Fixing Jerky Throttle Response with ATR

[koston33]

Which gears do the app changes correspond to?

[JohnnyT]

1-6

[aaronc7]

FYI i changed the code slightly.

all changes are just above 2500 rpm now (below that is stock). with the old code, everything above 2000 was changed, and below that stock. Probably won't notice any difference using it, but this is what im running now.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by aaronc7 FYI i changed the code slightly. all changes are just above 2500 rpm now (below that is stock). with the old code, everything above 2000 was changed, and below that stock. Probably won't notice any difference using it, but this is what im running now.

So just to clarify, the code in the first post of this thread has been edited to reflect what you're running now?

[aaronc7]

yeah, it only changed values for 2000 and 2250 rpm (back to stop values)

[FreeFlyFreak]

If you are going to change the table in the first post aaron, you should post a .jpg of what it looks like, or take the .jpg down that you have in the first post because now it doesnt match the code.

Best solution I think would be post the jpg and code for each one and let people chose which they like best.
I am running the original throttle smoothing and love it, I have tried others but I dont like any as much as the original.
It is slightly flat at low rpm but better that than the damn on off switch.

I will probably try the new one you posted, but I dont like the part where there is a lump above the main flattened area that drops down sharply, it just looks wrong.
But I like the basic idea.
A horizontal interpolated transition across the whole map may work better, so there is not the abrupt drop off, something like this:

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	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.19	0.19	0.19
0.67	0.68	0.61	0.50	0.46	0.46	0.45	0.44	0.43	0.42	0.41	0.41	0.40	0.39	0.38
0.68	0.77	0.80	0.76	0.73	0.72	0.71	0.69	0.67	0.66	0.64	0.63	0.61	0.60	0.58
0.69	0.80	0.90	0.97	1.01	1.00	0.97	0.95	0.92	0.90	0.87	0.85	0.82	0.80	0.77
0.69	0.81	0.94	1.08	1.21	1.20	1.17	1.14	1.12	1.09	1.07	1.04	1.01	0.99	0.96
0.70	0.82	0.95	1.13	1.33	1.32	1.30	1.28	1.26	1.24	1.23	1.21	1.19	1.17	1.15
0.70	0.83	0.96	1.14	1.40	1.40	1.39	1.39	1.38	1.38	1.37	1.37	1.36	1.36	1.35
0.70	0.82	0.97	1.15	1.44	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.54
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.15	1.45	1.73	1.73	1.73	1.73	1.73	1.73	1.73	1.73	1.73	1.73
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.15	1.46	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.92
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.15	1.46	2.12	2.12	2.12	2.12	2.12	2.12	2.12	2.12	2.12	2.12
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.15	1.46	2.31	2.31	2.31	2.31	2.31	2.31	2.31	2.31	2.31	2.31
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.15	1.46	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	1.15	1.46	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	1.15	1.46	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	1.15	1.46	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50

!!!!!ATTENTION I HAVE NOT TRIED THIS TABLE IN A MAP, USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!

I think I will try this soon (next few days) and will post up if it works out.

[aaronc7]

old:



new:

[koston33]

why the change?

[evidence]

Originally Posted by koston33 why the change?

power below 2500 just asks for a lot out of the internals, so you really dont want too much going on at 2000/2250. Most people shoot for power at 3k to be safe, but start ramping up at 2.5k.

[koston33]

gotcha, can you put it in the form that we can copy and past into atr

[aaronc7]

pretty much what evidence said. i dont think you will notice a difference between the two. i noticed the MS6 tables were like this and thought it made more sense. if you have the old numbers and dont feel liek changing it, like i said u probably wont notice a difference

[barcainho]

the car feels great. it is the perfect map

[ljudgeii]

Aaron, you Sir are a pilar of the community....

But damnit, please change that Avatar!! So that's what Yosemite Sam would look like with a shave

[evidence]

Originally Posted by ljudgeii Aaron, you Sir are a pilar of the community.... But damnit, please change that Avatar!! So that's what Yosemite Sam would look like with a shave

PhaillySam approves this message.

[YokiMazoku]

I did this fix on the 1.05 map will that be a problem? I did the one by dread and i like it alot. Before the car seemed to jump all over the place i felt like it was gona break seriously now the power is even and right there i love it thanks guys!

[Speedsicks]

Anybody run these tables on their MS6, searching around to see if someone's has posted MS6 specific tables, but can't find any.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by Speedsicks Anybody run these tables on their MS6, searching around to see if someone's has posted MS6 specific tables, but can't find any.

I thought Aaron said those tables came from a 6 map

[Speedsicks]

I saw that too. I just noticed it looks like it's all MS3 guys in here, and somebody asked the same question like 7-8 comments up the page and nobody answered. I wanna try it out, but wanna be sure.

[DaleNixon]

So, after all this time and with the release of the 105 maps etc., is this fix still worthwhile/necessary? I tried to delve into ATR for a while then life sort of changed my priorities for a while. Now I'm getting back into it.

I want my turbo to be less spool happy below 3-3.5k rpms. I'd like to be able to get on it in low rpm's without putting too much load on the rods. I'm assuming this is one of the steps needed to get there. Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

I'm running the OTS Stage 1 91 map for stock vehicles (v105). Mods are CP-E Nano, CP-E TIP, ETS 3.25 TMIC, step colder plugs, and Forge BPV. My trims are damn near perfect on this map with no calibration.

[aaronc7]

yep still worth doing

[Sacrilicious]

it's definitely important if you want better control over how your car applies boost. it may not feel as fast, but it's way easier to control.

[DaleNixon]

I'm gonna go with the "new" calibration from post #128. It looks much safer for our rods down low in the power band.

[N|njutsu55]

Originally Posted by DaleNixon I'm gonna go with the "new" calibration from post #128. It looks much safer for our rods down low in the power band.

Its the same as in post #1. Aaron updated the 1st post some time ago so you can copy and past the values from post #1

[Fagwagon]

im gonna do this once i install my dp/rp

[DaleNixon]

So, are you guys pretty much flooring it in low rpm's with this throttle response fix?

I hate consciously forcing this car with subtle right foot pressure to act like it has a bigger turbo in an effort to save my rods from a stockish tune with breather mods.

[aaronc7]

I will floor it at any rpm, im not really paranoid anymore.

these tables mainly affect part throttle anyways, not WOT

[Abysal]

I always gradually give throttle until about 3100, where I'll go to 40 - 60 % , then by 3800 I'll go close to WOT.

Anyways, these settings really make the car drive smooth again, I tried them tonight, and after I let the ECU learn a little bit I had some fun. I gotta say after getting used to and driving with the 105 map for about 3 months, I had a hard time compensating for the "lack" of power I was seeing after I applied these table changes; I found my self punching it more often to compensate, but it was all linear and predictable Anyways it's good to have a choice. Good work man.

[fjames]

You can always downshift Really, the crazy load values at pt in the 103-105 maps let's you get lazy and not shift when you should.

[superskaterxes]

wow so ive totally seen this thread a million times but always ignored it cause i diddent think it affected me. and now that i look back my throttle response is retarted and i hate it so im gona try this out today and see if i like it.

[fjames]

The lower values in TRL-A can have a pretty strong effect on throttle response. No need to copy tables, you can play with it all you want, tailor it to your needs, peculiar as they are. Then you can mix in a little DBW. Then micro tune it with APP Translation (really - I touched up off idle response there, I like my blips right now, no waiting.)

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by DaleNixon So, are you guys pretty much flooring it in low rpm's with this throttle response fix? I hate consciously forcing this car with subtle right foot pressure to act like it has a bigger turbo in an effort to save my rods from a stockish tune with breather mods.

I floor my car from < 2000 RPMs almost every time I start it.

You can see all the tuning I did to limit torque until 3500 rpms here:

MY ATR Journey...

[superskaterxes]

is something wrong if i felt no difference after i flashed this new map?

[fjames]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes is something wrong if i felt no difference after i flashed this new map?

This whole jerky throttle thing got started as a response to the ots maps. Like you were supposed to load up a ots map, apply the jerky throttle fix and you were good.

That was 8 months ago though so who knows now what people have done with ATR in the meantime? If you mean you have complaints about your pt response being too aggressive and sensitive, and this didn't do anything, that's weird I guess (I never used this exact table by itself.)

Here's the way it went. The stock map has an aggressive TRL table, but a very mellow DBW table. As of the v103 ots maps, Cobb went with the aggressive TRL AND added a very aggressive DBW. That's mostly why people thought they (103 maps) were so strong - they were very aggressive with little pedal movement.

The fix people latched onto was a mellower TRL table - one that was found in the ots maps somewhere (on a single map) I think by Aaron. My personal fix was to leave the TRL mostly alone and mellow out the DBW, thinking that the factory knew something so I wanted to stay with their theory of tuning, just adjust it. Worked for me.

The relevant rows are like from 12-37 thereabouts to me. This is a "driveabliity" thing, so it's totally subjective. My TRL goes from .37-1.1 (at 3.5K) in that area, but I've got mine stretched out to where I don't get to the gear load values until 87% (which is really 75% because of the APP thing.)

Don't forget that they say you should change both the A&C TRL tables (because they're the same in all the maps.) I forget half the time and it doesn't seem to matter, but it's good practice. I can tell you that out of boost, in those low throttle areas above, it makes a very obvious difference on mine when you change them, so it's not just a boost thing, but it made a HUGE difference on mine - cured my pt cuts completely - in boost transition.

[superskaterxes]

Originally Posted by fjames This whole jerky throttle thing got started as a response to the ots maps. Like you were supposed to load up a ots map, apply the jerky throttle fix and you were good. That was 8 months ago though so who knows now what people have done with ATR in the meantime? If you mean you have complaints about your pt response being too aggressive and sensitive, and this didn't do anything, that's weird I guess (I never used this exact table by itself.) Here's the way it went. The stock map has an aggressive TRL table, but a very mellow DBW table. As of the v103 ots maps, Cobb went with the aggressive TRL AND added a very aggressive DBW. That's mostly why people thought they (103 maps) were so strong - they were very aggressive with little pedal movement. The fix people latched onto was a mellower TRL table - one that was found in the ots maps somewhere (on a single map) I think by Aaron. My personal fix was to leave the TRL mostly alone and mellow out the DBW, thinking that the factory knew something so I wanted to stay with their theory of tuning, just adjust it. Worked for me. The relevant rows are like from 12-37 thereabouts to me. This is a "driveabliity" thing, so it's totally subjective. My TRL goes from .37-1.1 (at 3.5K) in that area, but I've got mine stretched out to where I don't get to the gear load values until 87% (which is really 75% because of the APP thing.) Don't forget that they say you should change both the A&C TRL tables (because they're the same in all the maps.) I forget half the time and it doesn't seem to matter, but it's good practice. I can tell you that out of boost, in those low throttle areas above, it makes a very obvious difference on mine when you change them, so it's not just a boost thing, but it made a HUGE difference on mine - cured my pt cuts completely - in boost transition.

i think its just annoying how fast the stock turbo spools and all that instant torque that comes on. ill only have the SST for a few more weeks so i can deal with it till i get my protune.

[super_pablo_]

would i need to change the B table as well?

my car has been running like shit lately... too jerky when im letting go of the clutch on a spirited drive... revs up and down like crazy... idk if this will fix it (could be the plugs)... but ill give it a try....

for now i replaced all 3 tables with this code...

should i keep the B table all curvy like it comes? or make all 3 tables the same?

ill let you know how this goes!

[super_pablo_]

so... I just flashed my ECU with my stage2 map + dread's trl and app, and fobio's closed loop table...

this fixed the jerkyness of my car, and for sure i feel happy, but im a bit worried because as I was going though the AP monitoring vitals... i saw that the ltft's were +13 at idle...
i know i just flashed and havent given a chance to learn the new fuel trims... but, i didnt change the trims from the previous map to this one.... shouldnt it remember those?

would I be putting more strain on the engine with this throttle request load?
in other words... is this safe?
im not looking for max power, just good driveability and safety...

maybe i just just stick to aaronc's throttle request load?... it seems less aggresive at low rpm.. keep the closed loop stuff?

also, I probably shouldnt have changed the closed loop tables without knowing but... i did cause everyone here seemed happy... but, what would that do for me?

dont get me wrong.. the car feels great after these adjustments... ill just have to wait till it learns a bit more...

[evidence]

Originally Posted by super_pablo_ would i need to change the B table as well? my car has been running like shit lately... too jerky when im letting go of the clutch on a spirited drive... revs up and down like crazy... idk if this will fix it (could be the plugs)... but ill give it a try.... for now i replaced all 3 tables with this code... should i keep the B table all curvy like it comes? or make all 3 tables the same? ill let you know how this goes!

Revert table B to stock for now, it's the table for traction control kicking on. It's best to just disable it with the button and leave the B table stock so if you ever need it it's there.

[super_pablo_]

i reverted table C... i guess in the 09's its A and B that u change, instead of A and C...

its running great... i just go 50 miles on that map and reflashed today with new trims...

as soon as i made the maf adjustments... it felt better... could that be possible or is it just me?

i felt a nicer transition while shifting, when letting go of the clutch it doesnt bog at all when i give it less gas... it would almost always feel like i wasnt giving it enough gas before (maybe cause it was lean for a fraction of a second??)

at any rate... so far so good

[super_pablo_]

guys... anyone help me??
...
i was just racing a guy tonite... with the ots stage2 map that I hadbefore (all jerky)....
with the additional adjustments mentioned here, to make the throttle response load more linear... and also reduced closed loop times... NO OTHER CHANGES...
...
so...
I went WOT and it ran fine, but then i looked at my AP (it was on the boost monitoring... didnt get a datalog)... and saw the max boost being 21.5

it was colder than usual, slightly uphill.... but other than that everything else the same...
... im a bit worried cause i got a stock fuel pump (it has been holding at 1600 and above)
... that much boost isnt supposed to be... the OTS is supposed to max out at 18.5 and stay at 16...

...
should i just go back to the OTS?
oh... i also made a small adjustment on the MAF sensor cause my ltft were high...

... the car runs amazing... i just got worried cause i saw that boost, although i didnt get any hesitations or anything... im a bit worried...

suggestions? any idea why it went so high up? would it be cause of the TRL changes?

[Nliiitend1]

On my car, (and this is talking Stage 1+) it's not entirely uncommon for me to see a post-shift spike like that, but it immediately settles to ~18 psi and then trails off toward 16 psi. the spike is usually in under 21 psi, but every once in a great while it'll spike up like you're describing (only momentarily).

This happens with both the OTS maps and my "tweaked" maps. My only real power mods are my AP, Cobb SRI, and Cobb TIP.