Multiecuscan

MES 4.6 does identify the Quadrifoglio’s Torque Vectoring Differential and purports to log data from it. However, the data I logged on a drive this morning is, in the main, nonsense.

Actual and Required Coupling Torque are always -6,250,000Nm
Left Coupling Torque is generally very close to that value, but had infrequent very short lived excursions to -164,000,000Nm. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered Mega Newton metres before!
The Left and Right Actuators are 180 degrees ±0.5 and there is no apparent correlation between the actuator readings and the Coupling Torque data.
The left clutch wear is reported as 67.2 and right as 279.2. No units are given.
I was driving in RACE and on some bends used a fair amount of throttle, sufficient I would have thought, for torque vectoring to have come into play. Though I may have to try harder, perhaps in the wet.
I’ve no reason to suppose there’s anything wrong with my car. It seems certain that MES 4.6 isn’t interpreting some TVM data correctly. Logged temperature data seems reasonable.

If any other Quadrifoglio owner with MES 4.6 has time to take recordings for comparison with mine, I’d be interested to hear.

Andy

I’ve had another go at recording TVM data using MES 4.6. This time I am certain that Torque Vectoring was operating and I’ve been able to make more sense of the logged data.
All recorded Requested and Actual Coupling Torque values are integer multiples of -2500 with over 80% of values equal to -6,250,000 or -2,500^2.
I’ve concluded that converting the recorded values by the formula 1+(x/6,250,000) seems appropriate. With my recording lasting about 30 minutes, that results in values in the range ± about 0.3.
I deduce that the Coupling Torque values indicate the amount or proportion of torque which is fed into the Torque Vectoring system. A negative value is possible because, according to an official Quadrifoglio training manual, Torque Vectoring can take effect in overrun situations.
The Left and Right Coupling Torque values are much more difficult to comprehend. Some are integer multiples of 6,250,000, but about half are not. Examination of the values would suggest that many are spurious noise. Most of the spurious values seem to be <-3E7. Discarding all apparently spurious values and applying the formula -2500 - (x/2500) gives values which correlate quite well with the actuator data.