Jump to content
SAU Community

high/low boost computer settings

warpz0r

By warpz0r,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

warpz0r Proficient

warpz0r

Posted
Posted

hi all

another question about afc's/computers

if i have a low boost setting and a high boost setting, does that mean if i have a rechipped computer in my rb20det, it would only be tuned for the High boost setting?

so the low boost setting would be rough and wasting fuel and stuff?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/55700-highlow-boost-computer-settings/
Share on other sites
666DAN Grand Master

666DAN

Posted
Posted

Unless you've got an R34..then the remapped stock ECU will not adjust to the boost being supplied but to the AFM signal...so if your computer is tuned for higher boost, it will waste fuel and lose performance at lower pressures...as the AFM signal isn't the most accurate thing in the world.

Sydneykid Grand Master

Sydneykid

Posted
Posted

The AFM is the best device yet invented for measuring airflow. Boost is irrelevant, it's airflow that makes power and the ECU knows how much airflow (via the AFM) so it adds the programmed amount of fuel for that airflow. For constant throttle cruise and idle it runs closed loop, so it constantly adjusts the A/F ratios to maximise the fuel economy and minimise the emissions.

There is no"problem" with the standard ECU, other than its (open loop) programmming is usually a bit rich. A properly tuned Power FC has no such problem of course.

Hope that helps:cheers:

Sydneykid Grand Master

Sydneykid

Posted
Posted
....it can also be done with no afm at all on certain cpu's.

Correct, but not as accurately, they use manifold pressure in the algorithm (with rpm, throttle position etc) to calculate the airflow. The AFM actually MEASURES the airflow.:rolleyes:

666DAN Grand Master

666DAN

Posted
Posted
The AFM is the best device yet invented for measuring airflow

I wouldn't tend to agree with that when talking about the hotwire type though, MAP sensors are more reliable though for the ECU to react to boost levels, there for adjust timing to suit.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      But we haven't even gotten to the point of talking about stateless controllers or any of the good stuff yet!
    • Duncan
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By Duncan · Posted

      You guys need to take this discussion to another thread if you want to continue it, most of the last 2 pages has nothing to do with OP's questions and situation
    • MBS206
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By MBS206 · Posted

      And this, is just ONE major issue for closed loop control, particularly using PID. One such issue that is created right here, is integrator wind up. But you know GTSBoy, "it's just a simple PID controller"...  
    • GTSBoy
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Nah. For something like boost control I wouldn't start my design with PID. I'd go with something that originates in the fuzzy logic world and use an emergency function or similar concept. PID can and does work, but at its fundamental level it is not suited to quick action. I'd be reasonably sure that the Profecs et al all transitioned to a fuzzy algorithm back in the 90s. Keep in mind also that where and when I have previously talked about using a Profec, I'm usually talking about only doing an open loop system anyway. All this talk of PID and other algorithms only comes into play when you're talking closed loop boost control, and in the context of what the OP needs and wants, we're probably actually in the realm of open loop anyway. Closed loop boost control has always bothered me, because if you sense the process value (ie the boost measurement that you want to control) in the plenum (after the throttle), then boost control to achieve a target is only desirable at WOT. When you are not WOT, you do not want the the boost to be as high as it can be (ie 100% of target). That's why you do not have the throttle at WO. You're attempting to not go as fast as you can. If the process variable is measured upstream of the throttle (ie in an RB26 plenum, or the cold side pipework in others) then yeah, sure, run the boost controller closed loop to hit a target boost there, and then the throttle does what it is supposed to do. Just for utter clarity.... an old Profec B Spec II (or whatever it is called, and I've got one, and I never look at it, so I can't remember!) and similar might have a MAP sensor, and it might show you the actual boost in the plenum (when the MAP sensor is connected to the plenum) but it does not use that value to decide what it is doing to control the boost, except to control the gating effect (where it stops holding the gate closed on the boost ramp). It's not closed loop at all. Once the gate is released, it's just the solenoid flailing away at whatever duty cycle was configured when it was set up. I'm sure that there are many people who do not understand the above points and wonder wtf is going on.  
    • joshuaho96
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By joshuaho96 · Posted

      This has clearly gone off on quite a tangent but the suggestion was "go standalone because you probably aren't going to stop at just exhaust + a mild tune and manual boost controller", not "buy a standalone purely for a boost controller". If the scope does in fact stop creeping at an EBC then sure, buy an EVC7 or Profec or whatever else people like to run and stop there. And I have yet to see any kind of aftermarket boost control that is more complicated than a PID controller with some accounting for edge cases. Control system theory is an incredibly vast field yet somehow we always end up back at some variant of a PID controller, maybe with some work done to linearize things. I have done quite a lot, but I don't care to indulge in those pissing matches, hence posting primary sources. I deal with people quite frequently that scream and shout about how their opinion matters more because they've shipped more x or y, it doesn't change the reality of the data they're trying to disagree with. Arguing that the source material is wrong is an entirely separate point and while my experience obviously doesn't matter here I've rarely seen factory service manuals be incorrect about something. It's not some random poorly documented internal software tool that is constantly being patched to barely work. It's also not that hard to just read the Japanese and double check translations either. Especially in automotive parts most of it is loanwords anyways.
×
×
  • Create New...