Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys

I know this has been asked 1000 times (i've searched and searched :P ) but i installed my 'Go fast bits - Atomic' manual boost controller. I disconnected the old boost solenoid thing, and hooked up one end of the boost controller to the air intake pipe, and the other end into the actuator pipe (this went into the top plug in the stock controller). The little tube thing goes back into the throttle body?? (it used to sit on the bottom plug on the stock controller..) i plugged that hose up with a screw. A followed a few howto's from the archives and I think ive got it hooked up right. Problem is when I adjust the boost it lower it works.. stays at like 5psi.. but when i try make it higher it doesnt seem to change from when i had the stock solenoid on.. stays at like 8-9psi.. Alltho with the stock solenoid on i'd sometimes see it at 12psi for a little bit.. Im also usin an aftermarker boost guage to check the results.

Anyone have any ideas ??? Or am i missing something.. like i need something else.. to make the car make more turbo goodness ?? hmmm.. ???

my cars a r33 series 2 gtst btw.. 3" exhaust, fmic, safc2 etc..

thanks heaps

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/73629-atomic-manual-boost-controller/
Share on other sites

a took a pic just now.. u cant realy see it.. but it may help :P

Also i was looking in the little manual that came with it.. it said if my problem occurs ive got it wrong around the wrong way. It ses make sure the arrows are pointing towards the actuator thingy.. I double checked though and it definetly is.

I just checked it again with the thing fully closed, it doesnt seem to make a differance if its open or closed i thought it did before.... keeps going to like 7-8...

i want 10-12 or something :~(!!!

thanks heaps for that :P

It looks like its setup the same as mine.. arrows points towards actuator etc..

That pipe that goes to the top plug on the stock solenoid thingy where does that go back to ? Down to some bigger black plastic tube, and then into the intake pipe right ?

and not the actuator ? I plugged mine with a screw..hmm but that shouldnt make a diff ?

thanks again

grr ok i hooked it all up to the stock stuff... and connected the 2 pipes that go into the soilnoid into the boost controller.. i tried it with it both ways around... and its still sitting at like 7-8. its fully closed.. maybe im understanding/testing it wrong.. if its set to be at like 5psi or something... it should never realy get past 5psi right..

I dont wana have to pay for someone to get this going for me grrr !

I have the same bleed valve as you.

Here was my problem. Car would boost up to about 10psi, and then gradually creep up to about 14psi by 7000rpm. Keep in mind this is with aftermarket computer/turbo/cooler etc.

The thing was, I wanted 16psi right from the start. None of this gradual increase crap. What I managed to find out was that someone had fully closed the valve between when it got tuned (at 16psi) and then I picked the car up.

So with NO valve (valve closed), my car was running the minimum boost which was 10psi at 4000rpm up to 14psi at 7000. I opened the valve 1 turn, nothing... 3 turns, nothing... 10 turns, instant 12psi and 15 turns... 16psi at 4000rpm. By turns I could be meaning half turns cause I can't remember but the point is, you really have to wind that thing out many turns before you will notice an increase in boost over stock.

Also as far as I know, the valve does not let you lower your boost. You can't make it run less boost than stock. However, winding it out (if nothing happens just keep winding) should increase your boost to where you want it.

Also, for the GFB Atomic, you need an ALLEN KEY to open it up. Make sure you using one :thumbsup:

I think you might be right Dee..

Last night i took out the pipe that connects to the T/air intake originaly (like i should have 3 days ago grr) and it had a bloody restrictor in it.. so i've replaced that cable now.. and had it closed and it didnt seem to go over 8psi.. im going to try the unscrewing it 50 times trick now and see what happens.

I'll unplug the electrical connector going in the stock solenoid first to see if that does anything as well ? I thought that *just* opens it at 4500rpm ?

ooh im so excited, one of these ideas has got to work :D

thanks heaps

yay thanks heaps Dee!

i turned it back heaps and heaps and it went to like 15-18 for the split second b4 i nearly had a heartattack.. So its definetly working. Gonna take me ages to work out how many turns she needs to get what im after but its working atleast :D

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...