will a MBC help the turbo spool faster?
 

turbo spools faster with a MBC on other cars, just wondering if its the same way with a WRX

if you tune for more boost gain it will do the same thing

an mbc, if it is an interrupt style, ie ball and spring, WILL allow the turbo to spool faster than any bleed-based boost control system (which includes the stock system).

in other words, it is more dependent on the [I]topology [/I]of the boost control system than it is on the [I]method [/I]of actuation (electronic or mechanical).

i was thinking about putting in a joe p or hallman mbc to help the stock turbo spool faster. i dont plan to turn up the boost until i get it tuned, so thats not even an issue. i just want faster spool and solid boost!

Just get it tuned, they can tweak your boost with a tune anyways. DO NOT USE A BOOST CONTROLLER!

some people take the time to learn what they're doing, and, having learned, can and do use mbcs to great effect. i've got 40k miles on mine. :)

project: what year is your car?

[QUOTE=ride5000]some people take the time to learn what they're doing, and, having learned, can and do use mbcs to great effect. i've got 40k miles on mine. :)

project: what year is your car?[/QUOTE]


'04

i used mbcs on my previous turbo'd cars and it worked perfectly. then again... these wrxs are picky mofos.

i have one on my 02 for at least 10k miles it works fine for me

there is a close to open loop fueling delay inherent in the post-bugeye wrxs that makes fitting ANY aftermarket boost control problematic.

[QUOTE=ride5000]there is a close to open loop fueling delay inherent in the post-bugeye wrxs that makes fitting ANY aftermarket boost control problematic.[/QUOTE]

what does this mean in english? haha

in a nutshell:

in the post bugeye style wrxs, fhi changed the ecu mapping. they added a closed to open loop delay that is based on a variety of inputs (ie, rpm, tps, ect, iat, etc). closed loop = stoichiometric air fuel ratio, aka 14.7:1, and open loop = enriched afr, which is necessary for detonation prevention and cylinder cooling while under high load. some folks reported knocking on even bone stock cars because of this temporal delay.

due to the delay, bringing up boost too quickly will exacerbate the problem and make detonation even more likely. so the very essense of what you want to do--make the turbo spool faster--will result in a less safe operating condition for your car.

there is a grass-roots, open source "hack your own ecu" movement going on at the moment, and one of the first projects many post-bugeye users are attacking is this delay. you can read more at openecu.org. if that's too much to handle, check out cobb's access ports which also remove the delay, albeit at a higher price.

hth
ken

I'm not a big fan of MBC's. I suggest you save up for ECUTEK instead.

[QUOTE=ride5000]in a nutshell:

in the post bugeye style wrxs, fhi changed the ecu mapping. they added a closed to open loop delay that is based on a variety of inputs (ie, rpm, tps, ect, iat, etc). closed loop = stoichiometric air fuel ratio, aka 14.7:1, and open loop = enriched afr, which is necessary for detonation prevention and cylinder cooling while under high load. some folks reported knocking on even bone stock cars because of this temporal delay.

due to the delay, bringing up boost too quickly will exacerbate the problem and make detonation even more likely. so the very essense of what you want to do--make the turbo spool faster--will result in a less safe operating condition for your car.

there is a grass-roots, open source "hack your own ecu" movement going on at the moment, and one of the first projects many post-bugeye users are attacking is this delay. you can read more at openecu.org. if that's too much to handle, check out cobb's access ports which also remove the delay, albeit at a higher price.

hth
ken[/QUOTE]

i got different info from gruppe-s. they said it would be safe to run the basics without tuning. i would assume they know what they are talkin about??? good info, though...

lurk, why save for a ecutek? isnt the cobb ap better?

[quote][size=1][color=gray][i]Origami posted by [b]projectwrx[/b][/i][/color]
[font=Arial][color=royalblue]i got different info from gruppe-s. they said it would be safe to run the basics without tuning. i would assume they know what they are talkin about???
[/color][/font][/size][/quote]Rather than pit members against tuner, why don't you post the question you asked Gruppe-S and post their response [i][size=2]verbatim[/size][/i] so we can read what was said without paraphrasing?

[size=1][color=skyblue]--
0==[color=blue]WW[/color]==0
"…axles of evil…" - george w. bush[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=Wingless Wonder]Rather than pit members against tuner, why don't you post the question you asked Gruppe-S and post their response [i][size=2]verbatim[/size][/i] so we can read what was said without paraphrasing?

[size=1][color=skyblue]--
0==[color=blue]WW[/color]==0
"…axles of evil…" - george w. bush[/color][/size][/QUOTE]


i think hes lookin for responses from others who are currently or who have run the basics without tuning, cobb, etc.