Improving shifts via the ECM

[GMPX]

Over the last couple of months there has been some talk in THIS (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?12079-6L80-TM-removal/page8) thread regarding some new findings and tables for the 6 speed auto's.
Common complaints are changed shift feel when running without a MAF, shift hanging issues with boosted engines (there's probably more to add).
Although you can go in and change the shift pressures and desired shift times on the T43, the problem is it's own calculations are torque based. It does a lot of it's own 'thinking' based on the torque figure the ECM is reporting to it. The result of this torque figure being out usually results in the issues mentioned above.
So how does the ECM measure engine torque? Well, it doesn't, it's calculated, and unless you change the tables used in the calculations the torque figure broadcast to the TCM is not going to be correct. Now we aren't talking to the nearest lb-ft here, but in testing we saw a drop of almost 40 lb-ft in the maximum reported torque just by going MAF-less. Ever notice how a MAF-less car doesn't shift as nice?

So, the fix for this is not in the TCM, it's the ECM, we need to get the ECM to broadcast a more accurate torque figure of the engine for the TCM to work with. When that occurs, everything just falls in to place.

Of course nothing is easy, there is two different torque models in use from 2006 to current.

First the early style...

http://download.efilive.com/Staff/GMPX/EarlyTrqModel.png

And now the later style:

http://download.efilive.com/Staff/GMPX/LateTrqModel.png

They are very similar, but not quite the same so we gave them different table numbers.

The calculation is along the lines of how the Virtual VE works, it takes a bunch of numbers from various tables, adds, multiplies several times over to end up with a final figure. We decided not to attempt to show these as a virtual VE table simply because there is too many variables used to be able to present it as one 3D map. However, in testing it was found there was really only one table that needed modifying to get satisfactory results. The images above show the table I mean, it's the engine Airflow contribution to the final torque figure.

I will quote from the table descriptions....
"Modifying coefficient values should be done with caution. Sometimes small changes in the table may cause big changes in the final calculated values. It is recommended that you change the values by only 5% at a time and then test the results. The final torque value from the Torque Model tables can be logged in the scantool using the PID - GM.TRQENG_C "Engine Actual Steady State Torque".

Note: Don't be too concerned about the shape or smoothness of this map as it is a coefficient table, they tend to look erratic. Applying smoothing to make it look 'nice' may have negative results."

There is really only one way to verify your changes, monitor the reported torque value using the scantool PID GM.TRQENG_C "Engine Actual Steady State Torque".

All these updates have been included from RC10 up (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?18702-Release-Candidate-10-Mar-11-2012).

Please post up your results for others to use as a guide.

Cheers,
Ross

[kangsta]

Are you able to post the formula the coefficients are used in for interest sake?

[GMPX]

You are assuming I know it :unsure:

[Tre-Cool]

Just checking but when you say modify by 5% i assume you mean multiply. As that is what i did.

[GMPX]

No, enter in the change value (5) then press the % button, not the mutliply button. I hate to think what numbers you've ended up with by 'multiplying' by 5.

[Tre-Cool]

sorry, i meant multiple by 5 percent. so make the numbers higher not lower.

i started out with 15% on mine, it's definetly a bit better. unfortunatly im on the other side of the country again so i cant go through my logs but from the quick glanse i had at the v2 while cruising the reported eng tq numbers were definetly higher.

just bare in mind im running 60lb injectors with 70psi fuel pressure & max'd out injector tables.

1277312774

[Rhino79]

Ahh I see Tre, your os has base shift times, mine does not. Mine is based soley on tq reference.

[Rhino79]

Currently Im at 15% and .3 on shift times below 2000 rpm and blending down to .15 shift times by 4000 rpm. Tight shift times at part throttle will cause a lazy shift. I tried .2 with negative results. .3 shifts quicker than it did with .2 shift times and shift feel was improved as well.

[scottcmb]

How do you work out which gearbox ""style"" you have? to know which table to use..........my vehicle is a 2008 HSV GTS LS3 with a T43

[GMPX]

You don't have to figure it out, the tables simply changed between years are are not shown if not in there, i.e, you won't see the same table set in a 2007 as you will a 2010.

[scdyne]

So what if I have an E67 with a T? 5L40E will this table show up for me?

[scottcmb]

You don't have to figure it out, the tables simply changed between years are are not shown if not in there, i.e, you won't see the same table set in a 2007 as you will a 2010.

Thanks for that Ross......greatly appreciated :)

Scotty

[GMPX]

So what if I have an E67 with a T? 5L40E will this table show up for me?
Yes, it's on all E38 & E67's.

[DURAtotheMAX]

Ross does this table have anything to do with the nasty brake torque management on the later 2010+ 6L80 SUV transmissions? Last year when I messed around with tuning a 2011 Escalade, we could never get the thing to 60' better than 2.5 or something...ECM wouldnt give 100% throttle until ~75 feet off the line after the brake was released! Tried pulling the ABS/stabilitrak fuse etc...but it was something in the TCM.

[GMPX]

No Ben, it doesn't.
Of course you need to turn the traction control off (I assume you can do that in an Escalade), and have {B2523} TCS Off Disables BTM set to Yes.

[Dieselman]

Hello everybody,

I have been doing some playing around with my reported torque settings and settled on 15% raise and have my shift times at around .30 sec at low load down to .15 at WOT (thanks Rhino79 :)) Seems to be shifting very nice with no flaring or harsh changes.

12915

12916

[Rhino79]

Thanks for the input! I ran at the track with my only mods being long tube headers, cai, and tune on my 2010 l99 ss, 12.40 at 113! 1.91 60' on stock pirelli tires too. Very happy with the performance of the car and the consitency of the shifts now.

[scottcmb]

Thanks for the input! I ran at the track with my only mods being long tube headers, cai, and tune on my 2010 l99 ss, 12.40 at 113! 1.91 60' on stock pirelli tires too. Very happy with the performance of the car and the consitency of the shifts now.

Yep thanks Rhino, followed your ideas and now i get constant 0.2 second shift times at WOT.

Cheers Scotty

[Rhino79]

No prob man! I love the 6l80 tuning now! Add desired tcc slip and imo it will be complete!!!!!!!!

[GMPX]

TCC slip tables were added in the latest release :beer:
I'm really happy to read that everyone has had great improvement with the torque tables.

[Rhino79]

Thanks so much ross. And for what its worth, the torque tables work great on e38/t42 combos as well!!!

[DeadRinger]

TCC slip tables were added in the latest release :beer:
I'm really happy to read that everyone has had great improvement with the torque tables.

Which version of the software is this? I can't find it anywhere in RC10 - is there a newer ver now?

[DeadRinger]

Which version of the software is this? I can't find it anywhere in RC10 - is there a newer ver now?

Oh nevermind - I see that RC10 was replaced by a public release I missed... going to upgrade now! :D

[ScarabEpic22]

Thanks so much ross. And for what its worth, the torque tables work great on e38/t42 combos as well!!!

Interesting...going to have to play with that on my E67/T42 TBSS soon then! Working on a few other tricks for it now (running a car TCM OS so the TCC doesnt unlock when letting off the gas, simply using the car OS instead of the stock one netted me a +1mpg on a 650mi round trip) and just got my efans installed.

Should I try blanket adding like +10% to the torque tables and seeing how the trans shifts?

[GMPX]

Should I try blanket adding like +10% to the torque tables and seeing how the trans shifts?
Yes, just do the ones mentioned in the thread (there is lots of them), see how it feels at 10%.

[ScarabEpic22]

Yes, just do the ones mentioned in the thread (there is lots of them), see how it feels at 10%.

Cool, Ill start there. Gotta get a few other things done first then try this, cant try too many things at once or I have no idea what actually helped!

[Tre-Cool]

so has anyone else played around with b3001 - b3003 yet?

I have increased mine but I havent done any wot runs, just along with the existing 15% increase in the other torque model table shifts are pretty firm at mid to high throttle. which is what i expected having only adjusted the 40-100% table.

Absolute Difference
12928
New Configuration
12929
Original Configuration
12930

[redhardsupra]

You are assuming I know it :unsure:
If you send me some raw data, i could probably figure it out.

[GMPX]

so has anyone else played around with b3001 - b3003 yet?
These will make a difference, but, a much smaller one. In early testing these were the only tables we had put in. Putting the values from a LS7 in to a L98 made a difference, just not enough. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to change them.


If you send me some raw data, i could probably figure it out.
The thing is, to get the desired results there is really only one table that needs to be changed, changing it (at least on a non VVT engine) is very simple and doesn't need to be scientific, plus you can log a PID that shows the torque value so you know how much things changed. I look at it from this approach, you stick a BluRay disc in the player and press play, do you have to know the technical details behind how the picture gets to the screen or do you just sit back and enjoy the movie for what it is.
There is no more 'raw' data than what you see on the screen.

[redhardsupra]

I'd prefer to know how the torque estimation happens, or at least what variables are involved.

[madmax4499]

do you highlight the entire table and increase by % or just parts of it.

[Dieselman]

do you highlight the entire table and increase by % or just parts of it.

I highlighted the whole table and increased by 5% at a time until happy with shift quality. I am at 15% currently

[scottcmb]

Just a quick note guys......remember if you increase the torque mod table by 5% increments at a time and say you do it three times, the figures in the cells will not be the same as the figures in the cells of a table that was increased once by 15%. In fact the table done three times at 5% will have higher values than a table done once at 15%....... see snap shots below

1305213053

its something i thought i should mention because its an equasion that catches people out some times :)

Cheers Scotty

[600+duramax]

Is the 0 degree table the only one that has to be modified? Or do I also have to do the 10 20 and 30 degree tables and if so what is the difference in the tables.

[scottcmb]

I could be wrong on this but my thoughts are at this stage is that the 0 degree table is the only table used by fixed position cammed engines.
And the VVT engines use all 4 tables.

Hence if your engine is fitted with AFM and when that engine goes into AFM mode it will refer to the AFM tables in the Torque model

Cheers Scotty

[Redline Motorsports]

I am trying to get a sanity check about the following theory...

Since the MAF and VE (coefficients) are what determine the "load" is it safe to say that a modified engine measuring 94 lbs/min of airflow vs. say 55 stock....hits a wall in what it can actually report for final load....therefore since the trans is "torque based" if load is reported as less when output is high....clamping force and shift times will not be adequate to properly perform the shift.


We have a 2012 6L90 trans we are pushing some big power through and we are having a hard time at the track getting strong positive shifts....trans feels like its slipping through the 1 to 2 shift killing ET...


Also does this new torque model table compound the reduction of TM?


Howard

[joecar]

Just a quick note guys......remember if you increase the torque mod table by 5% increments at a time and say you do it three times, the figures in the cells will not be the same as the figures in the cells of a table that was increased once by 15%. In fact the table done three times at 5% will have higher values than a table done once at 15%....... see snap shots below

1305213053

its something i thought i should mention because its an equasion that catches people out some times :)

Cheers ScottyThe 5% is being applied to a successively increasing value vs the 15% one time is applied to the original value...

For example:

15% one time:
100 * 1.15 = 115

5% three times:
100.00 * 1.05 = 105.00
105.00 * 1.05 = 110.25
110.25 * 1.05 = 115.7625

i.e. the two methods are out by a factor of (1.05)^3/1.15 = 1.00663.

Is this what you're seeing...?

[GMPX]

....therefore since the trans is "torque based" if load is reported as less when output is high....clamping force and shift times will not be adequate to properly perform the shift.That is spot on and the very reason these tables were added. For the TCM to do it's thing correctly it needs to be given the right data to work with (the torque figure).


Also does this new torque model table compound the reduction of TM?
I expect it would, if the TCM wants the shift to happen with 200 ft-lb of engine torque and the modified torque model is saying the engine is well over 700 then it will want more TM to happen to get the figure down. Having said that, the results being posted in here would indicate that doesn't seem to happen because the trans shifts nice and firm with the higher values in the Torque Model.

[scottcmb]

The 5% is being applied to a successively increasing value vs the 15% one time is applied to the original value...

For example:

15% one time:
100 * 1.15 = 115

5% three times:
100.00 * 1.05 = 105.00
105.00 * 1.05 = 110.25
110.25 * 1.05 = 115.7625

i.e. the two methods are out by a factor of (1.05)^3/1.15 = 1.00663.

Is this what you're seeing...?

Sorry Joe....i wasnt being clear enough in what i was trying to point out
if you look at cell 0 rpm/ 0.0 cam position it has a value of 6.338196 after and increase of 15% added once on my stock table.
when the same stock table had a 5% increase done at three seperate times ( say if a tuner increased there stock table by 5% then went out and tested it for shift feel then came back in and increased it again another 5% and then went out and tested again so on and so on to a total of 3x 5% increases)
The final value in that same cell will be 6.380221.

so therefore the 3 x 5% increases will be higher in value by 0.042025.

so basically the point im trying to explain is that when tuners tested there trans with 3x5% increases and get the results they wanted. It will not be the same results when they go to do a tune on another vehicle and just add 15% straight off the bat, or if anyone else on here like myself read what has been posted and just go straight to there tune and add 15%.

What Rhino and others have tested and posted there results for all to try is greatly appreciated by myself and im sure others aswell, i just wanted to point out that this little percentage equation can catch some people out with figures, thats all im trying to say. :)

Cheers Scotty

[Redline Motorsports]

Sorry Joe....i wasnt being clear enough in what i was trying to point out
if you look at cell 0 rpm/ 0.0 cam position it has a value of 6.338196 after and increase of 15% added once on my stock table.
when the same stock table had a 5% increase done at three seperate times ( say if a tuner increased there stock table by 5% then went out and tested it for shift feel then came back in and increased it again another 5% and then went out and tested again so on and so on to a total of 3x 5% increases)
The final value in that same cell will be 6.380221.

so therefore the 3 x 5% increases will be higher in value by 0.042025.

so basically the point im trying to explain is that when tuners tested there trans with 3x5% increases and get the results they wanted. It will not be the same results when they go to do a tune on another vehicle and just add 15% straight off the bat, or if anyone else on here like myself read what has been posted and just go straight to there tune and add 15%.

What Rhino and others have tested and posted there results for all to try is greatly appreciated by myself and im sure others aswell, i just wanted to point out that this little percentage equation can catch some people out with figures, thats all im trying to say. :)

Cheers Scotty

Best thing would be to write three separate calibrations each multiplied from the stock file and done in 5 percent increments.

Howard

[600+duramax]

Messed some more with these tables and I have to say thanks. They make a huge difference.

[Redline Motorsports]

Messed some more with these tables and I have to say thanks. They make a huge difference.

Yeah and a huge dose of that table.:hihi:

HT

[madmax4499]

i did mine once at 10% i like it!!!

[Highlander]

Do you guys multiply ALL the tables or just the airflow table?

These tables look to have effect on calculated g/cyl or something similar.

[madmax4499]

Nope, just the one listed!!

[GMPX]

These tables look to have effect on calculated g/cyl or something similar.
They should not, it's just used to calculate engine torque (given the ECM can't measure that).

[Highlander]

There are some tables there that say airflow spark??

It could calculate engine torque from rate of acceleration! But that is another topic,!

[GMPX]

oh ok, those tables are in the whole torque calculation loop. To figure out the torque the ECM needs to take in to account the timing, obviously to calculate the torque the timing must be taken in to account.

[94SS]

Which TPS value do you log to fill in the B3001, B3002, B3003 Airflow lookup tables?

[eficalibrator]

Call me crazy, but I think an easy way to get these tables in the ballpark really quick would be to log the torque estimate resulting from the coefficients (see post #1) during a WOT run that starts from very low RPM. Then you could compare the CALCULATED torque to a reasonable engine torque calculation from the dyno (corrected from wheel torque) and come up with a single rough correction factor at each RPM breakpoint.

Then, instead of multiplying the whole table by some unknown factor, you could have a series of RPM-specific corrections. Each one would be applied to its own RPM row and all of them would get applied in a single ECU flash.

Then just re-run the WOT pull and see how close you got it across the RPM band. Like he said earlier, you don't need to be precise, just "close enough". This should take a bunch of the guesswork out of the calibration process and speed things up by avoiding the mindless poking about of constantly trying different random correction factors across the board until it "feels right." You should be able to get close in one or two carefully measured corrections.

[Redline Motorsports]

Call me crazy, but I think an easy way to get these tables in the ballpark really quick would be to log the torque estimate resulting from the coefficients (see post #1) during a WOT run that starts from very low RPM. Then you could compare the CALCULATED torque to a reasonable engine torque calculation from the dyno (corrected from wheel torque) and come up with a single rough correction factor at each RPM breakpoint.

Then, instead of multiplying the whole table by some unknown factor, you could have a series of RPM-specific corrections. Each one would be applied to its own RPM row and all of them would get applied in a single ECU flash.

Then just re-run the WOT pull and see how close you got it across the RPM band. Like he said earlier, you don't need to be precise, just "close enough". This should take a bunch of the guesswork out of the calibration process and speed things up by avoiding the mindless poking about of constantly trying different random correction factors across the board until it "feels right." You should be able to get close in one or two carefully measured corrections.


I wanted to create a correction factor PID to compare actual vs. commanded but there is a hard limit in the controller when you peg 640. Was going to use that against that table as a down and dirty tweak.


HT

[wesam]

So i should add 5% to all tables in the exhaust cam at 0 degrees ??

[HEKYEH]

I've made these changes to the E38 tune.......will see how it goes at the track on Sunday, weather permitting.

My issues has always been getting the 350-370rwkw thru the transmission and down to the ground. The 1-2-3 gear change was always soooooo "stuttery"....if that's a word?! Well it is now.

See what happens :)

[Tre-Cool]

http://youtu.be/YbpgwjanEoo

A newish 2nd hand gear box makes a big difference. my original tranny was flogged out after 135K hard km's.

[ls1mike]

I have found if you have to bump the VE table a good bit then this table should not need much or any adjusting. Stock engines will need up to 20% bump to get a real firm shift, even with an additional 15% bump on the trans part throttle pressure settings.

[Rhino79]

VE table? The vve tables? or some of the tq model tables?

[ls1mike]

The "virtual" VE table. Basically airflow = power = firmness so OBV if the computer has a higher base airflow number you'll get higher output data.

[Boost]

OMG Tre-Cool, I almost shift myself :anitoof:

[restless@westnet.com.au]

HI
gmpx is it just the 0.0 left hand column that you rise by 15% or the whole table
i tried to to put in a WORD page shot of the left column highlighted but it says only jpg, jpeg, png, giff , doesent it except word doc ?
thanks

[joecar]

Take a screenshot instead: click Shift-PrtScrn, open MS Paint, paste, save as .png.

[restless@westnet.com.au]

THANKS JOE
i had to reload paint as it must have got deleted

OK guys here is the screen shot
is it just the first 0.0 column in the TORQUE MODEL (highlighted ) that is upped by 15% ,OR the whole table
thanks
14080

[Rhino79]

Whole table

[restless@westnet.com.au]

thanks
Rhino,
i'm assuming that it would be best to start with THE stock T43 tune ?
as the one i have in at the moment has had shift pressures and shift times , etc altered

[GMPX]

Yeah, go back to the shock tune. You can change the shift times down a bit still or it will always battle to get them back to what it thinks it wants.
The other thing to consider, if you don't want harsher shifts at lower RPM's, don't mess with the torque table down there.
As for the Cam degree axis, for the Commodore it doesn't matter, just change all columns.

[restless@westnet.com.au]

thanks for that
the other thing im trying to find is the GM.TRQENG in efilive scan dash page , i have it loaded in to the v2 from explorer>BBX but i cant seam to find it in the list when adding pids in the dash pages ?

[restless@westnet.com.au]

well i upped the torque model 15% in the E38 and it didn't do any thing that i can feel to my MODED a6 tune ??

if you select NO in the torque management T43 on wot up shift does that cancel out the the torque table ?
6l80e

[restless@westnet.com.au]

UP DATE
just for fun i reloaded the STOCK T43 tune with the + 15% in the the ecm WOW its just as good as the modded tune
and with the torque management set to NO in D9401 AND NONE in D9412 and D9414 its better then the modded tune a lot nicer shifts AND THE MANUEL SHIFT is way better it has got some real feel now

[scottcmb]

Have you played with the "Minimum Final Timing" in the ecm tune to go with your TCM adjustments yet?

[GMPX]

Yeah, go back to the shock tune.


well i upped the torque model 15% in the E38 and it didn't do any thing that i can feel to my MODED a6 tune ??


UP DATE
just for fun i reloaded the STOCK T43 tune with the + 15% in the the ecm WOW its just as good as the modded tune
Eventually you got there then ;-)

[restless@westnet.com.au]

yes i just thought it would make more off a differance to the moded tune so i went that with that first ?

[restless@westnet.com.au]

Have you played with the "Minimum Final Timing" in the ecm tune to go with your TCM adjustments yet?

no i haven't played with the ecm tune EXCEPT for the torque model but i THINK its running less final timing as its camed + F.I 10 PSI
ill have to check it against a stock tune
witch i don't have

[Rhino79]

WHen you get to a point with the 6l80s, it will go backwards in feel...lol.

[restless@westnet.com.au]

should i up the SHIFT presures and TCC presures now as they are all still stock ? if so by how much %
with lots of torque 1024 NM showing on the TRQENG PID

[Tre-Cool]

1024nm in trqeng pid is plenty enough. mine show'd just over 1050 when i ran 10.6 the other night.

[restless@westnet.com.au]

that is a great ET ,is that a record for A6 on street tyres ?

[Protec]

With VVT, do we just do the increase on all 4 tables with regard to RPM_Airflow?

Thanks,

John

[Rhino79]

I do, seems to work good.

[Jason S.]

As I have been digging trying to find a definite answer on reducing the amount of torque reduction on the shifts ( I see as much as 40+ degrees on the shifts on the E67/T43 CTS-V), it seems that no one really knows how to adjust it. It was asked on a couple of occasions which of the torque tables apply for a non adjustable cam in the LSA, with no clear response. Just 'the tables mentioned in this thread'. Well no specific tables have been called out. I am assuming that it is ALL of the tables listed under Normal fuel Exhaust CAM 0 Degrees, but haven't seen actual clarification. Also B5156 lists maximum spark retard for knock, torque reduction etc... which CLEARLY isn't an accurate description because my table is set to a maximum of -20 and I am seeing over 40 taken out. Would it be that difficult to list the tables and options SPECIFICALLY related to these changes by their table numbers?

[Tre-Cool]

easiest way it to adjust the ecu tune and the minimum timing table in the spark area.

[Jason S.]

easiest way it to adjust the ecu tune and the minimum timing table in the spark area.

This really doesn't help. Unless I am missing something...if I set those tables to numbers that would be more realistic to handle spark retard on shifts, it would clamp the lower limit to numbers that would prevent an active knock sensor from being useful.

[Tre-Cool]

i use 5 degrees of timing in mine in the low end of the table for firm shifts down low, However i have negative 6 degrees in the top end for shifts.

negative timing seems to work better for quicker shifts anyway.

[Jason S.]

i use 5 degrees of timing in mine in the low end of the table for firm shifts down low, However i have negative 6 degrees in the top end for shifts.

negative timing seems to work better for quicker shifts anyway.

5 degrees won't get me near where I want! Currently the ECU is pulling 40 degrees down to zero of advance.... I would want no more than 20 to be pulled, so I would have to put my mins at 20 for that to work at light load...no good.

[Tre-Cool]

u dont understand the table.

if you put in -6 degrees in the minimum timing table. the ecu can not go any lower than -6. so if your seeing -40 now. it will hit the "wall" at -6. it's not a -40 +20 = -20 degrees equation.

B5153 Power Reduction Minimum timing in my e38 is set to -10 degrees for the whole lot
B5157 -Minimum Final Timing=
Goes from +6 to -10 after 0.72g/cyl

[Jason S.]

u dont understand the table.

if you put in -6 degrees in the minimum timing table. the ecu can not go any lower than -6. so if your seeing -40 now. it will hit the "wall" at -6. it's not a -40 +20 = -20 degrees equation.

B5153 Power Reduction Minimum timing in my e38 is set to -10 degrees for the whole lot
B5157 -Minimum Final Timing=
Goes from +6 to -10 after 0.72g/cyl

I have -15 in B5153, and -25 as the largest in B5157. So if that were true...I would never get more than 25 degrees pulled (because that is the largest negative number in B5157). Yet, I am getting 40+ pulled...so what am I missing?

[Tre-Cool]

what b5156 or alternativily post your tune files and i'll take a look and see if anything stands out.

[Jason S.]

14273 Here you go.


what b5156 or alternativily post your tune files and i'll take a look and see if anything stands out.

[Tre-Cool]

well it all looks good. i have put the settings that i use in from my e38, so see how it goes.

GM certainly likes to run some timing in those motors. knock sensors are seem pretty relaxed too. i run forged pistons in my ls3 block and my knock threshold numbers are at 6 for all mg.

14274

[Jason S.]

well it all looks good. i have put the settings that i use in from my e38, so see how it goes.

GM certainly likes to run some timing in those motors. knock sensors are seem pretty relaxed too. i run forged pistons in my ls3 block and my knock threshold numbers are at 6 for all mg.

14274

What all did you change, so I know what to look for?

[Tre-Cool]

do a compare, but it's mostly the reduced power spark and minimum timing tables.

[Jason S.]

do a compare, but it's mostly the reduced power spark and minimum timing tables.

O.k. will do! Thanks! I'll let you know how it does.

[Jason S.]

Well...no good. Still getting the same timing numbers being pulled, and now, after it shows SMRET being reinstated back to zero...it is still holding timing and ramping it in at a timed rate. Feels HORRIBLE! Surely someone knows why it is doing this.

[scottcmb]

Well...no good. Still getting the same timing numbers being pulled, and now, after it shows SMRET being reinstated back to zero...it is still holding timing and ramping it in at a timed rate. Feels HORRIBLE! Surely someone knows why it is doing this.

Take a look in your :Torque Control Parameters: you might find your answer in there!!!

Cheers Scotty

[Jason S.]

Care to be more specific? Table numbers? We both have looked through those and don't see anything.

[Jason S.]

I have come to the conclusion that there is no way to reduce the amount of timing pulled during the shift for torque reduction. Several of the tables listed as being related to this clearly have the wrong descriptions. TCS must = Traction Control System and not Torque Control System, as none of those tables when adjusted affect regular torque reduction.

[Rhino79]

TCS is traction control. If you put minimum timing in that rpm/load table on the minimum final timing table to say....10*, it will not go below 10* in that area, ever.

[Boost]

TCS is always been Traction Control. It is in the Torque Control section because it is a type of request for reduction and there are also different methods that it uses. This always takes a bit of experimentation for me as well.

[mowton]

UP DATE
just for fun i reloaded the STOCK T43 tune with the + 15% in the the ecm WOW its just as good as the modded tune
and with the torque management set to NO in D9401 AND NONE in D9412 and D9414 its better then the modded tune a lot nicer shifts AND THE MANUEL SHIFT is way better it has got some real feel now

I'm trying to sort out this thread and have a question about scaled ECM tunes. I normally modify the TCM pressure tables using Torque and offset them in accordance with the percentage of scaling. The shifts are sometimes good and sometimes OK...kinda of inconsistant from setup to setup. Would you apply this ECM Torque model update in conjunction with the scaling in the TCM tune or leave the TCM tune stock and change the ECM model? Anyone have any experience with this?

Thanks,

Ed M

[Tre-Cool]

i still run higher pressure in my tcm tune and large multiplier update to increase the torque output readings.

[Rhino79]

After much testing and many 6l80s tuned I have found the trucks do very well with just the scaled torque model tables or tables on vvt setups. They also tend to like a little wider shift time vs the car setups as well.

On the cars I run a combo of tq model and on the low side of the table I will still bump pressure to get the desired feel. On cars I run a tighter shift time, at wot anywhere from .15 to .25 will bump pretty well.

[mowton]

i still run higher pressure in my tcm tune and large multiplier update to increase the torque output readings.


On the cars I run a combo of tq model and on the low side of the table I will still bump pressure to get the desired feel

So if I understand, you will increase the PCM Torque Model Airflow coeficient table (B3033) to "realign" the calculated torque model which has been reduced as a result of the Tune scaling process? This would then make it not necessary to scale the Torque related TCM Torque axis values (offset table typically as you do with the timing table)?

Is it as simple as saying if my tune is scaled by 30% then I multiply the PCM Torque Model airflow coefficient values by 30%?

Thanks for your input. Will experiment when I get a chance but any expereince from the forum would be appreciated.

Ed M

[Tre-Cool]

Correct, however if your running mafless, I would add another 5%.

[Redline Motorsports]

So if I understand, you will increase the PCM Torque Model Airflow coeficient table (B3033) to "realign" the calculated torque model which has been reduced as a result of the Tune scaling process? This would then make it not necessary to scale the Torque related TCM Torque axis values (offset table typically as you do with the timing table)?

Is it as simple as saying if my tune is scaled by 30% then I multiply the PCM Torque Model airflow coefficient values by 30%?

Thanks for your input. Will experiment when I get a chance but any expereince from the forum would be appreciated.

Ed M

Ed,

Assuming GM has proportionally aligned the reported torque from the engine controller to match the values on the TCM; any changes to the airflow that are scaled will effect the final torque value. If the MAF is cut by 50% then the reported torque is 50% less and tables in the TCM will off by 50%. EFIL needs a scaling hot key that can do this in one key stroke!! hmmm......V8 idea!

This torque table is unfortunately difficult to reason through as its a coefficient table much like the airflow tables. What we need is this math reverse engineered to look like a VE surface which we could plot over airflow and really correct this table.......I have noticed that when you raise this table the reported actual torque value will go up.

Howard

[ScarabEpic22]

I just started playing with the TM table(s) today on my 08 TBSS, Im running SD (failed the MAF) so I can tune the VVE. Lets just say even with the MAFless patches applied, the shifts were horrible. Completely different than they were before I installed my injectors (ID850s :D) and scaled my tune 50%.

I started with a 10% bump over stock and it made a difference, but still not what I was hoping. I then flashed the same tune with a 50% over stock, and HOLY CRAP it shifts just like normal again. So anyone wondering if you need to adjust these in a scaled tune, YOU DO! I bumped it 10% more over that and its pretty dang good for my taste.

Howard, I like that idea. Have the ability to click a button and have all the VVE tables halved, Torque Model table doubled, etc.

[mowton]

Definitely sounds like we are on to something good :) Will make A4/A6 setups much easier to tune. The other tuning software lets you change the axis values which helps a bit. Thanks Howard (that table would be cool for sure) and Eric for your inputs. Last tune I tweaked the coefficient by 10% (also scaled the TCM Torque related pressure values) and it got better. Didn't want to go overboard until I had a chance to log and experiement.

Thanks again guys,

Ed M

[Boost]

Yes it works great.

Some questions about this:

Will it alter the ECM's torque PID? it has been hailed as so accurate and I myself found that it is within about 4 ft-lbs of factory rating. So after we make the tune shift better, is the accuracy of this PID invalid?

Also, is it my imagination or does the car also "respond better" even when not shifting?

I have increased all 4 degree positions on my VVT by 5%. The part throttle shifts are nice, almost a little harsh, the full throttle shifts have improved, though on the soft side. So should I increase just in the high RPM sections as stated before?

Thanks!

[Rhino79]

You always want to leave pressures low enough for the tcm to firm up during learning, not soften. I run wot pressures on the base tables at 1200-1400 kpa. Max line pressure limits up to match that. Wot shift times of .2 to .27. The tighter the converter the looser you can run shift timing for a good feel.

[GMPX]

Will it alter the ECM's torque PID?
Yes, in fact this PID is your feedback to track your changes.
People have ridiculed this method (usually because they aren't using EFILive), the conversation usually goes something like this.
Is the car MAF-Less ?
Yes, and since doing that the trans shifts bad.
Put the MAF back on, log the Torque PID, observe the max value (lets assume 450Nm).
Now fail the MAF so it run SD and repeat the Torque PID test, observe max value, oh look, it only hit 390Nm that time.
So now the TCM figures the engine is making less power than before.
Mess with the coefficients to get the reported torque back up to where it was and what do you know, the trans is shifting ok in SD mode now.

[GMPX]

If the MAF is cut by 50% then the reported torque is 50% less and tables in the TCM will off by 50%. EFIL needs a scaling hot key that can do this in one key stroke!! hmmm......V8 idea!
Most people run in to this problem when going SD, it's too variable to 'auto scale' for some they need 10% more, others 40%. Just monitor the torque PID so see which way you are heading.


This torque table is unfortunately difficult to reason through as its a coefficient table much like the airflow tables. What we need is this math reverse engineered to look like a VE surface which we could plot over airflow and really correct this table.......I have noticed that when you raise this table the reported actual torque value will go up.
Again, this is the whole idea of messing with the tables, not so much to fool everything else in to thinking the engine is making 1000Nm of torque, rather to have some control to fix the torque calculation errors the ECM might be dong.
To represent it as a VVE type table unfortunately isn't really possible, the VVE is plotted from numerous 2D tables all combined and manipulated at the same time. The tables the are with the Torque calculation are all 3D and are not calculated all in one shot. GM must have a killer bit of software to plot the numbers, it's over our head.
Remember guys, the Torque PID is your friend, consider it the WBO2 of torque tuning.

[Tre-Cool]

i just swapped out some 63lb injectors for some id1000 sized ones which with an allready maxxed out ifr have to run an even more scaled tune. this has resulted in a loss of resolution but no biggie. i've also switched to e85 by the drum so thought i'd show the difference in the tunes to get the reported torque figures back to "normal".
14472144731447414475

the grey screen is percentage difference between the old 63lb vs 100lbs.

[Boost]

Thanks for the very good info and responses! So as I take it - yes - of couse by altering these tables the reported torque PID changes (higher) and it may no longer be so accurate and close to the factory rating (I am with you Ross about the WBO2 comparison, I've come to trust this PID more than some dynos).

However, adjusting it makes a significant improvement to shift quality and almost feels like the final missing piece to the TCM dance.

[Boost]

WHen you get to a point with the 6l80s, it will go backwards in feel...lol.

So, I am working on an E39 / T43. I did 10% on the four tables to start, and there was a noticeable difference, though still too sloppy. Then I tried 15% and I almost feel like it got worse?

[Protec]

So, I am working on an E39 / T43. I did 10% on the four tables to start, and there was a noticeable difference, though still too sloppy. Then I tried 15% and I almost feel like it got worse?

I ended at 10% but needed to just decrease the shift times a bit and increase the pressure on the 1-2 and 2-3... I had to experiment, but in this application which was a truck, just increasing the tables was not enough to provide the desired results.

Seems you need to work a few things in tandem... Nothing is easy and direct with these things...


Hope this helps... Again, just my experience..


John

[Boost]

I hear that. Thank you John!

[GMPX]

On the V6 it might be a little tricky because you have the cam phasing to deal with too, each column is very different, unfortunately just adding percentages on the E39 doesn't always work. The other thing is these tables on the E39 will change the throttle response.

[GMPX]

I should let you all know that there is a pretty major change to these torque table configurations coming which will mean if you have been scripting changes you will have to start again, the table configurations are changing.
I will shortly be in NZ working along side Paul on a few projects, one of them will be to plot the torque maps similar to how we do the Virtual VE's. However, at least for this trip there is no possibility of adding in the reverse calculations.
But the plan is what we can offer is a 3D plot of what the calculations will produce. We did some logging on Paul's car today (6.0L L98) and based on the numbers it was amazingly accurate.
So as another test I set up the calculation in Excel and punched in the numbers to match the L98's peak torque figure at 4,400 RPM from those in the torque model tables. I assumed a couple of things, timing (23 deg) airflow (860mg).
The L98's rated torque at 4,400RPM is 530Nm, the calculation produced 532Nm! If I dropped the timing back to 10deg it calculated out 436, upped it to a knock producing 30deg it only went up to 548Nm.
It's really fascinating playing around with the numbers and seeing the results, should be a lot of fun once it's implemented, but for the new ECM's (E39, E78 etc) pretty important.

It will be very tricky with the variable cam engines, it may take a few software revisions to get the operational side of this ideal based on everyone's feedback.

http://download.efilive.com/Staff/GMPX/TrqMdlCalc.png

[Rhino79]

Oh man this is great news!

[wesam]

With VVT, do we just do the increase on all 4 tables with regard to RPM_Airflow?

Thanks,

John
Any body know the answer for this question ?
Do we need to change all 4 tables with VVT cars ?

[Rhino79]

Yes change them all, my cam is vvt in my car and it helped changing all 4 airflow tables

[APS Luis]

So as another test I set up the calculation in Excel and punched in the numbers to match the L98's peak torque figure at 4,400 RPM from those in the torque model tables. I assumed a couple of things, timing (23 deg) airflow (860mg).
The L98's rated torque at 4,400RPM is 530Nm, the calculation produced 532Nm! If I dropped the timing back to 10deg it calculated out 436, upped it to a knock producing 30deg it only went up to 548Nm.




Hmmm - may explain the high trans failures on blown cars running around 12deg ign timing

[GMPX]

Good point Luis, all the more reason for us to get them displayed so you can change the spark coeffs to match.

[samh_08]

Is there any reason to change/not change the torque models on a stock engine / trans?

[Y BE AVG]

anything new happening with this.

[ScarabEpic22]

anything new happening with this.

What do you mean? It works, very well in fact...

[Y BE AVG]

Sorry, this is what I was asking about. Trying to keep up to date. But you're right the torque models fixed a lot of problems we deal with on a daily basis.


I should let you all know that there is a pretty major change to these torque table configurations coming which will mean if you have been scripting changes you will have to start again, the table configurations are changing.
I will shortly be in NZ working along side Paul on a few projects, one of them will be to plot the torque maps similar to how we do the Virtual VE's. However, at least for this trip there is no possibility of adding in the reverse calculations.
But the plan is what we can offer is a 3D plot of what the calculations will produce. We did some logging on Paul's car today (6.0L L98) and based on the numbers it was amazingly accurate.
So as another test I set up the calculation in Excel and punched in the numbers to match the L98's peak torque figure at 4,400 RPM from those in the torque model tables. I assumed a couple of things, timing (23 deg) airflow (860mg).
The L98's rated torque at 4,400RPM is 530Nm, the calculation produced 532Nm! If I dropped the timing back to 10deg it calculated out 436, upped it to a knock producing 30deg it only went up to 548Nm.
It's really fascinating playing around with the numbers and seeing the results, should be a lot of fun once it's implemented, but for the new ECM's (E39, E78 etc) pretty important.

It will be very tricky with the variable cam engines, it may take a few software revisions to get the operational side of this ideal based on everyone's feedback.

http://download.efilive.com/Staff/GMPX/TrqMdlCalc.png

[Boost]

On the V6 it might be a little tricky because you have the cam phasing to deal with too, each column is very different, unfortunately just adding percentages on the E39 doesn't always work. The other thing is these tables on the E39 will change the throttle response.

So I am working on my E39A / T76 combo and it has variable intake and exhaust cams. Where can I read up on how exactly it affects throttle response and how to get it dialed in? I would LOVE to get it shifting like it did on my E78 Cruze (really good)!

[wesam]

I noticed something weird while tuning GMC Sierra 2500HD 2013
when increasing the tables in torque model by any value it will limit the TB opening while WOT to 61%
I'm logging ETCT and it was fine before adding to the Torque model
Any thoughts ?

[ScarabEpic22]

I noticed something weird while tuning GMC Sierra 2500HD 2013
when increasing the tables in torque model by any value it will limit the TB opening while WOT to 61%
I'm logging ETCT and it was fine before adding to the Torque model
Any thoughts ?

What ECM, E78? Have you raised the TQ limits? Remember the newer ECMs try to meet the desired TQ value, if they hit it then they will limit throttle, boost, and so on. If you've raised the torque model to match that of the engine, you need to make sure the TQ limits are above that otherwise it will act as a "master" limiter.

[wesam]

Yes E78 ECM
And yes I raised all torque limits in ECM
but dis not raise the torque limits in TCM
what tables in E78 do you suggest to raise ?

[ScarabEpic22]

You'd have to post both files for me to check, but I know in the E78 you should look at B8801-B8804, B8300-B8303, B7017. However, it appears that not all the TQ tables are there, HPT has a few more TQ related tables that might be coming into play.

Try modifying the TCM as well, the TCM might be asking the ECM to limit power if it's limits are being met.

[wesam]

You'd have to post both files for me to check, but I know in the E78 you should look at B8801-B8804, B8300-B8303, B7017. However, it appears that not all the TQ tables are there, HPT has a few more TQ related tables that might be coming into play.

Try modifying the TCM as well, the TCM might be asking the ECM to limit power if it's limits are being met.
All those tables are set to Max but it seems there is tables not mapped yet in EFI Live for the E78
I hope to get more support for this ECM soon

[Boost]

Try modifying the TCM as well, the TCM might be asking the ECM to limit power if it's limits are being met.

This is precisely why I need support for my T76 please please please. I have a passenger in my race car that says "slow down, slow down" (TCM)

[cindy@efilive]

This is precisely why I need support for my T76 please please please. I have a passenger in my race car that says "slow down, slow down" (TCM)

Additional TCM support (T76, T43) isn't even on our radar until at least after the first quarter of 2014 sorry. Too many other projects sit ahead of them in the development list.

Cheers
Cindy

[Boost]

Bummer. I'll just have to hope time flies until then. I really need it and can't wait. But thanks for the update and I'll be hoping for the best!

[sb1111]

Hi I am looking for someone who knows what the table needs to look like to work right with 6L90 and e 38 controller.

[GMPX]

Trial and error I'm afraid, log the torque PID from the ECM to make sure your changes are going in the right direction. Re-read this thread (I know it's very long) but there is a lot of discussions in this thread from people trying to tweak the torque tables.
If you are still a little lost then maybe give a some more details on the engine combo, what has been done, how is the trans behaving.

[sb1111]

its gm 6 liter and 6L90 transmission
when going uphill when you press the gas the vehicle is running like reving but the transmission is not shifting until you release the foot off the pedal
I don't know if this would cause any transmission to burn the clutches or stuff like that

[joecar]

If the trans is slipping then there is an internal hydraulic/mechanical problem.


Otherwise the shift tables must obey relative relationships (if they don't then they may be inhibiting particular shifts)...

for example, the 3->4 upshift table must be above the 4->3 downshift table (by at least a few MPH), and must also obey the engine RPM limit.


Not shifting due to hitting the engine RPM limit should not cause trans problems, but may sometimes cause engine valvetrain problems (depending on situation).

[Tre-Cool]

I should let you all know that there is a pretty major change to these torque table configurations coming which will mean if you have been scripting changes you will have to start again, the table configurations are changing.
I will shortly be in NZ working along side Paul on a few projects, one of them will be to plot the torque maps similar to how we do the Virtual VE's. However, at least for this trip there is no possibility of adding in the reverse calculations.
But the plan is what we can offer is a 3D plot of what the calculations will produce. We did some logging on Paul's car today (6.0L L98) and based on the numbers it was amazingly accurate.
So as another test I set up the calculation in Excel and punched in the numbers to match the L98's peak torque figure at 4,400 RPM from those in the torque model tables. I assumed a couple of things, timing (23 deg) airflow (860mg).
The L98's rated torque at 4,400RPM is 530Nm, the calculation produced 532Nm! If I dropped the timing back to 10deg it calculated out 436, upped it to a knock producing 30deg it only went up to 548Nm.
It's really fascinating playing around with the numbers and seeing the results, should be a lot of fun once it's implemented, but for the new ECM's (E39, E78 etc) pretty important.

It will be very tricky with the variable cam engines, it may take a few software revisions to get the operational side of this ideal based on everyone's feedback.

http://download.efilive.com/Staff/GMPX/TrqMdlCalc.png

GMPX, was there any updates on this spreadsheet or calculation to the program? Or could you run some numbers in it for me for the e83 controller?

Cheers

[GMPX]

GMPX, was there any updates on this spreadsheet or calculation to the program? Or could you run some numbers in it for me for the e83 controller?

Cheers
The answers are No, No and No :rotflmao:

Spreadsheet hasn't been touched.
The calculation program is not going in to V7.5, it will be in V8.
Sorry, don't have time to do the numbers for you.

[APS Luis]

:bash::throw:

[Tre-Cool]

So its a new year. Any further progress with t43 calibrations? I would be extremely happy if I could get the gear pressure stuff in the adaptive learning area like we have in the early models for the 24256125 OS.

It's a series 2 VE commodore.

[GMPX]

T43 has not been looked at, there has been five other GM controllers we've been working on.

[Alexander]

http://download.efilive.com/Staff/GMPX/TrqMdlCalc.png

Hello! I try to make changes to these tables on E39, steps 1 and 3 I understand how to count. Please tell me how you calculated steps 2,4,5,6,7. I explained to ask because I'm afraid to make a mistake and go the wrong way. I really important is your answer!

[wesam]

Any body tried this with the new 8 speed transmissions ?
Will this still work the same way ?

[GR8GAME]

As I have been digging trying to find a definite answer on reducing the amount of torque reduction on the shifts ( I see as much as 40+ degrees on the shifts on the E67/T43 CTS-V), it seems that no one really knows how to adjust it. It was asked on a couple of occasions which of the torque tables apply for a non adjustable cam in the LSA, with no clear response. Just 'the tables mentioned in this thread'. Well no specific tables have been called out. I am assuming that it is ALL of the tables listed under Normal fuel Exhaust CAM 0 Degrees, but haven't seen actual clarification. Also B5156 lists maximum spark retard for knock, torque reduction etc... which CLEARLY isn't an accurate description because my table is set to a maximum of -20 and I am seeing over 40 taken out. Would it be that difficult to list the tables and options SPECIFICALLY related to these changes by their table numbers?


So, I'm having this very similar issue!
I'm wondering if anyone has figured out what was causing the issue?

I posted up in another thread:
https://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?26645-2013-ZL1-A6-Shifting-issue-s-Cant-Datalog-quot-EQ-Ratio-vs-RPM-quot

But I have a 2013 ZL1 doing the EXACT same thing. Just pulling TONS of timing out of the engine and causing some weird issue's when upshifting.

Anybody have any ideas? Where to look?

I've tried a couple of the things that were discussed in this thread, but I'm still having the issue.

[joecar]

I'm still mulling over your files in the other thread, but I do welcome any more info any anyone has to share :cheers:

[Tre-Cool]

I've sent him an email with a tune from my own car's tcm. It still runs stock TM and shifts great and doesn't have the large timing swing.

It's a smooth shift on light/part throttle and firm/quick at wot. A lot of the fine tuning comes down to tuning the preset adapts and shift time modifiers.

[PRAY]

Any body tried this with the new 8 speed transmissions ?
Will this still work the same way ?

This.

[Tre-Cool]

So thread dig & mostly aimed at GMPX.

Has the torque calculation stuff for the trans been added in the V8 software.
if not, ETA on being able to see it.

Either way any chance of getting a copy of spreadsheet to play with, since we have been patiently waiting all these years. :-)

I've looked at my tune with HPT's "virtual torque" map and in typical fashion there shit doesn't work/calculate properly to what i log. lol

[GMPX]

So thread dig & mostly aimed at GMPX.

Has the torque calculation stuff for the trans been added in the V8 software.
No it hasn't.


if not, ETA on being able to see it.
Wasn't even on the 'to do' list :music_whistling_1:


Either way any chance of getting a copy of spreadsheet to play with, since we have been patiently waiting all these years. :-)
I can't find it on my current PC, it'll be on a back up somewhere but I'm not going to go spend hours looking sorry.

[raceghost]

Hi, old thread I know, but have a couple of questions, please bare with me if anyone looks at this.

It was asked earlier on page 13, Will these help, or is there any risk to doing this on a vurtually stock E38/T43 on an 07 Escalade 6.2 non VVT/6L80E?

My tables dont look near as smooth as the OP's tables? I am assuming that is a tuned table prior to the OP's post not a result of this adjustment. I.E. his is smooth, and I can see the 5% increase in the tables. Mine is jagged and all over the place. I am experiencing some of the issues on my trans as it seems squishi, and at times, when turning a corner, I can feel the trans holding a gear, and then finally downshifting. Other than basic adjustments for tires size, speedo, a little MAF Tuning to bring it into spec, is all that has been adjusted so far, so these tables are still stock in my rom.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

[raceghost]

Hi, old thread I know, but have a couple of questions, please bare with me if anyone looks at this.

It was asked earlier on page 13, Will these help, or is there any risk to doing this on a virtually stock E38/T43 on an 07 Escalade 6.2 non VVT/6L80E?

My tables dont look near as smooth as the OP's tables? I am assuming that is a tuned table prior to the OP's post not a result of this adjustment. I.E. his is smooth, and I can see the 5% increase in the tables. Mine is jagged and all over the place. I am experiencing some of the issues on my trans as it seems squishi, and at times, when turning a corner, I can feel the trans holding a gear, and then finally downshifting. Other than basic adjustments for tires size, speedo, a little MAF Tuning to bring it into spec, is all that has been adjusted so far, so these tables are still stock in my rom.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Well, after a lot of digging and comparison, I have answered my own question. I hope this will help all of you, and OP, you may want to add this to your original post. I have tried this with great success.

First: Fact, All Truck/SUV 2006~2014 6.2L w/E38 controller, and 6l80E w/T43 controllers, are mechanically the same. All Gm part numbers within these years are interchangeable. I verified this with multiple GM dealers and Part Departments. What is different is programming within the ECM and TCM respectively.

Second: Respectfully, with these specific tables dealing with Torque Model's for shifting handshake to the TCM from ECM are scaled different. From what I have found, the 06~08 tables are referenced as old in the OP's post, and the 09~14 are referenced as the new tables. What if I told you they were the same tables, just labeled differently and scaled differently... However, I have tested by form of copy, and then smoothed the new tables from an 09 E38 into my 07 E38. Truck became a whole new ride, shifting smoother than butter and no more 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 1st stutter that nothing else could fix. Like when I would turn a corner, even though I tuned the transmission, ever so often it would feel like it was in neutral even though it was down shifting from 2nd to 1st, then deciding if it wanted to take 2nd or 1st again. Very annoying, as well as hard shifting every so often with 2nd to 3rd gear normal daily driving. My ECM/TCM has all updates applied by me at a GM dealer, meaning, I actually did the programming using their tools. It's good to haver friends, lol. Either way, I digress.

So with the above info, within post one you have "Old" and "New" tables, here is the association to each other:

Coefficient Table A1 [RPM_Airflow] ---> Coefficient Table A20 [RPM_Airflow]
Coefficient Table A2 [RPM_RPM] ---> Coefficient Table A21 [RPM_RPM]
Coefficient Table A3 [RPM_Spark] ---> Coefficient Table A22 [RPM_Spark]
Coefficient Table A4 [RPM_Spark2] ---> Coefficient Table A23 [RPM_Spark Sq]
Coefficient Table A5 [RPM_Spark_Airflow] ---> Coefficient Table A24 [RPM_Spark_Airflow]
Coefficient Table A6 [RPM_Spark2_Airflow] ---> Coefficient Table A25 [RPM_Spark Sq_Airflow]
Coefficient Table A7 [RPM_Map] ---> Coefficient Table A30 [Map_Map]
Coefficient Table A8 [RPM_Spark_Map] ---> Coefficient Table A28 [Map_Spark_Map]
Coefficient Table A9 [RPM_Spark2_Map] ---> Coefficient Table A29 [Map_Spark Sq_Map]
Coefficient Table A10 [Map_RPM] ---> Coefficient Table A31 [Map_RPM]
Coefficient Table A11 [Map_Spark] ---> Coefficient Table A26 [Map_Spark]
Coefficient Table A12 [Map_Spark2] ---> Coefficient Table A27 [Map_Spark2]

You will note that the "old" tables are scaled with 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 columns.
You will note that the "new" tables are scaled with 0, 5, 12.5, 20, and 25 columsn.
You will not that the "old" tables have a 0 row, and a 6400 row.
You will note that the "new" tables do not have these two rows.

Adjust accordingly with steps below

Ok, once you study them, and come to your own discovery, you can move on to this next part, which is how to get the 09+ tables into your 06~08 GM Rom. If you compare the data within these tables between the "old" and "new" you will see they are identical, at least in my case, just in different columns and cells.

So, what I did was Highlight Columns 20-30 and Rows 0-6400 and then pasted them in 15-25 Columns, essentially shifting all the cells left 1 column, and then leave 30 column alone.

Next take columns 5 and 10, copy and paste or shift all rows into the 0-5 columns.

Now Highlight the 5-15 columns and rows, and use the Green Left to right Arrow "Fill cells with linear data from left to right" This will auto fill the 10 column.

Now look at both roms, and you will see the new shape in the graph of the "old" rom tables looks identical to the "new" rom tables graph.

Below are (3) ECM Roms. For comparison of how the tables look stock, look within the 1st and 2nd rom. If you wish to see what it looks like completed, look to the Rom Labeled BossHog.mario.Tune1.1.12.29.20.... Again this is a fully stock 2007 Cadillac Escalade EXT. Intake and Exhaust are the only mods that relate to Engine, and it only has roughly 8K miles on it.

Your welcome.

[joecar]

raceghost,

Thanks for posting your findings, I appreciate that this is tedious work, good job :cheers:

Also, in addition, make sure that none of the VSS/TPS shift table curves cross each other anywhere (look at them all together).

And, you might want to set all the Throttle Downshift tables to 100% everywhere to avoid conflicts with the VSS/TPS shift tables.

[hsv084]

No it hasn't.


Wasn't even on the 'to do' list :music_whistling_1:


I can't find it on my current PC, it'll be on a back up somewhere but I'm not going to go spend hours looking sorry.

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but was the spreadsheet found and available?