Thanks, bro! I appreciate that.

 

Took her out for a spirited spin yesterday, and quickly noticed that boost control was malfunctioning ...overboosting. So, first chance I throw her up on stands today fully expecting to find a cracked or damaged line to the bottom WG control port. Nope nada. Perplexed....I fire up a cigar and commence smoke testing. In short time the culprit is revealed ...via smoke wafting from under the dash.

Placed an order for a replacement, and temporarily bypassed it for the moment. She's back on the road boosting about w/ solid control again.

 

I used to have one of those ...way back in the day

 

So, you run w/out the inline filter. Interesting ...worth considering eliminating a potential point of failure.

 

So, a little more context surrounding this event. Even after bypassing the EBC inline air filter (discussed above) she kept throwing P0171s, boost targets seemed a little shallow (though I wasn't really getting on her), and idle seemed a little rough. Originally I smoke tested my control line (off my last boost section, pre-throttle) which feeds WG and electronics, which lead me to discover the failed inline air filter.

After more thought I began to suspect there m/b additional vacuum leaks yet undiscovered. So, I pop the hood today suspecting either a port on the UIM or one of the service ports on the LIM. Sure enough I find the below hose popped off on this port. How did I miss an open port literally directly on top of the engine? Regardless, I suspect when the filter failed, she lost electronic boost control, failed over to mechanical control only, and the subsequent boost spike before backpressure forced the WG open popped this hose as well.

So, I reconnected AND zip-tied both ends of this hose...which s/h already been done. Fired her up and she idles like a purring kitten again. Thought I'd add this little bit: if idle is off and she's throwing P0171s... find and fix your vac leak.

Edit: I'm sure had I gotten that far... STFTs would have been an indicator as well.

 

Recently saw evidence of fuel leaking after a fill up on the passenger side... likely the fuel pump retainer ring. Contacted local Mazda dealer and h/b working through either having them perform or providing the component kits to complete the 1017E fuel leak recall. The rub is that the fuel pump retainer ring recall (1017E) includes the fuel pump body kit replacement (0516J), which swaps out most of the fuel pump kit assembly including the embedded fuel pump, i.e. in this case my upgraded DW200 255 LPH.

Mazda will not perform 1017E only, and not 0516J ...likely d/t liability issues. Regardless, I finally received confirmation that they've approved and ordered the component kits for delivery to me. A satisfactory compromise IMV.

 

you don’t still have the original OE pump to put back in it? I may have one if you want to swap the DW out.
.

 

I do still have the OE pump, but appreciate the offer. I considered swapping it back in to have Mazda do the work, but that would require swapping the pump twice. This way I perform the work only once, and I avoid putting her in a shop. Last time I did that it took weeks discovering and resolving all the issues they caused.

 

Update: Fuel Ring Replacement

Replaced the passenger side fuel pump retainer ring today. Had been experiencing a fuel leak after fill-ups on the passenger side, poor fuel economy, and frequent P0455 CEL, large EVAP control system leak CEL.

Found a sizeable crack in the existing ring. On completion, went straight to the filling station and filled her to pump cut-off, and no further leaking. Need to drive a bit more to definitively confirm..., but initial indications are that mpg is back to normal range, and P0455 CEL has not returned.

Forgot to take a pic of the finished cleaned state.


Mazda provided ring kit
.

Mazda provided fuel pump assembly kit (Will install this if/when she develops a fuel leak at the fuel pump discharge pump)
.

Old fuel pump ring
.

Ring removal tool & socket
.

Old fuel pump ring w/ sizeable crack

 

Understatement of the year there Curtis! Next time someone shows you their crack ....you can pull that out and say ..... that aint a crack ... THIS is a crack !

 

 

Spinning like a top. Enjoying exhilarating morning, pre-rush hour, and evening, post rush hour, drives.

 

at what rpm is full boost?

 

It's been a minute since I did a disciplined "pull" as I just enjoy her anymore..., but ~4100 rpm in 3rd gear to ~13.5 psi IIRC.

 

Loving these cooler ambient temps...
.

 

I'm impressed with how stable your AFRs are .... what injectors are you running these days ?

 

Thanks. Running yellows in P1, and uncapped yellows in P2 and Secondary.

 

Range:
I consider her range per fill-up as follows :

• ~ 225 mi. daily, city
• ~ 260 mi. highway

And my fill-ups are typically ~13.5 gal.

Given the S1 tank is 15.9 gal.; her range c/b extended to:

• ~ 265 daily city mi.
• ~ 305 highway mi.

I'll keep fill-ups ~ 13.5 gal, ...as I avoid dredging her tank: but good to know the add'l range is there, if needed.

Note: Fuel tank capacity: 15.9 gal. (S1), 16.9 gal (S2)

 

Since going FI mid and top end performance h/b exceptional. However, modulating slow speed performance, e.g. gradual acceleration from a stop, etc. has always been somewhat challenging. I found myself having to consciously feather the throttle to govern turbo spool, torque, and acceleration at slow speeds. It wasn't a huge issue...just something which had to be managed.

I recently stumbled upon an old thread regarding torque response mapping relative to throttle position (%): "Linear throttle map for improved drivability". After giving the thread a read... I made the below revision to my "Desired Engine Torque" map.

Wow, s/h done this years ago ...what a difference! Managing gradual accelerations from a stop or simply at slow speeds are effortlessly smooth now. Slow speed performance is now as gratifying as running through her gears @ 13-14 psi during spirited driving.


OEM Desired Engine Torque map
.

Revised Desired Engine Torque map

 

Might try this - I found myself in full boost in 6th gear while not even realising it.

 

I presume there are other maps which influence torque demand given various circumstances. That said... this map originally commanded up to ~85% torque at 30% throttle! My revised map commands:

• ~25% torque at 30% throttle
• ~60% torque at 57% throttle
• ~73% torque at 66% throttle
• ~ full torque at 84% throttle

Edit: Ciprianrx8, Btw, again...quality work on your DIY turbo system build ...in spite of an item or two yet to sort.

 

I approached it from a different angle via the throttle maps many years ago ..... that works great too .
I've never played with the torque maps though ...didn't really understand what they were doing. Might be worth playing with after hearing of your success.

 

Brett, I recall you or I making some revisions to the Throttle Duty Cycle maps some time ago...which were helpful. However, by comparison the Throttle Duty Cycle maps appear to correlate the accelerator pedal position to throttle body position, whereas the Desired Engine Torque maps directly correlate desired torque output to throttle position. So, the D.E.T map seems to present a finer instrument for the desired goal: governing torque output relative to throttle position.

I'd presume a play w/ them both would yield the best results.

 

Had an interesting conversation w/ a repairman I had at the house yesterday. I noticed he had a tat of a coilover and turbo on his forearm, so of course we began discussing our interest in cars, HP, power mods, etc. We shared stories of our journeys, i.e. the joys, and heartache of building and mod'ing our cars of choice.

I shared w/ him my journey turbocharging my 8, ~3100 lbs, ...ups and downs, proudly resulting in ~ 400 HP to the wheels.

He shared w/ me his journey of turbocharging his ~ 98 camaro,~2900 lbs,...ups and downs, resulting in ~1300 HP to the wheels.

Seriously, ...great guy, great conversation, years of experience, and knowledge.

Sure added some perspective to what we're doing here.

 

nobody else likely noticed, but nice edit on post #1
.