go 90mm TB or go home?
#221
Very bad news...
This does NOT appear to be a PCM problem. I talked with Paul at EFI. The PCM sees these ETC values as 100% MAX. Further, even if I did hack at it so I slam in 110, it would just wrap (meaning it would see 110 as 10). I sent him some further info, but so far it looks kinda grim.
Maybe we need to look at other TAC options (as it now appears to me that the TAC is the issue).
This does NOT appear to be a PCM problem. I talked with Paul at EFI. The PCM sees these ETC values as 100% MAX. Further, even if I did hack at it so I slam in 110, it would just wrap (meaning it would see 110 as 10). I sent him some further info, but so far it looks kinda grim.
Maybe we need to look at other TAC options (as it now appears to me that the TAC is the issue).
#223
Thanks for all your work on this Erik. I really appreciate it.
If the issue is with the TAC module it doesn't expain why the earlier models work as designed. There are some '02 trucks that will function the 90mm ttb perfectly. Same TAC module different computers.
Am I correct about this?
Richard
If the issue is with the TAC module it doesn't expain why the earlier models work as designed. There are some '02 trucks that will function the 90mm ttb perfectly. Same TAC module different computers.
Am I correct about this?
Richard
#224
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
Thanks for all your work on this Erik. I really appreciate it.
If the issue is with the TAC module it doesn't expain why the earlier models work as designed. There are some '02 trucks that will function the 90mm ttb perfectly. Same TAC module different computers.
Am I correct about this?
Richard
If the issue is with the TAC module it doesn't expain why the earlier models work as designed. There are some '02 trucks that will function the 90mm ttb perfectly. Same TAC module different computers.
Am I correct about this?
Richard

If this is true, then something is screwbally in Kansas!
What could be left? Accel pedal, although I believe it's the same PN for all years. Wiring harness. PCM.
#225
Originally Posted by TurboBerserker
If this is true, then something is screwbally in Kansas!
What could be left? Accel pedal, although I believe it's the same PN for all years. Wiring harness. PCM.

What could be left? Accel pedal, although I believe it's the same PN for all years. Wiring harness. PCM.

#227
Originally Posted by KySilverado
Didn't BC post that his was working?
key word, was. When we originally did this it was working, when I was at magna we were using a beta version of HPT, now I am using a different version. I am not sure if that has anything to do with it....but it is not working 100% anymore. I have noticed that on the GTO's the TB reports 88% TPS at wot.
#229
It has to be a tune issue on the SSR and now Trailblazer SS. We can reprogram a GTO Computer and install it in an SSR and you will lose the full movement of the throttle blade. The GTO and Corvette report 88% TPS for 100% ETC for full throttle movement while the SSR and now TBSS only report 83% and are shy of 100% on the throttle movement and yet it shows 100% ETC. There has to be a table that we are missing that can break down the correlation between TPS% and ETC%!!!
Do not let this little bit discourage you from installing the better throttle body because they do flow more air then even the Stock SSR 90mm throttle body. We had to add more fuel to compensate for the change on my SSR.
Do not let this little bit discourage you from installing the better throttle body because they do flow more air then even the Stock SSR 90mm throttle body. We had to add more fuel to compensate for the change on my SSR.







