throttle response improvement with chip?
01-09-2008, 10:53 PM
#31
Burning Brakes
"What I understand by throttle response is how fast the engine reacts when in neutral - i.e. when you blip the throttle."
Exactly
Exactly
01-10-2008, 04:16 AM
#32
Hi guys. I'm the original poster. Sorry for my delay.
What I meant was 'how quickly the engine responds to depressing the accellerator pedal'. Moreso I'm speaking off the line, going from 1k to 5k rpms. I believe what I notice is the DMF. There seems to be a bit of a lag before the flywheel gets up there. I wondered if a chip could be mapped to quicken the response time from pressing the accelerator to getting the revs up.
Seemingly a LWF would help, but could a chip (alone) help?
This is why I posted the question. Thanks guys. Vaughan
What I meant was 'how quickly the engine responds to depressing the accellerator pedal'. Moreso I'm speaking off the line, going from 1k to 5k rpms. I believe what I notice is the DMF. There seems to be a bit of a lag before the flywheel gets up there. I wondered if a chip could be mapped to quicken the response time from pressing the accelerator to getting the revs up.
Seemingly a LWF would help, but could a chip (alone) help?
This is why I posted the question. Thanks guys. Vaughan
The answer is basically 'no' in my experience. Even cars with a LWF are not *much* quicker to rev in neutral than a DMF car - there is a difference but its not a big difference. Before anyone sdtarts a flaming war, I said there *is* a difference, but if you want to see how fast my Motec equipped car responds (both up and down the rev range) then you will see what I mean. Vaughan, it may be that a MAF might have the desired result, but I have no personal experience there so I couldn't say - but chipping you car will make no difference to that particular aspect IMHO.
Just a quick question: do yuo think that it is *that* important to have the car respond in that fashion? I mean most of the time you will have plenty of time to dial in some revs.... Another observation I have is that the DMF certainly has a value in getting off the line as far as I remember (I haven't had one for a number of years). When my car was standard, it seemed to be very easy to get off thel ine in a very quick fashion, because you could build up the momentum in the flywheel (if that is the correct physics term), so that when you lift the clutch up, the car is sort of slingshotted away from the line....you can feel the energy that has built up in the transmission...if you see what I mean. With an RS or LWF flywheel, the technique is somewhat different - as thje car is much more sensitie to revs - you can bog down if you go too low etc....
Hope that helps!
01-10-2008, 04:11 PM
#33
Advanced
Thread Starter
Thanks Christer for your input (and all others too). Yes I think it is important to have a little quicker
gas pedal to engine response, specifically moving up the revs, say from 2500 to 5k. A lighter flywheel may do it quicker, and the correct fuel mixture, and other engine management factors. To see my POV, I drove an 88 911 for several years with the 3.2 (stock). The 964 engine has the heavy flywheel and bigger engine so the response time seems a bit slower going up the revs when you step on it, compared to the 88. If I had not driven the 88, I wouldn't have known the difference. On another note, yes the DMF does have usuable momentum once it gets spinning to propel you.
gas pedal to engine response, specifically moving up the revs, say from 2500 to 5k. A lighter flywheel may do it quicker, and the correct fuel mixture, and other engine management factors. To see my POV, I drove an 88 911 for several years with the 3.2 (stock). The 964 engine has the heavy flywheel and bigger engine so the response time seems a bit slower going up the revs when you step on it, compared to the 88. If I had not driven the 88, I wouldn't have known the difference. On another note, yes the DMF does have usuable momentum once it gets spinning to propel you.
