Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm getting reversion with my stock bov as I am running a highflowed rb20 turbo on an rb25 and it makes a lot of boost quite early, eg 6psi by 1900rpm in 4th.

If I boost with minimal throttle and back off I get a odd fluttering noise from the intercooler piping, but not the same as flutter from running no bov, it actually comes from the pipes/intake on the right hand side instead of the pod.

Anyway this means if I get on boost with the throttle just cracked open and then throttle off to change gear it fuels up and means the throttle doesn't work for about half a second, this makes for clunky gear changes which is quite frustrating.

I'm getting the tune touched up on thursday and Im hoping we can tune a lot of this out but is there anyway to make the stock bov work better? It doesn't flutter when I back off but I'm getting all the side effects of reversion, eg the maf signal flaps around, fuels up and pops on gear changes now and then.

The way Nissan get around it is to drill a small (4mm) bypass hole in the bov. Does yours have one?

Are you running the stock intake? The angle of the bov return can have a lot to do with it.

It is the stock BOV, is it there from factory?

I am running a metal intake but the angle looks identical to stock, plus I had a very similar issue with the rubber intake.

I don't know, I have the hole on mine and when I block the hole it can act like you mentioned.

The intake is the key, the stock bov return is on a crappy angle, it needs to point toward the compressor. If any air goes back up the intake the afm voltage will drop causing what you described.

Yep pretty much that was the problem.

The metal intake pipe I have with the old silicon joiner looks identical to the stock bendy hose, it was just about ~10cm shorter, so the AFM was mounted a lot closer to the bov outlet than it should have been.

Will grab a picture of afterwards tomorrow if I have time.

edit: Oh the new hose has a ~90 degree bend in it as well, probably makes more difference than just having it longer as well.

Edited by Rolls

That would definitely help with the reversion but I hope you aren't chasing big power. The silicone 3 inch bends can suck closed at less power than the stock rubber ones, mainly due to the intake being so close to the exhaust manifold.

sorry for hijacking but just wondering if it matters how short the intake pipe is if you don't run a blow off valve / have an aftermaket one?

I'm getting a metal intake pipe made up just wanted to know if i can get it made shorter then the stock ruber one.

Thanks

I do have a bov (aftermarket), I was just saying in general aftermarket/no bov as theres no need for the return

I was thinking of just getting a copy of the stock rubber one but wanted to know if i could go shorter.

Thanks

Edited by Autumn33

I have read all the threads on atmo bov's but i have none of the problems stated in the theads, only trouble i had was my aac valve just had a breather on it for some reason, now all sorted & is running perfect.

I'll just get a direct copy of the rubber one.

Thanks

I have read all the threads on atmo bov's but i have none of the problems stated in the theads, only trouble i had was my aac valve just had a breather on it for some reason, now all sorted & is running perfect.

I'll just get a direct copy of the rubber one.

Thanks

Perhaps you need a wideband to know how rich the engine is running at light loads and decel. All the cars with atmo's I see, the rear bar is covered in soot, the cats have collapsed and fuel economy is woeful. You can tune around it to some extent I guess, perhaps your tuner is a gun...

I make a direct copy if you have trouble finding someone local to make one.

That would definitely help with the reversion but I hope you aren't chasing big power. The silicone 3 inch bends can suck closed at less power than the stock rubber ones, mainly due to the intake being so close to the exhaust manifold.

I am running a metal intake, it is just the bit that joins on the pod that is silicon, seems fine with 260kw where as the stock pipe used to suck closed on less than 200kw

Thanks though, will keep an eye out

If you are running no BOV at all the longer the intake the less bad the reversion will be as it will be buffered over a long time, you will still get it, it just might not be bad enough to stall the motor.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...