Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

But in all seriousness. I don't use any bov, never will again. They all leak and cause serious lack of power around 10-30% throttle.

That's just my personal opinion

But I thought they help with transient response.

I would expect the stock BOV to open when boost in the cooler pipes, purely because of the softness of the spring

An aftermarket BOV adjusted to a hard setting is more likely to stay closed

The stock BOV's do have that little bypass hole as well, wether that makes a difference or not

BOV's work off pressure differential. Imagine for arguments sake the spring is worth 2psi, so with the car boosting it has 10psi on the cooler pipe side and 10psi on the top of the valve, so with the spring 12psi on the top, obviously 12 beats 10 so BOV stays closed. Close throttle, vacuum occurs in the manifold so now you have 10psi on the cooler pipe side and -10 on the top of the valve + 2psi so therefore -8psi

With the boost/vac line removed, you only ever have the 2psi of spring pressure holding it closed, so as soon as there is any more than 2psi in the system the valve will open

These are just rough numbers, but remembering how soft the stock BOV was to open by pushing it in with my thumb, I would suspect it would stay open alot

So really what you should have is a whoosh of air then possibly a small flutter at the end when the spring overcomes the valve. Although then you have to think about the effect the low pressure/vac that is present in the recirc pipe is having

  • Like 1

But I thought they help with transient response.

Pretty sure Tom said he's using an auto, but with a manual yeah when you get off the throttle when changing gears the recirculation valve will stop the compressor from stalling.

I would expect the stock BOV to open when boost in the cooler pipes, purely because of the softness of the spring

An aftermarket BOV adjusted to a hard setting is more likely to stay closed

The stock BOV's do have that little bypass hole as well, wether that makes a difference or not

BOV's work off pressure differential. Imagine for arguments sake the spring is worth 2psi, so with the car boosting it has 10psi on the cooler pipe side and 10psi on the top of the valve, so with the spring 12psi on the top, obviously 12 beats 10 so BOV stays closed. Close throttle, vacuum occurs in the manifold so now you have 10psi on the cooler pipe side and -10 on the top of the valve + 2psi so therefore -8psi

With the boost/vac line removed, you only ever have the 2psi of spring pressure holding it closed, so as soon as there is any more than 2psi in the system the valve will open

These are just rough numbers, but remembering how soft the stock BOV was to open by pushing it in with my thumb, I would suspect it would stay open alot

So really what you should have is a whoosh of air then possibly a small flutter at the end when the spring overcomes the valve. Although then you have to think about the effect the low pressure/vac that is present in the recirc pipe is having

Even more so if the diameter of the diaphragm is lager than the seating surface of the valve.

Pretty sure Tom said he's using an auto, but with a manual yeah when you get off the throttle when changing gears the recirculation valve will stop the compressor from stalling.

Hmmmm. I am in 2 minds atm. In a GTR I have the BOVs venting in the guard and considering removing them altogether So the question is whether or not I will see a noticeable change in transient response on part throttle. Any advice would be great.

I blocked mine off this arvo and noticed zero difference, 14 psi, breed valve, auto trannie. Have you tried lubing the shafts on the rec-valves with some molly grease? mine used to stick a little open until I lubed it.

Not much Sutututu either, stock intake pipe and airbox.

Did some quick calculations on my rb20 rec-valve,

Valve seat is 1" diameter = 0.785² inches x 14 = 11lbs

Diaphragm is 2" diameter = 3.14² inches x 14 = 44lbs

estimated spring pressure 10 lbs

so when at 14 psi boost, there is 44lbs pushing down from the diaphragm, 11lbs pushing up on the valve face, then add another 10lbs down for the spring

so thats about 54lbs down compared to the 11lbs pushing back up from the 14psi of boost.

To see how that changes at intermediate throttle positions you would need to put another pressure gauge before the butterfly in the throttle body, needless to say as soon the plenum approaches atmospheric pressure only the spring will be holding the valve closed.

Please correct me if my physics is off ;)

Edited by Missileman

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...