Feedback from everyone on whether fix #2 still allows some jittery response during light load cruise would be much appreciated.

Also, the EvoM moderators have given me the green light to post up my paypal addy:

wassana at toloczko dot com

Support the mrfred BBK-XL fund. :-)

 

Have they released the specs on that turbo yet? Compressor lb/min?

I'm thinking about upgrading in the spring, but was deciding between the various FP turbos (HTA green, red, black). I like FP because they log and test so much when they design new turbos (don't always publish all of it, but they do share a lot). It makes it a lot easier when deciding on a turbo.

I'm curious where the BBK-XL will fit into the mix. The compressor flow rates for the FP turbos are as follows:

HTA Green - 54 lb/min
Red - 60 lb/min
Black - 68 lb/min

Anyone know where the BBK-XL falls? Any specific data published yet?


Thanks

 

CBRD mentioned in one of the BBK-related threads (I think the BBK vs Red Poll) that the XL is about 60 days away from release. Haven't seen any compressor numbers, but based on Bryan's testing of a beta unit, the XL will make another 15-20 whp over the Full while spooling maybe 100 rpm later than the Full (which spools at nearly the same RPM as stock). It ought to come in a bit stronger than the HTA-Green and at a much better price point. Seems like the perfect street turbo.

 

kinda off topic, but i thought the green was 57-60lbs?

Also very interested in BBK XL flow numbers

 

Donation sent, BBK-B is the final name for it I believe! Results look very promising, you will not be sorry mrfred!

I flipped back to fix#1 for the drive home this morning (at work till 8am, suck!) and the drive back to the office this am and it is definitely smooth as glass, but as you mentioned mrfred, the car is a bit lethargic under low loads and actually seems to run a tish more timing up top (this may be neither here nor there). I switched back to fix#2 to try and further compare.

Anyone else able to try these various fixes?

mrfred, what affect would setting fix1 to something inbetween 205 and 255 (say 230) and/or setting fix2 to something inbetween 0 and 112 (say 60) have? I might try this later this week, it is a complete guess on my part :P

 

http://store.forcedperformance.net/m...e=Lancer-Turbo

 

Thanks for the donation. Fix1 acts as an on/off switch. Anything above 217 will cause fix1 to go into effect. 217 and below will cause fix1 to become inactive. The value in fix2 represents an uncompensated load value. (Scaling is 0.628.) When the engine load is below this threshold load, the code will use the DeltaMasterLoad value in the BFPW calc. My thought is that its undersirable to use the DeltaMasterLoad, so the best value is zero. No prob to try intermediate values if you want.

 

I kept fix #1 for now to get a decent amount of logging time (since I have Evoscan back up and running, pita because it wiped all my custom definitions and I had to add them again), and then I'll try out #2 and compare results. I really haven't seen any issues of the car feeling "lethargic" at any rpm, in my case it actually seems crisper at low rpm. I also tend to play around with my throttle crossover points so this may have something to do with it. I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary as of yet, but I haven't thoroughly checked the logs to see. I'll try and toss you some x-mas bones for finding this, big thanks mrfred!

 

I think I'm going to stick with fix#2 for now. The car feels peppy and the jitter that I'm feeling might just be in my head. I'll try the combo deal later but I'm just going to drive on #2 for a few days and see how it feels.

 

Since fix1 makes two changes in the IPW calculation, and fix2 isolates only one of the two changes, I thought it would be useful to make a fix3 that isolates the other of the two changes.

1) Add the following table to your xml file:

9653 ROMs:

<table name="BT -> NOP for Static DeltaMasterLoadPos/Neg Threshold" category="Speed Density Programming" address="27a0a" type="1D" level="1" scaling="Hex16"/>

8859 ROMs:

<table name="BT -> NOP for Static DeltaMasterLoadPos/Neg Threshold" category="Speed Density Programming" address="2a972" type="1D" level="1" scaling="Hex16"/>

2) The value should read 8909. Change the value to 0x0009. Its a hex value so you'll need to enter it as 0x....

3) Set fix1 and fix2 back to stock.

Let me know how that works.

 

Would that be the same as setting the 'Ceiling Load vs RPM for Sync Load Accel/Decel Contributions' to 0 for the cells or changing the individual ceiling values in the 'Sync Load Accel DeltaMasterLoadPos Ceiling Value' or 'Sync Load Accel DeltaMasterLoadNeg Ceiling Value' maps to 0?

If no one tests these by this weekend, I should be able to. If I can find the time, I am going to switch to SD and finally install my new intake pipe and filter as well.

Also, I should be able to send you a little donation as well. (I have to save for my turbo fund as well. )

 

LOL, I meant to type RED not green (I know the green is 54lbs as it says clearly on FPs site). Also mean to say 57lbs or 60lbs. Its fixed below

So for the RED, is it 57lbs or 60lbs of flow?

 

Red is 60lb/min, direct from Robet at FP. It's in a thread, but I don't feel like searching it out. The flow ratings I gave were all from a thread that Robert posted.

 

The code calculates a change in master load for the BFPW and for the Sync Load Accel fuel pulse width contribution. DeltaMasterLoad (as I call it) is the one that is conditionally tacked onto the BFPW scalar, while DeltaMasterLoadPos/Neg is used for the SyncLoadAccel/Decel calculation.

What fix3 does is set a static threshold minimum value for DeltaMasterLoadPos (and DeltaMasterLoadNeg) that must be surpassed before the value can be used to scale the SyncLoadAccel (and SyncLoadDecel) contribution. Under normal conditions, the threshold load is read from a table vs load with higher loads giving higher threshold values that must be surpassed.

Fix2 keeps DeltaMasterLoad from being tacked onto the BFPW calc.

 

Ok thank you for the clarification, no more off topic.