Jump to content
SAU Community

Bov Recently Installed

PIOTREK

By PIOTREK,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

**RB2530** Proficient

**RB2530**

Posted
Posted

Ok here is a theory I have has for years now but never done the work to prove it...It is just my educated opinion and maybe the other mechanical engineers on the forums may like to comment as well...Anyone else feel free but if you are a non-believer tell me WHY?

My theory is that a plumb back BOV will be slightly better at maintaining turbine spool then an atmo BOV. ie on a gear change the reduction in turbine rpm will be lower with PB BOV than if it was a vent to atmosphere...

The reason is that with a the PB BOV, air is fed back into the intake pipework or inlet of the compressor.

If you look at just the compressor. It is a pump that draws air in and pumps it out. That amount of work the comp does is proportional to the pressure increase across it minus losses. On a gear change the energy input to the comp is close to zero (turbine suddenly is not getting exhuast flow to turn it). So it obviously it slows down. Inertia of the shaft and wheels is what keeps it moving. Without a BOV it slows very quickly because the pressure increase becomes very high. Ok but with any BOV this pressure spike doesn't happen so it won't slow as quickly.

BUT

Another factor that comes into play is the work the compressor does to draw air in through the air filter and the intake pipe work between the afm and the comp inlet. Normally this region is at a slightly negative pressure depending on how restrictive the air cleaner and intake pipework is...

So some of the work of the compressor is expended in just pulling the air through the intake. With a PB BOV though, extra air is introduced into the intake side of the compressor, which on a gear change will overcome this loss. ie for a short period of time, a positive pressure will result in the intake because you are dumping air into this (semi confined due to air cleaner) region. In other words the air exiting the BOV will expand in the intake pipe work will act to keep the compresser sopinning at a higher rpm simply because you are eliminating the losses in the intake.

With an atmo BOV, the energy put into the air post-compressor is just expelled into the atmosphere, never to be seen again...Not to mention the poor ECU that desperately adds fuel for air that it doesn't realise, no longer exists...

If you understand this so far you may be thinking, well the PB BOV will not be as efficient at reducing the compressor outlet pressure because it is dumping into a semi closed region (depending air cleaner etc) instead the atmosphere. I am not sure either, but when you look at the typical atmo BOV, they don't exactly have free flowing discharge...especially the rice ones I've seen..otherwise you wouldn't get pphhhttsshhhh!

PIOTREK Proficient

PIOTREK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It is fine for your turbo!! It is not going to blow up!! Don't worry about it.

Mate, its fun when you are 16 stututututu, but as we grow up i don't its the best noise for a car to make. I should've bought a VL for that :)

Thanks RB for the detailed explanation, i shows u no your sh&t

PIOTREK Proficient

PIOTREK

Posted
  • Author
Posted

ok conclusion is reached, the flodder has nothing to do with the bov accept that the plump back pipe is causing it. I have adjusted the tention in the spring and all the flodder is coming through the pod. So really the only way to stop the flodder is putting the stock bov back on??

(most poeple would like i'm crazy trying to make a skyline to stop the flodder haha)

Bliksem Veteran

Bliksem

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just put the stock one back on, you dont want an atmo bov when running an AFM.... your venting metered air that the ECU has already adjusted the mixture for, it will run rich and only cause you problems. And its Flutter not "flodder" or "flooder"

Edited by MintR33
PM-R33 Grand Master

PM-R33

Posted
Posted (edited)
Mate, its fun when you are 16 stututututu, but as we grow up i don't its the best noise for a car to make. I should've bought a VL for that :thumbsup:

Thanks RB for the detailed explanation, i shows u no your sh&t

a) I aint 16.

b) I was trying to help you.

c) It's "flutter", not flodder.

d) I didnt say anything about the noise being cool, uncool, i said get over it, it aint doing any damage to your $200 turbo.

e) Im doing mechanical engineering at uni, so pretty sure i understand fluid dynamics a bit better than you.

So thanks for your stupid comment to me, please continue debating your grand modification of installing a BOV.

Edited by PM-R33
PIOTREK Proficient

PIOTREK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
a) I aint 16.

b) I was trying to help you.

c) It's "flutter", not flodder.

d) I didnt say anything about the noise being cool, uncool, i said get over it, it aint doing any damage to your $200 turbo.

e) Im doing mechanical engineering at uni, so pretty sure i understand fluid dynamics a bit better than you.

So thanks for your stupid comment to me, please continue debating your grand modification of installing a BOV.

I think that you need to lighten up, and laugh. No one is attacking personally

89CAL Grand Master

89CAL

Posted
Posted

I know a couple of people that were running atmo bov's and getting flutter at lower boost levels. ie half throttle when boost was only half built. on full boost they usually just vented normally.

A bit of flutter at low rpm ive always seen as ok, when u start running 10+psi with no bov on stock turbo or something like that then yeh its probably not good.

personally... im not all that into atmo bov's. last time i had one on my car my fuel economy halved and it idled like a bitch. I think it comes more down to the bov u put on it though, i had a turbosmart one on there that my car ran fine with and then i had a blitz on there that made my idle hunt really bad.

use the stock BOV or a good blumback. Personally im looking at getting the turbosmart skyline dual port one day. thought it is a bit expensive

  • 4 weeks later...
C.Hawk Contributor

C.Hawk

Posted
Posted

Hi guys need some stuff cleared up.....

1. just bort a r34 gt-t everything is stock ie. ECU AFM ect... so im not sure if the the ATMO BOV that i am running is ok for this car it get a surge sound when below 3000rpm but a very nice WOOSHH when above that....??? is this bad for my turbo or engine?? i herd alot about the stock ecu not copeing well with ATMO BOV's.. btw its a drift vee port bov with hard or soft settings. also i have a pod filter not sure if that matters.

any info would be a great help..

thanks

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
      Would it be stupid to twin charge a skyline? Would that be possible/practical to do on an rb engine?

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • RA708
      G'day!

      By RA708 · Posted

      Good to know, thank you!
    • luke gtr
      G'day!

      By luke gtr · Posted

      It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
    • RA708
      Would it be stupid to twin charge a skyline? Would that be possible/practical to do on an rb engine?

      By RA708 · Posted

      Looked it up. It sounds so expensive lmao I'd rather not. Awwwww but I just love that sound
    • MBS206
      Would it be stupid to twin charge a skyline? Would that be possible/practical to do on an rb engine?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      If you want the screaming "weeeee" sound, just let the gasket between the exhaust manifold and the turbo break a little. It'll go "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" everytime its on boost...
×
×
  • Create New...