Which one of these two methods do most of you use?

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...vo-rx-pro.html

 

Route 1. Easy install, no spikes, can control it just fine. Been going strong for years, no issues.

 

I've always used the 2nd method. Straight to the turbo.

 

Route 1 which is tapping into the BOV line. Very fast spool response and no problems. I am sure the other way is fine too, but more people suggested I went with that route and it has worked very well.

 

haha nice. i just did this. on the light spring on the hallman MBC cranked all the way up, my boost goes 16-17 on an uknown tune. im still waiting on the heavy spring that should handle more boost.

 

I've had route 2 in my MR for over 3 years and no issues. I've heard people have problems with both routes.

 

route 1 for me

 

I think I saw somewhere that ER suggests the second method tapping directly off the turbo. I suppose that is what I should do considering they are going to tune my car. Maybe I will just have them install the thing.

 

#2 is the 'proper' way to do it, you're wastegate controls you're boost levels, you want to manipulate the wastegate, not the BOV or intake manifold.

Using #2 lets the boost controller use a boost source going straight from where it's generated (compressor housing) to where it is regulated (wastegate), this is the best way. Use this.

Use #2 or die.

That is all.

 

#2 is the superior method...anybody that says otherwise needs to try both . You minimize boost spike by going directly off the turbo. I tried both just for the hell of it...then ditched it and went to ECUboost and never looked back...

 

daym. mine is #1. should i re-route it to #2?

after the install, i was thinking its kind of wierd having the turbo line capped.

 

You can if you want. I tried both and much preferred the 2nd method. Being tuned at around 25psi in the summer when winter came around and 20 degrees it would hit almost 29-30psi. The RX has the ceramic ball which isn't very friendly with the evo turbo as it spools too quickly, if you change it out for the steel ball essentially making it a regular Hallman it works better also (less boost oscillation).

Having said that I am an advocate of ECUboost (GM 3port). I basically got rid of my annoying spikes and it deviates less than 1psi all year round. I also hold almost 3psi more at redline per my Zeitronix logs. Just a thought...although not too many of the WA people have caught onto this, seems to be more of a Cali thing.

 

Is there a thread that talks about this? I already have a mbc that is ready to go in, but if there is another cleaner way to do it I am all ears.

 

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...id-vs-mbc.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...-over-mbc.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...ecu-boost.html

These are just a couple to look at. Pay attention to Razorlab (Bryan from GST) who has done alot of research on this and who tunes almost all his clients car like this. In a nut shell you get quicker spool, more consistency, and hold boost much better. My power up top held much better as did my torque curve. I hold over 21psi to 7500 instead of ~18.5psi with my Hallman.

If you visit the Ecuflash section you will find most the people much prefer that to a MBC. This also depends on who tunes your car though also as it takes more time to "adjust" as you are dealing with 3-4 separate tables within Ecuflash instead of just turning a knob. Once you figure it out it's pretty easy and their are alot of writeups on how to do this.

 

Cool, thanks.

What does it cost to convert to a GM solenoid?