Quote:
Originally Posted by whipplem104
We can do this a few different ways. But basically it is either receiving torque via CAN from the ecu. Ie factory setup. Or we use TPS vs RPM to build a torque map. The later is much harder to do. Unless you have a full 3d torque map from an engine dyno.
What I have done is taken a tune that was torque based via CAN and then dumped that into a starting point for a TPS/RPM setup. Then tune the torque map to the transmission tune. This gets you pretty close. Then you start tuning the pressures from there if you cannot do it with torque. This works well with similar transmission setups. Pressure is pretty linear to torque input for any given setup.
|
Well, the guy at the next desk wins the jawbreaker, I wagered for MAP vs RPM. I think that if the option were available, MAF rather than MAP would be the choice. Your reference to the factory setup suggests that for many recent engines torque information will be MAF derived. (Although some recent installations are using both MAF and MAP load inputs to the ECU.)
If one aspect of the control protocol is modulating fill pressure, and another aspect is rate of shift valve movement (via solenoid current control), is there an opportunity for these two to conflict?