vF Tuning for Manual Transmission 3rd Gens

what PTTT are you on finally?

 

Just the V2 posted in the that thread. Prior to any change of the PTTT1G map, I am thinking about testing this for PTTT: Changing both the 84% and 100% columns to 87.5, leaving 0.0% at -5, and doing CTRL + I over the entire map to remove the kink at 35.3%? In my mind, this would give a bit more rate at the bottom end of the travel and through the rest of the range.

Stock / unedited 2.0, the 84% column varies between 87.5 and 81.4 through the rev range, so I don't see it being a large effect over the entire smoothed map? Just a bit more throttle.

As noted, I think the tune is in a sweet spot for me right now. So, my plan is to see how this goes over a couple more tanks before I make a change or get antsy?

 

I'm still playing myself.

Trying to find that connection/link between each one.

I have several edits that are more than satisfactory. That are saved in safe keeping.

I'm just going further down the rabbit hole.

 

I'm looking at v2 now.

I've been kinda on hold with the mention of new MT tables coming.

also, the tubes are on as of yesterday and the mounts are on as of today, and he's about to align it again with another targeted caster bump. so, the motor and chassis will likely be responding quite differently, and my use of the throttle will need to adapt starting today. info gathering, changes will certainly be coming!

 

With such a limited view of the entire tune and where these maps fit in, whether Toyota's fucked up idea or in a more normal scheme, I don't think I could discover any links outside of doing full time scientific methods. I have no willpower to attempt that.

If we could just get a map to component trace, it may help. Sort of like ALC is actually a faux MAP sensor. Still there, I am not sure if I can relate the shape of the map to the pressures? At least, OVT confirmed that the Lambda values are indeed commanded AFRs / stoic (14.7).

 

I'ma leave this one here...

 

Good info, but we aren't messing with high E content and only have two values to worry about, only because they are noted in the 4D ALC maps. Otherwise, everything else that I see in the tune is AFR and correlates to what I see commanded on OBD. I see typically see 14.7 / 14.6 (0.99 Lambda) in Closed Loop and a max of about 12.0 (0.82 Lambda) on Open Loop. That is what turned on the light bulb and prompted me to ask the question a long time ago.

AFAIK, no one around these parts or in the main thread have touched the AFR / Lambda values? Which I have zero intent to mess with unless @OVTune posts very specific instructions or actual maps.

 

New MT tables?

 

yes i know, but the last vehicle i tuned was a big block chevy with a 4 barrel carb, so i need all the help i can get simply to get a perspective. i just found the definitions he offered in the vid helpful for that. not for tuning specifics.

 

Ah!

On my end, I was just not sure if Lambda was this lambda or some other whacktacular value that Toyota dreamed up. Given what we have seen, I am certain they ran out of variables at some point in the process. LoL!

Also, I still don't have a firm grasp of why there would be a 4D map here when it is relating MAF to get MAP. I am thankful that @OVTune did the work to combine them, which fits my sensibilities.

 

The tune I'm on is spectacular, love it. #linearftwapparently

 

ya i know, just in time to throw it all away and start over. #twinsnailsftwfosho

 

For real though, I'd been thinking about how all that testing seems to be primarily for the benefit of anyone I'd be sharing/selling those edited maps to lol

 

and it'll help you directly dial in your incoming turbo tune.

 

If I elect to void Mat's warranty, yes.

 

During testing today i made a lot of different values linear.

I took a drive and tried to hold the throttle at the exact same point.... As Rpm increased and speed increased, the throttle increased. So basically the throttle has become a smooth acceleration at whatever point you are holding it.

The more the pedal is pushed the more aggressive the acceleration. But what i noticed is that no matter what you hold the pedal at, the throttle will continue to rise as your speed and rpm go up.

It is not going to a point and holding even though your foot is. Except in neutral, in neutral it will open to a point and hold . The only difference in the two being speed. In neutral you have no speed.

I noticed in earlier testing that the relative throttle pid will increase with speed even with no throttle input.

The throttle request to air load map is the only speed dependent map i see.

Which i made linear so it would hold values.

Under the acceleration throttle to air load it seems to reference throttle angles in the z axis.

The only map with throttle angles in the x axis is pttg1 (and the others that aren't used, single torque patch)

The pttg1 map from matt and the factory have numbers of ascending left to right and descending top to bottom.

That map in my opinion is the one that has causing my steady increase as speed goes up since i made mine linear during my last rounds of testing.

My focus is now on the pttg1 map

Digging further.....

 

Yes. ETBs are reactionary versus being the primary input. The increasing angle with other sensor inputs (of any type) makes sense to me. I kind of think (could be very wrong) that it would take a complete rewrite to have the ETB be mapped to the TPS as primary.

I do know that ETBs on MPI only motors were a complete failure. ETBs with DI seems to work somehow. Hell, even the Stock tune was more driveable than some of the Rubberband ETB / MPI engines that I had experienced.

Although, I would be up to test a map edit that could change this aspect, for the fun of it.

 

Yeah I've actually considered emailing Mat at some point if I determine that I'd want the linear behavior on the turbo tune, if he'd review the table and put his blessing on it to honor the warranty lol

But that's way off in the future and huge "if", because I don't even have the turbos yet, nor any seat time with the kit

 

That sounds like a great approach. The changes that gave us this are stupid easy compared to what Mat is doing. I'd hit him up with that question at least.