ive read past posts but most seemed confused,

the bottom line is the tps % where it would unlock if you let off the gas right?

and the top is where it would unlock if you pressed to far on the gas?

the area between is where it would stay locked right?

Is it change in tps, or is it actually tps% listed on the side of the charts.

tcc changes the feel of the car, i think it could drastically help the cars times as well.

 

that sucks. nobody huh, so we are all going blind at it?

 

You asked about an 8746. I don't know what an 8746 is, so I bypassed it.

Here's another way to look at it. In most of the bins I've looked at, the unlock values are higher than the lock values at each speed. As I see it, the reason for this is this: You want the TCC to lock eventually - at a higher speed. For example, you mash the gas to pass someone. You increase the TPS to some higher, but constant level. As you accelerate, you are moving up the table (speed). At some point you reach a speed at which the lock setting matches your new (higher) TPS --> the clutch re-engages.

In a similar scenario, you mash the gas to pass, the TCC releases, you accelerate, but you let off the gas a little as you have nearly or totally completed your pass. Your speed has increased plus your TPS has come down a little (from the initial mash) and the clutch re-engages.

I think that looking at the two values at a given speed is misleading. Consider that usually you will disengage at one speed, but re-engage at a higher speed. If you are comfortable with graphs, plot both curves on a single graph. Each table is actually a line or curve on a graph (TunerCat shows this). Then "overlay" some hypothetical plots of your actual TPS .vs. speed. Cruise, mash gas, accelerate, let off gas (or not). Notice how and when you cross the lines of the two original plots. You will begin to see how the values work together. When you cross the first (unlock) line, the TCC releases. It re-engages when you cross the second curve. You could go even farther with this by taking actual data runs and plotting them and even using notes about the behavior to make the necessary changes to the lines (tables). If you want the TCC to unlock sooner (at lower TPS), move the unlock line downward a little. If it's unlocking to easily, move the line up. If you want it to re-engage later, move the lock line down a little. This really isn't very hard to do, it's just time consuming, but sorta fun if you're into it

For those bins where the lock values are higher than the unlock values, "they" don't want to allow TCC disengagement until an actual downshift. That's the way they act, at least. I am using the TCC as a kind of passing gear. With my torque converter, it's like an in-between gear. Downshifting into 3rd is a big jump, and unnecessary most of the time.

I hope this is what you were asking about.


------------------
'87 IROC 5.7l TPI - original owner!

[This message has been edited by P J Moran (edited August 16, 2001).]

 

Sorry, this isn't much of a help but, you could always convert to a manual


Brendan

------------------
1987 IROC-Z L98,SR,EB 6085's,LPE 219/219 SR Cam, Crane 1.6RR, EB TPI Base, 58mm TB, Stock T5, 30lb SVO, AFPR, K&N, EB TES, Catco Cat, 3" Borla Cat-Back, Accel cap,rotor,distro/other crap, Aluminum DS, 94 Disk Rear, Adjustable Prop Valve, Precision 3.73 Gears, Weld in Sub-Frame Connectors, Hotchkis LCA's, KYB Shocks/Struts, Poly Bushings all over the place, Moog Upper/Lower Ball joints and Tie Rods ends/Idler Arm, Big stereo, 730SD Conversion.

To see the ROC, Check out the webpage Here

 

thanks, but that seems like a little more work than the above. physically anyway.

thanks pj. that helps.

so whats gona make me the fastest? unlucked majority, or locked, should i have it lock at a certain rpm powerband at certain mph in certain gears? or is going to effect my times or driving feel much? im actually more interested in it working quickest for day to day, autox style, than 1/4 mile.

 

ok another ?.

so in tuner cat, the space between the lines would be where your conveter is locked up.

the space below the green line would be the points where your car is decelerating and the tps is at a certain voltage so your converter will unlock so as not to put excesive load on the engine until the new lower tps% is met at the new lower speed, where it would lock up again.

the space aboce the red line would be the points where your car would be accelerating, and you would want your converter to unlock again so as to let your engine rev quicker and therefore accelerate faster until the certain new tps is met at a certain new higher speed.

the middle would mainly be at slight increase/decrease of tps voltage and speeds while you were cruising and you would want your converter locked up.

does that sum it up ok. pj that is what i have derived from what you said and what i have been staring at in tuner cat.

somebody want to confirm? i will post my charts if you like, to show what i have set my points at so people can see where my thinking has taken me.

 

I may have spouted off prematurely. Like I said, I don't know what an 8746 is. But, I did look at TC's site to determine that it requires a $61 TDF to look at your tables, and I don't have that. I was presuming that yours were like mine ($32b or $6E). It sounds like they are similar, but different. It sounds like you have two tables in one, hence the two lines.

I would probably mislead you with further comment on how your tables work, so I need to sorta retract what I said before. If I had the $61 TDF and a bin or two to look at, I could possibly determine how they worked in comparison to the ones I use. Otherwise, it's a guess at best and I don't want to steer you wrong.

Sorry 'bout that. Assume makes an a$$ out of u and me.

------------------
'87 IROC 5.7l TPI - original owner!

 

I don't think you would want to lock the stock torque converter as it goes thru the gears. It is not designed to take the punishment this would cause. A heavy duty aftermarket converter with more clutches would be a good choice but then you would have to have a heavy duty trans to back it up. You might get a little better driveability by delaying the lock up but for a near stock car I don't think you would notice any differance in performance. You will also lose your torque multiplication advantages that an auto trans can give. Does this sound reasonable?

Steve

 

hey snuf,

Which tables are you looking for? I've got the hack and have been adding to my tdf file for a while now. let me know which ones you are looking for and I'll see what I can do about figuring them out.

-Lars

 

the original bottom two

tcc upper load limit vs mph (low gears)
and
tcc upper load limit vs mph (high gears)

 

o, and i think ive been told that the converter does not stay locked while at wot.

and im dealing with a essentially stock l03 that puts out a whooping 170hp stock and 255ft/lbs, i hope the 700r4 and its converter can handle a little more even under extreme conditions if locked while going thru the gears.

what about when you are manually shifting with an automatic, the converter is locked then right, even at wot?

i guess ive got some more questions that need to be answered before i go on.

one that would really help.

can somebody tell me how to wire an led that came on with my converter is locked up?

 

Snf, the reason I say that the converter might give trouble is that I,ve noticed mine starting to shudder a little bit when locking up in 4th before the oil is completely warmed up. This car is not driven hard very much and I have changed the trans fluid about 20,000mi's ago. As far as the converter being locked as you shift manualy it is not. As you mentioned before there is no lock up under wot. Even if you shift manualy under a light load and the conveter is locked in say third gear it will unlock as it goes into forth gear then relock. BTW I hope you get the prom worked out according to your liking.

 

well here you go, take a look at the bin im running now. that is if you have the 8746 def file.

http://snflupigus.tripod.com/bin/current.bin
http://snflupigus.tripod.com/bin/previous.bin

i dont think those will work, but ill try. tripod doesnt allow remote hosting. try to type them into your address bar.

the current was made after i had posted, its very smooth, almost slushy, but.. the engine revs quicker.

the previous, was firm, and made the car sound meaner because the car was under load more before releasing the converter

 

see below.

[This message has been edited by snflupigus (edited August 21, 2001).]

 

http://snflupigus.tripod.com/tcc.htm

there you go. check those out guys, they are the graphs of my tcc setup. screenshots.

 

The values and graphs are a little messed up since you have the upper and lower load limits (labled Hi and Lo in yours) crossing each other. Also, low gears are 2nd and 3rd gears since the TCC can't lock up in 1st gear, so high gear is 4th gear.

WRT the operation of the TCC and these tables, I've found that my TCC always stays locked up when I get off the gas, regardless of which gear I'm in. The only time it would unlock is when the speed would fall below the unlock speed. The lock/unlock values you have are quite low, especially at the higher speeds. You should look at the ARAP values, as they go up to the 90+% range above 60 mph.

As far as shifting with the TCC locked up, mine would do so at part throttle when I didn't have my TCC harness installed (keeps it from locking up in any gear but 4th), and this is with the stock bin. I didn't like the way it felt (too jerky), the engine couldn't rev up when I wanted it too (unless I almost floored it), and the TCC was locking up at WOT around 76 mph and hurting my 1/4-mile times, hence the TCC harness. I could take care of these problems by changing some things in the chip, but I just never got around to it.

------------------
Greg Westphal
'87 IROC 355TPI/A4

 

The TCC in oem apllications is only intended to min slippage in little cruise, ONLY.
The Converters to take WOT and be locked cost like $900.
Trying to do otherwise will generate material from the TCC being shredded and of and either plugging the filter, or some VB passage way. LONG TERM, you'll kill the tranny. BTDT

 

This sounds like another great idea for a code modification. How about a "Disengagment/Engagement TCC Routine" based on WOT and MPH? Then a user could select the way the TCC handles WOT.

 

well i was under the impression from other posts and searches that low was 1-2. and high was 3. which is why i posted, "anybody figure this out yet" because nobody seemed to know anything for sure.

i set the lines to cross because i didnt want it locking until 37mph, which is where my 1,2 shift takes place at wot, so anything under wot would be near there and i thought i was forcing it to not lockup in first, now im told it already wont lockup in first. who is right????? so what i was really doing is making sure that it didnt lock below 37 in second gear, which means if im cruising now at low speads im generating some major heat?
and if the high graph is fourth only, i should just set all the settings really high? because i want it locked there as much as possible. but to keep the lines fairly close together so it wont stay locked under hard deceleration in 4th gear? somebody please read all my posts, try to follow my logic and let me know how i should go about this.

whoops, i just noticed i have it set at 27 not locking underneith that. whoops. either way, i guess ill need to change it.


[This message has been edited by snflupigus (edited August 23, 2001).]

 

btt,

btw, changed back to stock settings on the tcc, except for the constants which are all about 7mph higher.

besides the fact that i was running some most likely borderline dangerous timing, and those crazy tcc charts, the car feels like a dog now. i am now running hypertechs stage 2 bin. and it sucks. i like my other bin much better but, i dont want to be breaking anything. i need to check plugs to see if i was killing my car with my previous timing. 2.5 degrees max change in selected points, would that cause any giant problems?

 

btt, incase there is a newcomer who can answer now.

[This message has been edited by snflupigus (edited August 28, 2001).]