Well I agree it is a PCM issue, but what are the chances of getting THAT fixed, since apparently these computers are not reflashable? I program computers for a living, and I'd love to get my hands on the code for this computer, but again what are the chances? My car acted as if there were two separate computer events: one telling the transmission to disengage 2nd gear at about 2600 RPM, and the second telling it to engage 3rd at 3000 RPM, so the flare happened over the 400 RPM range from 2600 to 3000. Under harder but still moderate acceleration, the "disengage 2nd gear" event was delayed until 3000 RPM and there was no flare. So that gave the the idea (after several years!) To fake out the computer by tweaking the TPS to simulate harder acceleration. Strangely enough, it not only raised the RPM for "disengage 2nd" but seemed to lower the RPM for "engage 3rd". Bringing the two together made it all better.
I'm intrigued by the earlier poster who got good results by using a potentiometer to simulate lower resistance (higher coolant temperature) at the ECT sensor. A jumper between the two sensor leads, with the proper resistor, could (I think) change the resistance of the sensor circuit appropriately. Again, it's a way to fake out the computer, but it sounds like it could give cleaner results than the TPS adjustment. Guess I'll have to do some direct-current-physics research to find the proper resistor -- high school physics is pretty far behind me now, so I think it can be done but I don't remember the equations!
Monday, September 10th, 2012 AT 11:19 PM