VF tuning collaboration and BS

@PapaRee

drove Kruiser 4.0 last evening for a few miles, not enough yet, but so far the tune feels pretty damn good. Can definitely feel the juice when you need it, and TC locking feels different

 

To clarify, the speed in VF is multiplied by .885. I dont think I mentioned that clearly in the other posts haha.

 

Looking for advice on which tire size to tune for.
2016 off road 3.5 auto trans, currently on 265/75/16, with plans to move up to 285/70/17 before summer.
Closest tuner to me is 3hr each way, only want to make the drive once if possible.

Tune for 33 now? Tune for stock and just live with it after going to 285? Wait until after getting 285 to tune?

Thought I saw a post about OV recommended anything bigger than stock 265/70/16, just tune for 33.

Thanks for any and all info.
T

 

Personally I would tune for your current setup. IMO it's the only way to dial stuff in correctly like shifts and so on otherwise you are guessing.

Edit: I see you have to drive so maybe better wait till you have your setup.

 

Just tune for 33. You will be fine.

 

Are you sure this is a delay, and not the effect of the 3d torque maps affecting shifting at high throttle?

As Vlady is so frustrated by the truck DOES NOT always shift at the intersection of accelerator and speed specified by the 2d shift schedule maps.

 

Mat has stated that raising the values will make the truck more likely to upshift in the given conditions. You will need to determine what values work for you.

 

By delay I dont mean its just at high throttle. It happens at just about any level of acceleration. Parameters are met to trigger an upshift so techstream shows an upshift. But a short period after that, the transmission upshift actually occurs. It may have to do with the torque maps or another parameter we dont yet have access to in the ECU/TCU. Cant confirm that.

 

Gotcha. Perhaps the 2d maps are gates one must get thru to shift. Then, once thru, the torque calculation takes over and determines what the torque generated must be to shift. Pass thru the gate with too much or too little torque, and there is a delay waiting for the engine torque to match the specified torque in the table.

Just spitballing I don’t know the answer. Would be nice to have a framework to think about how the logic works.

 

I think that's the algorithm. I do recall that on an anemic version if the tune the upshift would not be immediate after selecting S and pushing to 5. There was a delay which could be the explanation.

 

Alright, gonna raise values in table 1 by 5% and see what happens....

 

Ok so if you want it to upshift to 5th at 55MPh and 29% pedal, change the cell under 31% pedal to 62.5. This will create a pretty flat curve for the upshift but it should be purely used for testing. I tried to simplify it as much as possible for you by only making you need to change one cell. Try it and let me know if it doesnt work.

FYI I have not touched the torque shift maps at all and I've never had an issue with the shifts not being where I tuned them to be.

 

Ran the map with your suggestion. No joy. I reached 80 in search for that shifting point.
To clarify. I'm expecting upshift at speeds above 65. Example below -accel 14 -speed 80

Also , if in S, this caused the tranny got caught in the shifting up/down loop on the incline.
Also ran a map for optimal shifting 1 w/increased values b y 5%. No impact on upshifting . It seemed the shifting is better, but caught myself thinking that it may holding gears a bit longer than before.
Perhaps need to decrease values??.
F, easy to find G spot......

 

Why did you only change map 1? You gotta change all of them.

 

for some reason when I try to sign in on vfforum on my phone and I'm signed in on my computer it tells me my password is wrong....

So I'm just going to ask you here, back a few months ago when you gave us sample expected and control air flow tables what was the principle behind them? Would you say most situations are better off to use the samples or the stock maps? What would be the main benefit of one over the other?

 

it was an example to show you what to modify to get rid of the ECU limiting throttle at low rpm.

If you want to mess with the airload tables further (because there is some benefit) i'd recommend wait for the big update we are about to post. The tables are being renamed a bit easier to understand, and there will be more information about how to tune them and what they control exactly.

 

That's great news!

Thank you

 

For given throttle/speed where I'm expecting the upshift, table 1 has lower # compare to table 10 profile.
Just FYI, original 2.0 "final" has exactly same issue (you can find me bitching about and comparing to B03). So this is not "tuning" induced issue.Most like the logic is not there

 

Right. Thats why Mats wants to release the torque based shifting patch. To improve the logic.

 

For some reason I'm having issues logging into VFForum.... If pinging is happening in an area consistently to the point that it lowers your kclv by a value of two or three what was Matt's suggestion to accommodate? 16 to 1800 RPM at about 60 to 70% load seems to be an issue where it always lowers my kclv regardless of what I have for intake values.