[scalbert]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

+1

motornuts, who told you the procede controls the throttle plate.. terry?

We need to wait for Terry to answer.

[vgame64]

This is great news...a V3 or JB3 along with a DCI, DPs+exhaust, FMIC upgrade, and a Bavarian Technic scan tool should make for an amazing fully bolt on 335!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

It is compatible, no codes or anything in that regard. Throttle plate closure is another issue and I am glad it is controlled by the DME and not by a piggyback. Plus it is not like you haven't had to address slight hiccups before with software revisions.

Slight hiccups? We are gross mapping errors. Not slight hiccups. And does anything but the DME control the throttle? The PROcede just taps into the pedal position sensor.

Shiv

[enrita]

yeah really bad tune, lots of limps, poor power ... its a disgrace.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

LOL, you are funny...NOT! You very well know what I meant, and it wasn't literal. V3 is able to prevent the TP from closing too often. This feature was advertised as an edge against the competition. BMS has reservations to manipulating TP closure.

BTW, any proof to JB3 not controlling timing yet?? It's been over a month already.

There is no prevention at all. It is just providing more stock like signals. Even Terry doesn't state there is any control; he suggests influence of the DME controlled TB. And it seems that tides may change on this topic as well.

There was never an intention of proving or not proving anything. Rather that after the initial tests it appeared it did not and that was to be concluded. Some OBDII testing suggested that it was not controlling timing or not functioning correctly. But that wasn't conclusive so I did not feel right in stating as such. But with the BT software now, this should be put to rest soon once I get a chance.

Which time availability is at a premium right now. Was there a mention of a recession as I haven't seen a slow down.

[munters]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

How would this boost taper look for someone running it up to redline in the steptronic? I don't ever have it go into the rev limiter except for when the trans is acting up, Other than that, the trans shifts right at redline.

It is a slight go "of boost" just before shifting and no spikes, but you can adjust it yourself in the user settings how much "less boost" you like.

Bofore it was kick ass, but I could feel the stress in the drivetrain, now it is smoth and still fast as hell.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by enrita

yeah really bad tune, lots of limps, poor power ... its a disgrace.

Nitrous makes great power too, why not run that.

I kid and not saying what is good and what is bad, just pointing out that the criteria mentoined does not make a good tune.

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Slight hiccups? We are gross mapping errors. Not slight hiccups. And does anything but the DME control the throttle? The PROcede just taps into the pedal position sensor.

Shiv

Whatever you call it Shiv, you are constantly improving your product and so is Terry.

Re throttle closure, doesn't the V3 minimize TP closure, yes or no?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

LOL, you are funny...NOT! You very well know what I meant, and it wasn't literal. V3 is able to prevent the TP from closing too often. This feature was advertised as an edge against the competition. BMS has reservations to manipulating TP closure.

BTW, any proof to JB3 not controlling timing yet?? It's been over a month already.

Please try to understand. The lack of throttle closure is a fortunate byproduct of better load/boost control targeting that the PROcede is employing. It is NOT a result of "manipulating" the throttle itself as Terry tried to lead everyone to beleive.

Instead, it's a cause/effect relationship. In other words, the lack of throttle closure is evidence that the rest of the tune is right.

Shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

So when the V3 sends stock like signals to the DME, TP closure is minimized. This was done to what, minimize or prevent TP closure, right? How can you say no prevention at all. The signals were modified so that the DME doesn't close the TP's too often when boost goes off track.

What "stock-like signals" are you talking about?

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

What "stock-like signals" are you talking about?

Ask your buddy Scalbert he was the one who said, "It is just providing more stock like signals."

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

Ask your buddy Scalbert he was the one who said, "It is just providing more stock like signals."

First of all, drop the attitude. Second, you clearly don't understand the topics at hand. We are willing to explain them to you. But, for that, you need to be willing to learn. And not just trying to win an argument which, quite frankly, isn't going to happen.

Back to the subject, there is no different signal that the PROcede is controlling. For all intents and purposes, it is intercepting/manipulating the same signals as the Jb3. The relative lack of throttle closure comes from providing a more plausible/appropriate wastegate control signal output based upon all the various inputs (TPS, MAP, IAT, Boost Duty in, etc,.) The reason it can do this is because the Boost duty input is isolated from the boost duty output. In otherwords, it can adjust DC output in both directions-- positive and negative. Unlike the JB3 which can only apply additive corrections. Good enough for raising boost. But it also creates situations where actual load is higher than target load. And throttle closure/hysteresis follows.

Shiv

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

So when the V3 sends stock like signals to the DME, TP closure is minimized. This was done to what, minimize or prevent TP closure, right? How can you say no prevention at all. The signals were modified so that the DME doesn't close the TP's too often when boost goes off track.


If you have time to respond on this forum, you have time to use your new BT toy and prove your initial observations.


You are obviously busy since you have time to go on this forum. Thousands of people woulnd't take your wink lightly. I am fortunate enough to work for a biotech company - we are not slow neither.

When did you become so cynical?

As for the stock-like signal, trying to keep it simple. But as already mentioned, the control is there which helps limit, not eliminate, throttle closure. The DME still has full authority as you very well know. But if there is no reason to react, it won't.

As for the last two items, the forum and adequately testing are not equal in time consumption. I can respond to a post while performing other work or even while stopped at a light. Hooking up data acquisition hardware, laptop, etc. and driving around for a couple of hours is more time consuming. In addition, responding on a forum while on the road or in a hotel I hope is allowed.

You may want to lighten up as this is just meant to be informative and entertaining, nothing more. I am glad to hear you are not slow as the alternative is not fun. And BTW, our largest market is Pharma so I can understand. But alternative/renewable energy is what is taking more of my time lately.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

I am not arguing just trying to point out that a piggyback can indirectly "control" the TP, a statement that a couple of members took too literally. In doing so, via boost targetting, a piggyback is able to prevent too much TP closure induced by the DME. Another point I was trying to deliver until everyone jumped and took my words too literally.

Secondly I understand how you are able to minimize/prevent TP closure. But it is not completely true that a piggyback doesn't control TP closure at all since it is able to minimize it. What else would you call it, if not "control and prevention?" This whole discussion turned into semantics.

II disagree with it being semantics. It is fairly straight forward. And no, literal or not, a statement was made and needed to be clarified.

For the throttle plate position, we should dissect what is truly occurring of which I could be wrong but will take a stab at it.

All piggy backs have a percentage multiplier of the TMAP single as their output. In other words, if X boost is the input, X * 0.7 (as an example) is the output. There is no target output. It is simply a multiplier but that multiplier does change based on RPM, etc. for the microprocessor based units. Older resistor based units were just a standard multiplier throughout and one of the reasons for limited boost ability (but that is another story). But in the end it is still a multiplier. Meaning, it is not a set value and it is based on the input; the actual boost. So if the actual boost is the basis for the output, the control of the TB, as suggested, is a moot point as far as controlling is concerned.

Now let’s say that boost is being controlled in a way that that the DME is more receptive to. This is understanding that any spikes or too high of ramp rates may induce throttle plate closure. Now with boost being controlled in a more desirable manner, the boost signal from the TMAP and the subsequent multiplier output to the DME keeps the DME from responding undesirably. But it still leaves the DME in full authority. The lack of, or lessened, throttle plate closure is just a byproduct of more keenly controlling boost.

In other words, the way of controlling boost is the differentiator, not a designed output. Take care of the control of boost and the throttle plate closure issue should be handled on its own.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

The second certain words were taken too literally to poke fun.

Lighten up Francis.

It is all meant to be fun and in jest. If I offended I apoligize.