[mfish123]

Originally Posted by nyt

Just using part of the values will not work. I change the load axis in the load to torque table so it's not directly comparable.

@nyt - That makes sense. I'm going to try this today. Do you make all 3 load to torque tables match with your values / breakpoints?

[nyt]

Originally Posted by mfish123

@nyt - That makes sense. I'm going to try this today. Do you make all 3 load to torque tables match with your values / breakpoints?

yes

[mfish123]

Originally Posted by nyt

yes

Thanks again for sharing. Unforutnatley no dice. It must work differently on flash only vs. stacked. My low load shifts were a little softer.

With it floored in 5th I still hit the limiter and my load request was much lower even the though I left my load targets at 190. Must be from the increased values in the L2T table. I made sure to match up your breakpoints and double checked all changes. Log here: http://***********/u/mfish123/nyt-values?log=0&data=4-22

I also tried an SPXX map. Basically I downloaded his E30 map and took all the torque request, torque ceiling, torque limit, torque monitor etc. tables and copied them into the base stg 2+ MHD map. Torque limit still showed 4 but timing didn't go as low. A lot of his tables are different so I have no clue which ones are helping. Logs here:

http://***********/u/mfish123/spxx-ma...ixed-example-1
http://***********/u/mfish123/spxx-ma...og=0&data=4-22

@SPXX - can you please take a look?

Can anyone smarter than me, point me in the right direction?

[nyt]

Try the Alpina coding and see if you still have the issue.

[mfish123]

Originally Posted by nyt

Try the Alpina coding and see if you still have the issue.

I appreicate the suggestion and you're right that with Alpina they'd probably be eliminated on the SPXX map. However, I utterly despise Alpina D mode even with throttle mapping modified to help make it more tolerable.

I really like my 7601494 trans flash and don't want to compromise on that.

His map allowed my actual torque to show around 630 with minimal reduction to timing. There are probably just some ceilings / limits that need to be raised a little more to get them completely out of the way. Just trying to figure out which ones.

[nyt]

Originally Posted by mfish123

I appreicate the suggestion and you're right that with Alpina they'd probably be eliminated on the SPXX map. However, I utterly despise Alpina D mode even with throttle mapping modified to help make it more tolerable.

I really like my 7601494 trans flash and don't want to compromise on that.

His map allowed my actual torque to show around 630 with minimal reduction to timing. There are probably just some ceilings / limits that need to be raised a little more to get them completely out of the way. Just trying to figure out which ones.

I wasn't suggested it as a permanent fix, but it will isolate what's kicking in the limiter. Whether it's dme related or a request from the tcu. I understand you don't like the D mode, but if you want your trans to function properly at higher power levels, you might be in a bit of a catch 22.

[mfish123]

Originally Posted by nyt

I wasn't suggested it as a permanent fix, but it will isolate what's kicking in the limiter. Whether it's dme related or a request from the tcu. I understand you don't like the D mode, but if you want your trans to function properly at higher power levels, you might be in a bit of a catch 22.

I hear you. Its a valid experiment. I screwed up my winkfp when updating daten files a month ago. I'll get that fixed and put Alpina back on to see. From past experience Alpina was more tolerant of higher torque values but still had a threshold where it would pull timing. If that't the only thing that fixes it I may have to go back to Alpina and try the recommended load target breakpoints and throttle mapping to make D mode more tolerable. I still hate to compromise on that as it really does detract from my normal in town, stop and start traffic experience.

Based on some of these experiments I've done I think the value of the actual torque definitely is a main contributing factor but not the only thing. The fact that with the tables from SPX that it doesn't flatline until around 630 nm of torque (and pulls less timing) whereas it flatlines at around 570 nm with the OTS tables (and pulls more timing), tells me there may be more going on here. I'm sure the gear has something to do with it too. Maybe the tcu is aware of the torque limits / ceiling in the DME which influences at what point it tells the dme to pull timing.