Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was working on the car yesterday, and decided to lift the BOV just to have a look. My engine is from an R32, but the PO replaced the BOV, so I wanted to see if it had the R33 model with the passage to the diaphram. Which it does...

Under the BOV, I discover (in order from top pipe), an embossed metal gasket, a paper gasket, a metal plate with a 15mm hole through it and another embossed metal gasket. I removed everything except one of the embossed metal gaskets.

So now the blowoff valve works the way everyone describes - a 'sneeze' instead of a vented BOV kind of sound, the on/off boost transition is nice and smooth, there is no compressor surge when lightly lifting off, and when taken close to redline the revs drop back quickly instead of slowly.

So - why the hell was there a plate with a 15mm hole in it????

  • 2 weeks later...

O.K. - it does have an impact on performance. Without the plate, the valve seems to leak, 'cause the car has been waaaay down on power (I thought it was dodgy fuel). I'm not sure what it did to the boost - the car is a bit of a sleeper, so no boost gauge, but it runs around .9bar normally.

Today I put the plate back in and the power came back - wheelspin in 1'st, spinning over bumps in 2'nd/3'rd just like it used to. So - I've just finished the 'Talon BOV' mod. I've blocked the pressure port into the bottom of the diaphram from the IC piping with a 6mm grub screw, and drilled a 3mm vent hole to atmosphere instead. Can't take it on a test drive until later, but when I do, I'll post back with comments.

Yep - saw that thread, but the claim was that the stock valve didn't leak until around 18psi, but it appears it leaks at 13psi without the restrictor plate. And still no answer as to why there is a plate with a small hole in it anyway...

I finally got a test drive in with modded BOV and no restrictor plate. Pretty much the same sounds & throttle transition, but the performance is back again...

So - don't remove the restrictor unless you mod the BOV at the same time!

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...