Printable View
Hello everyone,
I am new to HPTuners thing and I would like your opinion on enhancing the throttle response of a mustang GT 5.0 2012 model (Automatic gearbox).
I have searched a lot in this forum and couldn't find anything linked to enhancing the stock throttle response.
P.S: When I am mentioning "throttle response" I don't mean the ignition advance, richness adjustment or vvt mods.
Your advice(s) is greatly appreciated.
Regards
Geo.
Can add like 15% to the driver demand table just not to any of the numbers that are zero, can also lower the wot pedal start down to 300 or 250 .post your stock file we can make som changes to help if that’s all your after
Thanks for your reply,
Attachment 109859
I couldn't find the tables you mentioned although I have the editor in advanced mode.
Tables found will try and report)
Here is a similar stock file because the file I downloaded from the vehicle wasn't stock.
I appreciate your help if any other mods will help.
Regards
Geo
Ecm33008
Thanks for the indication.Quote:
Originally Posted by K44
I already raised it 10% and still it is not as I expected.
Do you thing raising it more will give better response ?
Regards
try thisAttachment 109863
A billion thanks,
Will test it on the weekend and will report.
Cheers
Geo
Your welcome, just made some changes that should make it feel more responsive, they haven’t let me down yet
Hi again,
The response is definitely much better, thanks again.
I have one last question, the spark source is delayed before switching to OP, any ideas of the cause ???
My pedal pos WOT start is set to 250 and OP enable pedal position is set to 70 and OP enable % load is also set to 70;
Any ideas for this delay ?!?!? does the torque management tables affects switching to Spark OP?
Thanks Geo
Hello Tuners and Gurus,Quote:
Originally Posted by Superchips Lb
I really need your assistance in this matter, if you consult the attached log you may notice that the spark mapped point is not going to OP directly at wot and at a certain RPM it goes from OP to other MP, would you please advise of this non consistency in mapped point selection ???Attachment 110463
You need to log VCT Schedule Mode, cam positions desired, and cam positions actual.
The pedal position threshold for OP is 89% but your pedal only goes to 80. This may be normal, as your load exceeds the load threshold to enable OP.
It is possible that your cams aren't going to the commanded cam timing accurately enough and, therefore, are too far from OP cam timing so it uses other Mapped Points.
Tanks for your reply, I have already lowered the OP threshold tables 44373, 38171 and 38185 in order to jump to OP the soonest and still the same.
You are saying that "cams aren't going to the commanded cam timing accurately enough" if this is true what is in your opinion the cause ???
The vehicle is completely stock it is equipped only with CAI and catback.
Your opinion or the opinion of others is greatly appreciated.
Regards
Geo
You really need to log Cam Schedule Mode to verify that the thresholds are being met for it to command OP. That's the first troubleshooting step. If the PCM isn't commanding OP then the cams aren't going to even try to go there.
Secondly, we could guess as to reasons why the cams wouldn't go to the commanded position, but without know if they are then there's no point. This is why you need to log cam position desired and achieved.
I set my cal up to where it would stay on a single snap line at WOT, and the OP Mapped Point is disabled. This simplifies tuning greatly because now it only uses 2 Mapped Points at WOT. Therefore, if my cam timing doesn't follow commanded close enough, it will break away from the snap line and average in all other mapped points, which is obviously not the goal. I tell you this because I've had a few instances where my exhaust cam didn't stay close enough to commanded and it fell off the snap-line. I reduced the high rpm exhaust cam deadband from 3 to 2, which will kick in the feedback control sooner and it seems to have helped. Your deadband is 4 deg intake and 2 exhaust, but since we don't have the right log data I can't tell you which is the problem or how far off it is to know if changing the deadband might work. There is also an I term max that can be lowered to reduce response time (IIRC), but I have not experimented with this. Or, it could be a mechanical issue caused by weak phasers or perhaps even oil viscosity.