Probably because of the way LS1LT1 debates. It's totally
pointless to discuss anything with him because he's not
interested in any honest debate. He doesn't appear to
absorb anything about the points being discussed and
just continually regurgitates the same tired assertions,
which usually isn't what's being discussed in the first
place. Watch his reaction to this post. Even though I
freely admit I believe TM does exist (depending on the defn),
he'll probably come back with some pejorative
about me.

Most of the "scepticism" revolves not around whether TM
exists but about precisely what it is, how it works, and
what the cartek TM elimination module does. In my
viewing of this forum, people are very interested in
understanding every aspect of TM but they aren't interested
in hearing shills like LS1LT1 go on and on about cartek's
TM elimination module shaving 0.5s off a 1/4 mile run.

Pat

 

You are wrong, most of the skepticism DOES revolve around whether or not TM actually exists, hence my repeated retorts to these people...please continue your 'honest debates' with them instead.


Wrong again...please don't try and make me out to be that predictable dude, I'm far more spontaneous and impulsive than that.


Like I've said before, proof of this is requested and proof is what you shall recieve before I post another word on the topic of this module...but in all honesty even if it does show positive results in a proper test (stock car, same driver, same day, module off then module on) I have a feeling that skeptics such as yourself will still find another arguement/excuse out of giving credit where credit is due.
If it fails to produce (maybe not 5/10ths but even 2 or 3/10ths is still a serious gain) then I will owe you an apology, I will expect the same in return if it doesn't.

 

After GM spent 15 plus million to develop the LS2 then undid it with TM, probably so they could save money on broken transmissions and put that money to the Black Helicopters that appear in the night around BG.

 

That's just about as useless a post as the LS1LT1 ones
I've been complaining about.

Just for the record, here is what I believe:

- I believe the C6 engine computer does alter engine
parameters, under specific conditions, and this does
affect hp. You can call this TM or anything else you want.
It alters A/F, adjusts timing, and probably
many other things. Why and when it alters these
parameters is probably more subtle than most people
realize. Certainly it does alter parameters to avoid
detonation. Is that TM?

- I believe, based on some simple tests I have done,
that the computer does alter engine parameters
during shifts, possibly temporarily reducing engine
output. I don't see how this is inconsistent with GM
spending lots to develop the LS2. If, for example,
they retard timing when the clutch is depressed and
advance it again when released, they really might be
trying to reduce driveline wear.

- I believe adding intakes like the vortex, honker, etc
can give better ets. I subscribe to the theory put forth
by mikeyC6 as to why.

- I do not believe eliminating the power reduction
during shifts can better your et by more than a tenth
or so. I believe this for a few reasons which I'd be
happy to share for anyone who is interested.

- I believe the vast majority of C6 owners who've run
their car in the 1/4 mile, automatics included, are
seeing their engines develop the advertized power. I
say this because regardless of their ETs, their trap
speeds are consistent with the engine's rated output.

- Therefore I don't believe a low ET means a mysterious
force called "torque management" is affecting the ET.
I think it is basically a bad launch. I compiled (and
posted in another thread) a list of 15 CF members
who'd posted 1/4 mile times for their C6 and all but
3 were in the 12s. Every single one had a trap speed
consistent with a 400hp engine in a 3200 lb car.

- Finally, there have been two different CF members
who've run UNDER 12.5 in the 1/4 and both posted
timeslips. I don't see how anyone can claim the
strange "torque management" force is hurting some
car's ETs (but not their trap speeds) while allowing
others to get excellent ETs, along with similar trap
speeds.

That's about all I've ever claimed.

Put that in your black helicopter and smoke it.

Pat

 

Sure it’s a ridicules statement; apparently you haven’t read all the threads on this subject over the past few months.

 

well, im not sure how much power we're losing with torque management and im also not exactly how or when it works but i do know that you can turn it off when using the LS2 Edit software, so im sure that it does exist

 

No one is really debating whether or not it exists - what frequently comes up in this debate is whether CarTek's module actually disables TM, or just shuts off ABS and other mechanisms that it might use. I doubt it prevents the engine from pulling timing, if this is one of TM's mechanisms.

Just as factual is that TM can be modified by LS2Edit (or whatever other ECU software comes down the pike), as the ECU is the source of it's programming actions.

Still factual, is that thier biggest "White Knight", has not been able to "put up" any proof that the module actually works (especially since it doesn't actually "reprogram" the ECU, and more likely - because he doesn't OWN a C6 with a module installed). So all his testimony and protestations are merely CONJECTURE on his part. Since the manufacturer is not forthcoming on the technique used to disable TM (and obviously he's not programming the ECU to do it), I would be leery at this point in time, of running a safety related system (ABS) thru someone's "black box".

Cars can be made to move faster, by reducing/removing the things that slow them down, and/or adding horsepower - thru programming, intake and exhaust mods, forced induction/N20, bigger motors, or just learning how to drive the damn thing correctly.

Since LS2Edit is still in BETA form, and they still haven't gotten the whole ECU mapped out (and that's only 1 of 19 onboard computer systems), I'd say there's still more that's going to be revealed on this issue. $250 is 1/2 the price of a decent programming job from many of the tuners around these parts. My $$ are going to go towards that as a solution to make TM go away, as well as tweeking the rest of the system for my mods...

Regards,

Rick

 

i heard from someone else that Ken (from carputing.com maker of LS1/2 Edit) is supposed to have an updated version out by the end of the week(maybe its the FULL version, im not sure)

 

I have the latest version of LS2 edit-- Torque limit in the
program look like this--
You select the gear 1st-6th- In that gear there is an rpm scale
500--600--700--800--900-1200--1500-2000-3000
85 89 104 111 126 126 185 244 281 ft lbs
this is a stock scale of maximum allowed torque output!
these values can be raised to any number of torque!
There are also torque limit values on the axle front and rear
Driveshaft Torque limit and Trans Torque Limit - I wish
I could post my laptop screen but anyone is more than welcome
to stop by the shop and i will show them Ls2 edit and all its glory

 

I just had LS2 edit done on mine, but mine never had a bogg problem between shifts and still don't.

 

Actually yes, plenty ARE debating that, yet somehow their credibility never gets questioned when they post.

 

Ahhh... We're a MARTYR now, eh?

I don't think anyone has denied that the ECU manages/limits torque output under specific circumstances. It was in the C5's map also. Just that it's not a "conspiracy" on GM's part to prevent us from having fun (or making warranty claims), unlike my '01 2500 Suburban, that was limited to 97MPH (talk about someone pissed off at a $43K truck purchase).

Further, I don't see anyone accusing CarTek of LYING, just of being less-than-forthcoming regarding just HOW the TM Module makes your car go FASTER (or less slower as the case may be). In light of the fact that no real proof has been given, I'd say the jury is still out.

Personally, I'd still rather put the $250 towards a TUNE that would include "fixing" the TM, than on a module that potentially inturrupts a safety feature (ABS) in my car. Would kinda SUCK to have to nail the brake pedal @ 140MPH, only to go into a spin because of a malfunctioning TM Module (a possibility, however remote, since the ABS routes thru it).

I'd say that most folks would not deny the existance of TM, just that the CarTek TM module probably doesn't do anything to disable it.

Rick

 

I believe it exists. The LS2 edit screens would not be there otherwise. So please answer the following:

1. do you own a C6? (admittedly, I do not - but I'll be ordering an '06 model)
2. do you own the TM elimination module?
3. would you (or SOMEBODY / HELL - ANYBODY) please post some before and after numbers ?

(MN6 , oops, MZ6 test data preferred)

 

very good observation. Again my sources, from GM say the only Torque management is for the A4's torque converter. The 6 speed has no management to deal with this so called plot to save drive trains. They pull timing on shifts so as not to blow a hole in a piston when the engine unloads, very old school basic stuff, strickly emissions.

 

If that is the case why does my MZ6 show timing being pulled in the torque management spark retard table when doing a test run? This is using EASE software to scan the ECM and TCM.

 

Can you be more specific as to the conditions which cause
the timing to be pulled? i.e. Is this a dyno run? A 1/4 mile
run? Is it pulled during shifts? At certain rpm?

curious,
Pat

 

The files are on my laptop. When I get a chance to reveiw the files I will try to determine when the timing was pulled.

 

The files are on my laptop. When I get a chance to review the files I will try to determine when the timing was pulled.

 

There is only ONe thing I am SURE of here in this topic/debate:

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE knows what the hell their talking about.................and I like it................makes for really interesting debate...................but we all know that in a debate, the biggest blowhards will win..................
and for the record, those of you who change-reprogram their ECU/M, you're going to get what you desevre for "fooling" with Mother Nature......errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, General Motors........

 

If you are serious, then I think you are doing an injustice to the posts on this thread of supporting tuner ron@proautotech, who tunes C6s with LS2-edit.

Ranger