Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Perhaps you could try moving the vacuum (trigger) for the BOV from the plenum (stock location) to a splitter off the turbo (the one that goes to the wastegater/boost controller).

This MIGHT do 2 things:

1. cause the BOV to open a little earlier ,and

2. perhaps there is a bigger pressure ripple near the turbo outlet pipe that will pop open the BOV with the small pressure differential. (1-2psi)

This shouldn't be too hard to test, let us know how it goes.

To reiterate, you should find the small pressure hose that goes from the BOV to the back of the plenum. Take the plenum end off and plumb it back in as close to the turbo (yet after the compressor) as possible- possibly off a splitter from the boost signal. (Remember to plug the outlet on the plenum).

It might also be that the BOV simply won't budge with such a small pressure change.

OR, it might not be a BOV issue at all.

I'm not an expert, just trying to think it through.

I am using SSQV HKS Blowoff valve and with EVC 5 Boost controller on my 34GTT. The only way to make this jerk dissapear is to reduce the gain on the EVC, however doing this you will not be able to reach you pre-selected boost since the gain is to compensate it. Though this would only happen when my boost is set at .75 to .85 bar. Anything lower then there is no jerk at all. To work around this, i set my boost higher (.8 bar) but still remain the gain setting to reach my .75 bar.

I was told that the boost climb up too fast that we get a slight surge so the ECU will cut the fuel or ignition. Just my 2 cent.

Have a look at the values in those load points for both ignition and fuel. I find quite often that dyno tuners don't pay much attention to off throttle load points. So they leave "untuned" points where there are large changes in values between adjoining load points. Look to have some progression, like 15, 18, 22, 25........not 15, 25, 25, 25 etc. The engine doesn't like 10 degrees changes in ignition timing between 2 load points or 40% more/less fuel.

Reversion with a GCG high flow, I don't think so. I have never seen it and I am personally on my 5th GCG high flow on RB20's, RB25's and RB25 Neos. Plus about 20 or so more that I have tuned. They are simply not that big a turbo.

:) cheers :domokun:

Thanks SK. I just had a look at the hand controller. On the fuel maps there is a jump from 100 to 114 going from load point 9 to 10 in the lower rpm range.

That only corresponds to 14% increase does it? Not close the 40% you are referring to

Doesn't seem linear like the other cells.

Anyone able to tell me if this is normal?

The airflow is jumping around with a very steady throttle input...

Short clip of Airflow jumping around

Edited by benl1981

I think SK has it. I used to have a pretty much perfect tune til I messed with it. Later I got someone to touch it up. He removed quite a bit of fuel in some low load points. That seemed to introduce this jerk you guys are talking about.

I was going to (one day :)) tempoararily richen the whole map to test if it was simply the AFR but I see now it might just be the difference between tuning points.

As I think I said previously.. when i get this little jerk my load points increase, tracked down to the afm being disturbed by the plumb back bov or no bov (when I blocked it off the problem became worse). So watch the map trace when it does it and see if your issue is the same as mine. :)

A larger and or slightly longer afm to turbo pipe 100% sorts this problem.

BUT SK may be on the ball with his suggestion to check the tuning.

Cubes did you fix your problem with a longer pipe. THere isn't that much room there though.

Yes I see mine spiking down vey high on the map trace when this happens sometimes. 4800mv by 3000rpm - I don't think so!

What sort of turbo do you have cubes?

Also,

Can other people tell me when they look at there map trace if they give it a bit in 2nd or 3rd for a few seconds (till about 4000rpm) then back off does the map trace jump straight back right up the top. Mine jumps through some other load points on the way, then once it hits the top it sometimes jumps down again for a second even though the throttle is still fully closed. Not sure if it did this with the stock turbo.

At lower load points when I back off it jumps straight back up the top.

Thanks

Edited by benl1981

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...