2004 LeMans TPS adjust vaulue?

[Guest ratchethack]

I'm arguing against sentences like "don't bother about basic TPS setting". That's unprofessional.

Hubert, if you're going to put your argument into print, best not misquote a point of view that you disagree with so irresponsibly. This is not only unfair, but it discredits your point of view.

 

If you're going to characterize something as "unprofessional" on a public forum, please have a better grasp of what it is that you're arguing against. Being a technical forum, semantics are important. You'll not find a sentence in my posts that says, "don't bother about basic TPS setting." This is a sloppy and entirely incorrect misinterpretation, and I would in fact argue against this statement as strenuously as you have.

 

What I said was, (this is a direct quote), "...running a PC III? It makes a difference on the TPS setting...DynoJet Rep Todd E recommends setting the TPS at 500 - 525 mV (TBs connected) at idle (1100 - 1200 RPM) and ignore the zero-degree setting." It's assumed that the map has been properly zeroed.

 

I've welcomed your challenge, but if you want to call my post "unprofessional" that's another thing. It happens to be the recommendation of the Dynojet Rep with the most experience on the planet with PC III on the V11. IMHO, he's about as "Professional" and qualified to make a recommendation on this as you're going to find.

 

Prior to my post, there had been no mention of a PC III in this thread. I felt it would be helpful to point out that there's a recommended TPS procedure for those using them, knowing that there are quite a few monitoring this forum.

 

The "argument" here has not included the concept of ignoring "basic TPS setting" at all, but the way the TPS setting is indexed with a PC III. I respect the factory method and understand its value. What I hadn't previously understood, but discovered in this thread, and which encouraged me to take a "check reading" on my own bike, is that evidently indexing is part of what needs to be different to make the PC III function properly.

 

If it's still unclear, Todd's method is in fact a method of indexing the TPS with a PC III. Because it's not pegged to something as precise as the factory method doesn't make it wrong. As I've pointed out, precision isn't critical here (or even possible). I like practical procedures that work, and I believe this one to be both valid and practical.

 

Lest anyone else further misunderstand, Todd's method has not been proven "wrong" anywhere to my knowledge. On the contrary, by now it's been well proven and supported by many years of professional field experience. I can't speak for others with a PC III, but it's worked perfectly for me for 16K miles.

[Guest Jeff in Ohio]

Now remember guys, the ECU is a 5 volt 8-bit digital system. What does that mean? Well, in a 5-bit system, that means you have 256 evenly spaced steps. 5 volts divided by 256 gives 19.5mV steps. The ECU would recognize...

 

0v

19.5mV

38mV

57.6mv

etc...

 

A change in a value less than 19.5mV means nothing to the TPS as it can not resolve it.

 

Also, the TPS output curve is composed of TWO different linear sections. The people at Marelli were kind enough to send me the output diagram of the TPS showing signal output vs. physical rotation of the unit. The slope of the TPS is a steep line int he lower regions so that small rotations give a more increasing output - that is so more of the ECU's evenly spaced steps can be concentrated in the low throttle opening range to increase part throttle response, cruise response, and overall driveability. The curve after a certainpoint gets shallower, so the it takes a larger throttle opening to realize a change in TPS output. This range would be where you are 'getting on the throttle' to really motor down the road.

This might effect some of your previous thinking.

 

also, more here

http://www.guzzitech.com/HD-TPS-Jeff_B.html

[Guest Nogbad]

Presumably, if you remap the 15M that would compensate for the HD TPS being slightly different although both fuel and ignition would need to be remapped.

 

I suppose also a PCIII would allow the same, excepting ignition. Not that I like the PCIII, I don't and would never consider one.

[luhbo]

I'm really sorry about having said something wrong. I never thought that unprofessional is such a strong word, especially for a nonprofessional that I supposed you are. If this is also wrong, sorry again.

 

Indeed you are right, you didn't write "don't bother about basic TPS setting", you wrote "...and ignore the zero-degree setting...". So if there is a special PC-zero-degree-setting-procedure then of course I understood these words wrong, what I appologize. You know, that's not my language

 

Please answer me one last question: why does the PC not want to use the 150mV setting? What speaks against it? (ok, two questions )

 

Greetz, Hubert

[luhbo]

Presumably, if you remap the 15M that would compensate for the HD TPS being slightly different although both fuel and ignition would need to be remapped.

 

I suppose also a PCIII would allow the same, excepting ignition. Not that I like the PCIII, I don't and would never consider one.

67140[/snapback]

 

Probably the HD TPS also goes from 0 to 5V, linear. You can easily check it with a Volt-meter.

When the basic setting has to be different, by somewhat mechanical reason, you should be able to shift the complete map a bit. You just have to have access to the right software. No remapping.

 

Then, if you have such software, why wouldn't you do a complete job with it and solve all the mapping problems you know about?

 

Times have changed, the modern Guzzis and Ducs have modern ecus, they are reflashable, eprom burning and other auxiliary stuff was yesterday!

 

Hubert

[Guest ratchethack]

I'm really sorry about having said something wrong. I never thought that unprofessional is such a strong word, especially for a nonprofessional that I supposed you are. If this is also wrong, sorry again.

 

Indeed you are right, you didn't write "don't bother about basic TPS setting", you wrote "...and ignore the zero-degree setting...". So if there is a special PC-zero-degree-setting-procedure then of course I understood these words wrong, what I appologize. You know, that's not my language 

 

Please answer me one last question: why does the PC not want to use the 150mV setting? What speaks against it? (ok, two questions )

 

Greetz, Hubert

67167[/snapback]

Hubert, I didn't mind the "unprofessional" jab as much as being so badly misquoted. I took the "unprofessional" remark as more of a slap at Todd. Since I'd dragged his name into this without his knowledge, I felt the need to correct an injustice to him as a true "Professional" in my book. Apology accepted.

 

No, I'm not a professional mechanic or anything like it. I'm in the corporate enterprise software business. I've been doing 100% of the work on my motorcycles since I was 15, and I reckon that a shade-tree home garage do-it-yourselfer is as close to a "professional" as I'll ever be, motorcycle-wise.

 

Any competitive product will tend to have it's detractors, and I realize that for some, the powercommander is something akin to the devil's spawn. I'm also well aware of the alternatives that have been argued here ad nauseum. I note that many of those who have installed a PC III (including me) don't seem to participate in the highly technical ECU threads. I couldn't possibly know for sure, but maybe they're out riding?

 

Speaking for myself, I've had no interest in any of the ECU discussions because I've been blessed with a successful PC III installation that took away all the stumbling/hesitation and "flat spot" symptoms I had prior, and Todd evidently provided me a perfect match to my list of modifications with someone else's map.

 

Of the 12 moto's I've owned, the PC III has probably put my Sport in the best state of tune of 'em all. For me, it's truly been a "plug it in and forget it" solution. I'd say it's been as much as I'd ever have any right to expect. My impression is that most PC III installations have gone the same way. I know several personally, also on V11's. But that's just me.

 

Sorry, it'd be less than proper for me to attempt to answer your questions. This thread has reminded me that I'm entirely unqualified to speak about anything I'm less than 100% certain about, and thankfully, I don't know much more in this area than I've already stated except in general terms. Y'see, since my Sport runs perfectly, I haven't had either the inclination or the need to learn enough about re-mapping it to even fiddle with it. My philosophy has been, if I ever develop less than a perfect state of tune, I have a lot of powerful options to pursue with the PC III if need be. Suspension has been enough of a challenge lately.

 

So I'll defer to more experienced PC III users and to Todd on your questions. BTW - he responded promptly to my query on indexing the TPS. Out of courtesy to Todd, I won't attempt to paraphrase him, nor will I risk quoting him out of context. I didn't mention this discussion so he doesn't know about it, but the crux of it was that he fully supports my original statement.

[belfastguzzi]

(2001:)  The settings are 3.8° ±0.1° or 550 ±0.5mV. Idle 1100 ±50 rpm. CO 4% ±0.5

 

For the 2002/2003  the settings are:

 

2.9° ±0.1° or 465 ±0,5 mV. Idle 1100 ±50 rpm. CO 4% ±0.5

66910[/snapback]

Why are the settings different? What changed for 2002?

 

What does MY mean or stand for?

(as in V.11 MY 2001or V.11 MY 2002/2003)

 

Thanks...

[dlaing]

Why are the settings different? What changed for 2002?

67197[/snapback]

My guess is that the years are actually misleading and that the change occurs when Guzzi put in the balance tube and higher compression pistons....but only a guess.

[dlaing]

A change in a value less than 19.5mV means nothing to the TPS as it can not resolve it.

http://www.guzzitech.com/HD-TPS-Jeff_B.html

67135[/snapback]

I think you meant that the ECU cannot resolve it, not the TPS.

Thanks again, for that Guzzitech article. Great info.

For what it is worth, I still think the accuracy of TPS setting and whether one goes by idle or butterfly closed is debateable.

I still don't know what Ratchethack is talking about regarding indexing, but since he is getting nauseated, I'll just ignore his previous posts until he pops some dramamine and gets back to the pursuit of veritas ad nauseum.

I also don't think one should drop from the discussion due to ignorance. In fact, it is more important to stay in the discussion for that reason.

Few of us are 'experts' here, and the professionals amongst us don't agree on many issues regarding the ECU.

None the less, I have learned sooooo much from EVERYBODY'S posts on ECUs

THANX.

[Guest ratchethack]

Hey Dave, I never paid much attention to Karen Carpenter in the '70's, but since you've had her image in your avatar (God knows why?!), I've been thinking, "Hey, the girl had no chest whatsoever (even before the anorexia), but other n' that - damn! - at least in the shot in your avatar - she wasn't too bad!...."

 

Now you've killed her again! So now I've discovered that I miss her....

 

So who's next?

[dlaing]

Hey Dave, I never paid much attention to Karen Carpenter in the '70's, but since you've had her image in your avatar (God knows why?!), I've been thinking, "Hey, the girl had no chest whatsoever (even before the anorexia), but other n' that - damn! - at least in the shot in your avatar - she wasn't too bad!...." 

 

Now you've killed her again!  So now I've discovered that I miss her....  

 

So who's next?

67220[/snapback]

Carl Allison triggered me to put her in as the avatar because I said three words that happen to be the name of one of her songs....can't remember what it was at this moment....

Anyway the avatar shrunk her fatter, so she actually looked pretty good.

But last night I fell for Fiona in the movie EuroTrip! Hillarious movie for the immature at heart!!!

So, she should be in my avatar, but she disappeared....I'll see what I can do to remedy the situation

[belfastguzzi]

My guess is that the years are actually misleading and that the change occurs when Guzzi put in the balance tube and higher compression pistons....but only a guess.

67211[/snapback]

I wondered that, but does anyone actually know? My bike is 2002 and it doesn't have those changes which are really 2003/04, aren't they? If I hadn't read this thread I would (when I get around to doing this) have followed MG's instruction and used 465 – seems that could be wrong?

[dlaing]

One change did occur in 2002 that might effect the number. Some bikes got a catalytic convertor.

I really don't know what the right number is at idle, and I don't think it is nearly as critical as the 150mV with linkage detached.

YMMV

[docc]

Now remember guys, the ECU is a 5 volt 8-bit digital system. What does that mean?  Well, in a 5-bit system, that means you have 256 evenly spaced steps.  5 volts divided by 256 gives 19.5mV steps.  The ECU would recognize...

 

0v

19.5mV

38mV

57.6mv

etc...

 

A change in a value less than 19.5mV means nothing to the TPS as it can not resolve it.

 

Also, the TPS output curve is composed of TWO different linear sections.  The people at Marelli were kind enough to send me the output diagram of the TPS showing signal output vs. physical rotation of the unit.  The slope of the TPS is a steep line int he lower regions so that small rotations give a more increasing output - that is so more of the ECU's evenly spaced steps can be concentrated in the low throttle opening range to increase part throttle response, cruise response, and overall driveability.  The curve after a certainpoint gets shallower, so the it takes a larger throttle opening to realize a change in TPS output.  This range would be where you are 'getting on the throttle' to really motor down the road.

This might effect some of your previous thinking.

 

also, more here

http://www.guzzitech.com/HD-TPS-Jeff_B.html

67135[/snapback]

 

 

Does this mean that when I moved my 'closed' setting from 165mV to 150 mV the ECU didn't notice?

[dlaing]

Does this mean that when I moved my 'closed' setting from 165mV to 150 mV the ECU didn't notice?

67348[/snapback]

Odds are, 15 times out of 19.5 times, it would notice.

Theoretically if you are off by only one mV, it could shift the ECU's reading just as much as being off by 19.5mV.....but not likely.

It is interesting that you noticed the bike run worse from a mere 15mv shift.

I know that if I paid for a $1000 dyno map, I would be sure to set the TPS as accurately to 150mV as my skills could easily allow.

When I had a PCIII dynomap done, I was lazy and did not bother with the TPS. Luckily my TPS is only off by 15mV, but I should have documented the high and low TPS readings.

In anycase, I traded the muffler that was dyno'd, so it is all water under the bridge.

Next time, I know to be more careful.

FWIW, I think there is still uncertainty even with regards to measuring with engine on or off.

I favor engine off, lighting fuse and headlight pulled, but YMMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic