Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me understand then what exactly is happening on throttle off. When you come off boost and shut the throttle the air will revirb back and flow through the recirc pipe back into the turbo and stay in the system. Correct? Ok now lets say, just for simple example, the car measured 10 litres of air coming in and allowed 200ml of fuel to be added for this air. The engine does its cycle on boost, burns 8 litres of air and 100ml of fuel. You back off the throttle and the plate shuts with this 2 litres of air still in the intake before the throttle and 100ml of fuel for the counted air. To prevent the car from stalling is this where the AAC valve kicks in? Since the throttle is closed you are going to need to let this air come in to burn this fuel to keep the engine on and from stalling. My car for the last week has been stalling its nut when I come off boost and let the revs drop. I am running a full recirc system.

What is the cause of this stalling state? Ive cleaned the AAC but have not taken it for a drive yet. Am I right when I am saying the engine is using the AAC to let in this air to burn off this fuel? When the throttle is shut, obviously air isnt going to get in there but if there is fuel in the piston its going to need air to burn...

If you have an O2 sensor (wideband) in when this is happening you can see what the engine does. Desired AFR > Close throttle body> momentarily rich then full lean (deceleration, no problem). So as GTSBoy said, no part is played by your AAC valve. The engine doesnt need power during deceleration so it doesnt inject any fuel at all and doesnt really need any air. When the car returns to an idle state it will open the AAC valve and use the air feed from there.

As for Rolls question about "how did nissan tune out the stalling issue". Remember that the cars were designed like that (the ones without bov's) so it wasnt so much "tuning it out" as much as tuning the car to suit. As far as I know the introduction of BOV's was an emission thing as well as helping with spool times between gear changes, was supposed to be an improvement and hence the ECU was tuned to suit. running no BOV confuses the AFM from what I know, as it see's air flowing in the wrong direction.

I run an aftermarket BOV plumback, purely because I hate the sound of the standard BOV's, annoyed the hell out of me. So I will never argue that they dont work etc, but I dont see myself ever running one again

Edited by 89CAL

89CAL u are right about the decelleration. But his issue isnt on decel as such its when it returns to idle after decel, thats when it drops the rpm too low and stalls the engine

As for Rolls question about "how did nissan tune out the stalling issue". Remember that the cars were designed like that (the ones without bov's) so it wasnt so much "tuning it out" as much as tuning the car to suit.

How does one tune it to suit then?

How does one tune it to suit then?

The ones running without BOV's at all were probably tuned similar to what your standard R33 is (I dont know which cars these are so cant say to much)

You can get away with NO BOV from what I remember, but its at least alot easier then running an atmo BOV

but as Paul said, just a matter of driving around, finding the cells were its pumping fuel in and adjusting to bring it back to a normal AFR.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...