Pulsar XT for 2.0L Available Now

[TrailSnail]

Thank you both for the updates!

Sponsored

 

[jason0341]

I’m interested in this product
, but only if it works with my Tazer mini. I love being able to disconnect my swaybar at any time with swaykill, and lockers in 2H and 4H.

 

[bdb5430]

I’m interested in this product
, but only if it works with my Tazer mini. I love being able to disconnect my swaybar at any time with swaykill, and lockers in 2H and 4H.

I have both and the Tazer works fine with the Pulsar. The only problem is that you can’t really access the Tazer menu while the Pulsar is plugged in because the controls are similar. This means set it and forget it options work fine when both are plugged in, but you can’t access things like 0-60 while the Pulsar is plugged in. I installed the factory aux panel this weekend and I had to unplug the Pulsar to turn on AUX. It’s not a big deal for me because I don’t really use the active menu options of the Tazer, just the Parksense disable, AUX and lockers.

 

[jason0341]

I have both and the Tazer works fine with the Pulsar. The only problem is that you can’t really access the Tazer menu while the Pulsar is plugged in because the controls are similar. This means set it and forget it options work fine when both are plugged in, but you can’t access things like 0-60 while the Pulsar is plugged in. I installed the factory aux panel this weekend and I had to unplug the Pulsar to turn on AUX. It’s not a big deal for me because I don’t really use the active menu options of the Tazer, just the Parksense disable, AUX and lockers.

Thanks for the info. I do use it view boost here and there but mostly just swaykill and lockers. If I can still access those and the pulsar then I’m definitely interested. I’ll just set tire and TPMS via Pulsar.

 

[Avar928]

Following and pretty interested in this. Still using factory plugs? No need for colder plugs since the gains are modest?

 

[Mike@Powerteq]

Following and pretty interested in this. Still using factory plugs? No need for colder plugs since the gains are modest?

Correct, no plug change required here.

 

[jmccorm]

It seemed to happen right around 4k RPM immediately after the shift, within the 2.0's peak torque range. Torque limiter is my bet too - likely the PCM cutting the fuel.

I went through a reference to see what data identifiers under the unified diagnostic services were out there that potentially defined, enabled, or reported on torque limits. Nothing found in the BCM, DTCM, or PCM. But there were a number of hits in the TCM, which made some sense. I didn't go any further than just looking for names. These are the identifiers I came across:

Connected Driver Torque Demand (Nm), and Driver Requested Engine Torque Modified (Nm): This could be related to a torque limiter (and showing when a limit has been hit), but there seem to be better candidates.

Engine Torque Request Maximum (Nm) : Seems like a straightforward limit on maximum torque.

Factor of Reduction from Maximum Torque (Nm): Seems to report on how much it wants engine torque to be reduced by.

Maximum Engine Torque Desired (Nm): Seems like another worthy candidate. No way to tell if it is a static or a dynamic number without monitoring it.

Maximum Engine Torque Requested by Transmission: Seems like another potential winner.

Target Torque - Transmission Torque Request (Nm): May be another variable worth monitoring.

Torque Reduction (Nm): Seems to be a read-only variable that reports on an active request to reduce torque.

Transmission Torque Intervention (Nm) and Transmission Torque Status: Appear to be two more variables used for reporting.

Transmission Torque Ratio: Could be a way to work around the limits, but this may already be what's directly/indirectly modified by Tazer and other tools which allow you to change your gear ratios.

Allow Transmission Torque Request: Might be way to turn off the limit altogether, but you'd have to watch for side-effects.

My knowledge of these variables is limited, and there's probably no good way of knowing if they'll be helpful or not without actually digging into them. If your vendor is interested in knowing more, having them PM me and I'll do my best to point them in the right direction.

PS: It really sounds like a supercharger when it's dumping boost, doesn't it?

 

[bdb5430]

I went through a reference to see what data identifiers under the unified diagnostic services were out there that potentially defined, enabled, or reported on torque limits. Nothing found in the BCM, DTCM, or PCM. But there were a number of hits in the TCM, which made some sense. I didn't go any further than just looking for names. These are the identifiers I came across:

Connected Driver Torque Demand (Nm), and Driver Requested Engine Torque Modified (Nm): This could be related to a torque limiter (and showing when a limit has been hit), but there seem to be better candidates.

Engine Torque Request Maximum (Nm) : Seems like a straightforward limit on maximum torque.

Factor of Reduction from Maximum Torque (Nm): Seems to report on how much it wants engine torque to be reduced by.

Maximum Engine Torque Desired (Nm): Seems like another worthy candidate. No way to tell if it is a static or a dynamic number without monitoring it.

Maximum Engine Torque Requested by Transmission: Seems like another potential winner.

Target Torque - Transmission Torque Request (Nm): May be another variable worth monitoring.

Torque Reduction (Nm): Seems to be a read-only variable that reports on an active request to reduce torque.

Transmission Torque Intervention (Nm) and Transmission Torque Status: Appear to be two more variables used for reporting.

Transmission Torque Ratio: Could be a way to work around the limits, but this may already be what's directly/indirectly modified by Tazer and other tools which allow you to change your gear ratios.

Allow Transmission Torque Request: Might be way to turn off the limit altogether, but you'd have to watch for side-effects.

My knowledge of these variables is limited, and there's probably no good way of knowing if they'll be helpful or not without actually digging into them. If your vendor is interested in knowing more, having them PM me and I'll do my best to point them in the right direction.

PS: It really sounds like a supercharger when it's dumping boost, doesn't it?

This is super helpful, thank you! I will pass this on to the engineer.

And yes, it does sound like a supercharger dumping boost.

 

[Avar928]

Any other experiences from users? In the buying mood for car parts and mods, already getting maintenance items for my restoration project (928) and looking to treat my 2.0 a little

 

[deitrick1]

I have the Pulsar XT on my 2020 JL Rubicon (2dr automatic). I do not have the issue you are talking about. It works great, BUT I installed a GFB DV+ (using the main spring GFB provides) before I installed the XT which may be preventing me from 'dumping' the boost. Also have a stock air cleaner right now.

The only issue I had with the XT was the initial install. The ECU lost apps on the 8.4 Nav.The support team was VERY fast to respond, telling me it could take up to 24 hours for the ECU to reset. And within hours, everything was back to normal and working like a champ. Very happy with the unit. The rig gets up and MOVES when you ask it to. And like they have said, you feel it along most, if not all, of the RPM range.

Worth every penny.

 

[deitrick1]

Oh yeah, all this on 37's!!!

 

[bdb5430]

I have the Pulsar XT on my 2020 JL Rubicon (2dr automatic). I do not have the issue you are talking about. It works great, BUT I installed a GFB DV+ (using the main spring GFB provides) before I installed the XT which may be preventing me from 'dumping' the boost. Also have a stock air cleaner right now.

The only issue I had with the XT was the initial install. The ECU lost apps on the 8.4 Nav.The support team was VERY fast to respond, telling me it could take up to 24 hours for the ECU to reset. And within hours, everything was back to normal and working like a champ. Very happy with the unit. The rig gets up and MOVES when you ask it to. And like they have said, you feel it along most, if not all, of the RPM range.

Worth every penny.

Funny you mention GFB. I had a feeling the DV might have been dumping boost so I bought the GFB DV+ and installed it last week. I need to do a little more stress testing, but I think this might have done the trick. I'm guessing my mods plus elevation may have been maxing out the stock DV on the top level tunes from the Pulsar.

Edit - I should also mention that the Banks CAI may have been contributing to the issue as well. It seems to be happy with the stock air box and the DV+ for now.

 

[Avar928]

Mine should arrive Wednesday, just pulled the trigger. Pretty excited, as well as the ability to now change the TPMS settings. Running GB DV+, Mishi CAI and IC so interested to see how they all work together.

 

[OverIsland]

Mine should arrive Wednesday, just pulled the trigger. Pretty excited, as well as the ability to now change the TPMS settings. Running GB DV+, Mishi CAI and IC so interested to see how they all work together.

Have you ever had an CEL's? I have the DV+, an S&B intake and a Mishi catch can and getting a reoccurring P2C90 code. I have read some people with the 2.0 with this code replace the crankcase pressure switch and having luck

 

[Avar928]

Have you ever had an CEL's? I have the DV+, an S&B intake and a Mishi catch can and getting a reoccurring P2C90 code. I have read some people with the 2.0 with this code replace the crankcase pressure switch and having luck

Knock on wood no error codes with this set up. I had the DV+ first, fine. Added the IC pipe also fine, then the CAI when it came out.

Sponsored