up to high speeds to get all areas of the map. You can tune using the method outlined in the SERT sofware by setting all afr cells to the same number (13.2) but I have had better results using a canned mapafr table that matchesthe build as closely as possible, after the VE's are set you can then change the afr's to suit what your engine likes. It still takes good old common sense and an ability to feel if your afr changes are helping or hurting performance but at least your VE tables are correct and you can change afr's and be relativley confident you are getting what the afr target is asking for.I have used it with the bungsfor the 02 sensors close to the heads and I have also built a pair of sniffers to stick up the tail pipes and have found them to be equally accurate. The 0 percent and 5 percent throttle positionsare the toughest ones to tunebecause of reversion or overscavenging of different pipe designs and you have to use some common sense when making corrections in these columns.I think this is one of the most underrated and valuable tools I have ever came across. Worth every penny for someone who will tune a couple of bikes or more. As far as tuning on different days, I have not found a significant difference when I rechecked a couple of tunes before a long trip this summer , might have just hit the same kind of weather as the first time I tuned them though.

 

thanks guys.....I've learned even more!!!!

 

glens:

I'm also trying to do adjustments to the VE tables. I started to do data runs with the last map that I had loaded but read about changes to the maps that were made to the newest version of the SERT software that's out so I ordered it. Unfortunetly when installing the new software I failed to save the data runs before uninstalling the old for the new. I did save the old maps so thats what I'm using as a reference to adjust to.
My questions:
I'm asuming by the numbers that you use for the actual AFRthat the CLB tables have beenmaxed out. Correct?
How do you calcuate new VE values when AFRs are MAP and VEs are Throttle Position?
I've loaded the newest map for my setup but have'nt done any data runs (or riding for that matter) yet 'cause of the weather so I'm just using this down time to get more knowledge on adjusting with the SERT.
( to seehow closemy calculations can come to actual conditions) Once I get a handle on this aspect, it's on to Spark Advance!

 

Thanks All for the input

Seems as though this is a "smart" investment for someone interest in getting a better running bike.

 

Thanks for asking. If you're referring to my examples, I just pulled them out of thin air. The "actual" rows represent what was measured in use by the external gas analysis method.

But since you bring it up, the full effect of the CLB is something I've been pondering myself and I don't have the answer (haven't sought it yet). Namely, if the AFR setpoint is 14.6, that means it's going to consult the O2 sensor output. If the output is supposed to be 500mV at 14.6 and you have the CLB set to 666mV, there will be more fuel being sent to achieve that. This much so far is academic.

My wonderment is whether based on VE value the ECU determines 14.6 AFR should require X milliseconds injector time but it needs to provide X+Y% to get the CLB setpoint, using the (as/if equipped) adaptive fuel routine, would a VE New result that's different than the actual VE by the Y%? If this is the case, then by whatever percentage difference that is, wouldn't the open-loop AFR setpoints (based on accurate VE settings) end up being that percentage richer as well?

It depends upon whether there is a default value for the CLB target buried within the math routines or whether it merely uses the CLB as set in the table. Asked another way, is the O2 integrator determined just from the CLB or from a hard-coded value?

Using the Twin-Scan tool mentioned in this thread, one should be able to get the answer to that reverse-engineering question in pretty short order. I have neither SERT nor TwinScan

The SERT data window shows throttle position and desired AFR at any given moment. That's where you'd get the information. You're not directly concerned what the AFR might be at that moment, only that at that VE table cell you've achieved whatever it was desired to be or not. I believe that's why the SERT manual advises to set AFR to the same safe value everywhere for purposes of populating the VE tables. Doing that is only necessary to allow a common factor for the calculations. Otherwise you have an additional variable to enter into your programmable calculator or spreadsheet cell. For doing this in actual use with something like the TwinScan, the extra entry would be worth the trouble in my opinion, as the driveability would be better.

In the close-loop areas, the desired AFR is 14.6 but/so you'd have to use the O2 integrator values in your ratio of proportions (but this raises my earlier question again: should the CLB values be set to whatever [490mV?] value actually corresponds to 14.6 or does it not matter?). I'd set the AFR in the closed-loop areas to something concrete, like 14.0, for the VE table setups. You'll not be running closed-loop anyway if you remove the stock sensors for use of the TwinScan

If you look at the TwinScan information here and here you'll see that if you operate with the display available you can precisely set throttle postions and RPM to centerpoints of the VE tables. If you want. It will provide a display later indicating what the VE changes should be for your application.

I really like the looks of this unit, and am attracted to their engineering decisions in general. That's why I'm pretty sure if I had to get either the DTT or TMAX right now, it would be the DTT.

 

Seems as though the Twin Scan II is only half of the equation. Can not see A/F ratios unless you purhcase the complet "kit".

Price goes from $185 for the Twin Scan Logger to $522 to get the whole package.

Agreed that this should be an excellent diagonostic tool, once all the bits are connected.

Appreciate all of the dialogue on this.