SST MR/SE 1st gear TPS limiter FOUND!
I personally like to manage 1st gear torque with the boost tables. It's much less abrupt and offers more resolution.
You can try setting this table to 100% to remove the TPS limits and then limit your first gear torque with the gear-based boost tables.
This way your also not trying to cram a bunch of boost through 50% throttle plate which I would assume causes a bit of back pressure on the turbo.
Of course, everyone has their different ways.
You can try setting this table to 100% to remove the TPS limits and then limit your first gear torque with the gear-based boost tables.
This way your also not trying to cram a bunch of boost through 50% throttle plate which I would assume causes a bit of back pressure on the turbo.
Of course, everyone has their different ways.
below is before and after. looked just like table in first post before I modded it. is it possible scaling in XML mod is different? car drove great, no adverse effects noted.
Thanks
either way, this is really cool
Thanks
either way, this is really cool
Last edited by myersap93; Apr 22, 2011 at 04:03 PM.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,094
Likes: 1,092
From: Mid-Hudson, NY
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,094
Likes: 1,092
From: Mid-Hudson, NY
If you set it back to stock values does it then log correctly?
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,447
Likes: 14
From: Australia
Brilliant.
Can I just get a sanity-check on the scaling address (address="6258e") in the first post's XML fragments? Golden's central XML storage site goldenevo.com has these tables added last night, with address="625f0". The example ROM I was looking at: 53600010.
6258e doesn't work on my 53610010, but 625f0 looks perfect.
Ahem, perfect. Apart from the fact that this SST RPM scaling seems to be shared with the t/c Base WGDC and BTEL tables... which I re-scaled while getting my boost targets and error correction fined-tuned!
Oops.
I might just go put those back. If this scaling is shared with one SST table, maybe others are dipping in there too.
Rich
Can I just get a sanity-check on the scaling address (address="6258e") in the first post's XML fragments? Golden's central XML storage site goldenevo.com has these tables added last night, with address="625f0". The example ROM I was looking at: 53600010.
6258e doesn't work on my 53610010, but 625f0 looks perfect.
Ahem, perfect. Apart from the fact that this SST RPM scaling seems to be shared with the t/c Base WGDC and BTEL tables... which I re-scaled while getting my boost targets and error correction fined-tuned!
Oops.
I might just go put those back. If this scaling is shared with one SST table, maybe others are dipping in there too.
Rich
Yeah the front page is wrong. I may have told Bryan wrong when I first found them.
2009 EDM SST 54070007 and 2009 USDM Ralliart 53600010
- The y-axis RPM addresses should be 625f0 instead of 6258e.
And yes they share the RPM scaling with the Boost tables... Passive / Reactive and others.
2009 EDM SST 54070007 and 2009 USDM Ralliart 53600010
- The y-axis RPM addresses should be 625f0 instead of 6258e.
And yes they share the RPM scaling with the Boost tables... Passive / Reactive and others.
Ahh.. A couple of the RPM scalers are wrong on the front page. I think it's a copy and paste error. Again, might be my bad too. 
But I thought Bryan double checked my work. (I had other things wrong that he caught. )
2008 JDM Evo MR 52370024 should be 62594
goldenevo.com is fully updated. All SST ROMs have these tables, and I verified every one of them.
But I thought Bryan double checked my work. (I had other things wrong that he caught. )2008 JDM Evo MR 52370024 should be 62594
goldenevo.com is fully updated. All SST ROMs have these tables, and I verified every one of them.