Fixing Jerky Throttle Response with ATR

[Fobio]

+1 on reading and understanding what's being done rather than just copy and pasting...too many variables out there: human error, computer glitches, Fed vs. Cali, MS3 vs MS6, guys in different elevation, etc.

[tuners]

I wanted to post a thanks to Aaron who sent me a map for my car that really improves the cars driveability. I was using the Stage 1 +MSCAI 93 v103 map that would occasionally get the herky jerky. So far so good with these new adjustments.

[bast525]

Originally Posted by tuners I wanted to post a thanks to Aaron who sent me a map for my car that really improves the cars driveability. I was using the Stage 1 +MSCAI 93 v103 map that would occasionally get the herky jerky. So far so good with these new adjustments.

I've almost perfected my MSCAI map.... so cloooose

[Dabears2k]

this is my dashhawk log with the dread fix and also the open loop delay fix

[dread]

Just tried a new throttle config which ramps up load much quicker. I noticed with the smooth throttle mapping my car was a lot less responsive. This is relatively smooth (compared to the 103 maps) and much more responsive. It still needs smoothing I will continue to work on it. I need to let the map break in before I can really test it.

0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
0.64	0.46	0.34	0.25	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23	0.23
0.67	0.68	0.61	0.50	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49
0.68	0.77	0.80	0.76	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.74
0.69	0.80	0.90	0.97	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
0.69	0.81	0.94	1.08	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25	1.25
0.70	0.82	0.95	1.13	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38	1.38
0.70	0.83	0.96	1.14	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.50
0.70	0.82	0.97	1.15	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63	1.63
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.32	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.48	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.65	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.08	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13	2.13
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50

[fostersafb]

I noticed with this table you have a lot less load in the higher TPS rows. Have you found that the higher values arent necessary there to reach target boost levels?

I have been playing around with these tables and the gear-based load tables and through logging found I'm running 99% WGDC, so I'm going to back it off a bit.

[dread]

At the high tps levels, the ecu switches to the gear based load tables. I maxed out my wastegate as well and got some knock, so I started from scratch. You need to ramp up the load quickly like stock and the 103 maps if you want to limit lag. I am working on a map that does this while maintaining reasonable smooth throttle. The reason the 103 maps were jerky is because the load fluctuated as rpm increased. I decrease load with rpm but do it more slowly and linearly.

[fostersafb]

That makes sense. One thing I have been wondering is if the throttle load tables have a max value of 2.5, why do none of the gear-based load tables reach that high of a level? If the ECU only uses the lower of the 3 tables (gear based, baro vs. rpm and throttle req load) then whats the point of having 2.5 as the peak value? Why not set the peak value at a consistent level for all 3 tables?

[dread]

The point is just to make sure the ecu is not using that table and is defaulting to the gear based tables. DO NOT put all your tables up to 3.00 otherwise the ecu will not be able to switch to a lower value. Its likely your car will not make anything over 2.00 load anyway, but it will try by maxing out your wastegate.

[fostersafb]

Right, so if say the highest load value in all of the gear-based load tables and baro vs rpm is 2.10, why have the throttle load values over that level? Honestly, the only thing this would help with would be tweaking the tables for smoothness. If the values are consistent I think it would make switching back and forth easier in order to tune your throttle using both or all 3 tables.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by fostersafb That makes sense. One thing I have been wondering is if the throttle load tables have a max value of 2.5, why do none of the gear-based load tables reach that high of a level? If the ECU only uses the lower of the 3 tables (gear based, baro vs. rpm and throttle req load) then whats the point of having 2.5 as the peak value? Why not set the peak value at a consistent level for all 3 tables?

The answer to that question is in the cobb pdf:

"First we would like to review some of the stock MS ECU logic. The ECU will use the lowest torque target from one of the three groups of tables:
Throttle – Req. Load – X Gear (Norm or High BAT)
Throttle – Requested Load : Baro v. RPM
Throttle – Requested Load
This logic allows several different strategies to be used to calibrate these ECUs. One can set two of the tables to higher values; this would force the ECU to allow torque to be tuned by the one table (or group of tables) with the lowest torque target values. This would allow the Throttle – Requested Load : Baro v. RPM table or the Throttle – Requested Load table to be used to tune torque for all gears. On the other hand, one can set the above two requested load tables to higher values and then the torque targeting tables associated with each gear can be used. This is what we have chosen to do with our OTS maps so we can try to map boost differently in each gear based on the differing load conditions for each gear. If you increase the desired torque values in these tables, the ECU will do what it can to make additional torque. If you decrease the desired torque values in these tables, the ECU will do what it an to make less torque."

[fostersafb]

So, the way i interpret this is Cobb has the tables tuned so the gear-based targets are lower and therefore aree the ones used by the ecu. That makes sense as its better to be able to tune torque for each gear rather than a generic and general target for the entire rpm band.

Can load be converted to boost fairly straight forward? For me I hold about 18.1psi in 3rd gear which is the result of a 1.95 load target in the gear-based load tables. the 2 other tables are higher than that. Are there just too many factors to be able to say that load x = psi y?

[badams118]

From my experience, the relationship between load & boost varies by gear (and rpm, of course). One other thing, if you want to raise your boost by say 5%, you can't just multiply the load by 1.05%. You will raise load by a smaller percentage to get a larger percentage increase in boost.

YMMV

[florindi]

bump

[bova]

was there a reason to bumping a sticky?

[dread]

Just to give everyone an update on my throttle changes. I have abandoned the quick slope up mapping since I could not get it as smooth as I liked. I am now using the app tables to get responsive and smooth acceleration. So far I have been successful and I am just fine tuning the changes so that the pedal isn't too touchy down low. I will post the results when I am done.

[dread]

here are the app changes I am going to flash right now. I will update with the results

0.00	0.32	1.28	2.85	4.52	6.18	7.85	9.51	11.37	13.04	14.83	16.63	18.42	20.22	22.01	23.81	28.30	32.78	37.27	41.76	46.25	50.74	55.22	59.71	65.69	72.41	79.12	82.48	85.83	92.55	100.00

Ok the results are awesome. Very responsive and linear thottle, while not being too sensitive. I am pleased with the results. I think the lag problem caused by linear load tables is best fixed with the app tables. The stock app tables are set up to work with the stock throttle req load tables that ramp up load quickly. That being said the app table I posted above is made to work with the load table I posted below. I used the same app table for all gears.

0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
0.64	0.46	0.34	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21
0.67	0.68	0.61	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43
0.68	0.77	0.80	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65
0.69	0.80	0.90	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87
0.69	0.81	0.94	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09	1.09
0.70	0.82	0.95	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31	1.31
0.70	0.83	0.96	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52	1.52
0.70	0.82	0.97	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70	1.70
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88	1.88
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06	2.06
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20	2.20

[dread]

anyone try my new tables yet. I am finally satisfied with the configuration and want to see how others like it.

[Fobio]

dread: can you make a new thread...I can likely give this a go this wknd.

[smakdown61]

Good stuff dread. I'm going to try this today.

[dread]

ok I made a new thread

[Uranium9v]

I changed my 1.03 map this weekend with dread's changes. Really nice and smooth. Best part is I have 0 knock detected from 4 seperate runs. The out of the box map would give me .4 to .8 every log.

[dkswim]

need to play with this tonight

[dkswim]

either need to upp my idle or look at the low load maps a little more

[Matrix311]

Do the new v1.04 maps have this throttle response fix or should we use these settings on the new final v1.04 maps recently released?

[evidence]

Originally Posted by Matrix311 Do the new v1.04 maps have this throttle response fix or should we use these settings on the new final v1.04 maps recently released?

All of the new 1.04 (and then 1.05) I've seen have a smoother throttle via Req Load A/B/C. It's not the same as some of the ones posted here, but similar.

[fjames]

Originally Posted by evidence All of the new 1.04 (and then 1.05) I've seen have a smoother throttle via Req Load A/B/C. It's not the same as some of the ones posted here, but similar.

The half dozen or so 104s I've looked at are identical to their corresponding 103, and the few 105s are the same as their 104. Only exception is Stage2+SF 91 FMIC which is even more aggressive (for both 104 and 105.)

[koston33]

So I am running a base map of stage 2+ mscai 91 1.05, I used fobio's closed looped settings, and dreads new request load A and C. First off the car runs smother and for some reason I didn't get any knock at all on WOT. Also my afr hit 11.0 as the lowest value. My boost spiked to 20.4. Sorry I don't have a log or anything. The only thing is I've been backfiring really loud now between shifting when i redline it. Which I find weird if my afr's are leaner than before. I use to hit in the low 9's. So what gives. Also how do I can my idle speed so I don't smoke. I changed my idle speed A in ATR to 900rpm under 60 and 80. But it still idels at around 750. I'm probably just dumb and don't know. This is my first time messing with ATR. So thoughts.

[aaronc7]

koston, I got some text message from you today thru the forum...i replied, no idea if you got it though?

[koston33]

sorry aaron. I wanted to send you a private message but it would only let me send you text messages. My bad. But I didn't recieve your text, probably because I don't have my phone number on my profile for you to send it to. Haven't figured out how to do that. Again I've just joined this forum.

[aaronc7]

it probably tried to send you a PM, but you cant PM yet? who knows.

yeah just copy and paste this into your map, it will work fine

[koston33]

cool, any ideas as to why im backfiring all of a sudden. Load pop between shifts when I redline

[Speedn3]

Originally Posted by koston33 Also how do I can my idle speed so I don't smoke.

you may want to try the ptp smoking turbo fix.

[koston33]

ya i may have to, but the strange thing is Ive changed my IDLE SPEED A to be 900 from 140 degrees up, and just loaded the map on my car, but the car still idles at the notch right before 1000rpm, which looks like 750. What gives? does it take awhile to take affect. I just want to get this right first and if this doesn't solve me smoking problem then I'll look into the Link. Just wondering why my new idle isn't taking

[Arrowpoint]

Originally Posted by koston33 ya i may have to, but the strange thing is Ive changed my IDLE SPEED A to be 900 from 140 degrees up, and just loaded the map on my car, but the car still idles at the notch right before 1000rpm, which looks like 750. What gives? does it take awhile to take affect. I just want to get this right first and if this doesn't solve me smoking problem then I'll look into the Link. Just wondering why my new idle isn't taking

Check your rpm on your AP. The stock tachometer may be off.

[koston33]

I'll have to do that, but either way Im still smoking, so I've just order the pcv fix.

[Arrowpoint]

I guess I've been lucky. Mine smoked at idle once in a while after I installed the TP so I started using Valvaline 5W-30 full synthetic and the smoking stopped. I've been using it for around 9000 miles now with no smoking at all.

[kgb]

Originally Posted by koston33 ya i may have to, but the strange thing is Ive changed my IDLE SPEED A to be 900 from 140 degrees up, and just loaded the map on my car, but the car still idles at the notch right before 1000rpm, which looks like 750. What gives? does it take awhile to take affect. I just want to get this right first and if this doesn't solve me smoking problem then I'll look into the Link. Just wondering why my new idle isn't taking

Koston, I went through this and asked a few months but no one knew why my idle was off....I think either Cobb makes undocumented changes behind the scene that affects not only idle but other parameters as well and/or a certain cobmbination of changes (afr, load, MAF,etc...) can cause this.

I think because cobb still doesnt have control of the ecu, changing certain parameters can cause other parameterts to be off compared to what the map calls for. I mean, I have 900 set but get 825...wtf??!!

For example, what the hell does Fuel OL\WOT Commanded EQ (No Knock B) refer too. It wasn't there before and now it is but I don't know what it refers too.

[koston33]

ya its fine I guess, can't do anything about it. So like I said I ordered the pcv fix which hopefully stops my smoke. Oh and can anyone chime in on why I'm all a sudden backfiring after changed my closed loop setting to what fobio has and my requested load setting to what dread posted. Never back fired before. But now I'm getting a loud pop.

so I flashed it again with the B table changed too, and it finally worked. I don't know what it was. But its good now, and NO SMOKE......f ya

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by dread here are the app changes I am going to flash right now. I will update with the results 0.00 0.32 1.28 2.85 4.52 6.18 7.85 9.51 11.37 13.04 14.83 16.63 18.42 20.22 22.01 23.81 28.30 32.78 37.27 41.76 46.25 50.74 55.22 59.71 65.69 72.41 79.12 82.48 85.83 92.55 100.00 Ok the results are awesome. Very responsive and linear thottle, while not being too sensitive. I am pleased with the results. I think the lag problem caused by linear load tables is best fixed with the app tables. The stock app tables are set up to work with the stock throttle req load tables that ramp up load quickly. That being said the app table I posted above is made to work with the load table I posted below. I used the same app table for all gears. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.46 0.34 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.67 0.68 0.61 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.68 0.77 0.80 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.69 0.80 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.69 0.81 0.94 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.70 0.82 0.95 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 0.70 0.83 0.96 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.70 0.82 0.97 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.70 0.83 0.97 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 0.70 0.83 0.97 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 0.70 0.83 0.97 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.70 0.83 0.97 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.70 0.83 0.97 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.70 0.83 0.97 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.70 0.83 0.97 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.70 0.83 0.97 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20

Don't suppose I can use this for the MS6 'eh?