Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Got a quick question.

We were on the dyno the other night with my mates 32, we upped the boost from 1.1bar (strong, flatline 1.1 with no dropoff) to 1.4bar had a nice increase in torque and power (around 220kw) but, after boost ramps up nicely to 1.4, it slowly drops all the way to 1.1 by redline. Its as if the turbo is running out of puff.

Currently running a HKS 2530 63T with 0.64 housing, Tomei 260 cams (timing unknown at this point, but EX looks to be retarded for nice midrange judging by the CAS), HKS Adjustable actuator adjusted to achieve 1.4 bar with no bleed off, PowerFC. We previously had a mech bleed valve with actautor set to 1bar, did the same thing.

After viewing plenty of RB20 dyno sheets it seems common that people have boost drop across the revrange, so im betting on an EBC but just thought id get some input cos theyre not exactly cheap.

Must we run a EBC to control the boost? Im doubting it but could it be the cam timing affecting the boost so dramatically? Should we '0' the cams? Theyre the only other thing untouched.

Cheers!

Mat.

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I dont know much, just curious, but did i read correctly, that when the wastegate is adjusted the issue goes away? ", HKS Adjustable actuator adjusted to achieve 1.4 bar with no bleed off,"

i paid under 100$ for a hks EVC 4

The actuator is adjusted to give 1.4, what I mean is that the signal hose is connected directly from the comp cover to the actuator with nothing in-line. With this setup we still have the boost dropping.

Exhaust consists of a Long split front/dump, so long it joins at the cat, straight from japan, ultra-flow cat, and super dragger with resonator replaced for pipe.

Intake is a brand new PWR cooler, Apexi suction kit suit z32.

So i think all of that should be fine.

outta interest what rpm peak power at ?? mines higher than most ive seen obv due to cams and not alot of timing in there

6600 / 6700 peak for mine 264 in / ex hks cams

wot diff does 260 tomei's get ? gather quicker spooling as less duration?

From what I remember its around 6000, dont quote me though.

If you have adjustable cam gears then you should able to dial up the cams so as they bring the power on quicker, make the most of the cams you have.

Easy way to work out if it's the boost controller or not is to watch the wastegate flap on the dyno while the boost begins to drop.

If the flap is opening more as the boost drops then the wastegate or boost controller is the issue however if the flap stays constant or even begins to close then I'd say the compressor is simply out of flow.

6000+RPM on an RB20 with a GT2530 is getting very close to the end of the compressor map.

Easy way to work out if it's the boost controller or not is to watch the wastegate flap on the dyno while the boost begins to drop.

If the flap is opening more as the boost drops then the wastegate or boost controller is the issue however if the flap stays constant or even begins to close then I'd say the compressor is simply out of flow.

6000+RPM on an RB20 with a GT2530 is getting very close to the end of the compressor map.

Good advice. thanks.

Don't know much about GT2835's.

I'm gunna stick with this turbo coz it's great... providing I can get it to hold boost above 6500rpm

Engine is great. on 14psi for the last 3.5yrs that I've owned it and I've given it absolute curry every time I take it to the track. It loves it. 7900rpm all the time.

I've just bought a AVC-R and I think we're tuning tonight. We'll post up how it goes.

running 2835 would be like running a garrett 2871r - 3071r wouldnt it ? would make the power but larger exhaust housing would prob at the the rb20's classic lag problems ??

i run the above setup too ... car used basically track only... friggin good setup.. not too laggy except for small motokana tracks but anything else as said when on boost it holds right to limiter all day everyday and is very smooth

^^^^ let me know the results

I was going to tell you to go with a GIZZMO MS-IBC Russel but it seems it's to late now. I will have a look at my dyno graph from when I had my R32 tuned, was running HKS actuator with a AVCR but slightly different turbo, HKS2535 which is just a step up from what your running but same rear housing from memory so would be pretty close

From memory my turbo held power up to around 7200rpm but don't have the graph with me, will check when I get back. I remember putting a little extra per load on the actuator which helped boost controll but over all it wasn't the best

My AVCR spiked and ran like crap no matter how much we played with it

Cheers all for the help.

The AVC-R is a good unit, we were able to obtain a dead flat horizontal boost pressure with one of these boost controllers on a 3071R equipped SR (pretty hard hitting turbo), so hopefully, we can achieve the same on the RB20 with a good combo of preload and AVC-R settings.

Will let you all know how we go with it.

Grab a 2530 and look in the exhaust housing. The volute of the housing is tiny, Now put your hand over the exhaust at 6,000rpm and feel the air coming out. When you get so much back pressure in the exhaust housing perhaps its limiting the engines ability to hold boost at high rpm/cfm ?!?!?!??!

I dont know what that all means but a consideration

The HKS GT2530 is nearly identical to the Garrett GT2860RS.

Calculating the airflow of an RB20 at 1.4bar (assmuming 90% VE @ redline) results in approximately 43lb/min.

If you have a look at the compressor map of the GT2860RS you will see that 42lb/min at a pressure ratio of 2.4 is outside the compressor's rated operating region:

gt2860RS_739548_comp_e.gif

If you recalculate the airflow assuming boost of only 1.1bar, then at 8000rpm the engine is demanding 37lb/min of air. This is right on the max end of the compressor's map.

I'd say this is the problem man. The compressor is simply too small, and the boost is bleeding back to the region where the compressor is efficient at that rpm; 1.1bar.

Edited by Equinox

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...