will a MBC help the turbo spool faster?
01-10-2006, 06:49 AM
#3
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 12.9 / 105+
Posts: 488
Car Info: black my03 5mt wrx s/w
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 topology of the boost control system than it is on the method of actuation (electronic or mechanical).
in other words, it is more dependent on the topology of the boost control system than it is on the method of actuation (electronic or mechanical).
01-10-2006, 10:30 AM
#4
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: norcal
Posts: 991
Car Info: wrx
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!
01-10-2006, 02:40 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: norcal
Posts: 991
Car Info: wrx
Originally Posted by 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?
project: what year is your car?
'04
i used mbcs on my previous turbo'd cars and it worked perfectly. then again... these wrxs are picky *****.
01-11-2006, 03:45 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: norcal
Posts: 991
Car Info: wrx
Originally Posted by ride5000
there is a close to open loop fueling delay inherent in the post-bugeye wrxs that makes fitting ANY aftermarket boost control problematic.
01-12-2006, 05:46 AM
#11
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 12.9 / 105+
Posts: 488
Car Info: black my03 5mt wrx s/w
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
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
01-13-2006, 10:43 PM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: norcal
Posts: 991
Car Info: wrx
Originally Posted by 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
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
lurk, why save for a ecutek? isnt the cobb ap better?
01-13-2006, 11:56 PM
#14
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 10,029
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX sedan
Origami posted by projectwrx
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???
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???
--
0==WW==0
"…axles of evil…" - george w. bush
01-14-2006, 05:32 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Raider Nation
Posts: 343
Car Info: '06 Lexus IS
Originally Posted by Wingless Wonder
Rather than pit members against tuner, why don't you post the question you asked Gruppe-S and post their response verbatim so we can read what was said without paraphrasing?
--
0==WW==0
"…axles of evil…" - george w. bush
--
0==WW==0
"…axles of evil…" - george w. bush
i think hes lookin for responses from others who are currently or who have run the basics without tuning, cobb, etc.