Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I'm bound to have spoken to some of you about this issue I have been fighting for a while but now I feel compelled to try and really get it nutted out, the lack of lower-midrange torque is starting to frustrate.

Anyway, the short of it is that my internally gated GT3076R (yeah yeah I know...) opens starts to open wastegate before it reaches the desired boost level - which induces a reasonable amount of lag any time I step on the throttle. Here is the best way I can demonstrate how it behaves when I am targetting 15psi:

Boost280kw.png

Obviously I would much prefer it to hit and hold 15psi instead of pissing around from 11psi to 15psi. I have tried an AVC-R and a bleed valve as different kinds of boost control which help SLIGHTLY but definitely don't fix it, and I am currently trialling a dual-port actuator which so far does the exact same thing. Today I decided that to rule out the possibility that the reason it spools lazily is a boost leak or some other issue elsewhere, I'd do a quick run to 3500rpm with the actuator hose removed to see how much it builds and my result is:

12082009065.jpg

So clearly the turbo and setup is capable of building 1+bar well before the 5000ish rpm I am stuck with at the moment, but the trick is making it do so without free boosting. Any one have any ideas? It may help reduce some stress here :ninja:

Cheers!

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh right - so your GT2871R behaved like I am describing and was actually resolved in the end with preload? OK I will max out the preload tomorrow and take it for a drive. The other thing I have considered is using the "Norgren" boost control setup Autospeed wrote up a while ago for their Audi, if anyone has any thoughts on it?

Yep mine did that and more preload helped a bit but the thing that fixed it once and for all was enlarging the tiny internal wastegate hole.

Enlarged wastegate hole helped spool? I would have thought it would only help fight creep? I actually have a "big flap" internally gated housing - its not a tiny one.

I think somehow we are forgetting what an actuator does? An actuator does not snap open @ 'x' preset boost level, If an actuator is rated @ say 8psi then it will be fully open @ 8psi however it will gradually open up from much lower pressure. The whole idea of an actuator is to create a linear onset of power. Simply increasing the the preload will increase the boost rating of the actuator not necessarily help with response...

The only way to fix the problem and have ALL your boost hold until 'x' desired level is to fit either a mechanical one way pneumatic valve before the actuator or use an EBC (which is basically the latter but with other fancy crap added to it and in cabin control...)

If you soley rely on the actuator you will never have your turbo's true response potential, however you will have a much smoother increase in power and provide your driveline with less hassle. Depends what you want.

i had the same problem with my gtr with twin t517z as soon as i tryed running more the 18 psi couldnt fix tryed three diferent ebc all i could get the ebc to do was move the spyke in the rev range

in the end i bought 1.5 bar actuators worked a treat maby try buying a 1 bar actuater

Enlarged wastegate hole helped spool? I would have thought it would only help fight creep?

it did both because with creep sorted, u can run more preload and/or reduce the boost the actuator sees (increase boost) but still have the same boost up high. I can't explain it very well.

I think somehow we are forgetting what an actuator does?

...

or use an EBC (which is basically the latter but with other fancy crap added to it and in cabin control...)

One of the reasons threads like this can go in circles, or seem like people are missing things is when people don't read the original posters posts clearly - you obviously missed the 800x600 image of the Apexi AVC-R EBC I have been using to fight this issue :( I have been almost tempted to get a ball valve to put on the feed to the AVC-R/actuator... though I really don't think I should have to consider that.

it did both because with creep sorted, u can run more preload and/or reduce the boost the actuator sees (increase boost) but still have the same boost up high. I can't explain it very well.

Oh yep, that makes sense - creep hasn't been an issue, its just the bringing boost up at the start which is and I have my preload maxed out :)

Edited by Lithium

I hadn't but just had a hunt around and found it, dammit I wish I found that before I bought my AVC-R :) It was actually vs the PFC boost control, but presumably the same thing.

Edited by Lithium

Hey Man good to see the old girl still running. It was because of you I went with the Garrett housing on my 3071. Yes, it's a .82 and I can assure you your problem has nothing to do with the actuator control. Nismoid was close on this one when he said wind in some more preload. I have to ask if you have a 14lb actuator or the 7lb. If it is a 14 then it should be ok. If not then that right there is the problem.

Your compressor and therefore your engine is pushing enough boost through the waste gate flap to force it open. Stronger spring is required, simple. I had the same issue till I bought a 14lb actuator. I did that the second time I tuned it with the new setup and fixed it. A boost controller will only bleed air away from the actuator but it is the spring that controls the waste gate itself. Stronger spring, stronger waste gate control. You've got to love external waste gates for this very reason. Why do we continually use boost controllers when a spring will do the job better. All a boost controller dose is fine tune when the boost comes in and helps to stop spikes and such. If your running 15lbs then you need a 14lb actuator. If running 18lbs then get a 17lb actuator.

Oh, and the diaphragms in these actuator things can start losing control after a time and thats another reason external is better but like you I like the stealth of an internal waste gate.

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...