mrfred

iTrader: (50)

The AEM solenoid I received from GotWheelHop is an AEM PN 30-2400, but its definitely not a MAC model 36A.

dudical26

iTrader: (17)

What temperature do you think is needed for stock BCs location?

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Good question. My guess is that the temp there is at least 150F. I'm thinking of calling MAC to see what they say about there temp limits.

fostytou

iTrader: (15)

I wish I would have seen this yesterday... I could have checked the P# on my truboost while I was under there to confirm. The tru boost solenoid looks (I know looks aren't everything) exactly the same as the 36A down to the wires coming off of the solenoid.

I hadn't been able to find a solenoid from MAC that was any more similar to the AEM model, and those are what is reported to be the same. What clued you in that it is not, in fact, the same solenoid?

(here is a horrible picture for reference http://aempower.com/images/products/...%2030-4350.pdf )

Mr. Evo IX

iTrader: (5)

My guess is the AEM solenoid is a proprietory MAC solenoid built to AEM's specs, or just a badged 36A, no telling if they will give you the specs on it or not. It does "look" identical to a 36A though. Maybe testing will determine if its the same.

I've had mine mounted pretty near the stock location for 2yrs now with no problems. I have it soft mounted to a wiring harness with a zip-tie. When it was hard mounted it was extremely noisy.

lapulapu

iTrader: (4)

I too would believe the stock BCS location would be safe since hot air raises thru the hood vent. So if anything the lower the better... that's my .2 cents

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

AEM might be using more than one model of MAC solenoid because the one I have definitely is a 35A and not a 36A. The tell tale is there is a little hump by the port on the right side of the 36A while on the 35A there is no hump.

ciobing

I had measured the Apexi AVC-r 3 port BCS: 34.9 ohm
Can I use AVC-r BCS with stock ECU?

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Based on resistance, yes. The only other issue is whether its fast enough, and it more than likely is.

fostytou

iTrader: (15)

I'm pretty sure I have the hump. I'll see if I can dig up a pic

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Would be interesting to know because the resistance of the 35A that I have is 12 ohms which is too low to use safely without a resistor, and with a suitable resistor (10-15 ohms), it may not function well.

fostytou

iTrader: (15)

Mine pulled between 12-14 ohm ( https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...&postcount=253 ) (analog multimeter in the dark ). I'm working ok with a 10 ohm... but I do get some strange spikes up and down sometimes. We could probably attribute that to our recent notice that there is no real 1% change, that I'm pushing the hell out of the stock turbo, or that my maps just aren't tuned that well more than the resistor... but I'd love to be proved wrong and have a good, cheap upgrade for more stable boost control .

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

So far I've received and tested a stock BCS, a GM BCS, a Tactrix BCS, and an AEM 30-2400 (MAC 35A) BCS. I'll be posting detailed results soon, but here is the bottom line.

Winner: GM BCS - Its an excellent all-around BCS.

Loser: AEM 30-2400 BCS - The one I received is a MAC model 35A. It wins in the latency category with a latency that is about 30% lower than the GM, but the AEM bled far less boost pressure than the other BCSs in the upper duty cycles, so all the boost control range is between 80% and 100% duty rather than from 20% to 100% duty. Its really that bad. What makes it an even poorer choice to use with the stock ECU is that the resistance of the AEM is only 12 ohms. This is about 1/3 the resistance of the stock BCS, and definitely requires a resistor to use with the stock ECU.

If anyone wants anything else tested, send it now by 2 or 3 day mail because I'm ready to wrap up this operation and move on to other things. I'd love to test the Ingersoll Rand. The specs of the Ingersoll Rand that mchuang purchased show a Cv of 0.144 which is lower than the 0.17 Cv of the MAC 35A that I tested, so the Ingersoll Rand could conceivably be worse than the MAC 35A. Another interesting one would be the MAC 36A. It has a Cv of 0.30 which is much higher than the MAC 35A.

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Glad the GM came out on top, I had a feeling it was the best one from my experience using them all minus the Tactrix BCS, nice to actually see evidence of it.

tephra

iTrader: (6)

nice result