Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 102

Thread: P59 Trans Torque Management Issues

  1. #81
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    53122 drive.hpl

    Here is a log from last night with the start ratios set to actual gear ratio. As you can see, its just a slight bit late imo. I still havent quite figured out why the part throttle shifts tm isnt as quick as wot, especially the 3-4.

  2. #82
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    I hate to say but the setting you are playing with maybe why they dont allow us to see the table in question or it maybe missing another table which has more influence on said table

    "a table within a table within a table"

    On the other hand I am a firm believer if you keep messing with it, eventually you learn everything there is to learn, try every possible setting and carefully keep track of every experimental result and the final outcome will be superior understanding even if it does not yield the intended or desired results.

    I am impressed you got as far as you did and I Sense a bit of uncertainty this far in- however! Do not give up hope it is often at the last ditch effort, the final possibility which reveals the big picture epiphany which I would be willing to bet is within a stones throw of your current position....

    IOW: IB4TE

  3. #83
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    Ib4te ??

  4. #84
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    335
    I believe the RPM Drop table determines the starting point for calculating shift time. The end column signifying when the new gear has been reached and "stops the clock" for reported shift time. I think I may have found the ramp in and out tables for this but they are not clear to me. What I can kind of determine is that the ramp in start ratio is close to the start ratios we already have. We still need a "drop" to happen. Setting the start column to the actual gear ratio of the lower gear I still believe to be incorrect. Raising it very small amounts over stock may tighten the window for high stall converters hanging but the ramp in start ratio will still be the stock value. The ramp out start ratios seem to be based possibly on shift torque, torque, TPS, or "shift progression". I cannot tell yet. But they start at ratios higher than the End ratios we already have. They end at or above the end ratios we already have.

    Sorry, just to clarify the ramp in/out ratios are referring to the ramping in and out of the torque reduction.
    Last edited by eXo3901; 06-01-2022 at 04:56 PM. Reason: clarification

  5. #85
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by eXo3901 View Post
    I believe the RPM Drop table determines the starting point for calculating shift time. The end column signifying when the new gear has been reached and "stops the clock" for reported shift time. I think I may have found the ramp in and out tables for this but they are not clear to me. What I can kind of determine is that the ramp in start ratio is close to the start ratios we already have. We still need a "drop" to happen. Setting the start column to the actual gear ratio of the lower gear I still believe to be incorrect. Raising it very small amounts over stock may tighten the window for high stall converters hanging but the ramp in start ratio will still be the stock value. The ramp out start ratios seem to be based possibly on shift torque, torque, TPS, or "shift progression". I cannot tell yet. But they start at ratios higher than the End ratios we already have. They end at or above the end ratios we already have.

    Sorry, just to clarify the ramp in/out ratios are referring to the ramping in and out of the torque reduction.
    That makes a lot of sense, and would explain why the torque management effect is different at wot and part throttle. WOT shifts are perfect in my opinion.

    Also, to clarify. You mentioned me setting the start ratio to actual gear ratio incorrect, but I noticed you said “gear ratio of the lower gear”. Do you mean mechanically or numerically? I hade set the star column to the ratio of the “offgoing” gear, not oncoming. So the 1-2 row is set to first gear ratio, 2-3 2nd gear ratio and 3-4 set to third gear ratio.
    Last edited by SilverBullet6.0; 06-01-2022 at 07:16 PM.

  6. #86
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    335
    Sorry for that. Just trying to get my thoughts out as I go. I meant the offgoing/exiting/lower numerical gear. So, 1st gear on a 1-2 shift, 2nd gear on a 2-3 shift, etc?

    The assumption is that row 1 in the table represents a 1-2 shift. 1st gear actual is 3.06 and the stock starting ratio in the table for row 1 column 1 was 2.8 or 2.9. So, I believe setting row 1 column 1 to the actual 1st gear ratio of 3.06 is not correct just based on the stock values. Instead, if the stock value was say 2.85, we could raise this to 2.90 and test. Rinse and repeat but staying below 3.06 at all times for the start ratio in row 1 column 1. Same idea for the start column in rows 2 and 3.

  7. #87
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    Gotcha. The only reason I went to actual gear ratio or higher was because when logging, the timing pull didn’t seem to start until engine/input rpm’s were already falling, signifying the band already grabbing to apply second gear on the 1-2 shift. Same thing happening when the 3/4 clutch pack was coming on for the 2-3, and the band applying again for the 3-4 shift.

  8. #88
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    335
    Based on the patent and the stock values the intent is for that drop to happen.

    As for the scanner, you should log only a few channels for this specific purpose and set their logging rates as fast as it allows and all to the same value.

  9. #89
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    I had all the pods logging the highway frequency on the last several logs.

  10. #90
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by eXo3901 View Post
    Based on the patent and the stock values the intent is for that drop to happen.

    As for the scanner, you should log only a few channels for this specific purpose and set their logging rates as fast as it allows and all to the same value.
    I understand the need for a drop to signal, but I think it should be earlier so the torque is reduced while the next gear is “oncoming”

  11. #91
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    335
    I agree, but i do not think it should be set to the actual gear ratio. So, on a 1-2 and with 1st being 3.06, maybe set the 1-2 start ratio to a max of 3.0? You are the test subject so if it is working how you want then we cannot complain.

    Also, if it has not changed, there are data limits when logging channels on the older pcms, so the less channels the better.

  12. #92
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    This is the best Ive got it so far. Life's been busy. WOT is perfect. Part throttle still feels much longer than it looks on the log.

    61922.hpl

  13. #93
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    Sorry to revive an old thread, but I figure even a negative result is better than leaving everyone hanging. I played with this issue relentlessly for months. Never could get my shifts to behave like I wanted. I did make the WOT shifts quick and firm, but my part throttle shifts were always laggy and borderline unbearable. To the point it was embarrassing when someone rode with me and thought my trans was binding or my engine was bogging. Ultimately, I even believe torque management killed my trans. It lived a long happy life until I kept screwing with this. Then one day, while trying various settings, the torque management I believe sent my line pressure diving and slipped the clutches. It never got any better and I pulled the trans and rebuilt it. I?m going back together now and am going to eliminate tm altogether and see how long she lasts. Unfortunately, it seems with my particular OS (oem flex fuel file converted to 2bar sd) that I simply don?t have the control over the tm timing needed to achieve the desired results.

  14. #94
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    335
    Sorry to hear but thanks for the update. I am still searching for stuff that could help. I just don't understand the actual code in the computer enough to make progress very fast. There are some TM ramp in/out settings based on gear ratio that I mentioned previously. Still working out how they are actually used in the shift routine though.

  15. #95
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    I have read in another brands software, the shift timing torque management actually references some of the TCS retard tables. Even though that goes against common sense at face value due to the labeling. But a fellow said he never could find the entirety of the timing reduction and ramp rate until he played with the tcs retard and ramp tables.

  16. #96

  17. #97
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    I know I said I gave up, but curiosity got to me today and I had to see what relation, if any there was to the tcs timing tables. And there is a relationship.

    I set my tcs retard tables back to stock, increased the tcs retard ramp rate, zero?d the typical retard vs desired torque reduction & torque loss vs retard tables, and then set up my trans tm tables to limit the trans to ~360ft lbs max shift torque. What I got was absolutely zero tm UNDER 360ftlbs (cruising around town, etc) which is what I wanted. Now I still have a quick shift at wot, but not nearly enough tm to be worth playing with. I was only seeing -3 to -4 degrees of tm. But my shift times did seem to be accurate and around the 0.2sec range. I tried doubling the tcs retard table, which is limited to 55 degrees and the timing pull at wot did increase to -5 degrees, but my shift time started reporting longer than actual. But I will say, the timing cut and ramp back in was much better and near instant/not noticeable.

    However, I ran out of time for the day and will have to experiment to see if I can pull more timing at wot via this method or not. My next experiment will be leaving the tcs retard table stock, and increasing the percentage of torque reduction in the trans section to see if I can get it to pull 10+ degrees on the shift. As long as it doesn?t skew my PCS on the shift (hasn?t so far) this may be the best method yet. I think zero?ing out the torque loss vs retard table may prevent the pcm from raising PCS amperage and therefore lowering line pressure.

    But what this proves, is that there are other tables being referenced that we were unaware of. With the retard vs desire torque reduction table zero?d, there should theoretically be no torque management whatsoever, but there is. It is even logged as TM advance. But it also proves that anytime the retard vs desired torque reduction is in play, my part throttle shifts are garbage.

  18. #98
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    Ok, now I truly give up. Zero?d retard vs desired reduction table, left TCS retard table stock, and played with the ?percentage? of trans tm, no change. Only pulls a couple degrees on a wot shift. Not enough to matter. And if I re enable the retard vs desired reduction table, I go back to long, horrible part throttle shifts whether I set the trans tm to ramp in or just set say 20% above 360ft lbs

  19. #99
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    335
    Noted. I can try looking into that. Do not think those TCS tables are the ones to mess with. I see them as a model of the engine and the torque it produces. So when engine changes are made, it is probably a table that should be adjusted for the new power output. It just never is because no one ever has enough issues to dive deep into the tables or everything just gets zeroed out.

    The % reduction per shift is not a ramp in/out setting. It is all or nothing. So, less than 360ft/lbs there would be 0% reduction, above 360 would give you the 20%. Just need to figure out how the computer determines the torque value. I am not sure it is operating straight off the delivered torque PID.

  20. #100
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    399
    I don?t believe it is. Let?s say I have it set to reduce 20% about 360ftlbs. I sometimes see tm active while delivered torque is showing less than 360ftlbs.