I sorry if I infered anything about protecting the engine. That was not my intenetion, it is about protecting the drive train and the engine is the controller.

If you look at the edit table that boosted Z06 provided you see that the GM engineers don't need any fancy sensors. They know what the LS2 engine is capable of and tune/restrict its output based on rpms and the gear that is selected.

I know on my engine at 2000/3000 rpms I have about 300/330 foot pounds of torque based on the 20+ dyno pulls I have done. This includes driveline loss. But GM has limited engine output to 244/281 for 1st gear. Could this be why most people think this car comes alive at 3000rpms+. Its right after 3000rpms that all engine power is available and you will feel 50+ ft lbs of torque added in.

Personnally I think the GM tables are absolute. It is very easy for the GM engineers to to limt power output by gear, just don't allow the throttle to open as fast.

 

"The engine comes alive at 3,000 rpm's". Now theres a new one that I have never heard (or experienced) before. Other than the obvious - it's torque peak is at 4200 I believe. But this is just part of the overall characteristics of the engine - based upon the cam and many other factors.

Now we are looking at these graphs and assuming we know what those torque values mean and what the engine is capable of producing at those rpms. Heck, I don't think anyone actually has stated that the engine is being held back under normal acceleration - even below 3,000 rpms. Of course, it would be easy to tell based upon some of ya'lls fancy dyno runs along with your LS2 programs that show the timing and throttle position. Are you seeing timing pulled below 3000? Or the throttle being closed any?

 

no prob, just being nickpicky ...

ok, again not being problematic, just trying to figure it out.

if the values in the 'tables' are accurate we should be able to use mathematics to verify the potential accuracy of the values.

if we used the values from the tables we should be able to determine the Volumetric efficiency required to obtain those values.

 

Could someone publish the Read Me File from the computer, not these generated desk tops, there is about 3 different ones going around, that alone is suspect.

 

Does gravity exits? I can't see it, no one can really explain it, so it must not.

 

not a valid analogy with didn't manufacture that.

 

but we have simple tests that show it's existance. we are able to validate our claims about gravity by showing it's interaction upon different types of masses in different types of enviroments. the tests are created in such a way that permit one to replicate or experience the effects of gravity simply by following a specified procedure.

it would be much easier to prove the existance of TM, in the manual transmission c6, if a procedure that could invoke a tm event on demand was discovered.

 

Sorry, I was refering to the entire thread, not just your post.

 

 

I did not realize some people think there is no TM. The C5 had it, I am sure the C6 would have similar programming. My C6 60' times are slower than my C5 was. Not sure why but I would bet it is from TM.

 

This thread is a painful read unless you use the ignore feature to weed out posts by the engineering-challenged members who maintain the inflexible position that TM does not exist, despite all the good info posted by vendors, engineers and C6 racers.

As you and many others have personally experienced at the track, TM intervenes on launch and the shifts to reduce power to the rear. That hurts 60' and 330' noticeably. TM does so on M6/M12 and A4/A6.

One has only to compare the fast C6 list to the fast C5Z06 list to see the measured effect of .3-.4 seconds. Enough C6s are in the hand of racers that the gap should have closed by now. Hasn't. TM accounts for most of that delta.

So, shurite44, your sensing is correct.

Ranger

 

It's not that we don't believe that there is control of Engine performance it's just the hype that some people have added about this sinister plan of GM to protect their transmission and differential. Ask your self some questions, one do you mess with an 8 thousand dollar engine to protect a 3 thousand dollar transmission. Two, what do you think happens in that combustion chamber at 6krpms and abruptly change the loading. Three, why develop yet another more powerful motor and then undo it with this sinister plan. Four, show me the response from GM firmware Engineering that’s different than mine. Five, why then do modifications alter the performance even without tuning. Six, what is the maximum torque this Engine is capable of producing. Seven, how did they get so many different desk top computer screens defining these parameters. Eight, ask how the first TM elimination box was developed 6 months before one could read the code. Nine, ref question 8, why did that module just disconnect the ABS the final interface of your Active Handling. Ten, do you really believe GM firmware people would tell outside people how to defeat the computer. Eleven, if 10 is true who constructed this story and from what. By the way I’m not Engineering challenged, also you might want to read All Corvettes are Red and spend a day at GM Engineering.

 

TrackNoob, You are showing considerable patience with the handful of engineering-challenged members that fly-speck every TM post with a screed like the one you replied to. Keep in mind that they are locked into intractable positions and interested only in argument.

Meanwhile, reading TM threads may become more pleasant if you make a few judicious clicks on the ignore button. It worked for me.

Just a thought. No need to reply.

Ranger

 

jimman - I deleted my original reply post out of respect for the desire of members to get whatever facts there are out here... so me just debating the philosophy of TM with you, or others doesn't add to that... therefore, I am going to stand by and if/when I have new and different info to provide (with a source), I'll weigh in again then.

 

So in your thinking torque which is produced at the flywheel would not be a function to protect parts after it ?

How many N/A fairly stock engines have you personally heard of where the block broke ?
Now how many threads just in the last month on this forum is related to broken A4, MN6, M12, clutches, torque converters, transaxles or half shafts ?

Several times many of us have produced the torque tables, but you claim since the "reader" of that content being a tuning tool is "suspect" and the GM's own wording on defining "torque management" is suspect and then ask where the source code is ?
Being a engineer then you know the source code for the PCM is controlled by EPA and it is a federal LAW that GM themselves cannot publish that code and must do best case to keep it locked up

I guess PCM scanners built in the several torque monitoring parameters they report on in suspect that some carmaker might decide to design such a function and it would match exactly the frame format as SAE defined

What is a laugh is people buy a Gtech for less then $125 stuck on a windshield and demand those performance numbers are 100% correct but to their dying breath have all types of excuses why a $50-80K Corvette cannot measue torque or control it but are fully secure in thinking a key fob protects the car from thieft

 

Fair enough

 

Dare I dip my toes into this thread.... just had to add that this discussion prompted me to ask my tuner about Torque Mgt and whether or not my upcoming mods will be impacted by TM.

Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Yeti?

The response on the existence of this beast was a definitive - yes - TM does exist, on both auto and manual C6's. ... and secondly, at MY RISK can it be altered or eliminated. They went on to say it's purpose is to help prevent damage to the drivetrain.

This isn't anything new... just wanted to throw it out as I have my confirmation now - hallelujah!

BTW - I've told my tuner to eliminate TM on my upcoming tune.

Happy horsepower!

 

Thank you, thank you, Your picture is worth a thousand words. My auto just seemed to fall flat. (granted I am not a great driver) It was like I was waiting for my lunck order between shifts.

 

And why else pray tell would they want to contol engine performance ( limit your ability to launch the car with full torque) except for a stop gap for a error in design. Why redesign after one model year?
After 100's of runs in my 2002 Z28 6-speed, I knew after one run in my C6 somthing was seriously wrong.
My Z28 went 12.90's stock and that is not earth shattering but it does take a fairly talented shoe to get a stock one to that performance level.
My best pass in the C6 is a 12.65 and with 75 more hp and 250 lbs less weight I am a little disapointed.
But I will have to confess I have'nt made near as many passes in the Corvette as the rear has already split the case in half once and I am a little gun shy.

 

Well here is a funny fact. My best 60ft time was a 2.07 stock. Maybe with more experience I would figure out how to improve this. I only have about 20 runs under my belt including the runs I made tonight.

The difference is that tonight I ran with a CAI and the car tuned. TM has been hamstrung, not removed just backed off. I confirmed this with my tuner before I left for the track. Anyway my worst 60 tonight was 2.06 with the other runs being 2.03, 2.01, 1.99, and 1.98. My launch technique is the same, and it is at the same track. If anything conditions where worse tonight than the other 2 nights though not by much.

Now could the 10-20hp make a difference in the 60 foot times maybe I don't really know. But since most people can't feel that I kinda doubt it. Oh I forgot to mention that between tonight and the other 2 night I haded about 100lbs of sound proofing to the car.