C7 throttle body response, getting to know it
03-14-2019, 10:56 AM
#121
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Another review here:
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1599042999
This one goes further into also validating the tuning vs. mechanical discussion and resolutions proposed in this thread.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1599042999
This one goes further into also validating the tuning vs. mechanical discussion and resolutions proposed in this thread.
03-14-2019, 02:21 PM
#122
Advanced
[QUOTE=Mike@SolerEngr;
"Airflow and power are linearly related. Everything else constant, you can draw the same conclusions from either one of them. Yes, it is delivering as much more power as airflow earlier in the blade travel, and torque management does not change the pedal mapping, although I think we all know it intervenes sometimes to protect drive line among other things".
Exactly! A simple flow bench test of the various ported throttle bodies, at blade opening positions up to 40 degrees, will prove the Solex throttle body improves low end flow. It is no different than flowing a cylinder head port at lower valve lifts.
Regarding torque management, it only comes into play during transmission shifts to increase longevity of drive line components. Most likely, this is not an issue at throttle positions under 40 degrees.
"Airflow and power are linearly related. Everything else constant, you can draw the same conclusions from either one of them. Yes, it is delivering as much more power as airflow earlier in the blade travel, and torque management does not change the pedal mapping, although I think we all know it intervenes sometimes to protect drive line among other things".
Exactly! A simple flow bench test of the various ported throttle bodies, at blade opening positions up to 40 degrees, will prove the Solex throttle body improves low end flow. It is no different than flowing a cylinder head port at lower valve lifts.
Regarding torque management, it only comes into play during transmission shifts to increase longevity of drive line components. Most likely, this is not an issue at throttle positions under 40 degrees.
Last edited by speedsquad; 03-14-2019 at 08:22 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Mike@SolerEngr (03-14-2019)
03-14-2019, 06:58 PM
#123
Race Director
Member Since: Jul 2007
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 10,763
Received 2,379 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Exactly! A simple flow bench test of the various ported throttle bodies, at blade opening positions up to 40%, will prove the Solex throttle body improves low end flow. It is no different than flowing a cylinder head port at lower valve lifts.
Regarding torque management, it only comes into play during transmission shifts to increase longevity of drive line components. Most likely, this is not an issue at throttle positions under 40%
Regarding torque management, it only comes into play during transmission shifts to increase longevity of drive line components. Most likely, this is not an issue at throttle positions under 40%
Last edited by Higgs Boson; 03-14-2019 at 06:59 PM.
03-14-2019, 08:15 PM
#124
Advanced
Higgs, predicted torque (slow actuation) I could see, somewhat, but is it not the case that spark retard is only a function of immediate torque (fast actuation) as when the engine is at higher or full throttle positions?
At throttle positions under 40 degrees while gradually accelerating, any torque management would be hardly noticeable, unlike when you can actually feel it at full throttle.
At throttle positions under 40 degrees while gradually accelerating, any torque management would be hardly noticeable, unlike when you can actually feel it at full throttle.
Last edited by speedsquad; 03-14-2019 at 08:30 PM.
03-14-2019, 09:12 PM
#125
Racer
[QUOTE=speedsquad;1599044624][QUOTE=Mike@SolerEngr;
"Airflow and power are linearly related. Everything else constant, you can draw the same conclusions from either one of them. Yes, it is delivering as much more power as airflow earlier in the blade travel, and torque management does not change the pedal mapping, although I think we all know it intervenes sometimes to protect drive line among other things".
Exactly! A simple flow bench test of the various ported throttle bodies, at blade opening positions up to 40 degrees, will prove the Solex throttle body improves low end flow. It is no different than flowing a cylinder head port at lower valve lifts.
Regarding torque management, it only comes into play during transmission shifts to increase longevity of drive line components. Most likely, this is not an issue at throttle positions under 40 degrees.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely wrong.
"Airflow and power are linearly related. Everything else constant, you can draw the same conclusions from either one of them. Yes, it is delivering as much more power as airflow earlier in the blade travel, and torque management does not change the pedal mapping, although I think we all know it intervenes sometimes to protect drive line among other things".
Exactly! A simple flow bench test of the various ported throttle bodies, at blade opening positions up to 40 degrees, will prove the Solex throttle body improves low end flow. It is no different than flowing a cylinder head port at lower valve lifts.
Regarding torque management, it only comes into play during transmission shifts to increase longevity of drive line components. Most likely, this is not an issue at throttle positions under 40 degrees.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely wrong.
03-15-2019, 01:22 AM
#126
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Please Clarify
Ghostnotes, Higgs Boson, how about we finish the issue w/ torque management sooner than later?
I'm willing to go line by line of code, variable by variable. Not with what we think, but with what we know, and when we run out of things we know, we stop it there.
You can potentially save members from a bad product and this company from bankruptcy, or, you can help validate the product and reassure members. All noble goals. Or maybe there is another reason for posting. What's your goal?
You are senior members and your comments have weight here. However they were very general and I don't see how they'll help if not clarified. In fact, right now they inspire fear of the "mighty" torque management w/ the addition of this kind of mod.
I'd propose we start w/ simple questions:
1) Is there an issue w/ torque management when an LT5 TB is installed on an LT1 or LT4 engine? Y, N, IDK
2) Is there an issue w/ torque management when any other throttle body other than stock (i.e PTB) is installed on any of our engines? Y, N, IDK
3) Is there an issue w/ torque management with this specific design? Y, N, IDK
Thank you very much,
I'm willing to go line by line of code, variable by variable. Not with what we think, but with what we know, and when we run out of things we know, we stop it there.
You can potentially save members from a bad product and this company from bankruptcy, or, you can help validate the product and reassure members. All noble goals. Or maybe there is another reason for posting. What's your goal?
You are senior members and your comments have weight here. However they were very general and I don't see how they'll help if not clarified. In fact, right now they inspire fear of the "mighty" torque management w/ the addition of this kind of mod.
I'd propose we start w/ simple questions:
1) Is there an issue w/ torque management when an LT5 TB is installed on an LT1 or LT4 engine? Y, N, IDK
2) Is there an issue w/ torque management when any other throttle body other than stock (i.e PTB) is installed on any of our engines? Y, N, IDK
3) Is there an issue w/ torque management with this specific design? Y, N, IDK
Thank you very much,
Last edited by Mike@SolerEngr; 03-15-2019 at 01:24 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Perf n Restore (03-15-2019)
03-15-2019, 09:15 AM
#128
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Because your torque model has changed. If you are inducing more air at a given angle that is different than the calculated tables,that translates into increased air which translates into torque then adjustments would be recommended. This will also increase MAF g/sec for a given frequency, which means your trims will need to be adjusted.
Again the TB may operate within acceptable ranges and not set a code but i would bet that your fuel trims,slight off idle torque trims need slight adjustment along with VT.
It will learn but only according to the tables it looks up, so it will see increased LTFT trends to compensate for the increased air. Now if you tell it that it has increased air/torque at given areas, the amount of change according to the process variable required will be less, resulting in better efficiency.
Again the TB may operate within acceptable ranges and not set a code but i would bet that your fuel trims,slight off idle torque trims need slight adjustment along with VT.
It will learn but only according to the tables it looks up, so it will see increased LTFT trends to compensate for the increased air. Now if you tell it that it has increased air/torque at given areas, the amount of change according to the process variable required will be less, resulting in better efficiency.
Is this a problem GM forgot to handle w/ a DTC?
Is your only concern efficiency? I keep getting 15 mpg city (spirited), and high 20's hwy. But I'll look closer and ask members testing to catch the loss if any. I expected lower efficiency b/c of the improved responsiveness, that comes at a cost. Fun is not free, the price is very reasonable though.
Update: Just logged STFT and LTFT, expected to see some high single or double digit % within comp. limits (+/-20%?). But STFT was symmetrical +/- 1,2,3,4%, and LTFT at 0.39%. AFR parameter = 1 (stoich). The amount of change appears very small and averages ~0 long term, this should be very efficient. As if the ECM set the new TB as the new normal. Looks like the compensation is dynamic. Does it get any better than that?
Looking forward to your answers!
Thanks,
Last edited by Mike@SolerEngr; 03-15-2019 at 06:35 PM.
The following users liked this post:
NortonCO (05-20-2021)
03-15-2019, 07:10 PM
#130
Racer
Is this it?
Does this apply also to LT5 TB on LT1/LT4 engines? Or; PTB's on any of our engines?
Is this a problem GM forgot to handle w/ a DTC?
Is your only concern efficiency? I keep getting 15 mpg city (spirited), and high 20's hwy. But I'll look closer and ask members testing to catch the loss if any. I expected lower efficiency b/c of the improved responsiveness, that comes at a cost. Fun is not free, the price is very reasonable though.
Update: Just logged STFT and LTFT, expected to see some high single or double digit % within comp. limits (+/-20%?). But STFT was symmetrical +/- 1,2,3,4%, and LTFT at 0.39%. AFR parameter = 1 (stoich). The amount of change appears very small and averages ~0 long term, this should be very efficient. As if the ECM set the new TB as the new normal. Looks like the compensation is dynamic. Does it get any better than that?
Looking forward to your answers!
Thanks,
Does this apply also to LT5 TB on LT1/LT4 engines? Or; PTB's on any of our engines?
Is this a problem GM forgot to handle w/ a DTC?
Is your only concern efficiency? I keep getting 15 mpg city (spirited), and high 20's hwy. But I'll look closer and ask members testing to catch the loss if any. I expected lower efficiency b/c of the improved responsiveness, that comes at a cost. Fun is not free, the price is very reasonable though.
Update: Just logged STFT and LTFT, expected to see some high single or double digit % within comp. limits (+/-20%?). But STFT was symmetrical +/- 1,2,3,4%, and LTFT at 0.39%. AFR parameter = 1 (stoich). The amount of change appears very small and averages ~0 long term, this should be very efficient. As if the ECM set the new TB as the new normal. Looks like the compensation is dynamic. Does it get any better than that?
Looking forward to your answers!
Thanks,
I never questioned or said it would not work, as stated in my prior post,but physical airmass/volume is absolute in say an A/B test. Meaning if you were to swap them in your driveway on a sunny day at 80*, sea level with 70% humidity it will require compensation.We don't use IAC's anymore so compensation to maintain constant idle speed is controlled by blade, timing and fuel. If you are moving more air, you will require more fuel, idle or part throttle.
But the stock tables will see the difference and compensate, especially in the idle region, which translates to more torque, which is an increased error factor in the process which will trigger the error correction in which the PID settings will correct for in accordance of how much change and how fast the rate of change is .
If your trims are in fact that close from idle to where your flow rates and the factory rates finally intersect at part throttle, then that would have to conclude that the factory calibration is off.
Last edited by Ghostnotes; 03-15-2019 at 07:19 PM.
03-15-2019, 08:19 PM
#131
Advanced
torque management issue
[QUOTE=Ghostnotes;1599047015]Ghostnotes, After reading several of your posts above regarding the newer ecm's, as Higgs also mentioned, I stand corrected with regards to torque management.
Last edited by speedsquad; 03-15-2019 at 08:20 PM.
03-15-2019, 09:03 PM
#132
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
If that is the case then yes it is very close. You are running MAF only correct.
I never questioned or said it would not work, as stated in my prior post,but physical airmass/volume is absolute in say an A/B test. Meaning if you were to swap them in your driveway on a sunny day at 80*, sea level with 70% humidity it will require compensation.We don't use IAC's anymore so compensation to maintain constant idle speed is controlled by blade, timing and fuel. If you are moving more air, you will require more fuel, idle or part throttle.
I never questioned or said it would not work, as stated in my prior post,but physical airmass/volume is absolute in say an A/B test. Meaning if you were to swap them in your driveway on a sunny day at 80*, sea level with 70% humidity it will require compensation.We don't use IAC's anymore so compensation to maintain constant idle speed is controlled by blade, timing and fuel. If you are moving more air, you will require more fuel, idle or part throttle.
But the stock tables will see the difference and compensate, especially in the idle region, which translates to more torque, which is an increased error factor in the process which will trigger the error correction in which the PID settings will correct for in accordance of how much change and how fast the rate of change is .
If your trims are in fact that close from idle to where your flow rates and the factory rates finally intersect at part throttle, then that would have to conclude that the factory calibration is off.
If your trims are in fact that close from idle to where your flow rates and the factory rates finally intersect at part throttle, then that would have to conclude that the factory calibration is off.
Also, it would be an special kind of wrong calibration, b/c it matches our throttle body airflow.
There is yet another possibility, the calibration is not static. Once the ECM learns a new TB it sets that airflow as the new zero reference.
Thanks,
Last edited by Mike@SolerEngr; 03-15-2019 at 09:19 PM.
The following users liked this post:
NortonCO (05-20-2021)
03-16-2019, 12:32 AM
#133
Racer
Is this it?
Does this apply also to LT5 TB on LT1/LT4 engines? Or; PTB's on any of our engines?
Is this a problem GM forgot to handle w/ a DTC?
Is your only concern efficiency? I keep getting 15 mpg city (spirited), and high 20's hwy. But I'll look closer and ask members testing to catch the loss if any. I expected lower efficiency b/c of the improved responsiveness, that comes at a cost. Fun is not free, the price is very reasonable though.
Update: Just logged STFT and LTFT, expected to see some high single or double digit % within comp. limits (+/-20%?). But STFT was symmetrical +/- 1,2,3,4%, and LTFT at 0.39%. AFR parameter = 1 (stoich). The amount of change appears very small and averages ~0 long term, this should be very efficient. As if the ECM set the new TB as the new normal. Looks like the compensation is dynamic. Does it get any better than that?
Looking forward to your answers!
Thanks,
Does this apply also to LT5 TB on LT1/LT4 engines? Or; PTB's on any of our engines?
Is this a problem GM forgot to handle w/ a DTC?
Is your only concern efficiency? I keep getting 15 mpg city (spirited), and high 20's hwy. But I'll look closer and ask members testing to catch the loss if any. I expected lower efficiency b/c of the improved responsiveness, that comes at a cost. Fun is not free, the price is very reasonable though.
Update: Just logged STFT and LTFT, expected to see some high single or double digit % within comp. limits (+/-20%?). But STFT was symmetrical +/- 1,2,3,4%, and LTFT at 0.39%. AFR parameter = 1 (stoich). The amount of change appears very small and averages ~0 long term, this should be very efficient. As if the ECM set the new TB as the new normal. Looks like the compensation is dynamic. Does it get any better than that?
Looking forward to your answers!
Thanks,
03-16-2019, 03:21 PM
#134
Racer
How well would this work on a Z51 M7 with a MSD intake manifold, also ARH mid length headers, Halltech cai and B & B bullet exhaust? Car is tuned and has a light weight Katech fly wheel.
Also what is the size of the TB ... 103 or something else, stock size? I couldn't find the size in the posts.
Thanks, looks like a great product.
Also what is the size of the TB ... 103 or something else, stock size? I couldn't find the size in the posts.
Thanks, looks like a great product.
03-16-2019, 03:55 PM
#135
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
How well would this work on a Z51 M7 with a MSD intake manifold, also ARH mid length headers, Halltech cai and B & B bullet exhaust? Car is tuned and has a light weight Katech fly wheel.
Also what is the size of the TB ... 103 or something else, stock size? I couldn't find the size in the posts.
Thanks, looks like a great product.
Also what is the size of the TB ... 103 or something else, stock size? I couldn't find the size in the posts.
Thanks, looks like a great product.
What TB do you have right now?
Last edited by Mike@SolerEngr; 03-29-2019 at 10:54 AM.
03-16-2019, 05:33 PM
#136
Racer
Thanks, Tyho. If your intake manifold screw hole pattern accepts the stock TB, then it will accept ours (87 mm, stock size). Your tune is the only wild card. You have nothing to lose nevertheless. If it does not work for your setup, or you simply don't like it, you have a 30 money back warranty and free shipping both ways.
What TB do you have right now?
What TB do you have right now?
Last edited by tyho; 03-16-2019 at 05:36 PM.
03-19-2019, 09:33 AM
#138
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Tyho, an improved intake w/ our modified TB will complement each other very well. If tuning, please take into account that our TB is already aggressive w/ the stock pedal mapping, go in small increments, play it safe. Thx.
03-21-2019, 05:33 PM
#139
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Repeat of my "general discussion" post.
Just in case some of you missed our giveaway post!
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1599007197
Join our community of followers, customers, friends, and family
https://www.solerengineering.com/
Facebook
Instagram
Cheers,
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1599007197
Join our community of followers, customers, friends, and family
https://www.solerengineering.com/
Cheers,