Initial "Max Torque By Gear (AT)" Testing in 5th gear

[mfish]

In a nutshell higher #'s don't work. I get torque limiter 32,768! I think that's the max positive integer for a a 16 bit value if that means anything - that's over my head.

Higher values (1750, 1,200 and 1,100) literally make 5th gear "dead" No acceleration and no response to pedal inputs. I tried increaseing the value to 1750, 1200, 1100 and 1,000. At 1,000 value I didn't get the "dead" 5th gear behavior but l still got torque limiter 4.

Per @bradsm87 who had a nice find, that in the PPK bin the lower gears were changed to 400, I decided too try the 400 value in 5th gear. It sort of works - Timing does follow my main timing table! However, I get some oscillating WGDC values and some boost oscillations, still get the 32,768 torque limiter and actual torque oscillates all over the place. I'm going to try values just a little lower than 999 (900, 800 and 700) as soon as possible and will report back.

If these results are giving anybody smarter than me an "aha moment" please share. I'd rather be pointed in the right direction then tediously doing trial and error.

Virtually the same map as the ones below but with the stock 999 value:http://datazap.me/u/mfish123/virtual...tock-999-value

1750 value: http://datazap.me/u/mfish123/1750-value
http://datazap.me/u/mfish123/1200-va...back-5th-again

1200 value - kicks me out of 5th to 4th and then back to 5th again: http://datazap.me/u/mfish123/1200-va...back-5th-again

1000 value: http://datazap.me/u/mfish123/1000-value

400 value - oscillating WGDC: http://datazap.me/u/mfish123/400-value-oscillating-wgdc

400 value - oscillating boost and actual torque: http://datazap.me/u/mfish123/400-val...-actual-torque

[jyamona]

Ok, so the reason for the torque limiter 32,768 and the dead gears is because the max value for those tables is 7FFF = 1023.97 NM.

Do not exceed this value, or you will get the strange torque limiter errors. You are correct on that being the max int for a 16 bit (signed). I'm not sure why they made this a "signed" value as it does not accept negative numbers anyway, but it limits your range of values to 0 - 1023.97 NM.

I really need to go through and set the true min/max values for all tables, but it will take a lot of time.

Until then, for the torque tables at least, if you right click and hit view hex in tuner pro, if the values are nearing 1024NM and the hex is near 7FFF, do not exceed 7FFF as it is probably the max value.

[nyt]

You should try modifying 'torque monitor (customer specific)' though this maxes at 510 (ugh?) and max torque at clutch tables.

[mfish]

You should try modifying 'torque monitor (customer specific)' though this maxes at 510 (ugh?) and max torque at clutch tables.

I may have to do that with max torque at clutch. I hate being the guinea pig but I'm pretty motivated. I'm not expecting miracles on that table - x axis looks to be mph and in the lower gears I can be at high load when going less than 82.02 mph with no issues.

Looks like the y axis on torque monitor (customer specific) is mg/stk. I think that is a measurement of airflow?? If so, do we know how that translates to the MAF Req (wgdc) (g/s)? I would assume if there are 1,000 mg in 1 g then its a 1000:1 ratio?

If it is airflow that could be interesting because in the low-mid RPM / high load scenarios in 5th gear I'm at a slightly lower airflow then I am, at the same RPM/similar load, in the lower gears. However, I don't get a torque limiter in 6th gear and I would think airflow would be even lower in 6th in low-mid RPM / high load. But the actual torque calculation is probably different in 5th vs. 6th. Just kind of thinking out load. Obviously there is only one when to know for sure....

[mfish]

Ok, so the reason for the torque limiter 32,768 and the dead gears is because the max value for those tables is 7FFF = 1023.97 NM.

Do not exceed this value, or you will get the strange torque limiter errors. You are correct on that being the max int for a 16 bit (signed). I'm not sure why they made this a "signed" value as it does not accept negative numbers anyway, but it limits your range of values to 0 - 1023.97 NM.

I really need to go through and set the true min/max values for all tables, but it will take a lot of time.

Until then, for the torque tables at least, if you right click and hit view hex in tuner pro, if the values are nearing 1024NM and the hex is near 7FFF, do not exceed 7FFF as it is probably the max value.

Thanks for the advice - I won't exceed 1023.97. I'll still try values slightly lower than 999 too.

[jyamona]

....
Looks like the y axis on torque monitor (customer specific) is mg/stk. I think that is a measurement of airflow?? If so, do we know how that translates to the MAF Req (wgdc) (g/s)? I would assume if there are 1,000 mg in 1 g then its a 1000:1 ratio?
...

Not as simple as a 1000:1 ratio, that only covers the g to mg conversion. The stroke to seconds is more complicated, as stroke does not depend on RPM (it's just one revolution), where as seconds airflow varies based on RPM because more revolutions per second.

[mfish]

Not as simple as a 1000:1 ratio, that only covers the g to mg conversion. The stroke to seconds is more complicated, as stroke does not depend on RPM (it's just one revolution), where as seconds airflow varies based on RPM because more revolutions per second.

Thanks for the feedback. Assuming its purely a limiting table then it shouldn't hurt if I crank it up to get it out of the way. To be safe, what I'll do is incrementally bump the values up in what I think are the affected cells ,to see if things get better.

[mfish]

I tried a value of 900 and still got the same behavior. Getting my inlets installed today so can't log until tomorow.

I opened the Alpina bin with the new XDF loaded. I know that bin needs custom XDF but was thinking maybe the newly defined tables might display correctly. Here are screen shots. Can we gleam any insights?

[328ijunkie]

Doesn't seem o match up

[mfish]

I tried maxing out the max torque at clutch (AT) and torque monitor (customer specific) to the max values that the tables allowed for in the affected areas, but unfortunately still get torque limiter 4.

Now with my inlets and increased load and further testing at higher RPM's in 4th gearm unfortunately using the value of 400 in the max torque per gear table isn't helping as I previously thought.

I'm looking forward to the load by gear and rpm to be publicly released. If I cap my load at 180 in 5th gear, that's still plenty of power and should keep me right under the threshold of when the limiter kicks in. Much better to isolate 5th gear that have to lower the load to torque table affecting all gears

[pekkapalo]

The 5th gear torque limiter isn't a problem with MT cars and assuming this torque limiter is DME related so is there any difference comparing AT and MT bins or are they identical in every part? So the idea here is that could this problem be bypassed just by flashing MT bin to AT car?? And if there's some difference between those shouldn't it be quite easy to find those differencies, right? (just throwing up some ideas)

What about those guys who have done trans swap from auto to manual. Do they still suffer this problem? Any ideas?

Or is it just TCU related?! If TCU isn't tweaked only thing you can do is tell false calculations to TCU by altering tables in DME, am I right?? This isn't the best way and eventually you may notice some slip in the trans.

I have the same issue that mfish does. timing drop at 5th gear only and noticing torque limiter 4.

my car is 335i AT i8a0s