A T42 controller would be new enough that the transmission would have an ISS/turbine shaft speed sensor, and therefore wouldn’t need an “rpm drop ratio” tableOriginally Posted by eXo3901
A T42 controller would be new enough that the transmission would have an ISS/turbine shaft speed sensor, and therefore wouldn’t need an “rpm drop ratio” table
JFC What did you ask him for, the sun AND the moon? I jest... Anyways, that blows but there is only 6 cells to manipulate so shouldn't take to long to figure out what effects it has, if any.
Also, my T42 use case is an 06 GTO with no ISS.
That is true, I always forget those "transitory" gto and tbss applications.
Rain here is stopping me from making "loaded" test hits on the street, but the table does induce a change!
Still trying to figure out the relationship the numbers in the table represent. I tried a few different things before the rain made traction an issue.
So far, raising the “end” column of the table by 10% did shorten the torque reduction duration. Raising it to 20% above stock made it do weird things. Just for shits and giggles, I tried setting the entire table to 1, and it made the torque management basically non existent and my shift times were reporting 0.0… I may try playing with the “start” column only tomorrow.
Wow
This is impressive!!!
2011 Camaro 2SS Convertible L99 Bone Stock for now
2003 Dodge 2500 5.9 Cummins QC 4x4. Airaid, 2nd Gen Intake, Grid Heater Delete, D-Tech 62/65/12, Magnaflow. Bully Dog: Propane Injection, Triple Dog W/Outlook Crazy Larry. Edge EZ, BD Flow-Max, 48RE: Sonnax Sure Cure/Transgo combination, Derale turbulator, billet input, Triple Disc, Super servo, 4 ring Accumulator. :beer
d1111 stock.hpl
d1111 end 90 percent.hpl
d1111 end 110 percent.hpl
d1111 start 90 percent.hpl
d1111 start 110 percent.hpl
So, I did some testing tonight. The table just has 2 columns (Start & End) and 3 rows (1-2, 2-3 & 3-4), but we have no reference to the relationship or what the values even represent. The start values are higher than the end, and there's not a direct relation to transmission gear ratios, but it is somewhat proportionate. Ive also noticed the table values are vastly different from tune file to tune file, so that made me think the values are affected by tire size and/or gear ratio programmed into the tune. However, I tried editing the gear ratio and tire size in my tune, and my D1111 RPM Drop Ratios table stay the same. So, I made 4 new tune files:
1 with the start column raised 10%
1 with the start column dropped 10%
1 with the end column raised 10%
1 with the end column dropped 10%
I logged a part throttle shift pattern and full throttle shift pattern for each tune. One of them did seem to make the shift time PID in my scanner more accurate, however I think there may be something else in my tune retarding timing on the shifts "sometimes" as with each tune file, the duration of the timing reduction varied shift to shift. But logging every spark PID my OS has, I dont see anything else. Even the chart doesnt show a timing dip sometimes, even though you can audibly and physically tell there was torque management. So for now, Im using the settings that resulted in accurate shift times, and removed 50% of the "timing retard per TM %" table.
Great job so far. If anything I would be tempted to guess that increasing the amount of timing per % torque management would be more helpful because then you could command much less torque management and get a nice large timing spike reduction. This is what I Went with in my file, it plays out pretty good because I found that when I command a large amount of torque reduction my predicted torque drops so much I Lose shift pressure and the trans could slip.
I will try that today just for shits and giggles. It makes sense.
So I tried setting the "timing per torque reduction percent table back to stock, and cutting my transmission torque management in half, and while that did change the "aggressiveness" of the torque management for the better, it did not change the length or reduction.
half tm full timing pull.hpl
I do think I might have noticed a "cause - effect" of the D1111 table values. Im studying the logs to verify
Looked at this a little more. Following the patent information the d1111 table seems to be represent a RPM Drop ratio as described. You need to log Turbine Speed and OSS or "Trans calculated gear ratio". Watch the ratio drop on shifts and the table will make more sense. Ratio dropping below "start" should initiate timing reducing. Ratio dropping below "end" should end timing reduction. I am thinking you'll see torque reduction commanded in that window.
Log less channels, a lot less. That could be why it is missing from the log.
Will do. I’ll just start a layout dedicated to what we want to see here.
d1111 raised 10percent.hpl]
Here is a log with the D1111 table raised 10% as a whole. I had recorded this before your last post. Im examining the calculated ratio now.
d1111 tweak attempt 1.hpl
my 2006 silver truck 2bar sd os.hpt
Here is a log and the accompanying tune file after trying to set the D1111 table up according the calc gear ratio in previous logs. Some gears were improved, others worsened. But I'm learning it. The tune has no been converted to a 2bar SD os in prep of a turbo install, but everything seems to be working the same.
It looks like the TM is coming in and out as you have it set in the tune. The small delays I'll attribute to scanner lag and logging rate. I think it would be best to keep the "start" column stock or about 10% lower than the trans calculated ratio pid or the actual calculated ratio of OSS/Trans Turbine (Nt/No in the patent) of the starting gear (in a upshift scenario). TM seems to need a "window" to operate in so setting start to the same ratio as the lower gear (in a upshift scenario) would presumably start the TM immediately. The log looks like it is doing that. With a stall, perhaps raising the start column 1% or 2% over stock may only be needed to catch the actual start since the stall will want to hang out in the higher ratio for longer. I think raising the "end" value should help since the stall will tend to keep the ratio higher for longer. Definitely need to test the "end" setting with trial and error though and every setup will be different depending on stall, power output, etc... After all this we would still want to confirm correct pressures for the setup as we do not know if this table impacts anything else or not.
I have not completely figured out the torque calculations yet and I would not count on me actually doing so. That said, if we refer to the patent, TM is supposed to "correct" for varying conditions and driving patterns. So once the D1111 table is doing what you want on a shift, that aspect could be looked at. I hesitate to change the actual spark tables for torque reduction vs. degrees of timing since that is tied to everything else, but if we cannot find other parameters to adjust it that or the actual TM shift tables is the only way to go I guess.
Glad you could get this tested. Hopefully some smarter tooners pop in with some advice if they are willing to share.
PCS amperage is staying where we want during the tm, so line pressure should fine. Im going to play with it some more. I logged a long 45ish minute drive. Its definitely the best its been so far, but occasionally it still takes too long on the torque reduction. Its like there's another outside factor contributing. But i dont see it in any of the ignition/retard PID's.
I made some charts to try and make it visually easier to see the relationship between the things we're watching. This log, I raised the start values 2% and the end values 10% over stock I believe. We're moving in the right direction I think. However, it still doesnt feel just right. Sometimes I can actually feel the trans complete the shift (tires chirp) at the START of torque management, and the power reduction is obviously after the shift, but the log doesnt actually reflect that. Its like my trans is a step ahead of the PCM. This is an instance or two of the 2-3 and 3-4 shift torque reduction lasting 2-3 seconds in this log. It doesnt happen every time, and I dont see what's causing it when it does happen.
my 2006 silver truck 2bar sd os.hpt
d1111 tweak attempt 2.hpl
We are very close to do what a gen 4 setup will do Torque Management wise!! Here's a log from this evening, showing a nice snappy timing pull on WOT shifts that look to be at a good time to keep the clutches happy. The part throttle shifts are still a little long on torque management, but livable. The 3-4 is still occasionally lazy at part throttle, but Im working on raising the END ratio in hopes it will shorten it. However, in this log, the 3-4 was set at 1.05 start and 1.02 end, so it shouldnt have taken so long. and I dont see anything else pulling timing there? Anything you guys can think of I mightve missed?
d1111 tweak 5.hpl
I would not make the start column on any shift equal to or higher than the actual gear ratio of the lower starting gear. Looks like it is reacting mostly as intended to the changes you're making though!
I thought the same thing, but with the ratios set to actual gear ratios, it seemed like the torque management was late.
Reply With Quote