I can have roadspike contact you.. hes been trying to point this out to tephra ever since i complained to him about my car what ecu boost did to it he researched into it and seen the looping area in the code.. he thinks he can fix it easy but he wants to talk to tephra first before he does it.. i guess hes not 100% what hes going to do will fix it.. but i can have him pm you if you want or you can pm me one of your emails and i will have him email you the details of what hes found.

 

Which ROM ID are you using? I know the 03-04 have different ECU Code then 05+. The 03-04 run 100% WGDC down low until the boost control crossover. The 05+ runs 0% WGDC.

This could be part of this "bug" you are describing.

 

Here is some good information from my friend Jeff Perrin, that helps explain some of the different situations and methods of what we are discussing:

There are two kinds of MBCs, and two main methods to hook up an EBCS.

Bleed- For a MBC this relates to the most common type of Manual boost controller where there is an adjustable leak in the MBC that goes between the Compressor and Turbo. For an EBCS, this is usually a "T" in the system that leads to a solenoid, which then cycles on an off from 0-100% DC varying the amount of bleeding.

For both versions, pressure is being put on the WG actuator causing it to "potentially" crack earlier.

Interrupt- For some high quality MBC's (like ours) that use a ball and spring, these actually block all pressure going to the WG actuator until the ball is lifted off the seat. Good ones still have bleed but its on the WG side only to relive pressure after throttle lifts. For an EBCS setup in interrupt mode, it does the same thing when activated. Since the EBCS can be turned on and off quickly (refering to Duty Cycle) it can vary the amount of blocking going on. At 100% DC its just like a ball and spring MBC setup.

Keep in mind, in all situations, exhaust pressure is trying to push the WG door open. Depending on the seat pressure of the door to the WG port, a bleeding type may not provide any benefit over an EBCS.

So the question is can an EBCS spool the same as a MBC? Fo Show.
In my experience, a MBC spikes a little as boost comes on. This is because of the delay from the pressure pushing past the ball and seat. You could easily replicate this using an EBCS running 100%WGDC up to say 100 RPM before boost hits. Then it may settle to say 50-60% to hold the target. But its silly to think that a MBC is safer, or that it spools quicker. If the EBCS has proper electronics behind it, it will work better in all situations. Overboost control, feedback changes to ambient conditions, and an actual target to hit.

Those concerned about overspeed of the turbo, that is what tuners do. You know the turbo you are using, you know its PR and airflow you have to work with. You also see charge temps go crazy when you push too high of boost at higher RPMs. Yes a MBC has a natural taper to it that allows anyone to just toss it on and go for it. But in many situations, there is power and TQ to be gained by running higher boost.

---------------

CB

 

Think about it.. if you have the flapper constantly open you can only spin the turbo so fast.. the exhaust gases are escaping and the turbo spins with those gases and pressure.. if you have a leak then you're limited to how much you can spin the turbo and boost pressure you can create.. you CANT overspin something when what you're using to spin it with is limited to begin with.. its a controlled exhaust leak per say internally.

this is why a mbc tapers off boost, because its not as powerful as a 3 port is where it can block the signal altogether from entering the actuator..

If you pull the line off your wastegate actuator what do you think is going to happen? its no different then running 100% WGDC on a 3 port in interrupt mode from what ive seen. I was able to hold over 38psi to REDLINE on my 2.3 with the fp black!!!!!!! vs being limited to 33-34psi on a mbc. and no the more boost didnt make more HP.. it killed the turbo and ate 2 turbine blades.

So i hope you understand it now.. a mbc will constantly keep the flapper cracked open.. which is controlling the turbo speed. just because its cracked open doesnt mean its overspinning the turbo to compensate for a leak.. you must understand that what is required to overspin that turbo is leaking out, it is not the same as an air tract leak,.. therefore it is not possible. a good mbc + a wga that is within target distance of your boost target WILL outperform a 3 port. ive done it now on 3 cars.

and since a 3 port can block the signal alltogether from the actuator to the point its like running with no signal to it period if you run that high of wgdc it will kill the turbo so much quicker if not used properly.

as far as boost error correction tables.. they are irrelevant to this debate. the car did 20-30 pulls or more with solid boost curves.. the boost error correction tables are just safety features.. they are not required to tune the car in one gear for testing.. you test the car with zero'ed out settings then depending what you want to run you adjust the safety features accordingly.. and i use psi based boost on all my cars and tephra v7.

the BEC tables are zero'ed out on this vehicle and as i said the boost curve is dead on every pull. and yes im aware i can raise boost also with the BEC table.

 

Im not saying a 3 port cant spool the same as a mbc.. i know it can.. what im saying is theres a bug in the v7 roms that doesnt allow it to function properly when spooling the turbo.

Also you know the AEM truboost is EBC right? we didnt test the mbc yet, hes getting his stiffer spring and different ball first before we test that.

but cant you see more boost isnt always the right thing? this test was a perfect example.. sometimes a natural boost taper does the work for you by tapering the boost curve..

ive pushed my turbo to the maximum just to test it because thats what im told to do to it.. but as you can see it was able to be destroyed with the 3 port where i know i wouldn't of been able to destroy it as easy with the mbc due to the boost not holding as solid uptop.

I'm not denying a 3 port is more powerful of a tuning tool then a mbc.. because it damn sure is. if it wasnt for the issue at spoolup id be running it on all cars as well.

but arguing the results i got from my customer upsets me.. you honestly are putting down your own product now? you dont think your turbo with a 34psi spike at 3900RPM can produce this tq on 93oct? I know for a fact the numbers are legit and will be backed up on a real dynojet.

as long as the boost curve remains unchanged and the temp is the same it will make MORE torque on a dynojet. i guess its a good thing that you cant believe what your own product has done. that just means you under estimated it.

 

ok now that is interesting. because as you can see in this test here the spool wasnt really changed just the tq quite a bit due to more boost with the truboost..

but on my personal car that runs 9417**** v7 rom i had a way laggier spoolup. now if this car doesnt gain any spoolup when it puts a hallman on then i think you got something there.. so the 05+ actually have a better control in spoolup then the 03-04's ? and can you explain why this is changed in those roms and not the older ones?

basically roadspike said it trys to hold 100% then goes to 0% and constantly clicks back and forth from 100 to 0 and it prematurely cracks the flapper open at spoolup.

This cars using 88590715-v7

 

A lot of people didn't think the BBK-Full could break 400 whp on 93 octane a while back... but it seems like damn near everyone is over that now.

 

tscompusa, can you post 1st, 2nd & 3rd gear boost plots of your 2.3 / fp-blk / e85? As i will post my pulls running a similar set-up with a gm 3 port.

a long time ago, i went from ebc to a hallman mbc & didnt gain squat down low....this was with a tme turbo though.

 

The WGDC goes from 100 to 0% and back again? Can you see this in the log? This is with a 03-04 ROM ID or both 03-04 and 05+?

 

Very true...not to stir the MBC vs. EBC pot anymore but I made close to 420whp & over 370 wtq on my car with a BBK Full, stock block, 93. oct. & 27psi using a Hallman MBC with the stiff spring...

 

I dont think i have any data on that but isnt spinning tires enough to know theres some serious tq differences between the two down there in lower gears?

in the log it shows 100 from what i recall. i dont log wgdc in the log until i start to add bec and we never added it on this car cause he was only doing 3rd gear pulls. the only thing i adjusted was the MAF IAT table so temps wouldnt alter the curve & the limit where it stays 100% wgdc and maybe some other things im forgetting.

This specific car is a evo 9 so and the 3 port is being beat it seems also, but not near as drastic as i seen on a few customer cars with mbc.

based on what roadspike just told me, he said tephra claims theres no issues but when he looks at the code he sees this:

he says:

T: simply it seems to do fine when its 100% wgdc
T: and i'm thinking it doesn't hold 100% up to the desired cap
T: unverified without logs
Tr: which is why i'm not posting this
T: but i can look into the code of it and see if that load variable is overrunning at some point
Tr: like if tephra only used a words worth of the data
T: instead of something like a double word
m: can i post this?
T: if you like i've just been incredibly busy :-)
T: it may also make sense to revamp the code to be psi based for load its sitting at 100% for
Tr: maybe make it a moving target like say 10 psi under the intended target
T: *shrugs*

T: What I'll do is look into the code and see if the 100% load is limited to some number lets say 220 load for an example
T: Then if it is limited come up with a fix or change the way it works to use a different variable other than load. Lets assume i stick with psi and use the intended psiA target as the limit it should use 100% for or perhaps some offset to that intended target say 5psi from the target

T: from my point of view it looks like the 3 port is fine up to that load point when it switches back to whatever settings you gave it
T: but i think it would be better if it stayed 100% until just before the target it reached


=====
heres my take on it:

if the bug exist or not, the results are here that show differences that are quite drastic between a gs 3 port and aem truboost with just 3psi and no timing or afr changes.. whether if it can be done identical on 3 port is beyond me, but from my experience on my personal car the spool suffered horribly when i raised the boost. the rpm needle went from taking off at 3500rpm to not taking off until 4000 and hitting pk tq by 5k vs 4500. and this was with the same afr so theres no reason it should of lagged spool.. so i dont know what to think anymore. i could see if the afr changed, but it didnt. my car is an 04 with 9417* v7 rom with the gear based boost fix.

now i am really looking forward to seeing the hallman on this car, because if it kills both these controllers spool wise then that will pretty much seal the deal for me personally. i expect this turbo to get full boost by about 3700-3800rpm with the hallman.. i guess we will see. ill make sure its all done in the same weather conditions and road etc. and Debug (the owner of the car) is as meticulous as i am when it comes to this kind of stuff so he has no problem spending hours testing.

personally i think its awesome.. the more testing the better.

 

i haze the tires as well in 1st with an ebc...1st gear is useless with anything over 50% throttle....but that doesnt tell us how boost is ramping up.

i do recall reading somewhere a while back, that if the ebc was vented in the wrong fashion, they had lazy boost....not sure if thats the case here.

as far as simplicity goes, mbc FTW.

 

There's not just one person that favors MBC over ECU boost.

I have done much testing on ECU boost (as you may know) and I also witness faster spool with a MBC. I explained why in this thread.

 

Tscomp is NOT saying an MBC is better than a EBCS. He is saying ecuboost controlling the solenoid is not as good. The increase was on a solenoid with a different controller. AEM truboost is what is kicking the ECU's ***. This is why I have an AVC-R for now since it does rpm and gear based boost control.

Good Job Tom. I hope they figure out the ecuboost issue since I like all the features of ecu boost.

 

The stock ecu boost control is vastly superior to any boost controller on the market for the following reasons: Map switching capability, knock control over boost, gear dependent boost curve, boost limit (fuel cut if overboosted).

Let's wait until this is fully figured out before we start to say ecu boost control is inferior to a MBC for spool up. Someone needs to put an oscilloscope on the boost solenoid and see what its really doing. If my car wasn't missing an intake manifold at the moment I would oblige.