2016 OVTune Tacoma 3.5L Manual Transmission / Engine ECU Reflash

it is unfortunate because there is only a single main target valve timing map in the ECU and I have seen zero corrections based on ECT, unlike some other manufactures that have cold / warm / operating temp angles to make the engine perform as smoothly as possible (Mazda is the best)

 

i see. but I'm MT. any difference?

 

all of the core components of engine mapping (ignition / cams / fuel ) are identical MT / AT

the issue is that these stutters when the engine is not at operating temp, are evident on some cars even with no tune, it's been a topic around since the very beginning. The problem is not completely solvable due to limitations of the tables inside the ECU.

one possible way is to remove atkinson, or change the valve timing characteristics completely, but there goes your chance of getting "good mpg"

either that or disable the map that multiplies ignition on cold ECT and IAT. It's a combo of extreme valve retard and very high ignition with very LOW RPM.

 

thanks. are there any other cons, or pros as long as we're asking, to going full Otto? mpg isn't a big concern for many here.

 

not really, any time you're above 3000 rpm or 30-40% throttle you are not in atkinson. Atkinson mode is only low throttle (low load) and low RPM.

I've tested on the AT you can get better MPG with degraded drivability by extending the atkinson mode further, and better drivability with worse MPG by removing it.

 

excellent. will you release a full Otto MT tune for trial in the future?

 

I could if people wanted it. I'd really like to find a solution without removing atkinson

 

as long as i don't get worse mpg then the Ram I traded in...then that would be a problem

 

depending on how much time it is for you, I'd guess there's demand. we've had it mentioned here a number of times.

for clarity:
1.03B is strong. but it seems there's a bit of refinement left in it for everyone to be happy.

my understanding is the all-Otto idea benefits sharpened throttle response up to full VVT, and maybe a tick of power also... can you comment on this?

 

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I tried two tanks of 92. I lost MPGs and the torque hole below 3,500rpm disappeared. Midway through the second tank, I ended up feeling that the low end power felt like it dropped. 87 felt peppier and gives me better mileage.

Of course, different fuels and trucks . . . Just my data point.

 

I typically stay above 2500-3k rpm just out of habit. This would seem to make me a possible candidate for testing full otto then, no? I would be willing, IF there's a point of course. If not, no biggie

Seems that if I wasn't imagining that small instance of stuttering in 3rd this morning, it was due to driving off right away without the truck being at ideal operating temp .It was so minor that personally, I could easily live with that happening here and there .Obviously though, this seems like this may be a bigger issue for some people so far

 

did i miss that you experienced 87 was better for you than 91/93?

 

I run 87 almost exclusively. The issue is where the fuel comes from and whether or not it’s an ethanol blend. I can go to almost any gas station in South Dakota and I’ll average 1-2 mpg less no matter what I do. The same thing has happened to me throughout the country depending on the station you go to. In my 2005 I could put in fuel from anywhere and it didn’t care, I’d still average the same mpg.

 

First tank of gas on 1.03B for those interested. About 300 miles on 3/4 tank. About normal for this time of year with winter fuel and freezing temps.

 

when the editor is enabled in flash manager you guys will be able to mess with everything you want (for people who want to).

 

Well, I will add my feedback as soon as I get my dongle activation key and flashed. I do know I will be running the 87 tune file while using 91 gas.

 

I can see this might end up as a headache for you. You know the old saying, "give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself".

 

Even with Atkinson, we don’t get much better mileage than the 2015. This engine is smaller, has more advance VVTi, direct and port injection and a 6-spd transmission.

It’s mind boggling to me that we need Atkinson to get an improvement in MPG when all of those other things by themselves should do this.

 

If you drive an the 3.5 Atkinson vehicle conservatively you will get better fuel mileage. If you drive like fuel mileage doesn't matter both engines will be close to the same.

 

Mpg went from 15.5 to 14.1. No big deal.
What was your before and after mpg?