Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

Yes, I've searched and found this:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...18&hl=BCK*&st=0

and this

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...=8&t=92133&st=0

But I'm not sure if I've done it right. I'm ok with the plumbing side, but it's the wiring I'm not sure of.

Included below is a dodgy diagram of how it's wired up now. Also some excerpts from the BCK manual that came with the kit (in Japanese) and an old manual for the AVCR from the US Apexi site.

Car: R34 GT-T (RB25DET NEO)

BCK model no.: 415-A013

Both the PFC and BCK are only a month or two old.

Again I had the problem of having nowhere for the two-pin spade-type connector coming from the solenoid to go. :D

Has this been done this right? Or totally wrong? The car is running ok but doesn't seem to be holding consistent boost (set to 1.0kg/cm2, duty cycle 64). Please help. Thanks. :D

post-17890-1137677474.jpg

post-17890-1137677501.jpg

post-17890-1137677527.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/102563-pfc-boost-control-kit-wiring/
Share on other sites

This guide should tell you all you need to know about the boost kit and how it connects up. Please have a read and let us know what actual problem you are having with it, as its most likely already covered in the FAQ

http://members.dodo.com.au/paul/docs/power...powerfc-faq.htm

your wiring harness that goes into the powerfc should have 5 wires and not 3. If you have the 3 pin plug and 3 wire plug that runs into the powerfc on the side (next to hand controller port) then you have the wrong boost kit. The ER34 uses the 5 pin boost kit

:O

I have part no 415-A013... which suits the ER34... which has 3 wires coming from the MAP sensor and 2 spare pins on the plug which goes into the PFC.

I printed out that FAQ and took it to the workshop with me at the time of the install and it isn't entirely revealing...

The pressure sensor has the main wiring harness directly attached to itself, one end plugs into the 5 pin port on the PowerFC. The solenoid piggybacks off the Pressure Sensor wiring harness which leads to the PowerFC connector port. The wiring is shown below.

MAP Sensor

Red = Positive

Black = Negative (earth)

Green = Signal

Solenoid

Pink = Positive

Black = Negative

When the solenoid wiring meets with the Map Sensor harness the colours for the Soneoid change as follows;

Pink = Red

Black = Brown

I guess what I don't get is HOW the solenoid wiring is supposed to meet the MAP sensor harness, when the plug that comes on the end of the solenoid wiring doesn't directly plug into anything in an ER34 engine bay.

Now I'm confused... :O

post-17890-1137768949.jpg

Anyway we did a workaround tonight (see attached).

Not what it says in the FAQ (kinda) but now seems to be working... shame about the whole raining thing and therefore no traction in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th.... :O

post-17890-1137769460.jpg

Anyway we did a workaround tonight (see attached). 

Not what it says in the FAQ (kinda) but now seems to be working... shame about the whole raining thing and therefore no traction in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th....  :(

That is correct, the BKC solenoid connects to the standard wiring harness in place of the standard boost control solenoid.

:( cheers :D

The r33 boost kit connects the pfc boost solenoid to the standard boost control solenoid wires in the engine bay.

I was unaware the r34 had the same or a similar boost solneoid by factory.

Usually if the boost kit has 5 pin with 5 wires then the boost solenoid and map sensor run to the ecu via that single plug into the boost controller kit port and the powerfc turns the solenoid on/off via the 5 pin plug.

I find it odd that you have the 5 pin plug and wires and the solenoid runs to the standard factory wires in the engine bay. so there are 2 wires on the loom unused then ?

The guide was updated about a week ago to reflect the new stuff i had found on the boost control kit after i tried with NateR31 to get his working on his r33 and the printout you've got was the original stuff I had which was a bit brief and didnt explain a great deal

  • 2 weeks later...

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...