Has anyone ever tried to convert from our drive by wire to regular cable? Reason is that I'm tired of that crappy delay I have when I hit the gas before the tb actually opens. It's just getting to the point of me wanting to change it for instant throttle response. It's really weird too, like if I'm in gear the throttle response is perfect, but if I'm in neutral or the clutch is in it has the delay. Who knows... Some problems with the drive by cable that I can think of is first off what tb to use? A need for an IAC and how to program it to run with it. Etc. This is just the beginning of things to work out but is this possible with HPT? Or with HPT can you just work out the throttle response with the drive by wire? Just looking for some ideas.

 

i think that if you did find a tb to use and got it mounted up, run the cable ect. the ecu would go nuts. you would have to do a stand alone setup, i think, to program the ecu not to look for all the tb signal and accel. pedal signal. but hell if you figure it out let me know i hate the gm fly by wire setup.

 

The part I'm worried about is the idle control (IAC). I don't know how to incorporate one so the pcm could read it. Maybe there is just something to do w/hpt to work out the bugs of the stock setup. Or maybe compare files and copy some things from a n/a 2.2 as they (at least the cavaliers) use a cable. Hmm..

 

Direct replacement throttle assembly for cable driven throttle.
Roush Industries part # 30-412-0020

 

The 2.2 Cobalts have an electronic throttle same as the 2.0.

 

I guess that counts out that way

And about that part #, do you have the link for the website?

 

All J-bodies are mechanical throttle body by the way

But I would be more worried about the computer not being able to control the throttle position and it freaking out and going into limp mode (which it will more than likely do because it will think there is something wrong).

Unless you have another engine management system, than I'd probably look elsewhere.

 

Since I don't have hpt I don't know what parameters you have control over. It would be awesome if it did have the power to control/delete the electronic tb totally. However I'm pretty sure there isn't anything like that on there. You would have to try and figure out a way to trick it into thinking it's still working and also be in sync with the tps off the new tb. I guess it's really not worth it unless someone figures out how to do that. So on to my next possibility, can you do anything with HPT to get rid of that delay in the stock system?

 

Good question but I don't know if you can. Never messed with HPT.

 

I was also wondering this and wanted to know if it could be done

 

It was brought up once before I thought, the conclusion was Witt saying that there is no real adjustment for the throttle response, only that you could tweak some of the other parameters and do trial-error until it got better. Its not gonna be simple, easy, or maybe even possible.

 

Also remember too that if your computer can't control the throttle position or tell what the throttle position, it can't tell what engine load it is (Load = Throttle Position + RPMs) so it can't tell what to do as far as Fuel Enrichment.

 

That's why you would have to totally delete it from your programming or trick it somehow. With the first being the best way. I just wish gm didn't use it

 

OMG, are you just wanting to do this so you can "Rev up" on somebody?

 

Well it's the best way for a manufacturer to have control and be precise especially when it comes to gas mileage/fuel consumption.

 

Exactly, the proliferation of drive-by-wire is due to emissions constraints, it allows precise air/fuel control and lowers hydrocarbon emissions. You won't see it go away, and if its tuned correctly it can be faster than cable, but all the applications now are for emissions, not response. The C6 Vette, I know the Z06 but im not sure on the regular one, they use a variable, speed regulated throttle response map. Throttle opening is slower and more progressive at slower speeds, to give more precision control mid-corner or in a similar situation. As speeds climb, the response gets very fast, more of an on-off type thing, to eliminate delayed response. That is calibrated for race type driving though, we are talking 100+mph.

 

Interesting...didn't know that.

 

Yeah, I learned some neat stuff working at Chevy.

 

Yup, you got me. Cause I couldn't just rev it regularly Actually I wanted to fix it because I hate that delay and how it effects driveability. As in when pulling out from a stop, you have to judge it kind of funny because it won't give it gas right away. This coupled with the insanely high pedal grab of our clutch has made me ride the clutch once in a while.

You would still have to run a TPS on the new setup.

Didn't know that. I really hate emissions. California has to ruin it for everyone

 

It's not just that you have a TPS but the computer can control to a point of how much fuel to give per Throttle Position to a "T".

 

While it may have an obvious advantage over the "old" tps cable systems, cars have been running fine (and tuned great) before this ever came into play. So I don't see it as a real great advantage in terms of car performance. It seems (like stated by someone else), that it's just more for emissions because of this accuracy. They'll change something to make it more compliant even if it makes .0000000000001% better for hydrocarbons it seems

Either way it seems that this isn't plausable right now since HPT probably doesn't have the correct parameters to work this out anyway. Our only "fix" is to get HPT and try and mess with it to smoothen out that delay with the DBW. Sound like a good summary?

 

Actually I wasn't talking about in terms of performance but in terms of emissions and the manufacturers control.

 

Gotcha