Don't know about the torque management connection there w/ ETC Off, I never went back and played with it as I said.
As for the throttle map, well, throttle map is going to be a personal thing to some degree. I'm not sure what your criteria is for "under responsive". The point of my map wasn't to make the throttle jerky or snappy and give you a good butt feeling, it was to make it smooth and predictable while also removing the low-RPM limitations in the stock map. I think I mentioned in a much earlier post that some people would probably think the car felt slower on my map. It's smoother is all. The more you can smooth the map, the greater degree of control you have over the throttle at all ranges to finess the amount of torque you're applying in a given corner or whatever.
Some of my earlier maps and experiments resulted in what some would call snappy response, but it just made the car twitchy and then limited control in the rest of the range. For an exaggerated example: you could take the effective throttle range of the engine and put it all in the bottom 1/3 of the pedal. Very "responsive" initially, but then you're at full throttle with your foot 1/3 of the way down. The rest of the pedal travel is just pointless mashing, and it's 3 times harder to precisely control the throttle in the useful range. At least that would be predictable though. What's worse is a map that's just spiky. Alternating patterns of compressed and expanded ranges (graph goes up in chunks of uneven slope), leading to total unpredictability in practice.
Nothing you do to the throttle table changes the engine's capabilities. You're just changing how the pedal maps to the engine's range. In theory you can mostly do the same by changing how you move your foot (with the exception of the initial problem of the low-RPM throttle limitations).
If you want to send me (or just post here) the numbers from your last map, we can compare them and see how they plot differently. What was it from, a dyno shop? (and do you have your original as well?)
|