evo 9 with BBK Full @ 30psi on 93oct
Jun 14, 2011, 04:13 PM
#121
So if there is no ceiling you are hitting, then why can't you match the same peak boost as MBC? You keep on posting boost plot overlays with the MBC showing more peak boost and claiming the MBC creates more power.
Again, why can't you tune in the same boost curve and then do a proper overlay comparison? I'm confused.
I'd prefer to review and respond to actual data instead of butt dyno feedback (although that does have it's place, it just isn't what I am having a conversation about) so I'm not going to respond to the essay about your butt dyno feelings.
Again, why can't you tune in the same boost curve and then do a proper overlay comparison? I'm confused.
I'd prefer to review and respond to actual data instead of butt dyno feedback (although that does have it's place, it just isn't what I am having a conversation about) so I'm not going to respond to the essay about your butt dyno feelings.
Jun 14, 2011, 05:27 PM
#122
see post #88.
I am a very genuine person and very honest when it comes to tuning and have absolutely nothing to gain and nothing to lose by providing information from my personal vehicle on this forum, so you should take what i said regarding the mbc vs 3 port on my personal car with a lot more then a grain of salt. you yourself know that when you can feel it substantially more in your butt that it is more then a few HP/TQ, especially when its back to back testing.
Heres something interesting I just dug up on my personal car. pulls were done may 20 and may 25. weather was 80f both days with approx same humidity according to weather.com history.
I dont know about you, but this looks dead wrong to me. 40psi making the same tq almost as 33psi? really? my car makes almost 580wtq at 40psi on a mbc with its current conservative timing at pk tq.. it just doesn't make sense. thats 80wtq sacrifice. that is beyond huge.
Blue line = ECU Boost
Red line = Hallman pro
(the log above even gives the ecu boost the benefit of the doubt since on average the mbc outspools it, but in this example the mbc is outspooled by the ecu boost).
.. now if you look at post #88 you see the opposite.. when more boost is created way more tq is produced. im telling you something funky is occurring but you dont want to believe me.
test it yourself.. i have 3 cars now i put the hallman back on that gained massive low end tq vs the 3 port.. not only on real dynojets but virtual dyno as well.
I am a very genuine person and very honest when it comes to tuning and have absolutely nothing to gain and nothing to lose by providing information from my personal vehicle on this forum, so you should take what i said regarding the mbc vs 3 port on my personal car with a lot more then a grain of salt. you yourself know that when you can feel it substantially more in your butt that it is more then a few HP/TQ, especially when its back to back testing.
Heres something interesting I just dug up on my personal car. pulls were done may 20 and may 25. weather was 80f both days with approx same humidity according to weather.com history.
I dont know about you, but this looks dead wrong to me. 40psi making the same tq almost as 33psi? really? my car makes almost 580wtq at 40psi on a mbc with its current conservative timing at pk tq.. it just doesn't make sense. thats 80wtq sacrifice. that is beyond huge.
Blue line = ECU Boost
Red line = Hallman pro
(the log above even gives the ecu boost the benefit of the doubt since on average the mbc outspools it, but in this example the mbc is outspooled by the ecu boost).
.. now if you look at post #88 you see the opposite.. when more boost is created way more tq is produced. im telling you something funky is occurring but you dont want to believe me.
test it yourself.. i have 3 cars now i put the hallman back on that gained massive low end tq vs the 3 port.. not only on real dynojets but virtual dyno as well.
Last edited by tscompusa2; Jun 14, 2011 at 06:05 PM.
Jun 14, 2011, 05:46 PM
#124
I dont know about you, but this looks dead wrong to me. 40psi making the same tq almost as 33psi? really? my car makes almost 580wtq at 40psi on a mbc with its current conservative timing at pk tq.. it just doesn't make sense. thats 80wtq sacrifice. that is beyond huge.
Are you saying, that, at the same exact boost level and curve, that an MBC is creating more power then ECU-Boost? Is this what you are saying?
Just a simple yes or no would suffice. I just want to make sure we are having the same conversation here.
Jun 14, 2011, 06:01 PM
#125
Ok so let me make sure I am understanding you since you keep shifting around and giving totally different data points at different boost levels and different turbos from different cars every reply.
Are you saying, that, at the same exact boost level and curve, that an MBC is creating more power then ECU-Boost? Is this what you are saying?
Just a simple yes or no would suffice. I just want to make sure we are having the same conversation here.
Are you saying, that, at the same exact boost level and curve, that an MBC is creating more power then ECU-Boost? Is this what you are saying?
Just a simple yes or no would suffice. I just want to make sure we are having the same conversation here.
Based on all the data i have provided here already I dont even have to answer that question.. clearly something screwy that cant be explained is going on between these two boost controlling devices.
IF they were both operating the same then yes it would be identical HP/TQ if you can make the same boost curves with both units.. but obviously something is happening where even more boost cant compete with other boost controllers downlow.. not just mbc, but others.. directly displayed in this thread (AEM TruBoost).
I can put this questioning to sleep real quick.. have the customer test the 3 port again and run the same boost as the AEM truboost and show that the tq cant be touched from the truboost. the question is why.. seems no one knows.
Jun 14, 2011, 06:35 PM
#127
I dont think id even do it on my personal evo again if i were paid to. The only way im willing to do it again is if its remotely, since i can sit on my *** over here and be lazy and let the customer go out and do the physical activity in testing his car
I asked Chuck if he was ok if we test 3 port again vs the AEM and i think hes willing to do it, so whenever he is free next we can put some more data up. (same day within the same 1-2 hrs, and will try to match boost for both units as best as i can).
Jun 15, 2011, 06:30 AM
#129
Evolving Member
This has been a very interesting read. I have no experience with 3 port ECU boost control and have only read about how good it can be. I use the Hallman Pro RX with ceramic ball and original stiff spring.
I think what we are seing is just the result of the mbc´s mechanical control keeping the wg more closed in the spool up and peak boost area and thus spiking more and giving better results. Apparently it seems the 3 port is not doing this even if it is being commanded to do so, I can understand this as it will be hard for a computer to simulate the mbc´c mechanical control, specialy as a turbo goes from 0 boost to its maximum boost in such a short time frame. Basically I think the mbc is letting the turbo go all out with and the 3 port is always trying to control (lower the spike maybe?) even when it is asked not to.
I like very much how a good mbc works, and if the boost spike is too much for stock rods we can always port the wg openings in the hotside a bit more.
Cheers,
Ricardo
I think what we are seing is just the result of the mbc´s mechanical control keeping the wg more closed in the spool up and peak boost area and thus spiking more and giving better results. Apparently it seems the 3 port is not doing this even if it is being commanded to do so, I can understand this as it will be hard for a computer to simulate the mbc´c mechanical control, specialy as a turbo goes from 0 boost to its maximum boost in such a short time frame. Basically I think the mbc is letting the turbo go all out with and the 3 port is always trying to control (lower the spike maybe?) even when it is asked not to.
I like very much how a good mbc works, and if the boost spike is too much for stock rods we can always port the wg openings in the hotside a bit more.
Cheers,
Ricardo
Jun 16, 2011, 07:27 PM
#132
3port in parallel wouldnt do what you want because it would work like the worse of both in all instances. You would need to run them in series. Then boost control becomes a pain in the *** below wherever the MBC is set but it might work better.
Jun 23, 2011, 12:33 PM
#133
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. If you want validity, get one Evo on a dyno (real) and do some back to back testing. Swapping from ECU boost to MBC should take all of 5 minutes. At this point, its just comparing apples to oranges or bananas to grapes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tscompusa2
Evo Dyno Tuning / Results
54
Aug 26, 2012 05:46 AM
tscompusa2
Evo Dyno Tuning / Results
324
Jul 17, 2012 10:26 PM
kreionic
Vendor Service / Parts / Tuning Review
624
Nov 29, 2011 05:04 PM
tscompusa2
Evo Dyno Tuning / Results
146
Aug 30, 2011 03:57 PM
