yep, it goes back to how good the Evo really is, straight from the factory.

 

The ECU controlled boost stuff is not actually straight from the factory. Razorlab, mrfred, tephra, and others have had a major part in modifying the stock system to enable it to perform this way. The OEM boost system was hardware limited and had the correction loop only for overboost prevention.

 

The factory system has the same correction (up and down) as the modified code.

The modified code changed target (PSI-target instead of Load-target), correction update intervals (quicker and faster responding), etc etc.

From the factory it does all the same stuff as the modified code/hardware, just lazier.

 

I've kept up with ecuflash, even though I haven't been using it for a while. It's like everything, especially for me, use it or lose it. Periodically, I like to see what the latest patches have been. My biggest complaint with ecuflash based stuff is the early errors in 'thinking' that the factory code does one thing, making the changes to ecuflash/evoscan, then finding out it needs to be backed out, because it's wrong. That's where staying up on everything becomes important.

 

Yeah totally. I was just curious if some of my assumptions of EVC's are correct. I use an AVC-r and just punch in duty cycle and turn everything off. I'm on a 35R though so not an issue. I actually have a solenoid Autronic recommends for ECU controlled boost. I'm thinking of using it to run a lower boost in lower gears as 1st and 2nd are too frantic.

 

Right, I was just saying that it didnt do upwards correction because the duty cycle is set to 100% at all rpm points from the factory. I guess it might do upwards correction in the factory state.. I never logged it with factory settings / hardware. edit: got your pm... it will add duty if it removes duty.

 

back to back tests of a EVC vs AVCR vs ECU...

lol

i think maybe we should pretend this thread never happened

 

I don't think even remotely that this thread could be construed to mean a boost controller back to back test thread. Boost control is only an issue concerning the turbo tests.

 

I see what you are saying. Actually, I understood your point from the beginning and agree that it is feasible. I was just playing the Devil's advocate. You took a very important first stab at explaining the possible reasons that may lie behind the Green and the newer BBK-Full achieving differing performance levels on pumpgas.

The interesting thing for me is that the CBRD BBK and the FP EvoGreen both are advertised as having 47-49 lb. compressors. So, essentially they both flow the same amount of air. Also, both turbos are configured with the IX compressor housing and the 10.5 turbine housing. So, where are the better numbers on pump for the BBK coming from? To what can these differences on a given fuel be attributed?

I suspect, although it is just a guess, that the crux of the issue may hinge on some essencial comparative differences in turbine wheel design and their relative efficiencies. Perhaps it is result of a difference in wheel trims or possibly a more efficient blade design, or tip configuration. At any rate, there has to be some reasonably plausible answer to this pesky little riddle.

 

Pencil dyno ftw!

Seriously - what the heck? When I see a thread by one of the most respected guys on EvoM with "FACTS!" in the title, I was totally expecting some cool back to back dyno runs and a ton of charts at different boost levels w/different fuels etc., not some pencil dyno of some random dyno runs from different cars 3 years apart. I do appreciate 9sec9's method of analysis but...um, far from conclusive and not far from purely specuative.

Winter must really suck, eh? Don't worry, spring's on the way and soon we WILL have some REAL facts :-D

BTW - It'd be nice to see someone just bite the bullet and do the end-all turbo comparo that everyone's dying to see: Stock IX vs. FP White vs. FP Green vs. BBK Lite vs. BBK Full vs. FP Red. If only Sport Compact Car hadn't gone away...

 

theshadow, sorry for the disappointment and slight stretch, ok, a lot of stretch. I see you're in Dubai, so at least you can't strangle me. I've used a number 2 pencil pseudo-coding programs for years and it's been very successful for me, so I'll continue using my pencil however. Quickly plotting points on an existing dyno chart is a good way to get a visual on performance. I'll do better next time, Sometimes I post with an end result in mind, hoping that someone else will make some points, which helps me validate my own data, but independent of any of my own comments. In this case, it's not too clear as to how much help is coming from the electronic control vs how much better at holding boost, the turbo is.
We also haven't heard a validated word on what would make one turbo a better pump gas turbo over another. Is it even a valid statement? Sparky hit close on my own idea when he mentioned the trim. The other idea that I suspect but didn't hear was the fact of how pump gas burns vs racing fuels. Pump burns quicker and therefor doesn't REQUIRE more timing. It's not HOW MUCH TIMING CAN I ADD, it would be more like how much timing is NEEDED to hit the max pressure at 14 atdc. Guess too many concentrated on the attacks and very few concentrated on the question I asked. I would still like to hear more concerning the pump gas situation, but probably won't.

 

Yep, as I said I do appreciate alot of the points you bring up - there's alot to be studied!

Even if I lived closer I wouldn't dream of strangling you man! I know you're passionate about this stuff and I'd like to think that any reasonable individual can tell you're posting from the heart.

I'm also particularly interested in the EBC vs. MBC analysis since I have an EBC which is giving me erratic boost issues (boost heitation at wastegate pressure). I'm thinking of swappin in a Buschur MBC to control boost plus a ported exhaust mani to spool a little quicker and would love to see more analysis of how the swap might affect boost, spool and overall turbo performance (i.e. power curves).

Come spring, hopefully there'll be lots more data for your number 2, perhaps you just jumped the gun a little eh? It's all good - I think alot of people would love some conclusive answers to the questions you've brought up.

 

I think this thread is not stupid if you compare to that air filter test threads.

 

Granted, that particular thread dissolved into an especially lame and fetid puddle!

 

Neither. Car is an 06 rs. 3" turboback with ext wg dump, fmic with full piping, m2's, megan manifold and turbo is ported, self tuned 93oct at a 28psi spike tapering to 23lbs shifting at 7800rpm. 11.62@123.91 at Gainesville raceway in Nov. in 50 degree weather. Is what it is....... The turbo's rated 2lb's higher than the BBK. That's about 20hp higher potential. Now...one thing I WILL say. Looking at that boost log and the BBK holding boost so well up top is VERY impressive. That said, even with the lower flow rating, I'd say it would be capable of running neck and neck with the green in real world since it would do so well up top as long as the air was being cooled to keep the heat down. IMO, the turbos are pretty much tied in terms of perfomance. I'll take a red though. Tomei looks promissing too. Supposedly, it was tested againts the red and the red had a 20hp advantage at 1.6bar on Tomei's engine dyno with the Tomei making better tq and spooling much quicker. Put a red compressor wheel in the Tomei and IMO, you have the ultimate bolt on turbo capable of 135mph traps all day. MAN I wish i could get my hands on that compressor housing!