That is why you need the "Electrical Diagnostic Manual" for your particular bike. It has all of the troubleshooting proceedures for all of the DTC codes, and walks you thru them in an easy to follow format.

 

Choosing a base map that is the closest to your new combination is the best way to start that is for sure. As far as voltage test go you will need to get a service manual for your year and model as they are not all the same. So a voltage may be good for one application while it's bad for another. If you were to do a search on the net on Speed Density Systems there is plenty of reading material you can go over if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it read up, then purchase the HD manuals and cross what you've learned with there twist on how it's done. It's a lot of work but there for those of you who want to do it.

Putting sensors up the muffler only introduces a time delay into the reading as long as they are up far enough. If they are not and get some reversion then it can and will pull in unmetered air with the exhaust giving you a false reading. What we do here is to remove the factory O2 and use those locations for testing. You must put the AFR table into open loop operation by using a value other than 14.6 on a HD system while doing this.

 

Realistically it seems you would need a lab scope for many of the sensors.

 

Like I have said many times, we do not use the sert / sest or even the Digital Tech in the lab, but for my use it serves as a comparison to the ETV / EPS system we use. I can see the effeact the AFV has when used and applied using the sert / sest, but with the lab system it shows that it has no true effect on the emissions. This is all I look at in the lab. Cause and effect. We can look at the whole ecu, including the PGM and bootstrap. We are allowed to do this to detect tampering for investigations. More often than not, this has served to protect the manufactures from fradulent warrenty claims.
As we can get into the ecu more than others, we see the hidden settings and tables and know what they do and how. And before it is asked, no I do not give out this information. The system is programmed to access the ecu to the level needed and flags any item that has been changed from certificated models. This equally applies to the VE's. The VE's actually have more influence.
Now, lets get back on track of LEARNING the EFI. DONT GO INTO AREAS THAT WE ARE NOT READY FOR YET. THIS IS EFI-101.

 

Rider, I really think we need to get on the same page. You seem to be talking about stuff different from what I am. The SERT/SEST do not show anything about AFV in any operating realm I have been able to discern. Do you have different SERT/SEST stuff?

I fired up my Windows partition for a few minutes and grabbed some images to show you.

I have four of them all in one big image. They are the front and rear cylinder VE maps shown graphically for two base tuning maps. Both maps are for the 96-inch engine with the same SE intake and with race exhausts. One has the touring exhaust plumbing and the other has duals. It's not really what I wanted to be able to show you, but I don't have a base/stock VE map available to form a graph with.

Anyway, assuming the picture will post for me, note the window titles within the screenshot. I have the touring on the left, dual on the right, with fronts on top and rears on bottom.

You can just make out the values for each graph on the right-hand side of each graph. Notice how with the touring set there is a 6% less maximum value for the rear cylinder than for the front, and for the dual set there is a 2.5% less maximum value for the front cylinder than for the rear. These differences are not readily evident just by looking because the colors in each graph are relative to the specific graph range, not the specific value represented by/within the graph.

By merely trading exhausts on the engine, there immediately would be a maximum 1.5% VE change on the front cylinder and a maximum 10% VE change on the rear. They do not occur in exactly the same places though, and without very careful comparison I cannot say there wouldn't be any specific areas with an even greater change.

Anyway, look at the shapes of the graphs. See how different the topology is? These graphs represent a direct factor for the fueling requirements. Where there's more VE, more fuel is needed; less VE, less fuel. Can you see how just swapping these two exhausts on an otherwise correct tune would yield some pretty bad base fueling calculations? Would you want to rely on just the ability of the ECU to "auto-tune" with its O2 sensors? You can pretty much figure on the near-left-hand quadrant of each graph being where the bulk of the O2 operation even occurs. Maybe a diagonal from the far left to the near right using the near left half would better cover the areas of O2 feedback.

I know, it's not the same as just changing out mufflers. Surely the differences in those graphs would not be so great as these. I was not able to see any maps I could compare for showing the differences between stock and SE intakes, but I can assure you there are topographical changes in them, and believe those changes are greatest in the areas where the engine does not use its O2 sensors. They would have to be. Perhaps I'll be able to come up with some more perfectly-suitable sources down the road a bit.

In direct answer to your question quoted above, if the ECU was mapped for the touring exhaust as in these examples, the dual exhausts would be incorrectly mapped parts. And vice versa.

Now consider having made the parts swap. In the big picture, the AFV value you get will elevate or lower the whole graph. It doesn't matter if that AFV resulted from a change to/from oxygenated fuel or whether it came from a *IED. Do you see how that might compound hard-throttle/high-rpm errors?

In direct answer to your final question above, the computer doesn't know there are incorrect parts it's working with except for the fact that it sees its fueling calculations were wrong whenever it can check them. It cannot (at this time, so far as I know) discern just what it needs to do overall to get things right everywhere. It can only go by what it has been told to attempt that, and as you can see, in terms of the non-feedback areas, it will not get it right unless the situation is an almost statistically-impossible one.

Okay, the uploadable image sizes both in dimensions and file sizes are arbitrarily way too small on this forum right now. I will e-mail this image in full size to any single person who wishes to either post it on a public web server or who will be willing to pass it around until such time as this server software gets properly adjusted.

I've uploaded it to tinypic dot com. http://i34.tinypic.com/14b6g0g.png

 

Glens I appreciate your effort to show me the graphs. I have seen these graphs before, and to be honest with you they make little sense to me.

This really didn't answer my original question to you.

 

In all due respect Cruiser keep your XIED rant out of this thread. This has been an excellent thread up to this point. You yourself have told others to start another thread and so on and to stay on topic. As I see it, the topic here is EFI 101 not the XIED!!!!!

PLease and thanks

 

My apologies Streeter.

 

Cruiser, I feel they should adequately answer your question. Please try to wade through this post before shrugging your shoulders and walking away.

Here is the full-size image: http://i34.tinypic.com/14b6g0g.png

The graphs are laid-out horizontally with the values projecting vertically. Each shows, from left-to-right, the throttle position; left is zero, right is 100%. From front to back (near to far) represents the engine speed; near is idle, far is redline. The upper surface of the graphs represent the VE values for each intersecting TPS/RPM spot on the floor of the map; lowest values lowest, highest values highest. The VE values, while not necessarily absolute representations of true Volumetric Efficiency in the strictest sense, are accurate in relative terms the way the computer uses them.

The VE values are percentages and represent the measured amount of air flowing through the as-configured engine at any given throttle-position vs. engine-speed, compared to what the engine theoretically is able to flow in its best-ever case for the size of throttle body, intake ports, valves, exhaust ports, and camshafts. All things being equal, and I'll mention that in a minute, the values correlate to the amount of fuel which will need to be added at any point in the graph. So in these images, the darkest blue will require the least amount of fuel injected and the brightest red will require the most fuel injected.

Remember, as the surface of the graph progresses to the right, it corresponds to greater throttle pressure. As the surface of the graph progresses away from you it corresponds to higher engine speed. So the near left is idle and the far right is WOT at redline.

In order to truly represent the amount of fuel being injected, the surfaces of the graphs would need to be elevated some in the right-rear quadrants, since the engine requires more fuel with its air under higher loads and engine speeds than it does at idle.

But those qualities are pretty much dead even between these sets of graphs, so in terms of comparison of the two systems, they are fairly representative of the fueling "landscapes" for our visualization purposes.

You can readily see the "landscape" differences between the front and rear cylinders in each pair of graphs. But the really big difference is between each of the two fronts and two rears. The surface shapes/contours are vastly different between the two exhaust systems.

Like I said, they are not entirely perfect representations of the amount of fuel which would be needed, but for comparative purposes they are accurate. It really should be plain to you how either the upper or lower graph compared to its side neighbor will be wanting to provide different levels of fuel at just about any corresponding places in the maps. If you still can't see that, don't hesitate to say so. Nobody is going to think you're stupid, and I'm sure many are present who have the same "problem" seeing what I'm saying. You can count on at least somebody jumping in to say what you need to hear in the way you need to hear it so as to be able to grasp the concept, if I've failed to really help.

That's why we're here. So we can all trade thoughts and thought processes to enable all of us to walk away with a either firmer grasp on this stuff or how to explain it better.

I have the luxury of being able to see the full-size, very clear and high-quality image. In it, each separate graph is larger than the whole thing I could attach here earlier. Maybe someone will take me up on my offer, or maybe they'll fix the administrative adjustments to allow me to post it later.

Anyway, if the set of graphs on the left were used as the basis for providing fuel for the parts on the right, it should be pretty plain that the fuel contours would not be appropriate except in a very few places. Once you are able to understand that clearly-enough, maybe I/we can help you further with the finer points I have been trying to explain.

 

None of your questions or posts make sense in this thread. This is EFI 101, and the last item we on was the CKP. Once we get up speed and can take on tuning EFI systems we can jump into that thread that is already going. In the meantime we will continue step by step to learn the EFI system. Please keep on topic and dont stray into the jungle.