vF Tuning for Manual Transmission 3rd Gens

if you load it, you will know immediately. the question is will you like it? its different. it feels slow at first, but give it a try and retrain your foot. you need more push to move it, unlike before. but it has way better control for lower speed acceleration, ie, inclement weather, snow, mud.

 

that would be good. a bit of snow and a whole lot of ice and drivers that can't handle either will make up most of january and february here on BC's west coast so the extra low end control might be nice

 

Do you have any idea what the Transmission Throttle Reduction (Trans. Torque Model - Optimal T. Torque for Sport Mode) does? I infer by the name what it does but what I mean to ask more is how much it affects what we're doing?

Edit: Or how about the Torque Models? We have an idea about the Torque Calculated... as we bump it to 5000 and such but how about the Optimal Engine Torque (nM)?

I can't help but wonder if some of our changes are being muted some by these?

 

i posted some logs and ovtune had me send them the file, he came back and said i was being throttle limited by the torque calculated and suggested i raise them.. he did not say to what. so i raised them to 5000.

honestly, i do not feel a difference between the 4k and 5k change. but it didnt seem to do anything negative, so i left it.

As for the transmission throttle and sport mode...we dont have a sport mode, so i have no idea.

 

How do you not have it? Is it new for my ECU perhaps? Here's a screencap. Stock settings

 

I have i t, actually i have 3 maps under that category, but our trucks dont have a sport mode...not sure what it does.

 

Okay, I get what you mean. Interesting that you have more maps there; I wonder if that's in part due to the maps available to me are 'underdeveloped' as it were (likely there will be more as Mat has more time with this ECU; I still don't have the tune pack (not created yet))

And yeah, my truck is a 'Sport' model but that has nothing to do with this. What is Sport Mode? I guess we have a while to find out yet...

Also, I took the stock file and made all the changes you posted yesterday and flashed it. I only got about 25km on it this evening and honestly it was harder to notice than I expected but it was nice! The power is still there, if you push the pedal (as logic would imply). It reminds me of driving a transit coach the way the pedal behaves. In other words, for me it was pretty natural. Maybe if the power came on a bit sooner it might be better? I don't know. I'll drive around more tomorrow as I'm off and see how she goes. I have no issues putting my foot down if I want the power so so long as it's not neutered by your changes (doesn't seem to be) then it's good by me!

That's the beauty of all this, each can tweak to own driving style, wants and needs...

 

Did you apply it to all gears? Since you are on stock files?

If you want the power on sooner you just need to bring the up sweep of the curve lower in the throttle range.

Look at your stock first gear map and the values i put in, you'll notice the first half is identical to the stock one. That's because it started out as the stock map.

I put all stock in then put ov tunes max values in the far right column and line by line, 3 or4 cells at a time i ctrl i to create the curve. I overlap these as i move.

To move the curve down i just start somewhere in the middle of the up sweep and do it again further down. That's how it has the gradual sweep rather than a sharp up tick

You could also adjust the primary throttle map (which is the one I'm currently playing with). It's changes are more subtle, a fine tuning if you will

 

I have yes. I made that mistake only once, the first time I applied your settings (at the top of this thread). It was cumbersome, but I did not forget. Thanks for asking, though. I can see why Mat made that change.

I see it now. I didn't quite before but I realized I used the modified stock file that had all the front page changes in it as the base. I don't think it would be too much of a difference as I then copied over with your latest, but I am redoing the actual stock file with your changes as I type and will reflash just to be certain.

I'm undecided if I will try and move that curve forward. I will drive around more today and see. I was spitballing a possible idea but I really haven't driven it enough to know yet.

Primary, as in the one you about turned to stock (instead of that linear slope tonered had)? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. I'm going to reread what you said about it being deceleration as well and try and pay attention to see if I noticed anything different.

At the end of the day I'm fairly easy to please I think overall. A tune that's either linear or even a steady curve like yours seems fine (I drive transit coach so it probably won't bother me long term), just so long as power is there especially in the low end and the truck is predictable. I hated those two things about my AT. Anything else after that is a bonus and a fun new hobby at that point.

Do you (or anyone else) happen to have blips or a seeming loss of power in the truck between 8 and 2k RPM? I find sometimes (often enough) I shift (up) and make to go and the truck almost feels like it jerks about and struggles with itself to get moving or it simply does so (smoothly) but seemingly slow, then hits about 2k RPM and seems to behave like a can of N2O was unloaded and just goes. That's something I'd like to find an answer for at some point.

 

yes, that is what i am shooting for correcting, between 800 and 2k, and minimizing jerky acceleration, without affecting the overall top end power output. (which is why ive not changed any top end values)

as for the primary table, its not so much a deceleration zone on the bottom, but changing the values has showed to affect engine braking (decelerating) and rev hang to an extent(more vs less)

the throttle being a motor, if you are revving it aggressively and the motor is opening, and you suddenly change to closing, there will be a delay between when it stops opening and starts closing (hang)

ive noticed the opposite to be true as well, if it is rapidly closing and you suddenly tell it to start opening again, it delays as it comes to a stop from closing and starts opening again. (on throttle delay)

ive been using the primary table to try and help with those things.

When i made the entire table 0, it basically stopped my pedal from adding any aggressive acceleration, but it did NOT make it stop accelerating.

When i made the entire table -10.75 it still would accelerate, but it was slow as shit and when i would let off the throttle to shift, it would clunk heavily.

Thats where i made the conclusion that it was more of a "gain" table. It seems to add or subtract (multiply or divide?) from the gear 1 table.

If i make the primary table less aggressive, and the gear 1 table more aggressive or vice a versa, i have achieve similar results.

we still dont know the actual correlation between each table, request to airload, acceleration request to airload, primary throttle, primary throttle gear 1 etc. So i have been trying to figure it out, but putting in wildly different numbers and testing it.

I have not had any CEL, or limp modes in my testing.

 

Okay, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one there. I considered that I may be as I don't have any tune files yet (maybe that was corrected?) but it seems it still exists in the tune files/

The hand and dead pedal feelings I have had before but I can't say so much recently. I don't know if it was the changes you all made that I applied which helped or if it's driving style (likely both?). Either way, I don't know why it exists. It's things like this that make me wish everything wasn't electronic.

So the primary table can have pretty well any reasonable value in there anywhere? I'm a bit terrified to change things too much because I tried a linear-ish approach on something. I'm not sure anymore which (maybe the ATRtA or one of the Airflow maps [or the PTTG tables??]). Anyway, it did not sound good nor did I make it across the lot before I had to reflash back due to Limp Mode.

Interesting findings. That would make sense thinking about it. There's a global map plus gear specific maps; one will play with the other depending on gear (or not, as the tunes are rewritten). Obviously there are many other factors as you point out, but I keep coming back to the Target in the map names. That tells me that's more of the end goal which I guess makes sense, as these 3D maps have three factors that make up the Target value which we modify in the tables. Unfortunately, the biggest stumbling block for us I think is our ignorance to the relationships between all the other maps. In due time, as we play around more and more information comes from Mat

 

@92ehatch I have been messing with some of the maps and I found 2 things that I am unsure if you messed with or if I just missed it. First is on the valve tuning it has a maximum in another table of 60. So are all the files that are above 60 cut out? Could that be the valve hang?

Second and anyone messed with the atkinson stroke timing. From what I can see on mine looks like it drops hard 2500 to 5k and looks very rough. Maybe smoothing would help? Haven't been brave enough to screw with it.

 

The last update fixed a scaling issue with the valve timing. 1.2.7.5. That's why you see different valve advances.

I have been playing with them more but the file i made yesterday and tested ran awful. I believe larger valve changes will require air load changes (makes sense)

Unfortunately my logger isn't working on the new version.

Atkinson stroke time? Still in the valves section?

 

Has anyone tried smoothing out the Airloads (like with Ctrl+I or similar) for the jerkiness and neutered power in that 800-2k band? something like this?


I think perhaps I did and that's what gave me Limp but I can't remember and I won't be able to test until this evening (when I'm off work and there's not many cars about)

 

You don't want to do that. It will most likely had a lot of jerkiness.

 

hmm, that's very contrary to how I think it should work. You're probably right. I would have thought more linear, or even a gradual curve depending on preferences, on tables such as these and the rest would yield the desired result but I suppose not.

I guess I'll stare at the tables and names more and see what else I could try out for the near future.

 

I agree, but this map is most likely built off of dyno data that relates MAF sensor data to create faux-MAP data. So, I can see this being non-linear due to how the air flows around the throttle plate and toward the valves. Basically accounting for all flow and pressure changes between the MAF sensor through to the intake valves.

I over-tweaked these on my V1 ALC map edits and paid the price.

 

I’m still waiting for someone to make a map that looks like a lumpy road and for it to be the smoothest running of all.

 

LoL! Some of those are already in there and freakin' blow my mind.

Any map that looks more complex than ALC will be left alone without specific help from @OVTune . Other than PTTT of course. That one I could follow enough to determine that it made no sense.

 

Hey, i went back to the stock PTTT...... It makes sense to me now