Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Post up the boost control table. 

I couldn't watch the video but it sounds like you're asking the boost controller to cycle around the idle areas of the map. Simply pull the duty cycle out of those areas of the map, it's not like your making boost at idle anyway lol.

Edited by Murray_Calavera
  • Like 2
4 hours ago, Murray_Calavera said:

Post up the boost control table. 

I couldn't watch the video but it sounds like you're asking the boost controller to cycle around the idle areas of the map. Simply pull the duty cycle out of those areas of the map, it's not like your making boost at idle anyway lol.

I haven't messed with the boost table at all. I loaded the base tune and adjusted MAFs / TPS output for the ATESSA / fuel sender

 

Here's what the boost table is set to.

 

 

 

20201016_031425.jpg

20201016_031456.jpg

38 minutes ago, RTSKY33 said:

I changed the options on the link so everyone should be able to view it now.

So that's going to be commanding 22 %, change the first number to 0 and all good, then adjust the axis values to more sensible values

45 minutes ago, Ben C34 said:

So that's going to be commanding 22 %, change the first number to 0 and all good, then adjust the axis values to more sensible values

I set the first value to 0 and it fixed the issue. Im new the ECU things so I'm not sure of what the other value should be set to.

Thanks for helping me out!

The stock solenoid works differently. It is pulsed from standard, but thats not practically the problem. The problem is that when de-energised it is normally closed, as opposed to normally open as you would with a 3 port Mac valve setup with wastegate actuator. The vacuum arrangement is different when using a normally open valve too.

The stock solenoid feed from plenum is tee'd and directly the feeds solenoid and wastegate actuators, then ecu commands solenoid to energise and open, bleeding off the excess boost pressure actuator boost signal to back Infront of the turbos. A normally open Mac valve would not be tee'd and be fed directly from plenum, then to actuators. This normally closed setup is more like an external gate setup, except the bleed port is going back in front of turbos as an actuator air bleed instead of going to the second preloading port on an external gate.

Why Nissan why ?

Stock setup is stupid and appears to have problems controlling higher than stock boost pressures, that is, not being able to bleed off enough air to raise / control boost properly, reliably or consistently.

2 hours ago, BK said:

Why Nissan why ?

Because it's just a 2 state bleed. It's a digital on-off arrangement. With Nissan it's X (where X is a fixed 5 or 10 or similar) psi from the spring with the solenoid closed and Z (=X + Y where Y is a fixed 2 or 3 or 5 or something similar) psi when open and bleeding.

Mac valves are throttled by the PWM controller to give an analogue effect. With PWM control, it's X + A where A can be anything at any time depending on the limits of the bleed size, duty cycle limits, etc.

  • Like 1

So replace the stock one with an automotive MAC Valve. As its Provisioned for PWM it will work intended with the Haltech ECU, correct?

also, will using the same plumbing/wiring be an issue?

Edited by SLVRBAKSLPZ
1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Wiring fine, you'll need to slightly replumb

Is this accurate on how to modify the plumbing? Port 1 vent to Atmosphere // Wastegate to port 2 // Direct from plenum to port 3

MAC_Plumbing_Diagram.jpg

Looks about right, diagram is giving me a headache lol.

Essentially you want the boost source from your plenum (only applies to RB26 as throttles are post plenum).

5 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Looks about right, diagram is giving me a headache lol.

Essentially you want the boost source from your plenum (only applies to RB26 as throttles are post plenum) and block off the OEM bleed.

Im sorry. seems all the pictures on Google are already scribbled on.

 

But basically the long green line needs to get routed to the plenum where the short ones goes into, correct? It looks like I can reach that line and re-route w/o pulling the plenum.

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...