I know how to set it when the tb is in the car. But my car is out of commission and my throttle body is sitting in the next room. I was wondering if there is any way of setting it when it is off the car?
about TPS voltage..
- Thread starter TheRedBlur
- Start date
the 94/95 tb dosent need to be set
it takes a base reading when the car is turned on and works from that
it takes a base reading when the car is turned on and works from that
bill302
Active Member
he's talking about setting the throttle position sensor(tps) without the throttle body(tb) being installed in the car... the tps does need to be set but i don't know a way to do it unless the tps is installed on the throttle body and the tps plugged into harness on vehicle...i think urban96 misunderstood the question....urban96 said:
BlackVert
15 Year Member
nope, urban96 is right. when you turn on the car, the computer reads the voltage and takes that as the closed value
bill302
Active Member
o.k are you saying when installed the tps is automatically set at .98-.99 volts if not can you explain i'm a little confused...or does the computer read where the volts are at and calls that voltage closed and/or is it not recommended to set tps at .98-.99 volts and i thought this is what urban96 was talking about...setting the tps at .98-.99 volts without throttle body being in the car.BlackVert said:
This is always a nice source of debate. The 94-95 computers baseline the TPS reading upon start-up (so long as it's within tolerance - if not a limit code is generated). This IS TRUE ON MAF FOXES too, though no one ever believes it (per Probst).
Some guys think the car performs a little better when the TPS is dialed-in right on the edge of the closed throttle voltage limit. It's free to do, so I say go for it. It is necessary to do? Shouldnt be.
Some guys think the car performs a little better when the TPS is dialed-in right on the edge of the closed throttle voltage limit. It's free to do, so I say go for it. It is necessary to do? Shouldnt be.
BlackVert said:
that's crazy, but wouldn't the sensor peg at WOT if the voltage was a bit high when closed?
It would require pressing less far into the gas pedal to achieve WOT TPS values.TheRedBlur said:
Not sure on SN's, but they used to sell a harness for foxes that basically required less pedal depression to achieve WOT (on a fox, this happens at about 2.7 volts above the baseline setting).
BlackVert
15 Year Member
ok then. think what you want.TheRedBlur said:
here's an example. let's say the tps reads .81 at startup. that is .19 below 1.0, the "reference" value. in its main loop, when the eec reads the tps, it takes the value it gets (e.g. 1.34) and it adds .19 to it, to get 1.53. that is the value it uses.
if the initial value is, say 1.17, then the eec would subtract .17 from whatever it reads and use that.
doesn't seem too crazy to me.
right, although I am drunk as hell, I see your point. however, my engine runs waay to rich at idle, rich to the point of stall. which means it wouldn't go under, it would read WOT at 3/4 instead of 4/4.. can you dig? I do understant that the 94-95 computer is adaptive, but if the sensors are out of range, yet still funciton, th ecomputer will have a hell of a time. Can I set my TPS (regeardless if it needs to be done or not), can I do it wthout the connector disconnectged? w/o wire probes?
BlackVert
15 Year Member
i don't know how you would do that, sorry.TheRedBlur said:
but you would probably also have to elongate the bolt holes because they are not designed to support adjusting the tps
your rich condition is most likely the tune. did you get a chip burned or are you doing it yourself?
OT: is your sig an excerpt from "Catcher in the Rye"? Great book! Good old Holden ...
mo_dingo
20+ Year Stangneter 
TheRedBlur said:
You have to have the tps installed, as well as the connector installed. YOu also have to backprobe the wires. No other way.
Remember, anything over 2.7V is considered WOT, so even if you are at 3/4 throttle, it's considered WOT. So a little tweaking of the tps won't change that. The little bit you can adjust the TPS will not make it go out of range. And this will not change your a/f ratio by any means.
Scott
Does it only require 2.7 TPS volts to be considered WOT, or is it 2.7 volts in addition to the baseline reading (like as on a fox, as I posted above)? 2.7 total sig return volts seems a bit low to me.
I had read that the two WOT thresholds (fox and 5N95) were very similar, but it wouldnt be the first time bad info was floating around.
I had read that the two WOT thresholds (fox and 5N95) were very similar, but it wouldnt be the first time bad info was floating around.
I know Probst put it at 2.7v but I don't recall that he qualified if that was on top of the base setting or if it was total voltage (including base setting).
Here's a post by S&2B's (I don't know him, nor have I talked with him, but he seems to have a decent handle on things). He indicates that it's 2.7 volts plus "turn on" voltage (turn-on voltage = the baseline ~1 volt, I presume).
http://forums.stangnet.com/showpost.php?p=5869635&postcount=8
I'd note that all the info in this post is fox-specific, in case someone knows the 94-95 TPS function to be different.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showpost.php?p=5869635&postcount=8
I'd note that all the info in this post is fox-specific, in case someone knows the 94-95 TPS function to be different.
interesting stuff. I thought it might be a good idea to set the tps because I knew a couple of people who set them and had much better driveability. 
but really, the problem is having a cam with 274in and 282ex durations on a stock chip lol.
but really, the problem is having a cam with 274in and 282ex durations on a stock chip lol.
I like his style of writing, very conversational.
mo_dingo
20+ Year Stangneter
HISSIN50 said:
Hmmm...well I guess I need to datalog w/ my tweecer and see where the threshold lies....
scott
FlyBy763
Member
If the computer automatically sets to the voltage why do I get check engine lights about my TPS voltage? It doesnt happen at startup, just while driving. Not trying to argue, just curious.
Similar threads
