I do not claim to know better than Mitsubishi engineers, but it is a bit strange to me that the X DV is placed the way it is. Instead of mounting it on or close to the charge pipe and having a longer recirc. hose, it has a very long length of hose off the charge pipe, the volume of which must be filled every time the turbo spools before it reaches the valve/diaphragm. On my own setups I have always tried to keep the DV as close to the pressure source/pipe as possible, so that there is minimal volume to be filled and fast valve response. It seems loigcal to me that if the charge pipe is under pressure, when the valve opens, the pressure will travel as far as it has to after the valve, and back into the intake.
So what is the benefit, and why does it outweigh the drawback of having several feet of tubing added to the charge pipe volume? I know it probably doesn't make a big difference, but why have more volume than necessary to fill in the plumbing? The only reason I can think of, is that they felt that it is more important to have shorter plumbing after the valve, but why exactly?

 

I would tend to agree that putting the valve itself closer to the lower intercooler tube would be better than putting it where it currently is. No idea why they did it the way they did though. I also can't imagine that compressing the air in that tube would take very long, the time would be almost negligable.

That bypass valve plumbing is like (I'm guestimating here) 1" diameter and 24" long? That calculates out to approx 19 cubic inches, which is just over .3 liters. The additional time to compress that extra volume will be measured in milliseconds I bet. It would be interesting to try it in the new location though, and given the design, would be easy to move closer. Once I've got my dataloggers installed I may try it, but I'm not sure the difference will be appreciable.

I'd bet money they put it there for ease of service. Or maybe the engineer was feeling lazy that day. Or maybe it was a small issue at a time close to product ship acceptance, and was on the bottom of the "to do" list prior to shipping the car.

 

I agree that it probably doesn't make a big difference, but it still just looks weird to me.

 

Nevermind....I re-read it. It doesn't matter, that's not a big void.

 

We thought that was strange/counterintuitive too, so we located the BOV closer to the piping and moved the recirc to the passenger side of the intake for shorter routing there as well.



Tom

 

Aha! I was wondering if, and which one of the major tuners would do this first, and I am very pleased and not surprised that it was you (As far as I know. I still have a VIII so I am not paying the most attention to aftermarket development for the X) I guess that's why I like you guys and your products, they appeal to my logic, and sometimes lack thereof Anyway, that setup looks much cleaner and more efficient.

 

Well, actually AMS was the first to do this. ETS copied it, but that's not their fault because there's not really any other way to do it without keeping the ridiculous facory BOV routing. Both companies make great products and you really can't go wrong with either one.

 

Actually, a lot of us are doing it this way:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...&highlight=JNZ

 

mine is this way:

 

If you look at the routing of our intake system pictured above it's actually a fair bit different than anyone else's, and was done so intentionally We use a single mandrel bend and one-piece design for flow, and to locate the filter as far into the corner of the engine bay (and above the opening in the chassis right below the headlight) as possible for maximum inbound cool air and furthest distance away from the heat source.

Tom

 

I'd guess the stock placement is mostly due to ease of service. If it were down by the throttle body, it'd have to sit under the stock airbox and air duct thing.

 

I really like the way TurboTrix simplified the setup; not sure if there are any differences in performance w/ where the diverter valve is located.