Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Mmmmm,

Just thinking about all the money that car manufacturers have wasted incorporating BOVs or compressor by-pass valves into their cars over the years..A BOV probably adds $50-150 to the build cost of each car. Millions of dollars wasted all because their engineers were liars....Can't trust those engineers!!!

How did you know I was an engineer? lol

2:1 is a basic engineering "standard" or guideline it was just a bit of a pot stir. To be honest I doubt whether no BOV will make a difference to turbo life at all, depending on what boost spike you would get, just more load on the bearings. I probably would on a ball bearing turbocharger as the bearings are not designed for very high axial loads. But for bush bearing cores (which can be rebuilt for peanuts anyway) I would not bother.

My opinion...

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

thanks for all replies, no used to have GTR i now have R34 RB25det neo. with brand new gt3076 on 18psi, nisstune ecu with AFM

my plan is to install the new FMIC, forward facing plenum, throttle body and piping, i will get all the fittings welded to the pipe but not run a BOV. i will test it and see how i like it and if i need it i will quickly be able to connect the BOV, plan is to connect it in just after the FMIC behind front bumper and vent it to atmos, hopefully no one will see it down there....

there are a few pro's of not running one i can see, cant get defected and cost.

con's to much dispute between them, I mean i asked my mech/tuner and he said doesnt matter which way you go wont hurt the car ( by this i guess you gotta keep in mind its a heavily modified car its like sayying you 1000hp drag cars motor wont last as long as yur holden astra's motor)

my concern is throttle on, then off the throttle (say pulling up to stop lights) and it stalls.

I don't know much about the Neo ECU but what I do know is that with any AFM setup and a vent to atmosphere BOV, stalling issues are caused by the fact that when you close the throttle, the BOV is pulled open (all the ones I have used anyway) by the inlet manifold vacuum. The air drawn by the engine for idle and very light engine loads is then drawn in through the open BOV and not through your air filter and therefore the afm does not register that air. Obviously the extent to which this happens depends on where the BOV and air filter are in relation to each. Also depends on air filter restriction etc..

Also consider the fact that when you have 'vented to atmosphere', some air that has already passed through the AFM is dumped. So the ECU is calculating for air that the intake system no longer has...if this makes sense.

I advocate plumb back all the time. I wont say anymore.

With some smart tuning however you may get a driveable set up but if you want 'vent to atmosphere' consider a MAFless system.

Basically having the AFM means you should run the BOV recirculating, I have had a non BOV car for a number of years, and the thrust surfaces of the bearing were worn, probably excessively by the "dose" as the spinning assembly goes back and forth. However the turbo is many years old, runs 20 psi, so it certainly hasnt "failed"

I think the main reason that skylines run bov's anyway is because the run ceramic wheel turbos. Which from what I understand suffer more from failure due to heat and shock loading. There was alot of debate about the whole holding boost between gear changes or whatever it was but I think the point of it is to maintain the speed of the turbine rather then maintaining boost. For example, non bov creates backpressure through the turbo decreasing the speed of the turbine where venting the pressure retains the speed of the turbine so it can create boost again quicker.

Thats me trying to be techincal about it, thats just things from my understanding. Could be 100% wrong or 100% right im not claiming to know everything

thanks for all replies, no used to have GTR i now have R34 RB25det neo. with brand new gt3076 on 18psi, nisstune ecu with AFM

my plan is to install the new FMIC, forward facing plenum, throttle body and piping, i will get all the fittings welded to the pipe but not run a BOV. i will test it and see how i like it and if i need it i will quickly be able to connect the BOV, plan is to connect it in just after the FMIC behind front bumper and vent it to atmos, hopefully no one will see it down there....

there are a few pro's of not running one i can see, cant get defected and cost.

con's to much dispute between them, I mean i asked my mech/tuner and he said doesnt matter which way you go wont hurt the car ( by this i guess you gotta keep in mind its a heavily modified car its like sayying you 1000hp drag cars motor wont last as long as yur holden astra's motor)

my concern is throttle on, then off the throttle (say pulling up to stop lights) and it stalls.

when i put my silvertop rb20 into my 31 i chucked on a new fmic and front-facing plenum too so my mechanic made up all new ic piping (with no bov), we ran the afm in the original position and i found the car would go a bit flat after boosting then lifting off, which im guessing was the afm remeasuring the air that went back through the turbo and pod. asked my mechanic to put the afm between the fmic and plenum and problem solvered, afm now only measures the air getting past the throttle body and drives far smoother than before, especially when cold where it would boost a little strangely. not running a nistune as planned yet but once i get the car back with it's new turbo ill have nistune installed and mixtures checked, im not sure if the afm's signal is much different but safer to be sure. hope that helps!

I think the main reason that skylines run bov's anyway is because the run ceramic wheel turbos. Which from what I understand suffer more from failure due to heat and shock loading. There was alot of debate about the whole holding boost between gear changes or whatever it was but I think the point of it is to maintain the speed of the turbine rather then maintaining boost. For example, non bov creates backpressure through the turbo decreasing the speed of the turbine where venting the pressure retains the speed of the turbine so it can create boost again quicker.

Thats me trying to be techincal about it, thats just things from my understanding. Could be 100% wrong or 100% right im not claiming to know everything

Don't nearly all modern factory turbo cars run a BOV??..Europeans such as SAAB, Audi, Porsche, VW etc call it a 'compressor bypass valve'. They all use a Bosch item. Its what I use. I rate them, although there are a few forum members who claim they don't work. I must get special ones.. :)

I don't know that a turbocharger core would have a 'design factor' of 2???

ie stock Nissan RB25DET T28 stock application is 7-8 psi..They run fine at 14-16psi?? No

The concensus is that they are 'ok' up to 11-12 psi and even then will not live a long life. So design factor is more like 1.5

The problem being it isn't seals or bearings that are failing in that position.

It is the RPM of the wheels exceeding limits and too much heat, making the ceramic explode.

Throw steel wheels in, change nothing else, those turbos run perfectly fine at 20PSi...

Mmmmm,

Just thinking about all the money that car manufacturers have wasted incorporating BOVs or compressor by-pass valves into their cars over the years..A BOV probably adds $50-150 to the build cost of each car. Millions of dollars wasted all because their engineers were liars....Can't trust those engineers!!!

Ah yes, but why do car manufacturers install them?

Ask the designers... It has NOTHING to do with turbo life...

The BOV was developed to meet what? Emmisions!

Who was the first person to claim it damaged turbos? AFTERMARKET BOV MANUFACTURERS!

Oh, and the whole slow to build boost with no BOV.

I run a large turbo, so maybe you'll claim it has lots of KE to keep it spinning... Hence, I don't drop boost like others do.

But then, the really small turbos don't drop boost between shifts either when not running a BOV... Do you know what does? SHITTY SETUPS!

Ah yes, but why do car manufacturers install them?

Ask the designers... It has NOTHING to do with turbo life...

The BOV was developed to meet what? Emmisions!

Who was the first person to claim it damaged turbos? AFTERMARKET BOV MANUFACTURERS!

Oh, and the whole slow to build boost with no BOV.

I run a large turbo, so maybe you'll claim it has lots of KE to keep it spinning... Hence, I don't drop boost like others do.

But then, the really small turbos don't drop boost between shifts either when not running a BOV... Do you know what does? SHITTY SETUPS!

So car manufacturers install BOV to meet emmisions???? How does that work?? Are you getting confused between vent to atmoshpere and recirculating?

Were aftermarket BOVs created before OEM ones? Contradiction in terms? IMO aftermarket BOVs are made to satisfy the ever growing rice market out there..

Your large turbo would have higher KE...but it would also have more surface area on the impeller vanes (it moves more air right?) so the advantage backpressure would have over the impeller with respect to stalling it would be higher right?

Now you have some proof that using/not using a BOV makes no difference to compressor stalling....but it does slow down right? Isn't the difference between it slowing down and stalling just a matter of time?

Where is your proof? Please provide detailed explanation?

yeh i agree, i dont think BOVs are on there just for emmissions considering that if I had no BOV on my car it would still dispose of the wasted boost the same way - back through the air filter. theres no other way for it to vent to atmosphere.....

BOV's serve a purpose, im not saying they are necessary for a turbo car but they do serve a purpose

This is compressor surge, full load compressor surge is what kills turbos. As has been said, once the TB has been closed to only load that the compressor will see is due a pressure wave bouncing back and forth through the intake tract (where the flutter noise comes from, it differs from what you will hear below) and as well as inertial. This is due to there being minimal turbine flow.

I think that with MAF based ECU's that a lot of the reason BOV's were fitted was because of emissions. This is highlighted by the early versions for some common engines (RB20, CA18, etc) not being fitted with BOV's but by the 90's when emission became tighter then BOV's began springing up on almost all turbo'd variants.

Edited by D_Stirls
So car manufacturers install BOV to meet emmisions???? How does that work?? Are you getting confused between vent to atmoshpere and recirculating?

Were aftermarket BOVs created before OEM ones? Contradiction in terms? IMO aftermarket BOVs are made to satisfy the ever growing rice market out there..

Yes to meet emissions. A plumb back bov is the only way to ensure you are not releasing air to the atmosphere without going through a catalytic converter. No bov and you are still releasing air to the atmosphere.

Aftermarket and OEM bovs have different goals so whichever one came first is irrelevant. OEM bovs for emissions. Aftermarket for noise and to supposedly protect your turbo.

Yes to meet emissions. A plumb back bov is the only way to ensure you are not releasing air to the atmosphere without going through a catalytic converter. No bov and you are still releasing air to the atmosphere.

Aftermarket and OEM bovs have different goals so whichever one came first is irrelevant. OEM bovs for emissions. Aftermarket for noise and to supposedly protect your turbo.

Im sorry i still dont see how having no blow off valve is any different to having a plumback bov emissions wise..... atmo yes i can see that it vents to the atmosphere... but a plumback bov vents the air back to just in front of the turbo and then out the air filter, and no bov would mean that the pressure would go back through the turbo and out the filter anyway....

Im not having a go I'm just saying how it is to meet emissions. If you can explain then im more then happy to learn something

So car manufacturers install BOV to meet emmisions???? How does that work?? Are you getting confused between vent to atmoshpere and recirculating?

Were aftermarket BOVs created before OEM ones? Contradiction in terms? IMO aftermarket BOVs are made to satisfy the ever growing rice market out there..

Your large turbo would have higher KE...but it would also have more surface area on the impeller vanes (it moves more air right?) so the advantage backpressure would have over the impeller with respect to stalling it would be higher right?

Now you have some proof that using/not using a BOV makes no difference to compressor stalling....but it does slow down right? Isn't the difference between it slowing down and stalling just a matter of time?

Where is your proof? Please provide detailed explanation?

Running a BOV, the compressor slows down as well right? If it doesn't... You might want to look into patenting the BOV and turbo setup as a perpetual motion machine. It's ALWAYS going to slow.

Put a car on a dyno, run it up full tilt, make it "dose" with no air filter on and watch the turbo... The turbo will NOT stall. Simple test for you. Go on, go try it. Film it to with a super high frame rate so we can slow it down too, that'd be awesome. Thanks.

As to the post I'd made, I can't find it at the moment, but I've made it around 5 times on this forum, a rather long read. Go have a look if you would like.

Also, most of the failures people seem to have, that are blamed on no BOV are exhaust side oil seals... Now if all the pressure is on the inlet side... Shouldn't that side go kaboom first?

And yes, the BOV was first bought about for emmisions reason. When a turbo "doses" air rushes backwards and forwards (As a sound wave does, hence the ptsususus) and this makes AFM metered cars go "Oh my, lots of air" which means lots of fuel, which means high CO emmisions. Have you noticed how the turbo had been around for YEARS and then as emmisions got tighter the BOV was introduced?

And a vent to atmosphere BOV causes the same issue emmisions wise as not running a BOV.

Look at all the late 80s turbo cars... They DON'T RUN BOVS... Are they known for killing turbos? No. Why? Because not running a BOV doesn't kill a turbo. What happened at the end of the 80s start of the 90s? Emmisions got tighter... What happened then? recirculating BOVs were invented... What happened then? some wanker invented atmospheric venting BOVs and started a rumour that not running a BOV caused damage to turbos...What happened then? By this time we're heading for the late 90s early 00s, and 15 year old turbos with over 250 000KM on them start dieing from old age... Mainly seals, or ceramic wheels... People view this as an issue created from these cars not having a BOV... The funny part... The cars with BOVs are all failing the same way too now... Just no one can see it!

If a car running a BOV, vs when it never ran a BOV comes onto boost exactly the same between gears... Does it not show you that the compressor is not stalling/slowing any quicker then when it runs a BOV?

Have you done any testing, or are you being a text book mechanic?

I run currently a fairly old turbo, that yes,needs a rebuild as the exhaust side oil seal has started letting oil out under high oil pressure, but the funny thing... There is NO shaft play in this turbo... And it's got a SHITLOAD of KMs on it... And it's never ran a BOV... (And I punish it at the track, it's not a daily driver, or even a weekend warrior, it goes to the track, and back)

probably shouldn't use the word stall, With Compressor design/operation stall means something else.

A stail in compressor terms, from what I know in proper design operation is that the compressor continues to spin, but the air flow around it "stalls" much like when a plane stalls... Whilst the angle of attack is for "lift" it actually falls.

Stalling when people are talking about not running a BOV they're meaning the actual compressor "stalls" or stops.

To claim it stalls in the matter of air flows in the incorrect direction to what it should considering compressor movement is correct. And this is how we get the ptsusususu noise. The air flow turns backwards to the direction the compressor is moving it, forcing "high pressure air" out the air filter. The forces applied from the compressor then overcome the stall, forcing it back into the inlet piping. (Leaving a now nearly the same size low pressure area behind it, but not quite, so we have one high pressure "pulse"). Then the pressure builds up too much, flow reverses, and the process continues over and over, causing a high pressure, low pressure, rinse repeat of air flow out the air filter, and a then Ptsususususu... Of pressure fluctuations...

well said MSB206!

I run a bov with a piece of rubber wedged between it so it looks legal :(

other than that flutter on baby!

all day, everyday 1.3bar, still haven't seen my old school turbo go kaboom either

Aw FFS!! Nobody is saying that turbos go kaboom if you dont run a BOV!!! I am talking about long term wear on bearings and not catastrophic failures.

By the sounds of it you guys are both running 'bush' bearing turbos???..So maybe your experience is based on those. Bush and Ball bearings can tolerate different levels of thrust loading. I think someone else in the thread supports this?

Matt,

As far as perpetual motion machines are concerned, your theory that reduction in turbine rpm is the same irrespective of BOV /NO BOV, to me, has a scent of divine energy creation in itself...

By what you were saying I assumed 'you' had some measured data to support your theory. I was keen to see it.

Onve agin very very simply put;

On a gear change the only energy remaining in T/C is kinetic. Turbine starts to slow due to friction in brgs and windage etc. With no BOV, as soon TB closes there is a rise in pressure between it and the compressor.

Now, where do you think the energy that compresses this air comes from??

Something else I will put out there. Another energy sink within the whole intake system is the restriction of the air filter and pipework leading up to the compressor. Typically the compressor draws air through this section of the intake and as a result, the pressure at the compressor inlet will be slightly -ve. (if you don't accept this I think I will call it a day-we must be using different brands of physics)

Now consider that with a recirc BOV, the air is dumped back into the intake. So pressure within the intake will become slightly +ve and will therefore act to remove the intake restriction and IMO reduce the loss in turbine rpm...

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

    • Nah, if I need to fit people in a car I'll just use the Mrs car, the MX5 is perfect for what I need as a fun little sports car for fun on the street As for getting in and out of the MX5, I have no issues as I am a short arse who does lots of mobility training 🥷 If anything, I have been looking at Daihatsu Hi-Jets for a work hack, I helped one of my mates move some stuff with one recently that he picked up from Just Jap, it was a little ripper and plenty big enough for what we needed, it would also be super handy for me as I do alot of gardening, and plan on having some veggie patches and native gardens in the place I buy next year when I retire I did alot landscape gardening and growing veggies prior to my current job, and loved it, and that is a hobby that can keep me sane in my retirement, and as such, the little 300kg load capacity would be more than enough for what I need it to move around I have been looking at utes for just this purpose for a while now, and a near new 2024 Hi-Jet can be had for under $30k And I would rather look at a quirky little Hi-Jet than pretty much any other little ute, well, apart from a Brumby, I love the little Brumby, and weirdly have never owned one yet I was going to buy a heap of raffle tickets to try and win the Brumby that MCM built for Subaru Australia, but sadly I totally missed the raffle, I even filled in some form to be told when the raffle started so I could buy tickets, but to my dismay I was never contacted and found out I missed it when I was randomly googling Brumbys last year... #conspiracy  Maybe I should just buy a Brumby for a little "work hack".....LOL I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure
    • Well.... it's not just "de-oxygenating". If you do that you just have, most likely, ethane. So you still need to do a synthesis step to combine a number of ethanes/ethanols to make circa-8-chain hydrocarbons. And of course you don't want straight chain HCs, because n-octane actually has a negative octane rating (ie, it's worse even than the n-heptane which sets the zero on the octane scale!), so you have to do some tricky catalytic chemistry to synthesise branched HCs. That's all doable - but it doesn't come for free. And.... it starts with ethanol, which is an agricultural product, and there will almost certainly never be enough of that as a base stock to replace the liquid fuels that are in use. You really wouldn't want to be planning to be using any more ethanol for fuels than is currently already used (in E10, E85s, etc). And ideally you'd be looking to reduce such usage, as it is largely wasteful, particularly in the stupid-ole'US-of-A where the corn lobby has organised it so that it's actually primary production corn that is used to make a lot of the ethanol, not by-products and waste, like it is (mostly) elsewhere. So, what I said about needing free-ish energy probably still applies. True synth fuels would be made from H2 and CO2, in a near reversal of the combustion process. In fact, given that the H2 would be split from water first, it actually is a complete reversal of the combustion process. But...energy intensive. The human race burns something like 1 cubic MILE of crude oil, after it has been made into various fuels. Every year. That's a simply stupendous amount of energy. Just assume that the density is 900 kg/m3, and that the calorific value is 45 MJ/kg, then that is 165.9 x10^12 MJ of energy. Or more than 10^19 Joules. You get a maximum of 1 kJ/s per square meter solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, and so if you halve that for daylight, and halve it again for average weather (highly optimistic) and then take ~25% for the very best efficiency of solar panels, then you need about 85.7 billion square metres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to replace that liquid fuel energy consumption. Each panel is about 1m2. That's a rather large number of panels. We also burn about a cubic mile of coal. We also use hydroelectric power. We also use nuclear. We also use a number of other sources, both "renewable" and not. You can kind of ignore the renewable ones (except for hydro, because it will all end up getting subsumed into pumped hydro for storing other renewables, and so it won't be the standalone renewable that it originally was), so we end up needing a multiple of the ground area number that I just arrived at.
    • Corvette thread then? Don't say I didn't predict the future again. "I love the little MX5, I do, but I just want something a little easier to get in/out of, a little more cushy and some power would be nice - I miss the V8 Rumble... I found this clean red C5 for sale recently and..." I'll do you a great deal on the next step, which is one of those but you can fit people in it, too.
    • What about renewable diesel and/or gasoline? I see some projects spinning up like de-oxygenating ethanol to make drop-in compatible bio-gasoline especially in CA. I still think the future is EVs and we should've all gone full throttle on nuclear power after the 1973 oil crisis like France. Despite 15 years of work in CA to reduce the CO2 intensity of generation with renewables our electric grid is still far worse than even "low carbon" nuclear power. ICE is pretty cool when you aren't depending on the stupid thing to be practical and reliable and cheap as possible to get you to work every day. It's kind of like mechanical watches or vacuum tube amps.
    • I just rolled over "my" first 10k km in the MX5 Every time I go anywhere it always ends up in a adventure to look at houses and find some random country roads I've been on leave since early November but unfortunately need to go back to work on 19 January Luckily though I still have a fair chunk of leave left to burn until.... Not that I'm counting 😁
×
×
  • Create New...