Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

See this is where you need to get yourself one of those home grown LINK's Lithium. Could have logged it all fully and had a nice graph. Video was a shocker :devil: I'll take your word it was better, and it stands to reason it should be with the norgren doing its job.

I guess the reality is, if you had an electronic controller that COMPLETELY kept the boost away from the actuator till just before the level your trying to obtain (obviously this varies with each setup due to spiking etc) , then it would obtain the same results.

I guess thats why i liked the Eboost2, as you can actually adjust the 'set' point it holds boost off till. Duty and gain and set point are user adjustable.

Without whacking a CRO on the solenoids of any controller you can only guess whats really going on.

Once my new motor is built, i'll do some testing on the dyno to gauge absoloute best responce (ie plumb boost to top port of ext gate and remove bottom boost supply) , then see what the gizzmo can achieve once a baseline is established

Getting the best case scenario is the most important thing..... how many times do people on here post up boost responce from a certain combo, yet without knowing the best case, its hard to know if thats as good as it gets or not. Remember , tune comes into it alot also, not just the equiptment, and exhaust etc etc .

Look forward to the new dyno boost graphs to compare Lith, once car is ready to go back.

Just thinking about this, to achieve the same results as the Norgren Lith, all i would do is use an Aux output from the LINK G4 (or your pref choice ecu) to drive the same boost solenoid the (xxx) boost controller is using, and then set that Aux to be constantly on until it reached (xx) boost level, once there it turns off and the (xxx) boost controller is back in control ! :( Cost nothing but a little time (less than plumbing in the norgren and mounting it)

Gary

Edited by Fastrotor
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I guess the reality is, if you had an electronic controller that COMPLETELY kept the boost away from the actuator till just before the level your trying to obtain (obviously this varies with each setup due to spiking etc) , then it would obtain the same results.

Exactly - the fact that disconnecting the actuator boost signal brought the boost on earlier means the EBC is clearly not doing its job. If the primary problem was with the actuator spring tension this wouldnt have happened.

That valve is just making up for a crappy EBC AFAICT

Of course if you increase the wastegate size you may need to increase the actuator spring stiffness to compensate, as force = pressure x area.

Forces opening wastegate: exhaust against wastegate flapper and boost against actuator diaphragm

Forces closing wastegate: actuator spring (or if you have one of those dual port actuators that you posted up, the other side of the actuator diaphragm)

Exactly - the fact that disconnecting the actuator boost signal brought the boost on earlier means the EBC is clearly not doing its job. If the primary problem was with the actuator spring tension this wouldnt have happened.

That valve is just making up for a crappy EBC AFAICT

Yep agreed, a bit annoyed as the AVC-R was supposed to be a flash wee piece of equipment.

  • 2 weeks later...
See this is where you need to get yourself one of those home grown LINK's Lithium. Could have logged it all fully and had a nice graph. Video was a shocker ;) I'll take your word it was better, and it stands to reason it should be with the norgren doing its job.

Look forward to the new dyno boost graphs to compare Lith, once car is ready to go back.

Just thinking about this, to achieve the same results as the Norgren Lith, all i would do is use an Aux output from the LINK G4 (or your pref choice ecu) to drive the same boost solenoid the (xxx) boost controller is using, and then set that Aux to be constantly on until it reached (xx) boost level, once there it turns off and the (xxx) boost controller is back in control ! :D Cost nothing but a little time (less than plumbing in the norgren and mounting it)

Yeah this is one of the reasons I don't want to spend big money on changing the boost control setup, I would like to get a G4 and use its boost control functionality and sell the AVC-R on - I have looked at the software and it is very very nice. There is the possibility of a bit of a change in my overall setup at some point too, though I'd like to wind the GT30R up first and see what it can do.

I am a bit loathed to spend much money at the moment due to the effect the economy is having on my situation so will just be doing a road tune to touch it up a bit, there was no real timing and a bunch of fuel in the zones I wasn't previously hitting so I didn't pop it while testing so hopefully that will boost the torque even more - but there is a dyno day on the 26th September which I hope to put the Skyline on, so will be able to put up some more solid results. It would be good as I don't really have a decent idea of exactly what the spool is doing myself.

I tried doing another clip just to see where it starts building from etc, this time just loading it up in 3rd so you don't lose complete view of the tacho - if you have decent sound you should be able to hear where I put it into load and how long the turbo takes to spool up. I was running 1bar here, which was reached before 3500rpm... sorry I can't reference boost at the same time :woot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxnc9uK_D0w

Just thinking about this, to achieve the same results as the Norgren Lith, all i would do is use an Aux output from the LINK G4 (or your pref choice ecu) to drive the same boost solenoid the (xxx) boost controller is using, and then set that Aux to be constantly on until it reached (xx) boost level, once there it turns off and the (xxx) boost controller is back in control ! :woot: Cost nothing but a little time (less than plumbing in the norgren and mounting it)

Gary

the other way to set up the boost control is to run the solenoid the other way so that it is NC instead of NO so no duty = max boost and high duty = minimal boost. that way the solenoid is closed and off when the turbo is building boost and then starts opening once it is on boost. though this is entirely reliant on your boost controller/ecu being mapped by duty cycle rather than set a boost level and leave it also if the solenoid/controller fails you run unlimited boost.

the other way to set up the boost control is to run the solenoid the other way so that it is NC instead of NO so no duty = max boost and high duty = minimal boost. that way the solenoid is closed and off when the turbo is building boost and then starts opening once it is on boost. though this is entirely reliant on your boost controller/ecu being mapped by duty cycle rather than set a boost level and leave it also if the solenoid/controller fails you run unlimited boost.

Yeah I don't really see the advantage it doing it that way... definitely more -'s than +'s.

it helps bring on boost faster as the wastegate has no way of opening before hitting boost. its also useful in high exhaust back pressure applications (such as antilag) where the pressure can cause the wastegate to leak/creep open

Titan,

i agree it would work, however abit dangerous, and i don't know of any controllers that work in reverse.... ie more duty for less boost, do you know of any that are able to be configured this way ?

Lith,

The G4 is an awesome bit of gear. I have the R33 plugin board, and i have also moddified it abit running some wires inside to bring out all the extra in's /out's not being used as well as using the expansion connector. However the boost controller is not active... ie you can map a 3d table to respond to boost drop etc, but its not actively tracking and correcting boost. It was supposed to be released in the latest firmware update, but alas no..... other than that, its awesome.

Gary

I will be trying it out on my vipec plugin board as the open loop boost control is based on a solenoid duty value rather than a specific boost figure.

The car has a wideband O2 sensor and display permanently hooked up (running wideband closed loop) and the check engine idiot light is set to trigger if the boost goes any more than ~3psi over what it should be.

Edited by TiTAN
it helps bring on boost faster as the wastegate has no way of opening before hitting boost. its also useful in high exhaust back pressure applications (such as antilag) where the pressure can cause the wastegate to leak/creep open

AVC-R has no option for no duty, so one way or another its going to be allowing pressure through to the actuator. I believe 20% to 90% are the options, which is a bit of a pain in the arse.

I will be trying it out on my vipec plugin board as the open loop boost control is based on a solenoid duty value rather than a specific boost figure.

The car has a wideband O2 sensor and display permanently hooked up (running wideband closed loop) and the check engine idiot light is set to trigger if the boost goes any more than ~3psi over what it should be.

Yeah you could have 100% duty until close to the boost you want , then ramp down rapidly to the correct duty, then roll off duty rapidly again if it exceeds the boost level you want. I would have tried this too, however mine was doing weird things.... like running fine at a set boost, but then suddenly dropping boost, and you had to go in and wind up the duty to get back to same boost ... weird. A local workshop has had several cars give same problems also, so we gave up on it. I've got a gizzmo MS-IBC , but i have yet to give it a good try out, since im still driving round on 5 cylinders. Once the new 3ltr is done, i'll invest some time into it.

The gizzmo has a minimun of 10% duty it seems.... none seem to allow 0% ...... maybe the eboost2 does since you can set the "set point" .... which holds off until a set boost. I will scope the duty cycle of the eboost2 next time a car comes to me with one fitted.

So can't wait for the new 3ltr to come, can't wait to see what TIP it gets with the .82 housing ! When it gets here i'll turn the boost right back up on the 25 and see what the TIP is , as i didnt get a chance to before it killed cyl1 ring land. And i can't afford to risk it until new motor is sitting here :) (it did 316rwkw with a 76psi cyl1 and no5 coil pack spring missing !! (don't ask) and all through a 3500 stall)

Gary

Oh, yeah , forgot you were going to plumb it the opposite the normal way.... but then again if your going to use open loop and have full control of the duty, why not just plumb it normal and start with 100% duty (when over idle revs say, to stop solenoid getting hot if idling)

That way you get same results, just an added saftey margin if the solenoid or wiring etc fails.

Are you using ext gate titan or internal ? i keep thinking of ext gate as thats what i use.

Gary

  • 4 weeks later...

Here is a dyno plot from a dyno day the other weekend, shows the waver I described that happens when the valve opens but basically represents a far more solid power delivery than the old curve:

lith_dyno284.jpg

Overlayed the old vs new using the SAU/Godzilla motorsports (!?) dyno database:

http://tools.godzillamotorsport.com/dyno/l...=76,108&Y=R

Also was a cool day in the fact the car had the highest figure for the day until a Lamborghini Gallardo came along and pegged me by 3 lowsy kw lol

Edited by Lithium

Nah sorry, I had to harrass Andre a fair bit just to get the dyno plot - he is really busy due to drag season starting in NZ and he has methanol drag cars with big huge turbos to play with and I feel bad rattling cages asking for info on mediocre power cars with that kind of thing going on.

It basically hit around 16psi by 3700rpm, dropped a bit then climbed to around 17psi in the 4-5krpm area and dropped down to 15-16psi in the 5000-6000rpm area and levelled off there... from memory.

Edited by Lithium
  • 3 months later...

Next step in this saga, I am now another happy user of the big can 1.2bar actuator :D Well at least so far...

Installed it and took it out for a blat yesterday, and with my pressure relief valve and AVC-R completely removed from the picture I was still reaching 1bar by around 3700rpm - which was impossible with the old actuator without removing the hose. I turned the AVCR on and set it to 1.1bar, and I am reaching full boost by 3600rpm without relying on the pressure relief valve - and as a result I don't seem subject to the big random spikes I used to get with the PRV.

Very happy with this, feels much more consistant in power delivery and probably safer - it does appear to have a SLIGHT 1psi fluctuation as it comes on full boost but I would guess this is normal.

So, so far so good, next stop... dyno tune :)

Ah, explains that drop off at 3,500-4,000 where I am guessing you are coming onto full boost is. Should be gone for the most part with a good tune.

Almost looks like wheel spin if it wasn't on a dynapak :D

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...