znod

His dog made him do it. "Yuh ain't nuthing but a hown dawg a crying all the time." But, regardless, what you indicate is very interesting. Does you HUD agree with your speedo?

Bokke

His dog made him do it. "Yuh ain't nuthing but a hown dawg a crying all the time." But, regardless, what you indicate is very interesting. Does you HUD agree with your speedo?
[/quote]


HUD and speed are identical!

znod

Here is what I found. It is hard to fault the calibration of the two tachs between 1k and 6k RPM. It appeared that digital was about 1,050k, while "analog" was 1k. But, I could not see any other systematic differences. As you may be aware, it is a little hard to stay right on a given RPM unless maybe by using cruise control. I though I could discern things well enough without going to that extreme. Anyway, I never use cruise so it might have taken me an hour to get it going, and I probably would have had a wreck in the process. Maybe I'll check using cruise the next time I am going to use a freeway.

Above, I indicated that "at 3,000 RPM in first, my speedo showed 18 MPH rather than the correct calculated value of 16 MPH (with 30 MPH versus the correct 28 MPH in second, and 45 MPH versus the correct 43 MPH in third. Today, I also made observations on the digital speedometer getting 25 k/ph at 3k RPM (first gear), 45 k/ph at 3k RPM (second gear), and 70 k/ph at 3k RPM (third gear). Remember that both the analog and digital readings are subject to observatonal error although I confired each value reported multiple times. Starting with third gear we have:

"Analog" 3k RPM in third yields 45 MPH versus the correct calculated value of 43 MPH.
Digital 3k RPM in first yields 70 k/ph--which converts into 43.5 MPH--which is quite close to the correct calculated value of 43 MPH

Continuing similarly:

"Analog" 3k RPM in second yields 30 MPH versus the correct calculated value of 28 MPH.
Digital 3k RPM in second yields 45 k/ph--which converts into 27.96--which is almost identical to the correct calculated value of 28 MPH.

And:

"Analog" 3k RPM in first yields 18 MPH versus the correct calculated value of 16 MPH.
Digital 3k RPM in first yields 25 k/ph--which converts into 15.53--which is very close to the correct calculated value of 16 MPH.

Assuming that it is not coincidental that what I call the correct calculated values and the related digital values are so close, then all of the above lends credence to the idea stated above--that my Step is starting to shift at ... [correctly calculated values of] 28 MPH and 58 MPH and, consequently that the RPM's when it starts to shift are those in orange below."

(5,308 / 6,500(34.28769707) = 28
(6,170 / 6,500)61.10243456 = 58

As indicated earlier, these RPM's are atrocious. In this regard, it does not seem possible that the correct/digital values could be wrong while the analog values are correct--especially since the analog values are supposed to be determined using a "motor" and the digital values as inputs.

Still, there is a fly in the ointment. Given that I am not sure how the digital values are determined, it might be the case that both types of "correct" values suffer implicitly from, in effect, the same error--presumably caused by differing tire diameters. If the error is in the right direction and by the right amount, then the analog speedo could actually be correct. On the other hand, it could be farther off than suspected.

znod

Thanks. "Moving game to game. No one's gotten to you yet. You're still the same."

znod

Right.

Good luck. Hurry though. I've had my fingers crossed now for 5 days I think.

znod

Here is what I found. It is hard to fault the calibration of the two tachs between 1k and 6k RPM. It appeared that digital was about 1,050k, while "analog" was 1k. But, I could not see any other systematic differences. As you may be aware, it is a little hard to stay right on a given RPM unless maybe by using cruise control. I though I could discern things well enough without going to that extreme. Anyway, I never use cruise so it might have taken me an hour to get it going, and I probably would have had a wreck in the process. Maybe I'll check using cruise the next time I am going to use a freeway.

Above, I indicated that "at 3,000 RPM in first, my speedo showed 18 MPH rather than the correct calculated value of 16 MPH (with 30 MPH versus the correct 28 MPH in second, and 45 MPH versus the correct 43 MPH in third. Today, I also made observations on the digital speedometer getting 25 k/ph at 3k RPM (first gear), 45 k/ph at 3k RPM (second gear), and 70 k/ph at 3k RPM (third gear). Remember that both the analog and digital readings are subject to observatonal error although I confired each value reported multiple times. Starting with third gear we have:

"Analog" 3k RPM in third yields 45 MPH versus the correct calculated value of 43 MPH.
Digital 3k RPM in first yields 70 k/ph--which converts into 43.5 MPH--which is quite close to the correct calculated value of 43 MPH

Continuing similarly:

"Analog" 3k RPM in second yields 30 MPH versus the correct calculated value of 28 MPH.
Digital 3k RPM in second yields 45 k/ph--which converts into 27.96--which is almost identical to the correct calculated value of 28 MPH.

And:

"Analog" 3k RPM in first yields 18 MPH versus the correct calculated value of 16 MPH.
Digital 3k RPM in first yields 25 k/ph--which converts into 15.53--which is very close to the correct calculated value of 16 MPH.

Assuming that it is not coincidental that what I call the correct calculated values and the related digital values are so close, then all of the above lends credence to the idea stated above--that my Step is starting to shift at ... [correctly calculated values of] 28 MPH and 58 MPH and, consequently that the RPM's when it starts to shift are those in orange below."

(5,308 / 6,500(34.28769707) = 28
(6,170 / 6,500)61.10243456 = 58

As indicated earlier, these RPM's are atrocious. In this regard, it does not seem possible that the correct/digital values could be wrong while the analog values are correct--especially since the analog values are supposed to be determined using a "motor" and the digital values as inputs.

Still, there is a fly in the ointment. Given that I am not sure how the digital values are determined, it might be the case that both types of "correct" values suffer implicitly from, in effect, the same error--presumably caused by differing tire diameters. If the error is in the right direction and by the right amount, then the analog speedo could actually be correct. On the other hand, it could be farther off than suspected.
[/quote]
I am dealing with the last point mentioned above to completely cover all the bases. I did not eliminate the quoted material above for continuity.

A mentioned, my tire diameter imples 807 revs per mile. The stock sport-package tire implies 814 revs per mile. If I assume 814 revs per mile, then:

There are 814 revs per mile given 275 / 35-18 rear tires.
At 60 mph one would do a mile a minute, or 814 tire revs per minute.
If the effective rear-end is 1:1, then a mile a minute would take 814 engine RPM.
If the effective rear-end is 2.3322:1 (as in 6th gear), then 60 MPH would take 2.3322(814)] = 1,898.4108 RPM.
Given the above, it the car could turn 6,500, then its top speed would be 60(6,500 / 1,898.4108) = 205.43498804

Top speed in 1st gear would be 205.43498804(2.3322 / 14.0946) = 33.99283975
Top speed in 2nd gear would be 205.43498804(2.3322 / 7.9092) = 60.57698365
Top speed in 3rd gear would be 205.43498804(2.3322 / 5.1376) = 93.25667220
Top speed in 4th gear would be 205.43498804(2.3322 / 3.8532) = 124.34222961

Then, the correct calculated values would be:

(3,000 / 6,500)[205.43498804(2.3322 / 14.0946)] = about 15.69 (rather than not rounding about 15.83)
(3,000 / 6,500)[205.43498804(2.3322 / 7.9092]) = about 27.96 (rather than not rounding about 28.20)
(3,000 / 6,500)[205.43498804(2.3322 / 5.1376)] = about 43.04 (rather than not rounding about 43.41)
(3,000 / 6,500)[205.43498804(2.3322 / 3.8532)] = about 57.39 (rather than not rounding about 57.89)

Thus, with stock wheels/tires, the starting shift points would be the same as the revised-for no-rounding values for my setup calculated below subsequently:

(5,346 / 6,500(33.99283975) = 27.96
(6,158 / 6,500)60.57698365) = 57.39

The atrocious ones I calculated earlier for my setup, but now without rounding, are:

(5,346 / 6,500(34.28769707) = 28.20
(6,158 / 6,500)61.10243456 = 57.89

Thus, my conlusions about starting shift points are independent of the wheel tire setup. Perhaps I should have seen this independence because of proportionality before calculating, but I did not.

grogan545

I missed this post before grogan. You are right; I had not thought of this possibly mitigating factor.

Good luck. Hurry though. I've had my fingers crossed now for 5 days I think.
[/quote]

Hi Znod

I could not wait until tomorrow.I made 3 runs today I am am satisfied that my performance is not compromised.I do have to explain my numbers though.

I had uncontolled wheelspin on all 3 runs.Tach went to 6500 rpm"s while spinning the tires and shifted to M2.My speed at the shift point was less than 20 mph.The tach was below 2000 rpm at the start of M2.The goodyear tires are atrocious when cold(40 degrees).The car bogged tremendously at the shift to M2.Now for the times.

speed run 1 run 2 run3 ave previous ave Diff
0-10 .42 .38 .40 .40 .34 -.06
0-20 1.30 1.20 1.23 1.24 1.03 -.21
0-30 2.22 2.13 2.12 2.16 1.78 -.38
0-40 3.20 3.10 3.13 3.14 2.84 -.30
0-50 4.22 4.12 4.18 4.17 3.89 -.28
0-60 5.50 5.43 5.48 5.48 5.13 -.34

Terrible 0-60 times due to faulty start.Notice that after 30 mph I am no longer losing time to previous average. Even with the shift to M2 at less than 2000rpm's the times were not drastically affected.
The 3 horsepower readings were 336,330,and 330 repectively.I am using 4000# for weight,if I use 4100# they would be higher.
In summary I believe these results show no loss of performance in my engine.I will have to wait for warmer weather to positively prove it.No matter what starting method I tried the tires went up in smoke even if I was already moving in M1 when I stepped on the gas I got instant smoke.

znod

Great grogan. I had bet that you went out this morning. I now can uncross my fingers; they were cramping badly. And, while I am supremely happy for you, I am with envy.

grogan545

Great grogan. I had bet that you went out this morning. I now can uncross my fingers; they were cramping badly. And, while I am supremely happy for you, I am with envy.
[/quote]

This is not all bad news for you Znod.It means there is not something inherently wrong with 20.01.You are left with several possibilities.
1-There is something besides 20.01 that is causing your problem.Not likely since you noticed it as soon after you updated to 20.01
2-The software that your dealer is using has a flaw in it.
3-The download of the software was faulty.
I would either try a different dealer who could download 20.01 or have your dealer redo yours

I did notice when I was driving home from the dealer after my update that the first time I attempted a start I almost had no wheelspin and I went to full throttle immediatly,but the next start and every start since I get uncontrollable wheelspin.It seems the learning curve was very fast on mine.

I also did more checking in the hidden menu's.My tachometer & the readings in the hidden menu are very close.I could not see a difference.The speedometer however was off by approx 2 mph from the menu.Speedometer reading of 60 mph(cruise control on)indicates 94kph(58.28 mph) in the menu,speedometer reading of 40 mph indicates 61 kph(37.82 mph)in the menu.

Let me know how you make out with your problem.I will run more tests as soon as we get warmer weather.

znod

Right, I caught that. If my car is learning, then it is a slow learner.
I'll keep you posted--one way or another. Thanks.