jigga009

Thanks for chiming in; I appreciate your expertise here. I may have had their explanation down wrong. They did not say that AVCS is in use at idle, but something about the orientation of the WRX cam gears on the AVCS cams means that the combination effectively locks on into a situation you would have if you did not use AVCS at all? In addition, would lead to worse idling characteristics. It's something I have to do a bit of research on admittedly. I do know that often times people use AVCS to tune out the lumpy nature of cams, but again, it's all currently beyond my pay grade. I may visit AVCS down the line, but from the research I have done on it, for all of the benefits it definitely gives, it does also seem to give some headaches when it doesn't work properly. Hence the reason I have stayed away from it and just put up with the loss in low end torque for now. Yes, boost leak testing with my air compressor as well as smoke testing of both the intake and exhaust of the car. Intake currently shows zero leaks anywhere. All of my injector ports ( some of which were found to be leaking when I first ran into this issue and started diagnosing) are now tight as a drum. Smoke testing of the intake showed only minor thin trail of smoke emanating from the turbo's compressor housing/chra V-band joint, and the external waste gate dump tubes. I even tried pressurizing the smoke into the intake system to force any leaks out and nothing. It all showed up underneath the car at the dump tubes as well as a thin wisp at the V-band connecting the compressor housing to the turbo centre section. Boost leak testing the exhaust system shows no major leaks. If I set the regulator of my 15 gallon compressor to 40 psi and send it up the exhaust pipe, I can get the v-bands on my twin scroll exhaust manifold to very slowly create a bubble or two when hosed down with soapy water. You couldn't feel air escaping with your hand next to them though. I would imagine that they are so minor that they would seal up when the exhaust manifold gets hot. No air leaks at the exhaust manifold-head junction. Smoke testing the exhaust system shows no leaks either, except from the exhaust waste gate dump tubes. Apparently Garrett considers some very minor leakage normal with their turbos since they don't use o-rings between the CHRA and compressor housing on their larger frame turbos. TIAL also apparently considers leakage normal with their waste gates when cold as well. Is your idle RPM for when you are up to temperature already? What RPM are you targeting on a cold start with your cams? Thanks again!

I thought it was an annoying characteristic at first also until I realized that I was killing sensors off quite regularly back when I had my AEM UEGO. I read up on some patent papers as to how the OEMs are keeping their sensors alive for so long, and Link is doing something similar. Now I have all of my widebands setup to delay starting up on cold start only via relay. With that said, I can definitely see that it might be useful to sidestep this feature during the cold start tuning/mapping process though. Another benefit of the way Link does it I find is that you aren't wasting battery power on heating the wideband sensor when the key is at the ON position without the engine running.

Small update.. Had a chance this afternoon to check the physical timing on the engine, but found nothing out of the ordinary. I was hoping to find some jumped teeth to explain the poor vacuum, but it's fine. I also had a chance to talk to a Subaru shop that I get parts from (actually about ordering the timing belt pulleys and tensioner to replace everything there), and mentioned what was going on. They mentioned that the cam gear misalignment I was seeing was very typical with Subarus and likely not the problem. They gave an explanation for AdamW's observation of poor vacuum at idle ---- Apparently, GSC's cams I have are AVCS cams, and running AVCS cams without the AVCS active (with WRX fixed cam gears like I do) will produce relatively poor vacuum at idle since you are essentially sitting in the "high RPM" position of the cams all the time. The real solution they say would be to either switch to dedicated non-AVCS cams, OR activate AVCS on my car, OR increase my idle speed from the 900-1000rpm that it was idling at during my logs. For comparison, they run 264 cams on their shop car, and have to idle at 1000rpm to prevent misfires, so were certain that that my idle speed of 900-1000rpm is just too low for the the cam I have, and that is why the car is misfiring at idle only and then behaving itself when I give it some throttle. I just checked the log I posted, and noticed that while the engine was idling at 900-1000rpm the entire time, the target idle speed set in the ECU is actually 1488rpm, so it definitely is idling slower than it should be for the duration of the log, perhaps this explains the misfiring? They think I must have run into the issue seemingly out of the blue because the engine must have had some intake vacuum leaks at when the new cams went in initially that my tuner remotely adjusted the tune for with the map I posted above, but some of the leaks may have sealed up as I started shaking down the car and introducing higher fuel pressure (pushing/seating the injectors down into the ports). Once this started happening, it threw the idle settings off again, making the car misfire at idle. Once I started diagnosing and pressure testing the exhaust and intake tract of the car (and found the vacuum leaks at the injector ports and some in the exhaust manifold), we are now seeing what idle/IACV settings which worked before on an engine with intake vacuum leaks is now doing on an engine with a leak-free engine. They think I need to increase the idle speed from 900-1000rpm and that should bring an improvement in idle vacuum (although admittedly not as good as if I were running AVCS at idle), and should stop the idle misfiring as well. I'm no tuner, but does this all make sense? I can't test this theory right now as I'll wake my subdivision up with the car, so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Question - In order to raise the idle speed to match the set target idle currently within the map, can you confirm that I would be adjusting or dragging the entire "Idle Base Position" table/graph curve up a few points to the point where the Idle target error is 0 at any given ECT? I figure that if increasing the idle speed to where it should be doesn't solve it, and both banks don't start showing similar AFRs with increased idle speed, I'll focus more on the physical timing of the engine. Thanks again.

Thanks for the input. I'm not really a fan of blindly throwing parts at a problem, but in order to rule out physical timing as a culprit here, I'm considering installing a new timing belt and tensioner, even though the one ones on there currently have less than 5K on them. Let me explain... When installing my oil pump and reinstalling the existing timing belt and pulleys, I noticed that the cam pulleys on the offending left side cylinder bank (cyl 2 and 4) did not *quite* line up, while the marks on the cam pulleys on the cylinder 1 and 4 bank was 100% bang on. I did count the individual teeth on the timing belt to confirm proper belt positioning according to the Subaru manual, but I still can't help but wonder now if the gears on the offending cylinder bank are off just enough with the new cams to cause the banging and popping in the exhaust, the low vacuum you mention, and the occasional blips showing up in the map signal and my boost gauge as the car idles. There are concentric idler pulleys that are on the market to correct the issue with the timing mark alignment. Here are pictures of the cam pulleys with belt installed - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xx8tktjz952qkph/AAC0b-G9Y6R2rbeFrs557Fyna?dl=0 Again, the side with the marks lining up seems to be the bank running AFRs I am accustomed to seeing on this map, while the other side of the engine seems to be running similarly also, but with a much leaner AFR than I would expect to see, with the popping, banging and sporadic blips showing up in the map sensor trace and my boost gauge needle at the same time. Thoughts?

Just checked some old notes I have regarding the CDI system, and I'm pretty sure I have them set correctly given that it's running standard (dumb) coils that have no built-in drivers. I have the CDI boxes themselves set for Rising Edge, to account for them being used with non-factory dumb coils.

Remski2 - The car is on a CDI ignition with M&W/MSD coils. Would that change your view about the spark edge being wrong? Am I still potentially looking at some fried coils given this info? And yes, it is running 8 injectors. Adamw - Thanks for chiming in. The vacuum is an interesting one for me also. The engine is on some new cams (switched from some Kelford custom mystery units to some GSC 282s, and am still getting to grips to what my new "normal" is with respect to vacuum at idle. I'm pretty sure that my timing belt hasn't jumped any teeth, but I can pull the covers off to have a look, and also verify that the ECU and engine are in fact on the same page timing-wise.

This is a Subaru 2.5 application, with headwork, non-avcs GSC 282 cams, pistons, rods, etc. This is an issue that I have been poking around at on and off over the past year when time allowed, and so far, no obvious solution to me so far. With that said, I'm no expert, so perhaps something pops out at some of our resident experts here. I have tried installing a new IACV, but that does not appear to have solved the issue. Symptoms - The car cranks over and starts up fine, but doesn't sound happy idling in general...It is popping and banging out of the exhaust at idle. I have not driven the car on the road at all with it in this condition, so all I have is an idle log, as I don't really want to run the engine much if it is obviously unhappy about something. The car is not shaking by any means (even with my Group N engine mounts), but I can definitely hear that something is off. History-(sorry for the essay, but I figure the more info the better?) This all started shortly after I had the exhaust manifold off the car to install a few bungs for widebands. When reinstalling the exhaust manifold, I used a fresh OEM gasket with copper gasket sealer, since I noticed that it had been used in the past by my trusted shop. I drove the car this way for half a tank of fuel, and noticed on the newly installed 4 channel wideband that there was a difference in readings between both banks. I could also smell an exhaust leak emanating from the front of the car. The car was not popping and banging at idle like it is now though. At the start of what was to be my 2nd shakedown trip on a new tank of gas with the new per-cylinder wideband setup, I noticed upon starting the car that the engine was popping and banging at idle cold start quite prominently out of the exhaust. Back then, the guys at Link thought that it looked like an intake or exhaust leak. I used carb cleaner around areas of the intake manifold and injectors and found some leaks and fixed them. Car still popped and banged and idle. I then had the injectors cleaned and flowed but the car continued to run the same way upon re-installation and pressure testing . I then pressure tested the exhaust system by forcing air up the system from the muffler. I quickly found a decent leak at a v-band connection due to an installation error on my part when I reinstalled the exhaust manifold after getting the wideband bungs welded in. Off came the exhaust manifold again, cleaned the copper gasket maker/sealer off the head and exhaust manifold, and then reinstalled a new OEM Subaru MLS exhaust manifold gasket and improved installation technique to prevent the v-band leak. This time, I did not feel like using copper gasket sealer like had been used last time, or by my go-to shop previous to that. I assumed that it couldn't be doing much. I thought that a standard OEM MLS gasket would do the trick without any additions. Once re-assembled, the car sat for a few weeks as I decided to make a few more changes that I had been planning on doing, so needed to pull the exhaust manifold off again while making the following changes: - switching from 12mm oil pump to a 10mm pump (as recommended by the guys at Killerbee due to some oddities I had seen on previous logs with oil pressure) - Fixed some vacuum leaks that I found at the injectors - install upgraded oil pickup tube and oil pan and baffle - installed Fluidampr crank pulley - installed Group N engine and transmission mounts - Ran a dedicated -ve wire from the battery (in the boot) to the engine block, as well as upgrading the alternator power wire and ground links between the engine and chassis. Previously, only a positive line ran from the battery positive to the front, with negative going straight to the chassis in the boot. Set up this way, I was noticing a voltage drop at high RPM on previous logs, as well as relatively low cranking voltage. - Fixed an exhaust leak between the downpipe and turbo. During final assembly though, I re-used the "new" exhaust gaskets I had installed and torqued down just a few weeks earlier (but had not yet run the car on) again without copper gasket/sealant. I did run the air compressor again up the exhaust of the car to feel and listen for air rushing out anywhere leading up to the engine, but I did not notice any. I suspect re-using the new previously-torqued MLS gaskets without a coat of copper gasket sealer *might* have been the wrong decision to take, but I'd like to get some more opinions based on my data logs in case there is something else that catches people's eye as far as a problem to look at. Is there anything out of the ordinary that anyone can see on this datalog and map? It is a cold start log at idle, but I think i did blip the throttle slightly a couple of times. Any other checks that can be easily done? Datalog and Map The car has an almost full suite of sensors including Link Can Lambda in the downpipe (Lambda1), and exhaust gas pressure-compensated per-cylinder widebands as well: Lambda 2 - cyl 1; Lambda 3 - cyl 2; Lambda 4 - cyl 3; Lambda 5 - cyl4. I did notice that exhaust gas pressure was almost non-existent for most of the log, which I would normally think might indicate some kind of exhaust leak (??), but I don't have enough experience with exhaust gas pressure to know what is normal at idle on an engine. Techs at Subaru were confident that as long as the engine had not been run on the new MLS gaskets (which it had not been), it was perfectly okay to reuse them without the fear of leaks even if they had been torqued down on already. Apparently it is something they do all the time. Now I'm not so sure, but who knows... Perhaps our resident experts here see something in the logs? Could fixing a few vacuum leaks at the injectors throw off the ability of the car to idle and require changes to the fuel table? Must there be an exhaust leak still? Or is there something else going on?. Thanks in advance for your time.

I have a logic set up for my per cylinder widebands. My G4+ controls a relay that powers the per cylinder wideband controller on 25 sec after the engine is running from cold (Engine Run Time > 25s), and turns it on immediately when the car is fired up AND coolant is up to temp (i.e. RPM>500, ECT>60 deg C). I also have a Link Lambda in my downpipe also has a 15s delay built in to it, but the ECU controls the staging of that directly so as not to get any error codes from the ECU regarding unexpected function of the wideband. The delay is whatever Link builds in to them from the factory. Not so concerned about this one coming on sooner since it is located behind the turbo. I got the rough logic a little over a couple of years ago reading through some patent documents that were filed by GM or Suzuki (can't recall anymore) that explained how exactly they were controlling their oxygen sensors for max durability and efficiency on their passenger cars. It's more complicated than above as Adam rightly suggested (I doubt he remembers, but Adam helped me with implementing what we could of what the OEMS are doing based on the illustrations from the patent docs I was able to dig up), as they are playing with voltage over time to effect how quickly the sensors heat up, but there were some elements of what they were doing that could be duplicated by the ECU, albeit in a less granular manner.

You could perform a visual test and know that it works for sure. Remove the coil pack from the engine, attach a spark plug to it, ground the plug onto the engine (rest the plug threads on the intake manifold or somewhere on the block so that it can be grounded just as it would be if installed in the head), then run an "ignition test" through the ECU software, turning on one cylinder at a time. The ECU will then fire whatever cylinder you want repeatedly until you turn off the cylinder. When you turn on a cylinder, simply go over to the engine bay to visually confirm that it is firing.

Are there going to be any changes to the number of general purpose RPM limiters with the new version of the ECU?

The firmware update on the AEM is not done by the user. The box has to go back to AEM in California for that. You'll need to give AEM a call and go over some debugging steps over the phone with them before they will give you an RMA number. Before sending it in though, you might want to confirm that the unit is not in fact sending data over the 0-5V lines. AEM will likely have you test for that. Confirm that your ECU CAN (i.e CAN1 or CAN 2) line that the AEM is attached to has the correct resistor bridging the end of the wires. As has been mentioned, the ECU has a resistor on its end, but you need to install another resistor on the other end of your CAN line from the ECU. Also ensure that the CAN wires are twisted as suggested. Also ensure that you are tapping into the correct ECU CAN H and CAN L lines with your AEM CAN H and CAN L lines. Other thing I would suggest is to take a look at the Link CAN settings. It is easy to think that you have it set up correctly to receive from the AEM, when in fact you don't. It took me a while to figure this out. If it is not set up for the right frequency, you won't see any of the data that the unit is transmitting over CAN. If I were to take a guess, I'd think that this might be your problem. I also had to modify one of the leads and remove the power and ground wires, leaving just the CAN H and CAN L in the DTM plug. I was then able to attach a small branch to my main CANBUS line from the ECU with corresponding DTM plug. This allows the ability to remove the AEM setup from the main CANBUS line by simply unplugging it from the main ECU CAN line. Something to be aware of with the AEM though is that you won't be receiving any of the trouble codes built into the unit when using it with the Link. You will just have to take a look at the unit itself to know if there is an issue requiring your attention. Pretty much all you will be receiving is the AFRs for each probe and the EGBP. That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

Adam, I have the initial AEM 4CH stream you posted in this thread working on my ECU, but I am unable to see any of the error codes or status data that the AEM also puts out over CAN. I had discussed with you a few weeks ago about somehow getting this stuff going, but at the time, I was having issues with my AEM wideband that we both determined needed to be sorted out. It has since had a firmware update, and I'm ready to try again with regard to having the AEM error codes and status data show up on my G4+, just as it does for my Link CAN LAMBDA. Including a copy of my calibration for your perusal. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9qotsocdkxquej5/Current Map rev 0.77 - with Can lambda and new canbus settings for more parameters.pclr?dl=0 Thanks!

Adam, would it be possible to have a version of the AEM 4 channel streams you made here that allow the AEM widebands to come into PC Link as Lambda 1-4, and have the Can Lambda as Lambda 5? I'm performing a similar install, using Canbus 2 on my ECU where Can Lambda already resides, so will also be reprogramming that to run at 500K just like the AEM, but I would like to have Lambda 1 be cylinder 1, etc. and then have Lambda 5 be my Can Lambda. Thanks in advance!

I know that it isn't directly related to the Link as mentioned, but have you given thought to just pulling the fuel pump relays when the car is left unattended?

As said, it can take quite a bit of patience to get the pins seated correctly before the white tabs lock. I would suggest doing it one wire at a time. Insert one terminal, and then work on the plug until it locks. Once it does, unlock it again, and then insert the next terminal, and work on that until it locks again. I find that a paperclip comes in handy for ensuring that everything is well-seated. I also find that a tiny of saliva/moisture on the body of the pin helps it slide in easier and seat all the way into the plug without the need for as much force. Going one terminal at a time as I suggested ensures that you don't frustrate yourself trying to figure out which of your newly inserted terminals is causing the plug to stay unlocked.

If you want something from Link themselves, I believe this is the link to their unit - http://dealers.linkecu.com/NTC12_2

If you don't have one way valves in your plumbing, you will run into what you are experiencing; extended cranking before starting since the pumps have to build pressure again following the pressure drop off when the pumps stop priming. With the valve in there, the system maintains system pressure for longer following priming, allowing for more instant injection of fuel into the cylinders when you go to crank the engine over.

Your fuel pressure might be dropping as soon as your fuel pumps stop priming. Do you have one-way valves in the plumbing of your fuel pumps?

Interesting tip about getting EGT with the Can Lambda. Had no idea about that feature. I had previously run EGT sensors on the car, but stopped running them a few years ago when a probe snapped off and took out a turbo. Edit - looking at the manual for the Can-Lambda, I'm can't find reference to the ability to measure EGT. Are you referring to probe temperature, as a proxy for exhaust gas temperature?

Thanks for the heads up. It is something that I suspect would drive one nuts, as my current OG AEM UEGO does the same thing when the sensor has some miles on it. The gauge would respond in what seemed like an eternity in response to the throttle pedal. I do currently have an AIM dash, and have the ECU sending the wideband data to it via CAN, so I'm able to skip dealing with a sluggish display. With that all said, the accuracy (or lack there of) of the AEM UEGO is a little concerning, and part of my reasoning to update it. Do you find that your unit suffers from voltage offset issues? From my digging, I did not think that they introduced CANBUS communication on those NGK/AFX units? Thanks Adam. Yes, I do like to measure thrice and cut once! Ended up ordering a Link Canlambda unit, so hopefully that should deal with voltage offset issues and possible questions of whether my wideband is actually doing what it is supposed to be doing. Given the data parameters that the Link wideband is able to send to the ECU, which parameter most directly indicates when the O2 sensor is on its last legs? For all of the discussion regarding warm up strategies and the like with the Link, are you able to comment as to just how closely the CanLambda follows Bosch's recommendation for warm up and use of the LSU 4.9? Have you found Link's warm up strategy to yield noticeable differences in how long the CanLambda can maintain an LSU 4.9 sensor compared to other brands out there, or even older widebands such as the OG AEM UEGO (which also used the Bosch chipset, but with an unknown warm up strategy)?

How long have you been using it? And can you go into why you went with Emtron? What's your burn rate of sensors been like? Is this to mean that you cannot have as many devices using the Can when using the Link compared to the AEM? Or is it that all devices have to be transmitting at the same rate? very interesting point to consider...Thanks!!! The Ballenger is another tempting unit. Used to be huge with the high power Supra guys back in the day. They don't appear to have CAN communication though? my reading also indicated that the NTk sensors, while hearty, are sluggish in the response department. Have you found this to be the case?

Thank a for the response Adam. I have also seen threads on other forums where a lot of what you say comes up. I have been curious as to AEM's dogged insistence that one use their sensors and only their sensors with their wideband. They claim that it is a Bosch LSU 4.9 sensor, but the sensor included with their unit appears to be devoid of the usual markings that would identify the sensor as such. Perhaps users if the AEM could chime in to confirm? And you are right, AEM definitely are not using a Bosch chipset in their x series wideband. Neither does Innovate. I think it was Alan From 14point7 that mentioned something to the effect of the Bosch chipset being the reason why a lot of the widebands on the market making use of that same chip are relatively "slow" to respond. With that said though, Alan did drop a lot of knowledge, and now I know that just because a manufacturer says they use a Bosch chipset does not mean that they are controlling the sensor in the manner that Bosch advocates. There is code that has to be written to control just how exactly the chip is run to control the sensor. This thread on this forum here proved to be a very interesting read for me: http://forum.diyefi.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2267 as they discuss a lot of the widebands available on the market, and even take a few of them apart to discuss what really makes them tick. Alan from 14point7, who makes the Spartan widebands chimes in, as do employees from AEM and Ballanger Motorsports who still produce the AFX wideband chime in at an unofficial capacity to discuss how exactly their devices work. An individual from Ecotrons chimed in also on this thread here http://forum.diyefi.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1033 , but is not met with the warmest reception, given the seemingly deceptive means through which the individual signed up onto the forum to advocate the use of their wideband under different screen names. There is some talk that the Ecotrons units are Chinese-based, but not much more info on that. Still curious as to what they are offering though, given that they are based not too far away from me. A lot of popular widebands are discussed in the initial thread I linked to, but as has been the case in my searching so far, Link's device is not mentioned anywhere, so tough to learn more about it. I have definitely considered 14point7 for a wideband, given that they are based down the road from me, but I still do see slight niggles regarding build quality and some failure right out of the box that cause me to hesitate. Their prices certainly are attractive, especially for their multichannel wideband unit, but I am unsure as to whether they are actually using stock Bosch sensors that I can pick up from a parts store. They mention on their website that their sensor resistors are "calibrated by a third party".... meaning what? Also, I can't seem to find much info on how frequently users might be going through sensors either. Ecotrons appear to now how a wideband that uses the Bosch ADV sensor as the next evolution from the LSU 4.9. Do we know of what advantages, if any, this new sensor has over the 4.9? Just as the 4.9 is supposedly more reliable (although Alan from 14point7 appears to disagree on this) than the 4.2, is thr ADV sensor supposedly even more so? Bosch have a Lambdatronic wideband, which one would assume to be the perfect wideband, given that they make the sensor, know how it should be warmed up, etc. and might actually last as long as the sensor would last in a normal car, but again, very little user info on the thing out there. I can't even find a price posted anywhere for the unit. Does the Link CanLambda still require users to solder a capacitor between the power and ground lines of the unit in order for it to work properly? http://forums.linkecu.com/topic/6663-can-lambda-problem/

Adding some info I dug up on the can-lambda as well as a few questions regarding them: Can lambda is apparently able to transmit to the ecu sensor temperature - is this logged for the purpose of adjusting the ecu map if temperature gets too high? Lambda - no questions here..this is what we are looking to measure... error codes - again, no confusion here, as it tells the user if there is a problem. - controller status - what purpose does this parameter serve that the error code above would not? - pump current - what purpose would knowing pump current serve? - heater average voltage - what purpose would this parameter serve? - Given that there is a calibration available for the G4+ to run the AEM x-series, would this calibration allow the G4+ to receive error codes from the AEM? - Is the Can Lambda able to free-air calibrat the wideband sensor? Asking because my current UEGO does not either, amd I read that it is needed in order to keep the sensor readings accurate as the sensor ages.

I have decided to update a few bits of equipment on my car, and my 12 year old AEM UEGO may be the latest item to be switched out and put into retirement. It currently works okay, and has never given me any problems over the years that I have used it. Perhaps my only issue with it was the tendency to go through LSU 4.2 sensors at what I feel to be a non-OEM rate, and its inability to indicate when a sensor is getting lazy and might need to be put out to pasture. I am also concerned about the possible implications of voltage offset on the safe running of my engine, given that it works in all weather conditions, with different levels of electrical load. My aim for this thread, while to primarily discuss the Link and AEM offerings is also to hear about others that you might highly recommend that one take a look at. My initial thought was to go with one of AEM's X series wideband with LSU 4.9 and connect it to my G4+ xtreme via can bus. I am also looking at the Link unit, but in all my searching of the forum, have not really found a thread that really fleshed out everything there is to know about the Can-lambda. Most of the threads I have seen on it are members advocating the use of the unit, without really saying why it is a better solution over other units out there. - Given that the Can-lambda retails for over twice as much as the AEM X series option (and isn't too far off from Motec LTC4.9 territory), I am curious as to what benefits, if any, there are with the Link device over something such as the AEM x series inline wideband. - Both devices utilize canbus to transmit information. In the context of use with a Link ECU, Is there a significant difference (or something in particular that a prospective buyer might want to pay attention to) in the kind of information that both devices can transmit or receive over can when used with the Link ECU? - I've read that the Link might have the ability to warn the user when the wideband sensor is almost worn out.. is this true? One of my pet peaves with my current 30-4100 AEM UEGO was that the sensor would get rather lazy after less than a year of use, giving me the impression that it is feeding my ECU some rather delayed information, and this is on a car that runs pump fuel exclusively. - I see also that the AEM has the ability to detect errors in the sensor also (encoded into the canbus messaging). Can someone knowledgable in this area confirm whether this messaging is something that the Link ECU would recognize and perhaps display on a race dash? I would ideally like my next wideband to alert me as to when I should be changing O2 sensors in the same manner as an OBD2 car. Not sure if this is something either the AEM, Link, or other wideband does, but it is the dream. Would also like something that doesnt go through sensors at an accelerated rate, especially on just pump fuel use. - Is there any information on how the Link compares to the AEM from a response perspective? The AEM appears to be one of the more responsive wideband out there. Curious as to where the CanLambda comes in within the pantheon of widebands out there. - I have read that the Link has the ability to receive input from the Ecu so as to start operation when a certain RPM has been reached. Is this it something that could be achieved on any other wideband through the use of a relay hooked up to a GP Output on the ECU? - While I am sure neither is 100% trouble free, I have come across a thread on the forum regarding the need for the installation of capacitor between power and ground wiring of the Can-Lambda in order for it to operate properly. Is this still the case, or has a running change been made? - for those with the CanLambda, what has your experience been like with your device? How often are you runnning through Bosch LSU4.9 sensors, and what is your use-case like? Are there any other Canbus wideband setups that you would recommend, and why? Please discuss

Stevieturbo - You are correct regarding the Weldon; my apologies. I knew there was a reason why I ended up with he Weldon pump controller to run the pumps as opposed to using a more crude setup that involved just reducing voltage to the pumps. I too thought the fuel heating issues were a non-issue when I resided in the UK. Once I moved across the pond and experienced heat during summer with a fuel setup similar to what you describe running at 100%, and had to deal with my car suffering from fuel starvation issues in hot weather. Then I opened my eyes and changed my setup. Yes, the fuel system did in fact start off as "simple", with all pumps running at 100%. It was okay in cooler weather, but a different story in hot weather. Update: I figured out the issues last weekend but forgot to post, so here it is...: 1) The wiring on my secondary relay was incorrect. Relay 2 (secondary pumps) was using the same ground as in relay 1, which should not have been the case, as the OEM fuel pump controller uses ground to control when it triggers a relay1 runs its pump. Relay 2 should have been grounded to the ECU AUX1 output all along instead of being wired to receive a high side trigger from the ECU. I have Ducie54 to thank for this one, as I was looking at his labelling for the relays on his schematic, and noticed it differed from mine, so I spent time in the manual for the G4+ to figure out why that was the case. To control relay 1, the the ECU Aux 7 provides a "high side" drive to the OEM main fuel pump relay, which in turn powered the OEM fuel pump controller. This in turn delivers a switched 12V source to the control side of Relay 1. After reading that area a few times, I concluded that the primary fuel system had to be hooked up as if it were a "solenoid" in the manual, while the secondary would need to be hooked up like a normal relay circuit, with the ECU controlling the circuit by grounding it. On the surface, I think my installer made the error of thinking that both relays had to be wired the same way with only difference being where they were sending their power to, so they did things such as allowing both relays to use the same ground through to the stock fuel pump controller. Problem with this was that "staging" worked by running Aux 7 (primary pumps), and then turning off Aux 7 and simultaneously turning on Aux1 which resulted in all 4 pumps going.... Not ideal at all. 2) The "race" power level setting on the Weldon PWM fuel pump controller had to be triggered through a relay, and not directly from the ECU. I read on a Mustang forum from an employee of Weldon that the Weldon pump controller needed to see an actual battery 12V in order to trigger the pump speed increase of the primary pumps. The ECU just was not putting out 12V at the pins on the high side output at the pin. I believe it was 10.X volts I was seeing while in test mode without the engine running. So I installed a relay, sent ground to the ECU output so that it can low side trigger it, and wired the rest of the relay up like I did for Relay 2. And just like that, I can now use "test mode" to alternate between fast and slow pump speeds on the primary side! So now, my fuel system is working and staging as designed. Control logic is as similar to OEM as I can get, with primary pumps running at low speed at low engine RPM and IDC, and then switching to high speed at a certain RPM or IDC, and my secondary pumps kick in full bore at a certain boost level to augment the primary side of the fuel system. This solution ensures little to no noise levels of noise with external pumps with the engine running, low fuel heating issues during the summer months, while maximizing fuel pump life. Thanks to all that spent time helping me with this issue, and thanks also to Jason and ScottC @ LinkUSA for spending a bunch to time helping to brainstorm potential areas to look at and try. I'm sure that Stevieturbo might be curious as to why I retain the OEM stuff to trigger off the primary fuel pump relays in the first place instead of ripping all that stuff out to reduce complication... Answer is that the car needs to retain the ability to return to the stock ECU every once in a while for OBDII emissions testing. The fuel system had to be done in a way that the stock ECU could still communicate with the primary fuel system in order to fuel the car, while working as intended with the Link ECU in place.