Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, hardsteppa said:

But also no. Because why would you install a 90's-tech manual boost controller when you can get a reasonable electronic one cheap nowdays.

I wasn't even going to try that argument. I mean, the argument is 100% valid, and I would take an old Profec over a manual controller every single day, but.....too many words to type.

  • Like 1
8 hours ago, JC71 said:

can one remove the stock wiring, bracket and "dual stage (5-7) solenoid" control assembly, if installing an aftermarket (turbosmart) manual boost control?

image_4dfb529b-407f-4f88-aff3-b5d2cb760158_1445x.jpg

Sure. Make sure to put some dielectric grease on the terminals and cap it in case future you wants to run electronic boost control again.

On 19/07/2024 at 8:19 AM, GTSBoy said:

I wasn't even going to try that argument. I mean, the argument is 100% valid, and I would take an old Profec over a manual controller every single day, but.....too many words to type.

indeed, I hear you, but, fortunately I have the time right now to type some sh!te. You can now get a cheap elctr boost controller that will do boost by throttle position, boost by engine temp, overboost protection, boost by rpm, boost by your girlfriend's menstrual cycle, boost by the lunar tides, boost by the Gregorian calendar, the whole lot. All for not much.

where is the best location to connect the pressure source line to the manual boost controller???? my rb25det neo has a front mount intercooler, and therefor the stock fitting (like in attached 1st pic, white arrow) on the upper intake pipe is not there. I only see one other smaller hose fittings on the stock intake cross over pipe before the throttle body, just below the recirculation or "BOV" valve.  currently has the blk and red little "filter" in this line. (2nd pic whit arrow)  Able to put in a T and use this one? I have also seen some pics where people appear to have T into the hose going to the recirculation valve nipple??. please advise. thanks.

boost.png

 

boost 2.png

Edited by JC71

I looked it over last evening and took a few pics. trying to simplify as much as possible. cap or remove whatever is not needed and add two lines, to and from the aftermarket manual boost controller.

there is a nipple on the aluminum/cast elbow between the turbo and intake filter,

another on the steel "hook" pipe in front of that, that looks to be connected to the rubber pipe between the turbo elbow and intake filter as well.

the one on the wastegate, and the two currently to stock solenoid valve

20240722_193922.jpg

20240722_193857.jpg

20240722_193902.jpg

20240722_193916.jpg

20240722_193844.jpg

Edited by JC71

not sure what you are calling a hot pipe...

but your saying to eliminate all hoses here, cap all nipples.

block line off the aluminum elbow off the front/top of turbo, and block the one off the steel hook pipe in front and above that, remove solenoid, and both those lines.

drill and add nipple to this intercooler pipe? in pic at red arrow, (as similar to where stock had one) and run a line for "pressure source" to the manual controller from there, then the out the controller to the wastegate?

20240722_193857.jpg

Edited by JC71

I would assume the hot pipe would be referring to the intercooler piping that comes right from the turbo headed towards  the intercooler, and the cold side would the be the pipe after the intercooler headed towards the intake /throttle body?

if this is the case, do I want it as close as possible to the turbo or furthest from, to get the most accurate reading? and would the factory fitting on the turbo elbow be the perfect location for the pressure line for the boost controller??

20240722_193922.thumb.jpg.9a49aa1481edca8303ed70dff5d79731.jpg

Edited by JC71
3 hours ago, JC71 said:

I would assume the hot pipe would be referring to the intercooler piping that comes right from the turbo headed towards  the intercooler,

Yes.

3 hours ago, JC71 said:

do I want it as close as possible to the turbo

Yes. On an R32, for example, the nipple is actually connected onto the compressor housing. Right on the front. There is probably a pad on the front of yours that could have been drilled and tapped, but likely wasn't, because they stopped putting it there, for some reason.

If there's a fitting on that elbow, then yes. Can't see it because the photo is tiny and the arrow is in the way. But yes.

wow!!!, what a difference a manual boost controller makes. simplified everything, and cleaned up the engine bay even more. It's a good steady boost now, I set it around 8 for now, no dual stage crap, seem to improved spool up delay, sounds better, and I don't have to push rpms so high to get power and torque. A few other tweaks and I think this thing will be ready to rock.

The turbo air movement rushing sound is still there and loud as ever, even though I found no play in the carriage shaft, I am convinced its from the turbo itself, as has over 100K miles and its the original stock turbo.  I plan on replacing the turbo itself over this winter as all the other turbo system components are correct.  I found and acquired a new old stock RB25DET NEO Nissan OP6 turbo 45V assembly, which I will swap out both nylon and ceramic wheels with steel ones.

thanks to all who helped! 

Edited by JC71

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...