When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Got my new Mishi catch can fitted w/ full 10AN hoses from filler neck to intake,
Then, enjoyed a bit of thrashing about.
Edit:
- Hood no longer pops d/t bay pressure since installing the vents.
- Dip stick no longer pops as well d/t crank case pressure after going to 10AN CC hoses.
.
.
.
.
Curt san, 👍👏👌, your effort, enthusiasm and perseverance is contagious. I am puzzled by that power drain device peeking from under your bumper, please elaborate. Someone already might have asked, but I am not done reading the thread yet.
Curt san, 👍👏👌, your effort, enthusiasm and perseverance is contagious. I am puzzled by that power drain device peeking from under your bumper, please elaborate. Someone already might have asked, but I am not done reading the thread yet.
Thanks, appreciate it! It's been a fun, frustrating, & rewarding...journey.
You've a good eye. Yeah, I mention a time or two in my thread....it supports my other interest ...
.
Update:
After moving my EBC control line pre throttle body, I began experiencing an odd boost anomaly. With a target boost of ~13.5 psi... the system would generate ~13.5 psi on aggressive accelerations, but on moderate accelerations...the system would only generate ~ 9 psi, i.e. my WG spring pressure.
I considered potential causes, e.g. vac line leak, degrading WG spring, failing WG solenoid, poor WG solenoid control, etc. Given the somewhat intermittent nature of the issue; I decided to start by looking at my WG control design. I was initially running a variation of the "2-port, Single Solenoid, Single Turbo Method 1" design (shown below)...except pulling boost source post IC... just prior to the throttle body. I initially chose this design b/c of its stated advantage for systems w/ potentially "high back pressure".
Today I transitioned to the " 2-port, Single Solenoid, Single Turbo Method 2" (shown below) ...while still pulling boost just prior to the throttle body ...to see what, if any, impact it would have on system boost control. I began testing w/ my EBC "SET" at 30% duty cycle, i.e. my existing LOW setting, which typically generated ~ 11 psi. Mistake. Did a 3rd gear WOT at the end of the hwy entrance ramp...and broke 'em loose...hit 18 psi. So..., throttled EBC "SET" solenoid duty cycle way back... to single digits and was still generating 16+ psi. It feels like winter power...mid summer.
This new WG control method generates ~ 15 psi at a solenoid duty cycle of ~6%, the previous method required ~ 43%. So, though still tuning...initial observations are that this control method
...seems to have eliminated the boost anomaly seen before
...delivers boost more readily / smoothly
...delivers more boost...on my system.
Next step... I'll reduce my WG spring from 9# to 7.5#... to both lower minimum achievable boost, and hopefully move duty cycle back into ~ 30% range for tuning to a target 13-14 psi
WG Boost Control Methods: Method 1: Initial WG control method
.
Method 2: New WG control method . Boost profile...16.6 psi!
I considered a 4-port solenoid, but understand they yield increased boost range, but decreased tuning precision / "control".
The advantage of the 4-port solenoid is it's ability to generate boost up to 6x WG spring #, whereas the 3-port only generates boost ~ 2.5x WG spring #. That's a great feature for those wanting to run big #s &/or adjust boost "on the fly" over a large range, e.g. 8 to 30+ psi. Neither of those are my interest.
But the extended boost range of the 4-port relative to WG spring # comes at the cost of tuning precision / resolution..., which is of more value to me w/in the relatively small range of boost I'm running. So, in my case on a 7.5# spring, and 3-port solenoid my system s/b capable of running from 4 - 18 psi: 4 -7.5 psi w/ EBC off , and 7.5 - 18 psi ...w/ EBC on; where I only intend to run ~14 psi max.
I've run both a 3 and 4 port at various times. Have never noticed any control accuracy issues either way myself. I would put your intermittent fault down to a mechanical issue like a sticking WG,solenoid valve, or BOV rather than the way it's controlled.
I've run both a 3 and 4 port at various times. Have never noticed any control accuracy issues either way myself. I would put your intermittent fault down to a mechanical issue like a sticking WG,solenoid valve, or BOV rather than the way it's controlled.
That m/b true. If it's a mechanical issue...it'll manifest w/ this method as well. Time will tell.
But atm...this new method is rocking...showing no signs of boost anomaly, and generating boost ....quite nicely.
And I like being able to reduce WG spring # as well.
other experts seem to disagree, but who sets it up and how may enter into it. Which it does require a pulse width modulated control signal to get the full benefit:
.
Full-Race 4 Port MAC Boost Control
Solenoid w/ Full-Race Bracket
Our 4-port boost control solenoid valve is designed to target a clearly defined boost curve and improve boost responses, and in some cases with a soft WG spring – quicker spool. The 4-port design works equally well in low boost applications and high boost. This differs from a traditional 3-port BCSV because it precisely directs pressure to the open and close ports of your wastegate diaphragm. This allows much lower wastegate spring pressure for better low gear boost control and perfect high gear, high boost control...
. Note: If you are upgrading from a 3 port solenoid, the boost control tables will need re-tuning. 4port solenoids require small duty changes, so dial down the PID tables (single digit numbers) so it is not over-reactive.
Well, I don't claim to be a SME on this...and haven't run a 4-port, ...am just reading the same forum info & literature as the rest. So, you are quite possibly right, i.e. that "experts" disagree. Or it c/b clever marketing phrasing...for example...in the marketing data you posted here:
"Our 4-port boost control solenoid valve is designed to target a clearly defined boost curve andimprove boost responses..."
... compared to what? Inference m/b ...compared to a 3-port. That w/b incorrect. I presume this is actually compared to no EBC at all.
"This differs from a traditional 3-port BCSV because it precisely directs pressure to the open and close ports of your wastegate diaphragm."
Technically true compared to a 3-port in the "Method 1" configuration. However, the "Method 2" config modulates pressure to the open and close diaphragm ports as well. ;-)
And even if so...this point states a fact of operation..., not a claim of improved "system performance". [Note: though there may be.]
Seems the main claim to fame is the last point: "This allows much lower wastegate spring pressure for better low gear boost control and perfect high gear, high boost control."
But wait...there's more...;-) Notice the trailing note:
"Note: If you are upgrading from a 3 port solenoid, the boost control tables will need re-tuning. 4port solenoids require small duty changes, so dial down the PID tables (single digit numbers) so it is not over-reactive."
Meaning... that it's granularity / precision... is more coarse, i.e. comparable tuning adjustments will result in greater system boost changes as compared to a to a 3-port.
End of day...I'm sure either device c/b used to achieve desired boost control..., but the 4-port is required for large boost #s relative to WG spring # &/or large on-the-fly boost adjust-ability.
Having found a frayed WG vac hose while earlier changing up my boost control... I decided to revert back to Method 1 ...now knowing all hose connections were sound. Well, nada... test drive quickly determined that the inconsistent boost anomaly was still present. So, hoses weren't the issue.
So, at this point I know:
- The boost inconsistency exists w/ Method 1
- Though more tuning & testing is required here...the boost inconsistency does not appear to be present w/ Method 2. It's actually a "friggin' jet w/ this method".
- Integrity of all vac hose connections h/b confirmed.
So, next step is to reduce my WG spring # ...b/c atm even at 2% duty cycle boost levels are higher than desired for testing. Then add'l testing should reveal if something else is going on..., e.g. sticking WG, or BOV, etc.
so I saw over at RX7CLUB that Elliott and a few other people determined or said that a 4-port was not needed or useful, likely for the reasons stated here.
Not sure why you reply copy everything, especially a useless post teling you I was going to delete that previous one and to let you know the reasons why they were deleted.
Not a criticism; guess I sometimes don’t understand other people anymore than they understand me either
.
Good to hear others agree regarding the 4-port solenoid...though there's nothing wrong w/ using one.
Lol, I quote the salient portion to what I'm replying ...to make clear to what I'm replying and to avoid the person deleting it, and rendering my response vague, confusing or meaningless. . I view build threads similar to a journal...space isn't really an issue...w/ the digital thing you know. So, IMV it's simpler...cleaner.
I reduced my WG spring from 9 to 7.5#, which had the desired affect of reducing boost...though I probably could have dropped to a 6# spring. Initial testing seems to indicate that this control method is more affected by back -pressure than the Method 1 model.
- W/Method 1 boost increases slightly or holds constant with each successive gear.
- W/Method 2 boost decreases slightly with each successive gear.
I'll need more testing to confirm. If true, I'll then need to decide which control method better suites my need.
Edit: I'm thinking running a set-up which allows back pressure to mildly attenuate boost may not be an undesirable thing.
I figured you were just trying to aggravate me fo death trying to make me leave. The one thing learning Japanese taught me was following context without having it in your face or putting it in everyone else’s face.
I do the same as Curtis for the same reasons . You might be surprised to know how often your comments are misinterpreted by others because you don't do the same.
I understand all to well how people are ... copying long posts with full pics and crap is no different than trying to have a conversation with someone who repeats everything you say before giving their own response.
.
It is very diffferent . Note here how I am just responding to this sentence and nothing else. Makes it easy for you or anyone to understand what I'm talking about
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
Which what you really said is you don’t comprehend my previous response. I understand why just as was stated.
.
Now i'm responding to this little gem. I really have no idea what you are referring to or even who you are talking to , given that I wasn't even part of the original conversation. If you had quoted something, maybe I would understand. See how this works ? We are on a forum where multiple people are having conversations and others are reading them. You seem to think you can just throw out a whole lot of verbiage out of context and have everyone understand it ...
Well, I've abandoned the Method 2 WG control model. It proved to have too little range of control. The car felt like a jet when using it, ... b/c peak boost levels were ~16 psi on a 9# spring. Problem was...these boost levels were at 4% or less solenoid duty cycle. So, there was zero downward adjust-ability...short of changing the spring.
Thinking it m/b a mechanical issue a couple of days ago I briefly reverted back to the M1 model to see if it exhibited a lack of control. Nada: control and boost levels were good. Hoses...check, connections...check, WG...check, and solenoid... check. Went back to M2, reduced the WG spring to 7.5#; and peak boost dropped to ~14 psi, but that was still w/ the solenoid duty cycle still very low, ~6% IIRC.
This h/b an interesting, but disappointing exercise... learning the limitations of M2 model...at least w/my solenoid. So, I'm reverting back to M1...on a 9# spring. Control and boost levels are good, 13 psi @ ~40% d/c... w/good adjustability up & down from there. Should the boost anomaly, which is why I initially changed control methods, return...and I expect it will... I'll have to resolve some other way.
As expected... boost issues using the M1 control and 9# spring are still present...in my high boost ...high rpm range only...which leads me to believe it's back-pressure related. So, while 3-port information indicates you s/b able to achieve psi ~2 - 2.5x WG spring #, ...my experience doesn't appear to validate that theory. Perhaps it's true for piston engines, but not a higher flow / back-pressure rotaries. So, 4-port is on order, which is cheaper than attacking back-pressure..., and more desirable than installing a larger spring; and I'm hoping it'll resolve my issue.
Some may recall when I had the boost spiking issue a while back on [full...partial...full throttle] maneuvers. In the past I'd seen spikes 3-4 psi above desired peak boost. The issue was ultimately resolved by moving my EBC control line from post to pre- throttle body. The boost anomaly, i.e. dropping to WG pressure, I'm trying to resolve now aside..., control is superb.....as long as I don't ask too much of her. Solid boost control is everything.
The below is from a drive today ...from a chip, charge, ...and slaying of a Camaro and Challenger on the hwy. Edit: Think I'll dub her the "Singing Assassin". It's gratifying to hear their exhaust note change as they downshift, ...accelerate, try to pull away, ...can't ; and you pass. Just a bit of fun.
Disclaimer: I do not encourage, support, or routinely practice disregard for posted speed limits on public roadways.
.
Hopefully the 4-port solenoid will resolve the dropping out, otherwise boost control is very clean, predictable...no unintended spiking, or over-boosting above set point.
well I hope that works out better for you than me trying to explain to B how cultural conditioning prevents him from understanding my explanation.
.
I understood the explanation just fine. Whether it's appropriate behavior on this forum is another thing. I think you've been listening to this too much myself:
Update:
After moving my EBC control line pre throttle body, I began experiencing an odd boost anomaly. With a target boost of ~13.5 psi... the system would generate ~13.5 psi on aggressive accelerations, but on moderate accelerations...the system would only generate ~ 9 psi, i.e. my WG spring pressure.
I considered potential causes, e.g. vac line leak, degrading WG spring, failing WG solenoid, poor WG solenoid control, etc. Given the somewhat intermittent nature of the issue; I decided to start by looking at my WG control design...
Had high hopes for the M2 WG control model..., transitioned to it..., had issues controlling boost across an acceptable range, so reverted back to the M1 model.
The two issues that I was attempting to address were:
Under-boosting on "moderate accelerations...into WOT" maneuvers, e.g. 3rd gear @ 5700 rpm up a hwy entrance ramp ...behind other cars ...then going WOT once on the hwy. This is the only situation in which I'd see under-boosting.
Boost dropping to WG pressure in 4th/5th gear, upper rpms at 13.5-14 psi.
I recalled reading discussions...regarding the difference between air velocityand air volumemoving thru the system. I began wondering if the APV opening timing m/b negatively impacting spool-up by increasing air volume..., at the expense of reducingairvelocity precisely as the turbine is spooling-up...causing or contributing to the first issue described above. I believe mass air volume is key to support higher rpm HP, but air velocity more necessary for effective turbine spooling. To test...I increased the APV opening timing to 6200 rpm, and there's been no further under-boosting...in this scenario...on initial test drives. Again, initial results...hoping to see consistency over time.
The 4-port solenoid delivery h/b delayed d/t Covid-19. So, still hoping it will resolve issue 2 when received.
a bit surprised that you decided to try that after all, looking forward to see how it works out.
.
Why? I'm simply attempting to use sound principles & an understanding of how the engine works to optimize it, or solve problems as they are discovered. The question is which spools the turbine better...increased air velocity or volume flow? Moving the APV timing later to 6200 rpm sustains high air velocity a bit longer before increasing volume flow for higher rpm HP. So far, so good. that there are no recurrences of under-boosting.
Certainly w/h been beneficial if I'd experimented w/ lower AND higher APV open timing when I initially looked at this while investigating it's affect on HP back ~ post # 720.
are you serious? It was only two weeks ago and then you and B started rebuking me ...
so a bit later I was on RX7Club and saw where Turblown said it wasn’t likely to help, came here and posted that and said well you were probably right, and then deleted that original post on it because I felt like it was cluttering your thread.
aye caramba ...
.
Lol, ok, you're referring to my pending switch to a 4-port solenoid. My post was primarily about delaying the opening of the APV. So, of course...that's what I thought you were referring to. A quick "quote" ... or reference to "4-port"...w/h put me on the same page.
So, about your 4-port post ...you deleted. So, it didn't happen, right? J'king. But......c'mon, man... w/ your penchant for various, sundry, sarcastic, off topic posts..., you here say you didn't want to "clutter my thread" ??? Lol, well......I appreciate that...really.
Specifically, regarding the 4-port... you'll recall I wasn't against it,... just wasn't convinced I needed it. I was not convinced at that time that my 3-port solenoid was insufficient to reliably achieve my desired boost range w/ the WG spring # I want to run.
Originally Posted by jcbrx8
Well, I don't claim to be a SME on this...and haven't run a 4-port, ...am just reading the same forum info & literature as the rest. So, you are quite possibly right, i.e. that "experts" disagree. ... End of day...I'm sure either device c/b used to achieve desired boost control..., but the 4-port is required for large boost #s relative to WG spring # &/or large on-the-fly boost adjust-ability.
Since then, ... testing has led me to believe that I m/b currently at the limits of the 3-port solenoid boost range ...again for the WG spring I want to run, ...causing boost to drop d/t back pressure at high gear, high rpm. This is my "theory", which yet m/b right or wrong. Now.....IMV it makes sense...for $50... to try a 4-port solenoid, which will address, or eliminate, two potential causes: bad solenoid, &/or excessive back-pressure. If this doesn't resolve the issue...I'm probably looking at a WG.
My approach all along since installing my kit h/b to cost effectively enhance... or "solve problems"..., i.e. avoid extravagance..., redesigning..., or changing things that ain't broke.
Originally Posted by jcbrx8
... Most valued build thought: “At some point, everything's gonna go south on you... everything's going to go … you can either accept that, or you can get to work. That's all it is. You just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem... and you solve the next one... and then the next. ...” - Mark Watney, “The Martian”
But bro, .....if I'd recalled you mentioned it... smh...I wouldn't have done it. .................... Really, ...yes, IIRC you were the first to introduce the 4-port to the discussion . Thanks. Appreciate you.
Originally Posted by jcbrx8
... A good idea is ...a good idea no matter the source. It's all about the Renesis. bro.
Having difficulty w/ getting proper function from the 4-port solenoid. Tested & confirmed that the solenoid switches properly w/ an independent 12v source. But when hooked up to my Greddy Profect B2...no love. I continue to only get spring boost pressure well into the [SET, GAIN, SET GAIN] ranges where I s/b seeing boost elevation above spring.
For testing I ran the following:
SET: 2 ...thru... 40 %
GAIN: 24%
SET GAIN: 60
07-31-2020, 10:03 PM
Yeah, I mention a time or two in my thread....it supports my other interest ...
So..., throttled EBC "SET" solenoid duty cycle way back... to single digits and was still generating 16+ psi. It feels like winter power...mid summer.
So, IMV it's simpler...cleaner. 
It's gratifying to hear their exhaust note change as they downshift, ...accelerate, try to pull away, ...can't ; and you pass. 
Just a bit of fun.
Again, initial results...hoping to see consistency over time.
J'king. But......c'mon, man... w/ your penchant for various, sundry, sarcastic, off topic posts..., you here say you didn't want to "clutter my thread" ??? Lol, well......I appreciate that...really.
Really, ...yes, IIRC you were the first to introduce the 4-port to the discussion . Thanks. Appreciate you. 