Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Sorry this has probably been covered a million times but I searched for 45mins+ and couldn't find the specifics. I have an RB25DET from S2 33 with PFC and Z32 and GT3071, it has the typical reversion stalling problem. From what I've read it's to do with the AFM distance from the turbo inlet and something to do with the bends and smooth surface of the piping. What I want to confirm is, some bends are needed and it needs to be a decent distance from the turbo inlet, correct? I'm basically running some silicone hose joiners/bends and the AFM and a metal reducer. Should I be looking at trying to reduce the use of the silicone hose/joiner/bend things and going mainly metal? Would making up a bracket and attaching it to the body help or is that just stupid lol? Any tips, tricks etc?

Hope it was to long winded and confusing.

Cheers!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/452462-how-to-fixavoid-reversion-stalling/
Share on other sites

Also BOV return angle plays a big part.

Currently have an aftermarket BOV in the standard place near the TB plumbed into the intake at a 90degree like a T fitting. How should it be plumbed in?

Thanks Ben, anyone else with more insight? Because it does it when there's not much boost and load too, for example if I'm cruising doing 100km/hr and put the clutch in for a few seconds or if I'm cruising and just clutch in and brake.

Ben is on the money. Also correct me if I am wrong, but you will never fix the stalling if you are getting reversion from the turbo while using an afm. You will need a map sensor to fix it. (Or make it a blow through setup, though I have never used one or seen one that works well.)

Edited by Stagea97

More or less, yes.

The factory plumbing is a good guide. There's a decent bend and a half in the rubber to the AFM, plus it is convoluted which helps to soak up some of the reverse flow. Smooth bends will always tend to allow a bit more reversion, but they are more desirable for a number of other reasons, so we have to live with them. The angle of the factory BOV return is also pretty steeply aimed at the turbo inlet. I think (per what Ben said) that that is probably the biggest effect.

Be aware though, that the whole factory system, AFM, turbo, BOV, pipework, was designed about an engine only pulling enough air for about 180 fwKW and about 7 psi of boost. Fit bigger turbos, run much higher boost, and there ends up being a lot more air needing to be dealt with when the BOV vents. At some point it becomes inevitable that you have more than can recirculate neatly and some will have to spill back through the AFM. It's hard to know where/when you'll get to that point on any given setup though, and hence whether effort spent on "fixing" reversion will yield results. That said, whenever your BOV return is clearly not right (as yours would appear to be), then you'd be silly not to try.

Take a pic - show us how far away the AFM is from the turbo inlet.

A simple rule of thumb is have the AFM as far away from the turbo inlet as possible, then you have no issue. If you can move it even 5-10cm, that can be all the difference that is needed. Hence most people with singles and AFM is pretty much as close to the headlight/guard as it can get.

Ben is on the money. Also correct me if I am wrong, but you will never fix the stalling if you are getting reversion from the turbo while using an afm. You will need a map sensor to fix it. (Or make it a blow through setup, though I have never used one or seen one that works well.)

Totally wrong.

Damn haha. What parts are wrong? I thought having air coming back through the blades towards the afm in bursts would cause the afm to read air in bursts causing fueling in bursts also. Also a map would be placed in the plenum and wouldn't be affected?

Damn haha. What parts are wrong? I thought having air coming back through the blades towards the afm in bursts would cause the afm to read air in bursts causing fueling in bursts also. Also a map would be placed in the plenum and wouldn't be affected?

I think he's referring to you saying it can't be totally fixed is wrong.

The car is in pieces so can't take a pic, also don't have any pics from before as the bay was ugly so not worth taking pics of ;)

The stalling and AFM reversion can be two different things.

1. Stalling due to ATMO venting BOV while running AFM - this can be tuned around. ECU expects air to return, it isn't - so car stalls.

2. Reversion over the AFM - AFM can be too close to the turbo, reversion isn't just the recirc of the BOV and air directed in the wrong way but being to close to the compressor wheel where there is a lot of turbulence.

Simply moving the AFM further away will fix reversion over the AFM. Hell I've seen 500rwkw+ single setups with AFM working fine, but the AFM is as far away as possible from the intake.

Moving the AFM however will not fix the stalling issues that relate to BOVs, that comes to the tune.

Also remember factory BOVs leak at idle, hence they MUST be plumbed back. GTR BOVs do this as well, reason being is to reduce compressor surge in lower RPMs. People that have changed to aftermarket BOVs on GT-Rs and running larger twins - have at times have surging in low RPM/high load scenarios. This is partly the cause as there is no bleeding of the air (the second being the factory piping, but thats another discussion).

I understand you can easily tune around having an atmospheric bov.

So you're saying that if you're having problems with having a too tight of a bov that's causing flutter, you can move the afm further away from the turbine and it will fix the stalling?

I understand you can easily tune around having an atmospheric bov.

So you're saying that if you're having problems with having a too tight of a bov that's causing flutter, you can move the afm further away from the turbine and it will fix the stalling?

No that is not what I said at all.

Because the AFM is a hot wire it can not identify which way air is traveling, in many cases the ECU commends for more fuel when there is a current change, that includes when air is bounced at it through the turbocharger. It causes an momentarily richness, hence the idle hunt or stall.

To fix it, Trace the tables in primary fuel map of when the engine is off throttle, deduct a small VE of fuel out of those blocks, and that usually does the trick.

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...