Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i have in the past been flamed for posting that the PFC boost controllers are fairly average so when the opportunity arose to do a back to back test i could not resist.

I have the done the comparison below on power as it seems people take more note of power than torque... i dont know why. For those who want the real story i have included the torque graphs as well. :P

Over the years i have seen excellent gains with a good ebc i have even seen midrange gains in the vicinity of 50rwkw, i know this is a lot and to be honest it was on a car making well over 300rwkw.

The example below is what i consider an average skyline setup and it gained between 10rwkw and 32rwkw between 3000rpm and 4300rpm...right in the area you need it most.... more importantly torque at 4000rpm rose by 80nm just by using a boost controller with GAIN control.

Below are two graphs one is power and torque graph the other is a boost graph;

Thin red line is a manual boost controller set to 1.3bar (i have not included power runs as it is obvious it would be way lower)

Thick red line is PowerFC boost controller, holds good boost all the way to red line and makes the following power;

62rwkw @ 3000rpm

80rwkw @ 3500rpm

120rwkw @ 4000rpm

180rwkw @ 4500rpm

200rwkw @ 5000rpm

240rwkw @ 6000rpm

269rwkw @7000rpm

Thick green line is Blitz IDIII boost controller with correctley set gain, holds good boost all the way to redline and makes the following power;

74rwkw @ 3000rpm (12rwkw gain)

90rwkw @ 3500rpm (10rwkw gain)

152rwkw @ 4000rpm (32rwkw gain)

180rwkw @ 4500rpm

200rwkw @ 5000rpm

240rwkw @ 6000rpm

275rwkw @7000rpm

Thick Blue line is Blitz IDIII boost controller set at 1.25 so it cant be compared directley but it shows just how much extra power and torque can be gained with the CORRECT GAIN setting in your boost controller. If this 1.25bar was runj with the PFC boost controller it would have made the same peak power but would have followed the red line... thus missing all the extra midrange torque and power;

74rwkw @ 3000rpm

90rwkw @ 3500rpm

152rwkw @ 4000rpm

190rwkw @ 4500rpm

218rwkw @ 5000rpm

250rwkw @ 6000rpm

293rwkw @7000rpm

boostresponsepower.jpg

boostresponse.jpg

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We also discovered this and documented it on here a few years ago...we actually made the same power with less boost switching from AVC-R to Blitz ID-III.

A few AVC-R lovers out there were most upset at me having a go at their bright blue toy.

Excellent thread to back it up.

Well done Trent...top stuff.

Edited by DiRTgarage

With regards to setting the gains Trent, do you just pick your desired boost level that you want to hold, then just keep increasing the gains to the maximum setting before it starts to spike boost?

:wave:

yeah i had the 180sx folder open when i printed the skyline graphs.... my fault

Car is a R33 with unopened rb25 and a custom 8cm T67 kit i ordered from trust for it. Final result was 310.1rwkw @7200 and 427.9Nm at 6100rpm (makes 392 @ 4100 though so its got quite a broad torque curve.)

If you could pick any ebc would it be this or is there something even better Trent?

Any Blitz dual solenoid in my experience works the best (gain wise), i have plenty of graphs i could post up but i rate the boost controllers as follows;

1. BLITZ dual solenoid (type R, ID, IDIII or I-color) But i find the i-color is a bit too gadgety.

2. Gizzmo MSIBC (black with blue display) (awesome controller with closed loop boost control and cheap)

3. TRUST Profec b SPEC 2 (great controller, easy to set up)

Did the customer comment on any difference on how the car drives?

100% this car is used ALOT (daily) and spends alot of time doing hills runs and we have been developing the car for response so he knows it inside and out, im pretty sure it just pulled 1.45 around winton which is not too bad considering it was his his first time at winton on street tyres. The car has actually has had two turbo setups on it previously gt30 int gate and a gt35r both were not up to scratch (too laggy).

Let's dig a little deaper than the "this is better than that" simplicity, because there is no magic in a boost controller. What's happening here is the wastegate is opening earlier when controlled by the PFC BCK in comparison to the same wastegate being opened by the Blitz IDIII. Looking at the boost curve it indicates that even as low as 0.2 bar there is a difference. Think about that, at less than 3 psi there is wastegate creep. That tells me the wastegate actuator spring selected is far too small or it's not delivering its rated pressure. This diagnosis is supported by the manual boost controller (simple bleed valve?) trace which show the symptomatic over shoot and then taper off of boost as the rpm rises.

What we don't see here is what the maximum achievable boost curve actually is. What the turbo is capable of when there is absolutely zero wastegate creep. The only way to achieve that is to lock the wastegate closed and log the boost curve up to the target boost. Then you know exactly what is possible out of that engine/turbo combination. It is entirely possible that an even better result is achievable. As any experienced tuner will tell you, getting the right rate wastegate actuator spring is the first step in achieving decent boost control. That way the boost controller only has a small amount of work to do and hence the best chance of perfect boost control.

Personally I would spend $5 on the right rate wastegate actuator spring rather than spend $400 on a boost controller.

Cheers

Gary

Let's dig a little deaper than the "this is better than that" simplicity, because there is no magic in a boost controller. What's happening here is the wastegate is opening earlier when controlled by the PFC BCK in comparison to the same wastegate being opened by the Blitz IDIII. Looking at the boost curve it indicates that even as low as 0.2 bar there is a difference. Think about that, at less than 3 psi there is wastegate creep. That tells me the wastegate actuator spring selected is far too small or it's not delivering its rated pressure. This diagnosis is supported by the manual boost controller (simple bleed valve?) trace which show the symptomatic over shoot and then taper off of boost as the rpm rises.

What we don't see here is what the maximum achievable boost curve actually is. What the turbo is capable of when there is absolutely zero wastegate creep. The only way to achieve that is to lock the wastegate closed and log the boost curve up to the target boost. Then you know exactly what is possible out of that engine/turbo combination. It is entirely possible that an even better result is achievable. As any experienced tuner will tell you, getting the right rate wastegate actuator spring is the first step in achieving decent boost control. That way the boost controller only has a small amount of work to do and hence the best chance of perfect boost control.

Personally I would spend $5 on the right rate wastegate actuator spring rather than spend $400 on a boost controller.

Cheers

Gary

to be fair gary you are quite perceptive :D but for the sake of 95% of the readers i prefer to keep things simple and more akin to what many of the readers will experience in real world situations. :D

firstly we need to ignore the manual MBC graph because it was actually from the int gate garret setup on the car previously and is one of the reasons i did not go into listing direct comparisions, i should have made note but i figured people would ignore it as there were no power figure to compare it to..

secondly the wastegate has a .9bar spring in it as the customer wanted to run a low boost setting of 0.9 and a high boost setting of 1.25bar... as it is a stock engine after all. Of course in a perfect world we could have run a heavier spring to bring it as close to 1.2bar as possible but we had the issue of a low boost setting of 0.9bar... the best compromise was to adjust the preload on the trust gate to get the best boost ramp as possible without spiking at 0.9bar.

so yes the BLUE and GREEN graph shows the maximum possible boost curve for this setup, without resorting to locking the wastegate shut :D

on our application we were running internally gated HKS turbo's so no chance of changing the spring as they are sealed units.

The best and only option for us and many others was to invest in a decent controller...the Blitz ID-III is the best on the market in my opinion.

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...