[RAPTR]

Hello all,
I've been digging around now for a while as to what tuning solutions there are for smoothing out the MR shifting especially in Normal and Sport modes. Now, I'll be the first to say that I'm not tuning literate. I just flash the maps and give feedback when asked. I finally loaded ATR to see the internal workings of the Cobb OTS maps, just because I wanted to. I didn't want to tweak them, I just wanted to look at the pretty graphs.

So back to why I'm writing this thread... I read a great write up about the direct correlation between the SST shifting and the Lower Bound Ignition table. I thought to myself that this might be the key to make the Cobb OTS map shift better. I pulled the Lower Bound Ign table from the Stage 1 Cosworth 91 map and it looks like this..

There's something about this table that doesn't seem smooth. I compared it to a Lower Bound table that razorlab posted. As for the modifications on this particular car, I have no clue. I just found this to compare. Perhaps this like comparing apple to oranges, idk. It looks like this..

See how smooth and linear it is compared to the Cobb OTS map? So for all you tuning SST gurus out there what can be said about comparing the two? Is this something that Cobb should address for further revisions of their OTS maps? I appreciate any input. Also, I do understand that a protune has the potential to help my particular issues but I know I'm not the only one with funky shifting issues on Cobb OTS maps. I would hope that this could be addressed to help the general community that uses Cobb OTS maps.

(My particular car info: 2011 MR Cobb AP running Stage 1 COSWORTH 91 OTS map. Everything else is stock. Reason for writing this thread - WOT shifting in Normal and Sport modes delay/hesitate/slip in between shifts)

 

[razorlab]

How did it shift with the 2nd table compared to the 1st?

 

[RAPTR]

How did it shift with the 2nd table compared to the 1st?

I haven't tried yet... I've been nervous to flash it with the update table because I questioned if it would be a high risk of running it on my car. If you feel like I would be okay to dull a couple of WOT pulls without harm, I'd would try it tonight and give feedback.

 

[razorlab]

I haven't tried yet... I've been nervous to flash it with the update table because I questioned if it would be a high risk of running it on my car. If you feel like I would be okay to dull a couple of WOT pulls without harm, I'd would try it tonight and give feedback.

Just make sure you don't have any timing in the WOT loads in that lower bound table that are higher then your normal timing table.

In the WOT loads, the timing should be 2-3* lower in that lower bound table then what is in your normal timing table.

Too little timing will cause boost spikes and hesitations between shifts. Too much (over your normal map) will lock in those values at wot.

 

[RAPTR]

Just make sure you don't have any timing in the WOT loads in that lower bound table that are higher then your normal timing table.

In the WOT loads, the timing should be 2-3* lower in that lower bound table then what is in your normal timing table.

Too little timing will cause boost spikes and hesitations between shifts. Too much (over your normal map) will lock in those values at wot.

I appreciate the input and I hope I can correctly translate you information. Here's newb question; Is there a normal timing table in ATR?

What is your opinion on the Cobb OTS map Lower Bound table that I posted above? Does it look satisfactory?

 

[razorlab]

I appreciate the input and I hope I can correctly translate you information. Here's newb question; Is there a normal timing table in ATR?

What is your opinion on the Cobb OTS map Lower Bound table that I posted above? Does it look satisfactory?

Normal timing table = Main ignition timing table

I wouldn't run that COBB LB table in my car...

 

[RAPTR]

Normal timing table = Main ignition timing table

I wouldn't run that COBB LB table in my car...

In ATR all I see for timing tables is;
EGR Timing Advance
High Octane Timing Map
IAT Ignition Advance Compensation
Ignition Warmup Retard
Low Octane Timing Map
Low Timing Trim vs Coolant Temp
LB Ign Timing
LB Ign Timing Adder vs CTS
Timing Reduction vs Load/RPM
Upper Bound Ign Timing

Which one do you think is the Main Ign table?

 

[razorlab]

High Octane Timing Map

 

[RAPTR]

High Octane Timing Map

Here's what my current High Octane Timing Map looks like for reference.

 

[razorlab]

Ok, so, the lower bound you wanted to use actually has higher timing in the WOT cells. Example:

13* at 7k - 240 load in your High Octane Timing Map
15* at 7k - 240 load in that Lower Bound Map

That means the ECU will use the Lower Bound 15* in that cell at WOT *and* shifting.

So just reduce your WOT timing in the load cells in the Lower Bound Map to be 2-3* BELOW what is in your High Octane Timing Map

 

[RAPTR]

Ok, so, the lower bound you wanted to use actually has higher timing in the WOT cells. Example:

13* at 7k - 240 load in your High Octane Timing Map
15* at 7k - 240 load in that Lower Bound Map

That means the ECU will use the Lower Bound 15* in that cell at WOT *and* shifting.

So just reduce your WOT timing in the load cells in the Lower Bound Map to be 2-3* BELOW what is in your High Octane Timing Map

Roger that.

Next question, in some places I have large differences between the LB table and the High Octane timing tables. DO I need to change all to reflect 2-3° different or only the WOT load cells?

 

[razorlab]

Roger that.

Next question, in some places I have large differences between the LB table and the High Octane timing tables. DO I need to change all to reflect 2-3° different or only the WOT load cells?

Overall you want less timing in your LB then your HO timing table. The actual strategy is different depending on the load cells and what effect you want.

More retard in light and mid loads gives nice sporty shifts.

 

[RAPTR]

Overall you want less timing in your LB then your HO timing table. The actual strategy is different depending on the load cells and what effect you want.

More retard in light and mid loads gives nice sporty shifts.

After I finish a version of what I think my LB table should look like I'll post and let me know what you think.

Bryan, thanks again for all your input. When I get back to the East Bay I'll make sure to drop off some beer for you.

 

[razorlab]

No problem.

 

[RAPTR]

No problem.

Here's my version. As you can see in low load and rpms I didn't retard as much as you did because I wasn't sure of the reason why you did. I basically went 2-3° lower everywhere. It definitely smoothed out my existing LB table. It basically just looks like a lower Main Ign table.

 

[razorlab]

If you don't retard down low then your low-mid throttle shifts are going to feel odd and much less sporty.

It will make it feel "floaty" and more CVT feel between shifts instead of the sporty "snick" Dual clutch feel between shifts that retarded timing will do.

It's pretty easy to just try out different LBT tables to see how you like each one.

The main LBT basically has a -20* floor to it. There is another table you can modify to get even more retarded timing. Which can be fun if you want to throw fire balls out the back every time you shift. There are drawbacks if you go too crazy though.

 

[RAPTR]

If you don't retard down low then your low-mid throttle shifts are going to feel odd and much less sporty.

It will make it feel "floaty" and more CVT feel between shifts instead of the sporty "snick" Dual clutch feel between shifts that retarded timing will do.

It's pretty easy to just try out different LBT tables to see how you like each one.

The main LBT basically has a -20* floor to it. There is another table you can modify to get even more retarded timing. Which can be fun if you want to throw fire balls out the back every time you shift. There are drawbacks if you go too crazy though.

Eck.. I hate CVTs and thats why I sold my wife's Outlander Sport. I will revise.

 

[RAPTR]

The main LBT basically has a -20* floor to it. There is another table you can modify to get even more retarded timing. Which can be fun if you want to throw fire balls out the back every time you shift. There are drawbacks if you go too crazy though.

So this version I used your base LB table but just made modifications to make sure I'm 2-3° lower than my Main Ign table. Basically the only changes I had to make were in high load cells, high RPMs. Otherwise I left everything the way you had it even if the retard was much more than 2-3°. If I get your blessings I would like to try this out. When I do finally try this out, what things do I need to monitor/observe?

 

[RAPTR]

So I ran the new modified LB table this weekend and all I can say is WOW! (This was mostly in Auto-Normal mode) Where I notice the most difference is low-mid response at low load cells. Low speed shifting is much better. It seems to act more like it knows what it is supposed to do. Before it was like an untrained kid. The other observation was my gas mileage went up. Not by much but I noticed it. I'm very happy with this experience.

If you don't retard down low then your low-mid throttle shifts are going to feel odd and much less sporty.

It's pretty easy to just try out different LBT tables to see how you like each one.

The only area that I would still like to mess with is the high RPM shifting. It still hangs before it shift into next gear. It still is a little bit better than before but if I can tweak it to react more like S-Sport mode shifting that would be great. Maybe its more of a clutch pressure issue than a tuning issue for that change to happen?

Any advise would be appreciated.

Other question, what is you definition of where WOT loads start, value wise?

 

[razorlab]

The only area that I would still like to mess with is the high RPM shifting. It still hangs before it shift into next gear. It still is a little bit better than before but if I can tweak it to react more like S-Sport mode shifting that would be great. Maybe its more of a clutch pressure issue than a tuning issue for that change to happen?

That's most likely some other table issues, not this one.

I bet if you start from a base stock ROM (not a COBB OTS ROM) then you won't have that issue.