Jump to content
SAU Community

Hks Ssq Bov On R33 Gtst

Braddd

By Braddd,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

Braddd Enthusiast

Braddd

Posted
Posted

hey

just wondering if anyone has a HKS super sequential blow off vave on their R33 gtst? if so, are you running it with stocker ecu? i was told that because its not plumbed back, it makes the car run slightly rich and not quite right?

so im basically asking, is it ok to have it on with a stock ecu?

cheers.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/286349-hks-ssq-bov-on-r33-gtst/
Share on other sites
geraus Mentor

geraus

Posted
Posted

Hey there, You can run it no probs . But your going to encounter many problems such as:

stalling

running ruch

backfiring

you car wont run smooth

idle hunts....

I use to have one on my 33 when it was a stocker, it sounded pretty sick! :happy: but i got over it. Yes/No it will be ok because your car will overfuel.

mosquitocoils Veteran

mosquitocoils

Posted
Posted (edited)

Some people run VTA bovs (like your SSQ) with stock ECU and never have a problem, while other's will stall all the time, backfire etc etc. I think some people try resetting their ecu after installing a VTA bov, dunno how much it really helps though.

Edited by mosquitocoils
bradnkaila Enthusiast

bradnkaila

Posted
Posted

I have one with stock ece and mine runs fine, sounds wicked, no stalling and runs smoothly.

I dont understand how an aftermarket bov can make your car hunt at idle??? im pretty sure a bov does nothing at idle.

Savin Collaborator

Savin

Posted
Posted

have you tried adjusting the back screw on the back? when i installed my hks bov my car keep stalling in the lights...but wen i adjusted it to open the valve just a little bit ...it runned the way i wanted it. hope this helps you

ShaolinCurse Collaborator

ShaolinCurse

Posted
Posted
Stock BOV's leak at idle, aftermarket items do not.

This can cause problems quite easily

hi,

sorry new, but did u explain this the wrong way around?

wouldn't leaking be the cause for stalling?

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

    • Duncan
      Replacing Fuel Pressure Regulator

      By Duncan · Posted

      I'm going to slap an old nismo logo sticker on my spare one and sell it to the land of the free for a thousand bucks
    • Duncan
      Replacing Fuel Pressure Regulator

      By Duncan · Posted

      lol, probably should have read further!
    • R32 TT
      33 GTR Broken front wheel knuckle

      By R32 TT · Posted

      Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly... These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..   I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing. R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look. Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too. IMG_3860.MP4
    • GTSBoy
      Nismo GT Pro LSD configurations

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • GTSBoy
      Nismo GT Pro LSD configurations

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
×
×
  • Create New...