Can I run with ECT Power mode continuosly?
.
No, I'm not, because you repeatedly said they were identical drivers.
Which means they'd want to go identically fast.
It's your example that needs to keep changing the conditions because the ones that actually give a fair comparison don't work for you.
Why not?
They're identical drivers...why do they suddenly want to go different speeds in the same conditions?
(hint: no reason at all other than your story makes no sense without this made up condition)
Ok... you're not gonna like where this goes, but sure... let's say you do exactly that.
Err... not really, no...
The throttle OPENING is larger for the guy in PWR mode (if we continue with the presumption PWR increases pedal sensitivity). So that's also different between the two cars. In fact, that's the reason he's going faster. (why it's open more is the button in this example)
But let's continue!
Good... Because if you put identical humans (identical in behavior and driving desires) in the two cars, that's what you will actually get. The same throttle opening with different pedal inputs.
That's why your example is so awful.
It won't happen unless you drive the car quite differently, for no apparent reason other than to fit your example.
But let's go back to the robots for a second....
In your example (just inserting made up #s to solidify it) say it's something like this:
Car A- PWR Mode- Pedal is at 20%. Throttle is open say 25%. Line pressure is X (whatever it is for 25% throttle opening)
Car B- NORMAL mode- Pedal is at 20%. Throttle is open say 17%. Line pressure is Y (whatever it is for 17% throttle opening).
X might be greater than Y (if your 2 base assumptions about how throttle opening works in PWR mode vs. normal and how line pressure works).
But the reason it's higher is-
Greater throttle opening.
NOT the PWR vs. Normal mode.
As evidence of this, if you open the throttle 25% in normal mode even you agree line pressure would then be the same as car A.
So it's not transmission mode that makes any difference, it's throttle opening.
And two identical human drivers would target the same throttle opening in the same condition. Because that's what identical behavior means and humans aren't robots programmed to always push the gas a fixed distance regardless of the real-world result.
Again- in that scenario the higher pressure is caused by a larger throttle opening.
PWR mode is irrelevant.
If you opened the throttle the same amount (via more pedal input) in normal mode you'd have the same line pressure as you did in PWR mode with that throttle opening.
That's why your example makes no sense for trying to state anything about PWR mode.
It makes so little sense you had to switch your drivers for robots for it to even happen.
No, I'm not, because you repeatedly said they were identical drivers.
Which means they'd want to go identically fast.
It's your example that needs to keep changing the conditions because the ones that actually give a fair comparison don't work for you.
Why not?
They're identical drivers...why do they suddenly want to go different speeds in the same conditions?
(hint: no reason at all other than your story makes no sense without this made up condition)
Ok... you're not gonna like where this goes, but sure... let's say you do exactly that.
Err... not really, no...
The throttle OPENING is larger for the guy in PWR mode (if we continue with the presumption PWR increases pedal sensitivity). So that's also different between the two cars. In fact, that's the reason he's going faster. (why it's open more is the button in this example)
But let's continue!
Good... Because if you put identical humans (identical in behavior and driving desires) in the two cars, that's what you will actually get. The same throttle opening with different pedal inputs.
That's why your example is so awful.
It won't happen unless you drive the car quite differently, for no apparent reason other than to fit your example.
But let's go back to the robots for a second....
In your example (just inserting made up #s to solidify it) say it's something like this:
Car A- PWR Mode- Pedal is at 20%. Throttle is open say 25%. Line pressure is X (whatever it is for 25% throttle opening)
Car B- NORMAL mode- Pedal is at 20%. Throttle is open say 17%. Line pressure is Y (whatever it is for 17% throttle opening).
X might be greater than Y (if your 2 base assumptions about how throttle opening works in PWR mode vs. normal and how line pressure works).
But the reason it's higher is-
Greater throttle opening.
NOT the PWR vs. Normal mode.
As evidence of this, if you open the throttle 25% in normal mode even you agree line pressure would then be the same as car A.
So it's not transmission mode that makes any difference, it's throttle opening.
And two identical human drivers would target the same throttle opening in the same condition. Because that's what identical behavior means and humans aren't robots programmed to always push the gas a fixed distance regardless of the real-world result.
Again- in that scenario the higher pressure is caused by a larger throttle opening.
PWR mode is irrelevant.
If you opened the throttle the same amount (via more pedal input) in normal mode you'd have the same line pressure as you did in PWR mode with that throttle opening.
That's why your example makes no sense for trying to state anything about PWR mode.
It makes so little sense you had to switch your drivers for robots for it to even happen.
The thing you think is "pretty clear" proof says this:
that's what it says.
What it does not say (besides anything at all about AI-SHIFT or ECT modes) is "line pressure that increases according to engine output."
varies != increases.
That's your assumption laid on top of what it actually says.
It might even be a correct one, but the fact you moved right past it to further assumptions shows the basic flaws in your lines of reasoning so far here.
But here's some doubt for ya!
The very next line in your quoted "proof" is:
This could mean more throttle input during the shift lowers line pressure to avoid a harsher shift.
Here's a document, it's pretty crazy technical... but if you read the part starting with "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION" you'll see exactly that type of control discussed.
http://osdir.com/patents/Interrelate...-06949050.html
In context of your quote, that document suggests the control is reducing line pressure if you give it more throttle to avoid shift shocks.... not the other way round.
Want more? Here's a description of the SLT unit from another toyota transmission-
http://highlanderclub.ru/files/manua...2f/cip2716.pdf
That also sounds like that technical patent document... that if engine output rises it might reduce line pressure to smooth the shift.
The exact opposite of your most basic assumption.
See the problem with assumptions?
Now, all that said, I can just as easily technically explain why it might be exactly the opposite, that those controls are varying line pressure to smooth shifts where throttle drops during shift and you do get an increase in line pressure with increased throttle valve position (not gas pedal position).... but either way, it's the throttle opening that changes line pressure... not the ECT mode.
Which is why your leap from "throttle opening varies line pressure" to "ECT-PWR increases line pressure" is such a poor one.
that's what it says.
What it does not say (besides anything at all about AI-SHIFT or ECT modes) is "line pressure that increases according to engine output."
varies != increases.
That's your assumption laid on top of what it actually says.
It might even be a correct one, but the fact you moved right past it to further assumptions shows the basic flaws in your lines of reasoning so far here.
But here's some doubt for ya!
The very next line in your quoted "proof" is:
This could mean more throttle input during the shift lowers line pressure to avoid a harsher shift.
Here's a document, it's pretty crazy technical... but if you read the part starting with "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION" you'll see exactly that type of control discussed.
http://osdir.com/patents/Interrelate...-06949050.html
In context of your quote, that document suggests the control is reducing line pressure if you give it more throttle to avoid shift shocks.... not the other way round.
Want more? Here's a description of the SLT unit from another toyota transmission-
http://highlanderclub.ru/files/manua...2f/cip2716.pdf
That also sounds like that technical patent document... that if engine output rises it might reduce line pressure to smooth the shift.
The exact opposite of your most basic assumption.
See the problem with assumptions?
Now, all that said, I can just as easily technically explain why it might be exactly the opposite, that those controls are varying line pressure to smooth shifts where throttle drops during shift and you do get an increase in line pressure with increased throttle valve position (not gas pedal position).... but either way, it's the throttle opening that changes line pressure... not the ECT mode.
Which is why your leap from "throttle opening varies line pressure" to "ECT-PWR increases line pressure" is such a poor one.
Regardless, I think you've gone past the point of being helpful, past hindering, and gone straight to belligerent. I've told you I'm gong to look because you wont accept "assumtions" and you want to change my senario and make assumtions.
Let's take another scenario!
Robot in PWR mode in car A presses the gas 20%
Robot in car B is ALSO in PWR mode and presses the gas 40%. That's the only variable, how far they pressed the gas.
According to your assumptions, Robot in car B shifts quicker with higher line pressure.
But wait! they were BOTH in PWR mode!
OMG! Pressing the gas harder is what increases line pressure clearly!
Oh, no, wait...it's throttle opening that causes the line pressure variance... in BOTH your scenario and mine....not the ECT mode or the pedal angle. It's the resulting throttle opening.
And a driver will tend to adjust pedal pressure for the desired throttle opening he wants in ANY transmission mode.
Rendering PWR vs. Normal irrelevant for this discussion. Just like it was when you started.
Robot in PWR mode in car A presses the gas 20%
Robot in car B is ALSO in PWR mode and presses the gas 40%. That's the only variable, how far they pressed the gas.
According to your assumptions, Robot in car B shifts quicker with higher line pressure.
But wait! they were BOTH in PWR mode!
OMG! Pressing the gas harder is what increases line pressure clearly!
Oh, no, wait...it's throttle opening that causes the line pressure variance... in BOTH your scenario and mine....not the ECT mode or the pedal angle. It's the resulting throttle opening.
And a driver will tend to adjust pedal pressure for the desired throttle opening he wants in ANY transmission mode.
Rendering PWR vs. Normal irrelevant for this discussion. Just like it was when you started.
Last edited by balanced; Aug 20, 2012 at 08:48 PM.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 1
From: WA
YES YES YES you are right right right right...you changed the senario and you are right. Why must you change the senario? Both cars in PWR and one at 20% and the other at 40% I believe the transmssion with shift quicker in the 40%. And if you agree with that then you are agreeing with my hypothosis too when the button isi n Normal...thanks... glad yuo see it my way.
"Oh, no, wait...it's throttle opening that causes the line pressure variance... in BOTH your scenario and mine....not the ECT mode or the pedal angle. It's the resulting throttle opening."
Have you figured out yet why PWR mode gives slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times yet? If your theories hold any weight, it should be obvious that PWR mode would give better results with these "faster" shifts and increased throttle response. Yet anyone that has done any amount of REAL WORLD TESTING has shown it to be slower than launching in NORMAL mode. Hmmm....
I like how you ignored this statement:
"Oh, no, wait...it's throttle opening that causes the line pressure variance... in BOTH your scenario and mine....not the ECT mode or the pedal angle. It's the resulting throttle opening."
Have you figured out yet why PWR mode gives slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times yet? If your theories hold any weight, it should be obvious that PWR mode would give better results with these "faster" shifts and increased throttle response. Yet anyone that has done any amount of REAL WORLD TESTING has shown it to be slower than launching in NORMAL mode. Hmmm....
"Oh, no, wait...it's throttle opening that causes the line pressure variance... in BOTH your scenario and mine....not the ECT mode or the pedal angle. It's the resulting throttle opening."
Have you figured out yet why PWR mode gives slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times yet? If your theories hold any weight, it should be obvious that PWR mode would give better results with these "faster" shifts and increased throttle response. Yet anyone that has done any amount of REAL WORLD TESTING has shown it to be slower than launching in NORMAL mode. Hmmm....
whereas if you quicken the shift, with PWR mode, then the above doesn't happen, the shift happens quicker...
remember with an auto transmission *slushbox* that the time it takes to shift doesn't matter a whole lot as the car makes power throughout the shift and the transmission is putting down that power the entire time as well...
I like how you ignored this statement:
"Oh, no, wait...it's throttle opening that causes the line pressure variance... in BOTH your scenario and mine....not the ECT mode or the pedal angle. It's the resulting throttle opening."
Have you figured out yet why PWR mode gives slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times yet? If your theories hold any weight, it should be obvious that PWR mode would give better results with these "faster" shifts and increased throttle response. Yet anyone that has done any amount of REAL WORLD TESTING has shown it to be slower than launching in NORMAL mode. Hmmm....
"Oh, no, wait...it's throttle opening that causes the line pressure variance... in BOTH your scenario and mine....not the ECT mode or the pedal angle. It's the resulting throttle opening."
Have you figured out yet why PWR mode gives slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times yet? If your theories hold any weight, it should be obvious that PWR mode would give better results with these "faster" shifts and increased throttle response. Yet anyone that has done any amount of REAL WORLD TESTING has shown it to be slower than launching in NORMAL mode. Hmmm....
No, I'm being realistic. Unlike your robot scenario.
Which is why your example makes no sense.
No actual person drives a car to a targeted "amount of gas pedal angle"
They drive a car to a targeted amount of throttle opening.
Except, not... because you've provided no evidence, ever, that PWR vs. Normal makes any difference to line pressure.
The only thing you've even offered a suggestion of evidence for (and barely) is that throttle opening changes line pressure one way or the other. Which happens in either mode. Dependent entirely on throttle opening, not which mode it's in.
I'm not the one trying to "cleverly" slip an insult in via typo man...
I'm just pointing out why your "scenario" is nonsensical for any actual person driving the car... because nobody drives aiming for a given "percentage the pedal is down" they drive aiming for a given throttle opening... because that second one is what actually determines vehicle behavior.
Even you know deep down your scenario is silly and wouldn't happen with real drivers since you had to put robots behind the wheel in an attempt to make it sound less silly. (didn't work, FYI)
Here's how silly your example is-
Take 2 "identical" robot drivers. Put one in an car with 15" wheels and tires. Put one in a similar car with 24" wheels and tires of much larger diameter. Both take a 500 mile trip with the spedometer "reading" 70 mph without recalibration of any kind.
You'd somehow be amazed one guy gets there sooner... and conclude wheel size makes the car faster.
That's silly of course, because nobody would drive that way... they'd self-adjust their real (not listed) speed to go along with traffic.
That's exactly as silly as the example you're grasping at though, requiring just as artificial a constraint, so much so you'd need a robot behind the wheel for it to even happen, and your conclusion is just as incorrect.
No actual person drives a car to a targeted "amount of gas pedal angle"
They drive a car to a targeted amount of throttle opening.
The only thing you've even offered a suggestion of evidence for (and barely) is that throttle opening changes line pressure one way or the other. Which happens in either mode. Dependent entirely on throttle opening, not which mode it's in.
I'm just pointing out why your "scenario" is nonsensical for any actual person driving the car... because nobody drives aiming for a given "percentage the pedal is down" they drive aiming for a given throttle opening... because that second one is what actually determines vehicle behavior.
Even you know deep down your scenario is silly and wouldn't happen with real drivers since you had to put robots behind the wheel in an attempt to make it sound less silly. (didn't work, FYI)
Here's how silly your example is-
Take 2 "identical" robot drivers. Put one in an car with 15" wheels and tires. Put one in a similar car with 24" wheels and tires of much larger diameter. Both take a 500 mile trip with the spedometer "reading" 70 mph without recalibration of any kind.
You'd somehow be amazed one guy gets there sooner... and conclude wheel size makes the car faster.
That's silly of course, because nobody would drive that way... they'd self-adjust their real (not listed) speed to go along with traffic.
That's exactly as silly as the example you're grasping at though, requiring just as artificial a constraint, so much so you'd need a robot behind the wheel for it to even happen, and your conclusion is just as incorrect.
Last edited by Kurtz; Aug 21, 2012 at 04:30 AM.
let's create more senarios that I'm not talking about:
two drivers two cars.
both in normal
one mashes the gas harder than the other but neither WOT
two drivers two cars.
both in normal
one has a Sprint Booster
two drivers two cars.
both in SNOW
one has a Sprint Booster
two drivers two cars.
both in SNOW
one mashes the gas harder
two drivers two cars.
both in PWR
one mashes the gas harder
two drivers two cars
one in SNOW
one in PWR
two drivers two cars
one in Normal
one in PWR
I'm sure there is more, but you see my point....one goes faster than the other AND one has more throttle open than the other AND all have something different which causes this.
The only one I'm talking about is the last...why? because tht is the one that I brought up to discuss transmission shift time..why? because I was making a point about transmission wear in a tread comparing... what for it -- wait for it....PWR vs Normal....none of the other senarios.
In reality, I believe that the other senarios would lead to quicker shifts because of increase throttle opening, regardless of cause. But none of those I chose to disucss, but it was not what the thread was discussion at the time. Why and I defending this one and not them all? It was the only one I brought up.
two drivers two cars.
both in normal
one mashes the gas harder than the other but neither WOT
two drivers two cars.
both in normal
one has a Sprint Booster
two drivers two cars.
both in SNOW
one has a Sprint Booster
two drivers two cars.
both in SNOW
one mashes the gas harder
two drivers two cars.
both in PWR
one mashes the gas harder
two drivers two cars
one in SNOW
one in PWR
two drivers two cars
one in Normal
one in PWR
I'm sure there is more, but you see my point....one goes faster than the other AND one has more throttle open than the other AND all have something different which causes this.
The only one I'm talking about is the last...why? because tht is the one that I brought up to discuss transmission shift time..why? because I was making a point about transmission wear in a tread comparing... what for it -- wait for it....PWR vs Normal....none of the other senarios.
In reality, I believe that the other senarios would lead to quicker shifts because of increase throttle opening, regardless of cause. But none of those I chose to disucss, but it was not what the thread was discussion at the time. Why and I defending this one and not them all? It was the only one I brought up.
Last edited by balanced; Aug 21, 2012 at 04:37 AM.
I am pretty sure I figured it out, but no one cares to read my posts... one more time - the slower shift results in increased rpm, meaning the car holds the gear just a little longer - higher rpm shift means you are at a higher rpm once you are in to the next gear, meaning in a better power band...
whereas if you quicken the shift, with PWR mode, then the above doesn't happen, the shift happens quicker...
remember with an auto transmission *slushbox* that the time it takes to shift doesn't matter a whole lot as the car makes power throughout the shift and the transmission is putting down that power the entire time as well...
whereas if you quicken the shift, with PWR mode, then the above doesn't happen, the shift happens quicker...
remember with an auto transmission *slushbox* that the time it takes to shift doesn't matter a whole lot as the car makes power throughout the shift and the transmission is putting down that power the entire time as well...
Here's a document, it's pretty crazy technical... but if you read the part starting with "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION" you'll see exactly that type of control discussed.
http://osdir.com/patents/Interrelate...-06949050.html
So did you actually read the entire document?...it proves my point
http://osdir.com/patents/Interrelate...-06949050.html
So did you actually read the entire document?...it proves my point
I'm right and you know it, you just have made a big enough deal now, you will never admit it.
You're saying it's controled by Throttle Opening.... your right
I'm saying some outside influence CAUSED the Thottle Opening to be increased.
I my one little senario (one of many), it's the PWR button (although it could be a lot of different things CAUSING the Throttle Opening to be increased). And you're right I've only offered a suggestion on who that directly afffects line pressure, which I said I'll continue to look.
Last edited by balanced; Aug 21, 2012 at 04:47 AM.
For some weird reason.
I'm not disagreeing to be contrary, I'm disagreeing because you haven't presented any compelling argument at all.
Wait... I though you just said YOU were right and I wouldn't admit it?
Now you just admitted I was right?
It's the throttle opening, and the throttle opening only that is changing the line pressure, right?
As even you seem to admit there's a long list of reasons throttle opening can vary... why do you have some bizarre fixation on ECT-PWR then when it's clearly not that causing the higher line pressure, it's the throttle opening?
EXACTLY.
So again- there's many things that can impact throttle opening... but none of those directly change line pressure.
Throttle opening does.
Which means, based on how people actually drive, the ECT mode is irrelevant to line pressure.
Because people in real life drive to throttle openings, not to "what % angle the pedal is at"
Nobody ever says "I better slow down, the % angle of my gas pedal is too high!"
And thus, since driver X will desire a throttle opening of Y amount, he will use whatever gas pedal angle gives him throttle opening Y for a given transmission mode he is used to.
And thus the transmission mode has no impact on line pressure. The throttle opening does. In all modes.
I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this to you.
Last edited by Kurtz; Aug 21, 2012 at 07:04 AM.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,763
Likes: 6
From: TX
Why is it SO difficult to grasp that the PWR button can ALSO effect the line pressure??
[does it do it in reality? Maybe. Maybe not.]
Sure the PWR button effects Throttle opening. But why cannot it be an input to the transmission to control the shift speed in addition to Throttle opening?
You cannot simply ignore it because you feel comfortable in doing so.
Your contention is that the only variable is Throttle opening. Nothing else. Makes it easy to prove a point. But is it reality?
[does it do it in reality? Maybe. Maybe not.]
Sure the PWR button effects Throttle opening. But why cannot it be an input to the transmission to control the shift speed in addition to Throttle opening?
You cannot simply ignore it because you feel comfortable in doing so.
Your contention is that the only variable is Throttle opening. Nothing else. Makes it easy to prove a point. But is it reality?
Because nobody has, ever, presented the slightest evidence that it does.
The only items anyone has ever presented evidence for ECT-PWR impacting are the ones in the Lexus document I've linked to repeatedly in this thread.
And that's 8 years into the car being on the market and lots of smart people here having access to the FSM, TIS, etc, and none have found anything suggesting it does that.
I'm not. I'm ignoring it because it's something someone made up with nothing to support the idea.
Even the one quote that mentions line pressure from Lexus doesn't mention ECT modes at all.
No, I'm contending that throttle opening is the only user-controlled variable there is any evidence for impacting line pressure.
That certainly is the reality of the evidence presented so far.
If you want to claim something else impacts it you'd need to support that claim. Can you?
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,763
Likes: 6
From: TX
I do not have proof that the PWR button is a variable. But then I also do not have proof God exists either 
But can you reject that suggestion that there is a possibility that the PWR button may indeed be a variable in the shift speeds?
We all know how inadequate the handbook/manual is. They do not spell out the complete design. They only say "and other variables". That is evidence enough that the throttle opening is not the only variable and therefore almost foolish to stake your position around it.
But can you reject that suggestion that there is a possibility that the PWR button may indeed be a variable in the shift speeds?
We all know how inadequate the handbook/manual is. They do not spell out the complete design. They only say "and other variables". That is evidence enough that the throttle opening is not the only variable and therefore almost foolish to stake your position around it.
Advanced
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 651
Likes: 3
From: Ontario
I am pretty sure I figured it out, but no one cares to read my posts... one more time - the slower shift results in increased rpm, meaning the car holds the gear just a little longer - higher rpm shift means you are at a higher rpm once you are in to the next gear, meaning in a better power band...
whereas if you quicken the shift, with PWR mode, then the above doesn't happen, the shift happens quicker...
remember with an auto transmission *slushbox* that the time it takes to shift doesn't matter a whole lot as the car makes power throughout the shift and the transmission is putting down that power the entire time as well...
whereas if you quicken the shift, with PWR mode, then the above doesn't happen, the shift happens quicker...
remember with an auto transmission *slushbox* that the time it takes to shift doesn't matter a whole lot as the car makes power throughout the shift and the transmission is putting down that power the entire time as well...
^^^ This guy is on the right track! BTW according to HKS350 the engine also retards timing between shifts "datalogged"
People drive to a set speed....I.e. 60, 100 etc,...not to a throttle opening in day to day driving which is why after a period of "learning" PWR or normal makes no difference to getting to set speed. You press the pedal as much as you need to get to set speed.
However, if I wanted to get faster acceleration out of a turn, in traffic or 50 to 100mph, I'd use PWR mode, because the butterfly would open more for less pedal input, the transmission would respond faster and I'd have to brake less because the trans would down shift in a shorter time.
Now this is really important,.... Was the normal Vs PWR mode acceleration data from gernsby done with ETC mode on or off? It's been too long ago for me to remember!
Gawd, I hope I haven't started a new war,...please forgive me :-)