EFI MODs

Real Time Data

In response to a question about logging engine data with a GS-911- here's how.

Open the program
Find the real time data subsection and open it
Set the data sampling rate to about the midpoint
And start the "log to CSV file" wen you start the motor.

Note that your pc probably will need its power and display settings reset so that it remain s running when you close the lid to put it on the bike for riding. This is done in the operating system which is probably some version of Windows

After shutting the bike off you will need to export he CSV file to a spreadsheet for graphing. You may have to specifically set your spreadsheet program to import comma delimiited data (the form of the CSV file) so it appears properly in columns - which will then allow it to be graphed by the spreadsheets charting function.

More folks should learn how to read real time data- a very powerful tool for looking at exactly what sensors are seeing and imporatant bits are doing.

+1

Anyone who collects the file and wants help converting or graphing or analyzing it can PM me. I've done a lot of them now.

One rider had an engine whose RPM continued to increase after he stopped twisting the throttle. Clear as a bell in the CSV file was a tiny creep of the TPS sensor due to some spring loading on the left hand cable.

bernie said:

I am reading the December 2013 Motorcycle Consumer News and saw the article on EFI Mods. It talks about Booster Plug www.boosterplug.com and Accelerator Module by Solid Soultions www.sol2.be. Has anyone used either of them? They sound interesting.

They are suppose to smooth out the lean fuel mixture issues and reportedly increase mileage.

I ride a 2013 R1200RT Anniversary Edition

Click to expand...

Hi Bernie,

I recently installed the Accelerator Module on my 2013 R1200RT. Work obligations and weather have kept me from riding as much as I'd like lately but from what little I've been able to do, it's a noticeable improvement especially off idle and the lower rpms. Honestly, I've not felt much of the "surging" that many talk about on my bike before the mod. Not knowing anything else, the idle didn't seem out of the ordinary either but after plugging in the module, I could definitely tell a difference. When I first bought the bike, I had a tendency to stall it on take off from a dead stop from time to time. At first, I just thought it was my unfamiliarity with the bike and I did adapt after a while but it always seemed like I had to do a lot of clutch slipping to get things going smoothly. After the module install, the difference is night and day. The engine feels much more willing and I can tell I'm not cranking the throttle as much to achieve the same performance off the line as what I was. In terms of overall performance, this may not be that big a deal but from an overall drivability perspective, it's a lot nicer, especially at around town speeds. For now, I haven't put enough miles on the bike to know if the claims of improved fuel economy will prove true for me. We'll see. As it is, if I don't see any improvement in economy or maybe even a little loss of mpg's, it will be worth it.

By the way, I opted for the extended version with it's own temp sensor. It's not that much more expensive as was still less than $85 to my door.

Best of luck with whatever you decide!

Ride Safe,
Steve R.

Realtime Values from a 2013 R1200RT problem....

went out to the garage this morning to fit the GS-911 to my RT in anticipation of gathering some pre-AF-XiED data.....

it does not appear possible to retrieve the "real time values" from the RT with the GS-911 with the saddle in place....the GS is too long even without the USB cable to fit under the saddle in the high position.....

any ideas.....????

as always, thanks for any and all advice...

wyman

wyman.winn said:

went out to the garage this morning to fit the GS-911 to my RT in anticipation of gathering some pre-AF-XiED data.....

it does not appear possible to retrieve the "real time values" from the RT with the GS-911 with the saddle in place....the GS is too long even without the USB cable to fit under the saddle in the high position.....

any ideas.....????

as always, thanks for any and all advice...

wyman

Click to expand...

I have an extender cable but it's out on loan at the moment. What I'd do, and you actually get a great deal of info this way, is let your bike sit overnight, attach the GS-911, key on, set up logging of realtime values, start motorcycle, idle for 3-4 minutes, stop logging, and then shut the bike off.

Below is a chart of some of that data from a 2010 R1200GSA. It shows how quickly the Lambda Control Factors come on line--less than a minute. During warm-up they varied from -15% to +5% on this particular bike. This should be concrete evidence to anyone who wonders if the BMSK can adapt around a 6% fueling shift due to a deliberate IAT error (e.g. AM or BP)--no sweat and quite quickly.

Booster Plug Bypass on my '07 GSA

Greetings All,
Although I didn't have a surging issue with my '07 GSA, I bought and installed the "Booster Plug" hoping to improve the low end acceleration.
The change in acceleration was / is hard to discern, and I saw a loss in fuel economy. So, I removed the plug and gave it some thought on what was really going on.
Basically the Booster Plug tells the Electronic Control Module that the outside temperature is colder than actual and therefore enriches the air fuel ratio by about 7%.
I live at sea level but make regular trips over the Cascades Mountains which are 5400'. At altitude I noticed the loss of power in the bottom end. This is where the Booster Plug would work for me.
I contacted Jens asking if he made a bypass switch for his system and he didn't / doesn't. He told that my idea would work and shouldn't trigger any faults. I told him what I was thinking and he provided me with a company info in the U.S. that can provide the parts needed.
I then made a bypass switch. It works great. No faults. When I get above 2500' feet or so, I cut the Booster Plug in via a switch and I can feel the change in bottom end acceleration.
I sent the schematic to Jens so he could share with people that ask.
I hope this might help someone.

roger 04 rt said:

Since adaptation values are described in the R1150 BMW manual in many places, since the GS-911 reports the short term fuel trims for the BMSK, since the GS-911 can reset adaptation values for the BMSK, and since all closed loop adaptation is done with the stock Narrowband O2 sensor for a broad range of motor vehicles including motorcycles, the argument in the prior post doesn't really hold up.

The effect of adaptation values can be measured by equipment like the GS-911 and LC-1 and can be felt by the rider. Without adaptation, since there are so many sensors in a fuel injection system there would be a wide variation in driving characteristics without it.

Simply, adaptation values are calculated in those areas (which are very broad) of the fuel map where the BMW ECUs can run the closed loop program. By using the stock narrowband O2 to calculate the amount of fuel to hit lambda=1 (14.7 for gasoline) and comparing it to the open loop calculation the ECU can quickly arrive at the difference between the two. After getting those differences in broad areas of the fuel map the ECU can apply them where it wants to. For instance if the ECU finds that the average correction in the closed loop area (using the narrowband O2 as a reference) is +4% it can add that amount in the non-closed loop areas too. That is a simple explanation of a more complex process.

The technology of closed loop adaptation was invented in the 1970s and has been used since. There are hundreds of patents by German, American and Japanese automotive electronic companies on adaptation. You do NOT need a Wideband O2 sensor to calculate Adaptations.

While one could debate adaptation's coverage or effectiveness, its existence is a simple fact.

Click to expand...

Is it reasonable to say that the ECU will in some amount of time counteract any changes made to fool a sensor. Although initially the beneficial result is obvious, in time adaption counters the "error" and getting one of these devices is a waste of money. Thus reprogramming the ECU or bypassing it is the only solution.

I've been reading this and find it interesting. I don't pretend to fully understand all of it. I guess one question I have is, how can the system know the difference between a modified signal from the temp sensor and the bike running in air temps that are actually at that level? Example: the actual OAT's are 90 degrees but the modification tricks the system into thinking it's 70 degrees. How is that different from riding the bike in actual 70 degree temps and how would the ECU know the difference?

If the system in running in closed loop mode, then the O2 sensors come into play and the system can compensate. But the bike is not always running in closed loop mode. In open loop mode, the system is relying on pre programmed maps. My understanding is that the system generally only runs in closed loop mode during a steady state cruise. During warm up, idling, or significant acceleration, its in open loop mode. Is that wrong?

Just trying to understand what's happening here. I recently installed the Accelerator module from www.sol2.be. I don't have that much time on it yet but so far, the claims of a smoother idle and better pull at the lower half of the rpm range seem to be true. The bike feels stronger off the line and much more resistant to stalling. I'm not talking about jack rabbit starts here, just normal driving. I don't have enough mileage on it to be sure of any fuel economy changes. The first tank was to the low side of what I have usually gotten. The second tank was more inline with what I expected to get considering how I was riding the bike at the time but I'll keep close tabs on it for quite a while longer before making a determination on that.

Ride Safe,
Steve R.

afmeyer said:

Is it reasonable to say that the ECU will in some amount of time counteract any changes made to fool a sensor. Although initially the beneficial result is obvious, in time adaption counters the "error" and getting one of these devices is a waste of money. Thus reprogramming the ECU or bypassing it is the only solution.

Click to expand...

It is true that your bmsk will learn any sensor "errors". The one sensor that it cannot "learn out" is the Oxygen sensor (O2, or Lambda sensor). The reason that the O2 changes can't be learned out is that the bmsk (and motronic) use it as a reference by which to compare all other sensors. Using it as a reference is a good idea because it is measuring the result of what actually happened during combustion, and because the stock O2 sensor is very accurate.

Therefore, if you make the O2 sensor transition at another lambda (say 4-6% richer), the bmsk sees it as the new truth. As an example: you install an AF-XIED and set it to transition at 14.1:1, which is 4% richer. The bmsk adjusts closed loop, and (more slowly through the process of mixture adaptation, an internal software process in Bosch ECUs since mono-Jetronic) open loop fueling until everything the bmsk does now matches the new 4% richer reference. It is a very elegant solution.

srhodes13 said:

I've been reading this and find it interesting. I don't pretend to fully understand all of it. I guess one question I have is, how can the system know the difference between a modified signal from the temp sensor and the bike running in air temps that are actually at that level? Example: the actual OAT's are 90 degrees but the modification tricks the system into thinking it's 70 degrees. How is that different from riding the bike in actual 70 degree temps and how would the ECU know the difference?

Good question. Might as well ask why the IAT sensor is there at all. The reason is that colder air has more oxygen per cubic centimeter and therefore needs the BMSK to add fuel to get the correct mixture. Same reason it has a barometer. But it only uses the IAT and Barometer for open loop fueling ESTIMATES.

So using your example: If it is 70F, the BMSK needs a certain amount of fuel, say a 3.0 mS squirt, to hit the O2 sensor number (stock 14.7:1). At 90F the BMSK uses 97% of that amount which is a 2.9 mS squirt to hit 14.7:1. So now to your question, if it is 90F but you shift IAT and the bmsk reads 70F, it squirts the 70F fuel number INITIALLY which is 3 MS, and the exhaust O2 sensor sees that the result of combustion is too rich. Having seen that, it corrects. It takes less than a second to fix it. And even better, if it sees that every estimate is rich, it creates a correction factor called a Mixture Adaptation and applies it to ALL fueling: Open or Closed Loop.

If the system in running in closed loop mode, then the O2 sensors come into play and the system can compensate. But the bike is not always running in closed loop mode. In open loop mode, the system is relying on pre programmed maps. My understanding is that the system generally only runs in closed loop mode during a steady state cruise. During warm up, idling, or significant acceleration, its in open loop mode. Is that wrong?

Your understanding is correct but incomplete, you're missing Mixture Adaptation. The BMSK runs in Closed Loop about half the time. But more importantly, Open Loop does not run on fixed maps. Every few milliseconds, it reads the fixed map based on RPM and Throttle Angle, in real time it also corrects that map number for actual air temp, barometric pressure (oil temp during warm up), and battery voltage ... BUT it also corrects moment by moment during Open Loop for the accumulated corrections called Mixture Adaptation. So if it has seen that in Closed Loop most of the time that the mixture is 3% rich or lean (up to about +/- 25%), it "fixes that error". This is how it deals with the reality of 10% ethanol fuel which is 3-4% leaner than gasoline.

Just trying to understand what's happening here. I recently installed the Accelerator module from www.sol2.be. I don't have that much time on it yet but so far, the claims of a smoother idle and better pull at the lower half of the rpm range seem to be true. The bike feels stronger off the line and much more resistant to stalling. I'm not talking about jack rabbit starts here, just normal driving. I don't have enough mileage on it to be sure of any fuel economy changes. The first tank was to the low side of what I have usually gotten. The second tank was more inline with what I expected to get considering how I was riding the bike at the time but I'll keep close tabs on it for quite a while longer before making a determination on that.

For a short time, until Mixture Adaptation has happened, you will experience benefits.

However, based on Bosch documentation and actual measurements I made before digging out the Bosch documentation, I can tell you that the BMSK will learn out the effect of an IAT sensor error. It will happen. Soon I will be reporting the results of measurements I've made that show it very clearly. They will be in the Oilhead section, my Wideband O2 thread there.

If you really want to experience the benefit of running with a 4-6% richer mixture, and it is significant and pleasing, while maintaining the full function of the BMSK, you need to install a pair of Innovate Motorsports LC-2s or an AF-XIED Kit. The LC-2s take some work but I'd be willing to help you with it. The AF-XIED is Plug n Play.

Ride Safe,
Steve R.

Click to expand...

Happy New Year,
RB

Just as a bit of perspective...

Honda's ST1300 was (is?) notorious for its snatchy off-on throttle (a common issue with fuel injected motorcycles but worse than most), some sagging throttle response in the mid-range and producing lots of engine heat. all lean mixture results. I had an early '03 that had all these issues. Power Commander and Techlusion brought out modules that were designed to fix it but failed to do so for more than just a short time. O2 sensor plugs didn't help (speaking from personal experience). After much testing, gnashing of teeth, dyno testing and unhappy customers they both stopped selling the modules. Seems the ST was learning to compensate.

Honda seems to have improved its FI on the ST1300 over the years and the issues have been reduced.

pete

roger 04 rt said:

Therefore, if you make the O2 sensor transition at another lambda (say 4-6% richer), the bmsk sees it as the new truth. As an example: you install an AF-XIED and set it to transition at 14.1:1, which is 4% richer. The bmsk adjusts closed loop, and (more slowly through the process of mixture adaptation, an internal software process in Bosch ECUs since mono-Jetronic) open loop fueling until everything the bmsk does now matches the new 4% richer reference. It is a very elegant solution.
RB

Click to expand...

So, is the AF-XIED the solution for our bikes? And, do you need a GS911 to know where you have set the transition?
Andy

afmeyer said:

So, is the AF-XIED the solution for our bikes? And, do you need a GS911 to know where you have set the transition?
Andy

Click to expand...

Andy, Dual Innovate LC-1/2s with some work from you and some support from me is one option. But the easier, simpler plug 'n play option is AF-XIED bought from Beemerboneyard. No GS-911 is needed. The setting procedure is simple: start with setting 7 (about 4-5% enrichment), ride for a while (few hundred miles). Also try settings 8 and 6 for a similar period. I run at the equivalent of 8 on my 1150 but most seem to prefer 7.
RB

Its cold here in NC. I rode the bike the other day at 35-40 degF. and the difference is huge. I'll have to get one of these devices before the Spring. It seems that the LC1/2 is a complicated installation compared to the AF-XIED. Do you agree? Is there any advantage performance wise of one versus the other?

The LC-1/2 install is very involved. The benefits are AFR datalogging and very precise AFR programming. By comparison the AF-XIED is plug n play, no programming required. It is less precise but that's not important since you get the same good result whether you add 4.5% or 5% more fuel. For most it is the way to go.
RB

I've used various types of programming and monitoring electronics and complete aftermarket ECUs on various bits of track machiney for a long time. The LC1/2 is one many gadgets that over the years have evolved to make these electronics more usable to those with the skills/need/inclination to employ them. I drive modded, turbocharged street machinery that employs a combo of monitoring and signal jiggering electronics (plus bigger injectors) so the stock ECU, developed at great expense by the maker, can be retained to control the turbo motor. Such stuff works well BUT do not underestimate the work- if you've never been around and done such stuff its not the place to start solo.

What Roger has done is use data from such to make a far simpler device that employs one of the same principles to provide many of the same benefits of stuff that is more expensive and complicated. Its possible because he did the homework for the rest of us. Despite my experience with the more complex stuff, when trying to improve driveability of a motorcycle, I want something easy and cost effective. The AF-XiED is exactly that- fixes the lean fuel issues built in by BMW in a no fuss, cost effective way. I know because I've already installed it on 2 different BMWs and am about to do it on 2 more. Those bikes range from older Motronics controlled machines to new BMS controlled ones. Results are a bit different on each of the 2 I've done but you sure don't need a dyno to tell the difference in driveability. In fact, my SO was very enthusiastic about the obvious improvement to her R1100S and she's no gearhead.

You don't need a GS-911 (or anything beyond hand tools and the ability to locate the connector for the oxygen sensor) to install the AF-XiED but if you have a GS-911, you can data log your own bike, export that data to a spreadsheet, and see what all the sensors on your bike actually do. Knowing how to interpret such data can be very handy for troubleshooting some types of problems as has been pointed out by Don and others.

I think the AF-XIED is the way for me to go. The bike has run poorly for 45K miles except when it's cold. When it is cold, it seems almost as smooth as an I6 328I. First I have to fix the ABS pump module and then on to the FI. Which FI or ECU system is present on my R1200RT?
Andy

Well, I wish I had found this conversation before buying the accelerator module I installed on my bike about a month ago. I agree with afmeyer, the AF-XIED is probably my best bet. My question at this point is, what would be better, leave the accelerator module in place until I'm ready to swap over of just remove the AM now since my bikes electronics have probably adapted by now anyway? Only thing I'm mildly concerned about is, since the adaptive functions are leaning things, if I remove the error signal on the IAT, would that leave the bike running "way" lean for a while afterwards? I'm probably just overthinking this but would appreciate an opinion.

Thanks & Ride Safe,
Steve R.

srhodes13 said:

... now since my bikes electronics have probably adapted by now anyway?

Click to expand...

FWIW... I had the accelerator module on my '05 GS. I installed it with about 30K miles in the odometer. After installation I gained approx 500-600 RPM at the low end meaning I could ride the bike down to about 2100-2200 RPM. Without the module anything below 2700 RPM was not usable. That extra 500-600 RPM was all I ever noticed (and all I wanted). No other change in performance, gas mileage, etc. was noted.

I sold the bike almost 50,000 miles later. I could still ride the bike down to about 2200 RPM, something I couldn't do the first 30,000 miles I owned the bike. Any adaptation that occurred was not noticed. What I did not do was remove the device to see if that moved my low RPM limit back to 2700 RPM or if it stayed at the 2200 level. Maybe I can get the current owner to perform that test.

That is only one data point. If you do remove your Accelerator module I'd be very curious to hear what differences you notice.

Just a reminder about basics.
It's fun to use tuning devices to improve the running of vehicles but it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect any such device to correct defects in that vehicle other than what they are intended to do.

So the starting point should be a vehicle that is known to meet specs and be in good state of tune with no ignition, fuel or air supply issues.
Any vehicle suspected not to meet that should be repaired first. Things to do to check a machine at a minimum would be a good visual inspection, a checks for any codes and a test ride by a qualified person familiar with what is correct for that vehicle.

Sure, adaptives can cover some normal variances and wear and tear but once you get outside that you're also outside what a tuning device is likely to correct.

Some older Motronics R bikes are infamous for a range of issues but newer BMS-K bikes span the range from stuff that has a few issues (eg R1200s) to stuff that runs very nicely in good factory tune (eg some of the F twins) which does not mean it can't be improved).

An R1200RT uses the BMS-K ECU (engine management computer), a ZFE (monitors electrical systems) and the ABS which is non whizzie 2007 and later. In good tune the bikes could still use some help at lower revs and the power curve has some less than sterling spots in it. But they will run smoothly and strongly enough in good shape especially when compared to 1100 or 1150 motors, a combo of better mechanics and electronics.

Marchyman - I hear ya. I probably won't remove the accelerator module for a while simply because I don't feel like peeling off all the tupperware I'd have to in order to get to it. I really don't have that many miles on it yet and the bike runs fine. I probably picked a bad time to do the mod as it's pretty cool (weather wise) around here and the bike was running as good as it ever has. I wasn't that unhappy with how the bike had been running, even in the heat of summer. I've read the complaints about rough idle and surging in the lower rpm bands. I never felt like my bike was that bad at idle. I could have been better but I didn't find it that bad. Then again, I had come off a Harley so I probably didn't have a valid reference point for the BMW. The things I've heard about surging? The only significant surging I had on my bike was early in the warm up cycle from a cold start. It would stumble after an upshift but that usually only lasted for the first mile or so. Once warmed up, there wasn't what I would call any significant uncommanded (on my part!) change in engine speed or power. The main thing I've felt on my bike that goes hand and hand with complaints from others about lean running as been the rpm ranges that engine was happy with. In the lower gears (1-3) I could get down to around 2500 with no problem. In the higher three gears, it definitely wasn't happy that low in the rpm range. One guy said, "just keep it above 3000 and it'll be happy." That's pretty much how my bike was. I also found I had to keep the rpms up and do a lot of (at least more than I really felt I should have to) clutch slipping to get started from a dead stop. I stalled the bike a number of times before starting to get a handle on that. I just thought it was me. Turns out the engine tuning had something to do with it too because after installing the module, I haven't stalled the bike once, and I can easily and smoothly come off a dead stop with the engine 500 to 700 rpm slower than before. On top of that, the idle smoothed up noticeably. The surging issues during warm up were gone and the engine is quite happy at rpms at least 500 rpm lower than it would have been before. From that standpoint, the module has done exactly what they said it would do. This "adaptive" programming they're talking about has me wondering. I'll just hang in there for the time being and see how it turns out.

Racer7 - your points are well taken. I have no reason to think my bike had any issues based on how it was running before the modification. For now, I'll just continue reading and leave things the way they are. If the ECU adapts back to what it was before the mod, then so be it. I really like how it's performing at this point and would like to maintain that so I guess I'll just have to play it by ear as time goes on.

Thanks for the replies guys!

Ride Safe,
Steve R.