Is this the one?

http://m.summitracing.com/parts/inn-...FQMJaQodGD0Jrg

That's the one I just bought.

I've been running a NTK based wideband, and have found the sensor itself to be very reliable. Its been on several boats, and a few cars, with no issues.

Do some reading up on "NTK VS BOSCH" sensors. I think you will find the NTK to be a more accurate setup. Seems like most guys doing heavy tuning, have stopped using the bosch based sensors, due to their inaccuracy, and sensor reliability. I've read and heard from a couple people, the Bosch based units are known to read falsely rich, esp on bigger HP stuff. Downside is, the NTK replacement sensor is 150 bucks, although I haven't had to replace mine yet.

Here is the Gen 2 version of the one I have.

http://www.bmotorsports.com/shop/pro...oducts_id/3295

if bosch o2 is good enough for audis and other car makers,the $50 sensor thats tuned so many motors(500-1200hp) from me,,is good enough for me.And I've water soaked a few of these sensors,so its not that bad of a hit for me or the customer.

From another site. Look how off some units can be compared to true high end analyzers.

Air Fuel Ratio Reference Information: Posted 9/25/08 There appears to be a great amount of confusion in the area of air fuel ratio (AFR) meter readings and accuracy. This issue is very simple and straight forward when facts are presented and opinions are not used. Hello to all who read this post as this is David Darge from Powertrain Electronics. My experience and background started in 1985 with being the only USA technical engineer for Horiba Instruments. Horiba held the first UEGO sensor patent (1978) and manufactured the world’s first AFR analyzer called MEXA-101 in 1985. This analyzer being the only solution and early on as over 500 units were purchased by GM, Ford and Chrysler for $10,300 each. I also worked at Whipple Industries and with Kenny-Bell for the past 16 years and have experience using AFR data for well over 6000 hours. In 1998 we decided to market the AFM1000 which is AFR analyzer that is OEM industry tested and recommend by Kenne-Bell and considered a standard by many professionals. Last year we helped with a test of many AFR meters/analyzers at Westec Performance engine dyno where 10-sensors were installed into a single exhaust collector. All of the data was recorded by Opto-22 (a world leader in data acquisition systems) on a 16-bit DAQ system with isolated channels to prevent any possible offsets caused by ground loops. The reference analyzer selected was the ECM Model 4800 manufactured and supplied by the world wide leader of analyzers. The Model 4800 ($12,000) is used and certified by GM, Ford, Chrysler, EPA and validated by NGK the sensor manufacturer. In fact GM high performance engine assembly plant uses 12 of the 4800’s to test every LS7 or now the LS9 engines everyday. The below test data shows to be very interesting as each meter was tested at various AFR’s while monitoring the EGT and battery voltage throughout each test. The complete test data to be posted soon as below is listed a single test at 12.30 AFR. When tested at 10.50 AFR some of the meters showed richer not leaner as indicated by the data below.
Data averaged (200 samples) Delta from master
AFR Analyzer AFR 12.30
ECM4800 0.00 12.27
AFM1000 -0.02 13.05
PLX M300 +0.75 13.02
Innovate LC1 +0.72 13.34
DynoJet Commander +1.05 12.80
FAST A/F Meter +0.50 12.74
PLX R500 +0.44 1097 EGT (deg F)
13.81 Battery (volts)
FAST is a trademark of Competition Performance Dynojet Commander is a trademark of Dynojet As you can see most of the meters show an AFR leaner from the reference analyzer. The values range from 1.05 AFR leaner to 0.02 AFR richer. The data was averaged to take out any single sample error. In fact in the past we experienced more than one AFR meter reading drifted from 1.0 to 2.0 AFR’s plus or minus over time. This makes it impossible for anyone to predict the actual AFR error based on time or previous experience. Some dyno operators claim they can calculate the AFR error and make a correction factor based on time but this is not feasible. One of the AFR meter company warns to not use when the EGT is above 1330 deg F and then sometimes shuts down where the AFM1000 functions well to 1643 deg F. The AFM1000 will provide repeatability of 0.5% over the life time of the sensor with accuracy of better than 1.5% when the air calibration procedure is performed. The AFR Meter Shootout article in Ford Muscle Magazine is not a true test because a reference analyzer was not used and errors could be caused when a common ground 8-bit data logger was used. Also it is not a proper procedure to hold a sensor near a calibration gas and expect to obtain a reference AFR. You may ask, How would I know that? Well while working at Horiba I wrote the calibration test procedure the automobile OEMs preformed on the MEXA101 and this procedure was not used for this AFR comparison test. Did you ever think, What if poorly rated analyzers were the most accurate and the best rated analyzers were the least accurate? How would you know if this was a valid test unless one included a reference analyzer that is certified in the USA and Europe such as the ECM 4800? There are many professionals such as Jim Bell at Kenne-Bell and many other professional Ford tuners or engine builders that recommend and trust AFR data provided the AFM1000 when the fuel is gasoline, ethanol or methanol. The AFM1000 uses the best NGK sensor, is validated, well engineered, manufactured and tested by the world wide leader in air fuel ratio analyzers. In fact the AFM1000 uses the same NGK laboratory grade UEGO sensor as the Horiba Mexa110 and the ECM 4800. If you depend on accurate AFR for your business or performance engine then I would recommend using the AFM1000 and trust the data from now on.

Read more at: http://www.modularfords.com/threads/...91#post1225791

I think its pretty obvious unless you put a specific controller/sensor, up against a labratory grade unit, you're just hoping its giving an accurate reading. I purchased my NGK powerdex, solely because thats what the DTS dyno I used had for their o2 sensor setup at the time.

Joe I think I would like to compare the two readings next summer if you make it up to TC! I have seen how much more accurate the Innovate system is over the Fast unit, both using the Bosch sensor. The fast systems internal telemetry just could not make accurate translation of the information more so when running the dual channel option as opposed to the single input. off about 2 points (Rich). The innovate uses the Bosch sensors buy can interpret the info with more precise accuracy.

Im sure the readings between the innovate and the NTK will vary some. so lets check the two out in a few months!!

I was using a Fast dual channel , then switched to the NGK powerdex. Unfortunately, at that time I making alot of changes, and never got to do a back to back reading on the same day. I will for sure bring mine up next summer. Or, if you want, I can just send you mine and you can go play with them.

I like this... and I use the NKT sensors in the automotive industry regularly

More regurgitating of information from me . Hope I'm not making anyone angry by posting this .

Klaus Allmendinger, VP of Engineering, Innovate Motorsports
Differences between Bosch LSU4/4.2 and NTK UEGO
1) Response speed:
Measured by the sensors own response delay between pump cell and sense cell-
Bosch ~5 msec
NTK ~50 msec
I'm referring to the internal delay of the sensor between a change of pump current to change of measurement cell output for a constant AFR gas, not the delay between gas change and measurement cell output. The delay I stated is the impulse response of the control input (pump current) to measurement output.
2) Back Pressure sensitivity:
Bosch sensor has about 1/3 the NTK's pressure sensitivity.
Pressure sensitivity means that the sensor reads richer than reality in a rich mixture, leaner in lean mixture.
3) Temperature sensitivity:
NTK sensor is fairly insensitive to temperature either at bung or EGT, can run with constant heater voltage.
Bosch sensors are very sensitive and needs to have precisely controlled cell temperatures. Bosch sensors are sensitive to housing temperature.
4) Heating time:
NTK ~60 seconds
Bosch ~20 seconds
Warmup times are greatly influenced by additional heating by exhaust gas and can be shorter than what I stated. The numbers I posted are warmup times for the sensor in 20°C (68°F) still gas, sensor at 20°C (68°F), heating to full operating temp (useful measurements). Warmup cycle controlled to max warmup ramp as per respective manufacturer specs. In an actual engine situation (additional heating by exhaust gas) the Bosch can warm up in as low as 10 sec while still staying within the warmup ramp specs. The NTK can warmup in 33 secs or less. But these numbers are very much dependent on the engine situation (rpm, EGT) and therefore hard to compare and control.
5) Thermal shock:
There's no difference. The Bosch sensor is actually shrouded heavier than the NTK, which protects it a little better. The only difference I have seen is that the NTK often does not fail as dramatically and obviously as the Bosch, but can give you readings that are 1-3 AFR off.
This generally true from my experience with the NTK. It fails just as often and for the same reasons as the Bosch unit, but the failures are less noticeable. But it IS a lot slower due to its construction and can handle more mechanical abuse (banging it around).