Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

so here's the story..

most of the time when i accelerate, i have very loud inducion noises. in fact, my brother has a pod on his 300zxTT and a friend of mine has a pod on his tx5 turbo and neither are even half as loud as mine

BUT... my setup is only the standard airbox (with some cold air intake pipes) with a high-flow fitler

and on full load on the dyno it runs about 10.5:1 AFR

(there doesn't seem to be an air leak)

the thing is... sometimes (like 5% of the time), its not as loud as it normally is...

do you think that my stock bov may not be holding boost well (i'm running 12psi) or is it just a figment of my imagination because i want a quick-fix for the fact that i nead an ECU eprom?

cheers,

Warren

PS car is 1992 r32 gtst with 140000kms

I had the same thing on mine. installed an aftermarket bov and it's still just as noisy, but at least i have the peace of mind knowing that my bov isn't leaking. that can lead to very bad things if you wind the boost up. the quick way to diagnose it would be to slip a thin plate under the bov, blocking it off entirely and seeing if you have the same noise. you can run wihout a bov, but there's contention between whether this causes long term damage to your turbo or not. with 140K on the clock i'd say it would be a fairly safr bet the spring in the stock bov is worn out.

Edited by jezzerrr

stock bov is designed to CONSTANTLY have some air circulating.

take it off.

look at the bottom of it.

you will see a small hole next to the bov piston.

you can block this hole off with a flat headed wood screw.

this has been covered many times and there is even a thread on here with pics on how to do it etc...

block it off, stick it all back on and go for a drive.

you will notice a few things.

1.) car will come on boost noticbly quicker.

2.) bov release sound is different (if you have FMIC, you may get some flutter, if you have stock cooler, it makes a louder psssh sound)

3.) spooling sound is less especially during low boost/cruising where the un modified bov would just constantly circulate the air making a constant shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sound..

well there is no circulation of air when you jump on the accelerator.

the hole is there to make boost come on smoothly. and make the transition between on throttle and off throttle smoother.

you block it off and as soon as you are on the accelerator, it begins to pull harder and build boost quicker as it is comepltely sealed instead of circulating air.

same as if you got an aftermarket bov.

they are good in that you can build boost quicker than factory bov without this mod.

try it.. you've got nothing to lose.

hahahaha.

well there are 2 ways I can make you a believer.. one is probably easier than the other.

1.) you catch a plane to sydney, pay about $50 for cab to my house.

I'll take the bov off, take the screw out of it, then you take it for a spin for 5 minutes or so, then I'll put it back on and you can drive it around again..

or

2.) as above, just try it.

how can you say it doesn't work or don't believe it if you havent done it?

Ignorant is the word I'm looking for here..

thanks GTST... but you see i have lready blocked off the bypass hole many years ago (and yes there was a change in the acceleration noise once i did this...)

any other ideas?

PS let's keep this thread on the topic and not stray off onto the bov block-off mod which has been covered many a time! thanks!

ok..

the only other thing I can think of is the gasket between turbo and manifold.

I say it only because my VR4 was really loud on boost (ONCE WARM).

when it heated up, the boost/air leak sound was louder and louder.

so maybe something to look at.

I'm all out of ideas there mate.

Dude ive got the exact problem. In my R32 you could hear it sucking like jesus. when i put in a pod it got louder!!

I blocked off the bov and this didnt fix it, in fact the sucking noise was even louder doing this(bad move)

My car is running stock boost and it does this.

Do you think the turbos stuffed?

Maybe it could be the gasket like what GTST said? Did it fix the problem on ur VR4????

cheers

Hi Warren,

When I had my R32 I had the same thing, I also suspected the BOV was leaking, I firstly blocked off the little hole with a self tapping screw...this did make a slight difference, the BOV definitely opened slower but I still felt it opened and sustained far too early, it also made the car jerkier to drive with little advantage to justify the mod.

So I went to the next step - instead of blocking it off entirely, I made up a thin aluminium plate with a 12mm hole in the middle that sits directly underneath the BOV (like a gasket), reducing the amount of air it can potentially flow/leak, I immediately noticed the difference, it seemed to pull harder through gear changes (particularly 1st to 2nd).....only problem was it obviously couldn't work as effectively, hence I got a bit of the flutter at higher boost, I actually prefered this to the wheezy. sustained sound of the stock bov through the pod, so I left it.....No stalling problems either, as it still flowed adequately at low boost/rpm....In hindsight, I'd prefer to install a higher performing adjustable plumb-back BOV, but my mod worked alright as a quick-fix........that I stuck with for 40,000kms! ;)

Hey again,

The R33 and R32 BOV seem identical (I've got an R33 now) on the exterior...I reckon the major difference is that in most instances they're newer and less prone to leaking......that being said I do see/hear heaps of R33's driving past making similar noises to my R32 before I did this particular mod......they're meant to open up pretty early (ie. before the car even begins to make positive boost).

Edited by RaseR

yeah, they swap across.. I guess that if you put on an R33 one, there is a better chance the spring will be slightly fresher than the R32 one.

Otherwise, with the two BOV I swapped across, I noticed stuff all difference.

the bovs are the same.

both Mitsubishi parts.

actually, same bov on the vr4.

you wanna know what the vr4 boys do to their bovs to hold more boost?

http://members.shaw.ca/costall/1000Q/answe...atisacrushedBOV

fyi - 1g = first generation.. vr4 here, talon in states etc..

hahaha, let me guess....they crush it in vice? Yep, I remember this back from when I was researching ways to fix the 1G bov, here's some other interesting modifications you can do to it to make it hold more boost:

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/turbo_bov_mod.html

http://www.dejonpowerhouse.com/

(click DSM, then BOV-misc-tools, scroll down to the bottom of the page - check the test data, they got the modded BOV to hold 50psi!!!!)

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...