Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey.. I'm planning on installing aftermarket bovs (blitz super sound dd) soon but I just wanted to check if installing them on a gtr tuned using a pfc with stock bovs will cause any dramas.

I've heard there could be stalling issues

Anyone with any thoughts/prior experiences?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/375822-installing-aftermarket-bovs/
Share on other sites

I've used an atmo bov with my power fc and i think one issue is that the stock bovs are usually slightly open at idle which avoids turbo shuffling and potentially upsetting afm signals. Mine shuffled a lot when I put the atmo bov on (running the power fc) and had it tight enough to be necessarily closed at idle, plus I had some compressor surge at lower flow rates which really messed with the afm signal and therefore the afr's- I think the stock bovs would have alleviated this. The issues disappeared when I went to map sensor based ecu, and then being able to soften the bov spring to allow it to open at idle got rid of the shuffling. My feeling is that the stockers would be the most trouble free option with afm based ecu.

Edited by doo doo

i like my ppssh sound :)

plus i got a good price so decided to put them on... been driving around with the stockers for a while and I kinda miss the sound... each to their own

thought there would be stalling issues... ill get em put on when the haltech goes on

can the GTR stock BOV be run as atmo?

i got a haltech ecu running map sensor so i wont have issues with the AFM not liking it or stalling.

the blitz BOV i got installed atm is rubbish as i suspect it to be leaking & not holding boost.

ideally i want to upgrade to a HKS SSQV but if a GTR bov can do the job properly that will be the option to go.

Well they leak @ idle/low throttle, so not really... As the air is going through the turbos but not making it to the intake so response would be doughy as a result.

You'd need BOV's that seal always in that situation

can the GTR stock BOV be run as atmo?

i got a haltech ecu running map sensor so i wont have issues with the AFM not liking it or stalling.

the blitz BOV i got installed atm is rubbish as i suspect it to be leaking & not holding boost.

ideally i want to upgrade to a HKS SSQV but if a GTR bov can do the job properly that will be the option to go.

Has been done, i think it cost about $50 to do and worked perfectly. The guy who did it was "sh@un"

if its anything like what ive found from searching, they blocked the hole on the base of the bov with a screw or welded it so its sealed.

gonna try tonight by removing the bov and installing a blanking plate, if this improves response i will leave it this way till i get enough coin to buy a HKS one.

i cant be bothered to buy a GTR/GTST bov and mod it as i dont have the time or patience.

dammit blitz, why couldn't they just made a good BOV from factory like HKS!

No Offence Nismoid but you have handled this BOV thread very well, I was actually starting to believe that you hated BOV's and would destroy anyone that had one. I almost wondered if you would offer money for people to send there old BOV's in if they went back to reticulation ( just a thought lol) anyways i had a BOV and have gone back to retic I have now noticed car runs much better down low before boost and spool up time and also keep MIster Plod away as well.

I don't hate BOV's, just a lot of people swap them over and pay the price (poor running etc), and then come back in a few months with another thread about stalling/backfiring or economy etc.

If you go about it the right way however (which means retune, custom work etc), then it's all good.

There just aren't a lot of people willing to do things properly and then complain about the half-baked set-up that results.

It indeed does work perfectly, and will give you the noise you'd expect on gear changes. Personally I started to find said noise very annoying everytime you backed off the throttle slightly when having a go. Pretty sure it didn't make any difference to turbo response between gears in the end anyway.

Obviously, as has been mentioned, you can't do it on cars still running AFM's. MAP based load-sensing only.

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...