Turbo Modifications

Last updated: January 16, 2003

Front turbo

Upgrade Original Turbos

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:34:17 -0800
From: "Diep, Anh T" (DIEPAT@sce.com)

I just got off the phone with Turbonetics and Turbo City

Basically Turbonetics gave me a price of about $702 to rebuild both turbos, which include; (forgot to ask about warranty)

$175 each turbo blueprinting, balancing, VSR,
$101 each turbo rebuild kit,
$75 each turbo clipping the compressor wheels.

Five Day Turnaround. But I have to send it through a dealer, which Tri-point is and it shouldn't alter the price. I haven't confirmed with Tri-Point yet.

Turbo City gave me a price of 588 for both turbos same as above but they don't do VSR but use other methods of tunning for vibration and do not clip compressor wheels for adding the extra air flow. One Day Turnaround. They have a 3 month/3,000 mile warranty.

I am not in a rush because I have a daily driver and for what I care please take your time!! I've had bad experiences because of me rushing my mechanic on a clutch job.

I called Mazdatrix and they really recommend Turbo City. They send all their Turbo rebuild jobs over to them and to their knowledge have no complaints.

________________

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 02:48:32 -0400
From: Max Cooper (m_cooper@csi.com)

I called some shops today and got info on the upgrades available for the sequential (stock) turbos. I will be out of town for a few weeks, but I wanted to get a quick list together for those that were interested.

PFS
=================================
* Clip exhaust wheels
* Garrett compressor wheel (T25?)
* ported housing / wastegate porting available
* 45 HP increase at the flywheel
* core required / cracks okay
* 2-3 week turn around
* $2795

Pettit Racing
============================================
OPTION 1:
* balanced and blueprinted
* ceramic coating
* ported compressor housing
* special process to lock compressor wheel nuts
* $650 core / extra charge if core has >8 mm cracks
* ready to ship
* $1695
OPTION 2:
* all the above stuff
* larger compressor wheels (not Garrett)
* 23% more flow
* $2195

Rotary Performance
=========================================
* bigger Garrett compressor wheels
* bigger Garrett shafts for greatly improved reliability at high boost
* trimmed exhaust wheels
* slightly more lag than stock
* pulls strong at high RPM
* 20%-25% better flow, less at lower boost levels
* 8-12 cars on the road with this, at least one running 18 psi for a
year
* Warranty (1 year?)
* 3-4 week turnaround at the present time
* $3100 + core

Turbo Performance Center
===========================================================
OPTION 1/2:
* Garrett T25 or T28 compressor wheels
* 30-35 more HP
* $1900
OPTION 3:
* IHI compressor wheels for significantly lower output temps
* slightly more lag than stock
* ~60 more HP
* 3 cars on the road with this
* $2400
COMMON STUFF:
* TPC has special jigs from Mazda factory reman project
* stock shafts (okay for moderate boost, <18 psi)
* 1 year warranty
* 4-5 day turnaround
* core required / there may be extra charge for really big cracks

There are a few more options out there, but this should be a decent survey of what is available. I don't know what I want yet. I welcome any corrections, comments or additions.

________________

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 02:20:05 -0400
From: Max Cooper (m_cooper@csi.com)

I have been looking at upgraded sequential turbos lately. I heard from a lot of people that the shafts tend to snap with bigger compressor wheels. Some say this is only a problem when you run 18 psi, but others said it is a general problem which I assume can happen at lower boost levels. Any testimonials out there to help us understand?

Rotary Performance Online has an upgrade that uses Garrett compressors AND shafts. This sounds like a durable upgrade, but it is expensive ($3100). RPO seems to be the only vendor that offers such an upgrade.

Clipping the exhaust turbines means less backpressure for more power but also more lag. How much? I don't know.

Personally, I am leaning toward saving money and getting a standard rebuild. I think you really have to decide what you want out of the car before you spend a lot of money on a fancy sequential upgrade or a single turbo setup. I am not totally sure what I want yet.

Here's a short list of what is available:

  1. Standard rebuild from a place like Turbonetics $400-$550 total
  2. Rebuild with clipped turbines, $600-1000?
  3. Garrett compressor upgrade for #2 turbo only from Shane Racing $1975
  4. Garrett compressor wheel upgrade, $900-$2200
  5. IHI compressor upgrade from Turbo Performance Center $2400
  6. Garrett wheel and shaft upgrade from RPO $3100
  7. Single turbo (the only way to make really big, reliable power) $4-6K

* Various levels of warranty

* A large range of prices for what seems like the same thing

________________

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:50:28 -1000 (HST)
From: richardt@lava.net (Richard H Thomason)
Subject: Re: (rx7) [3] why not use upgraded sequential turbo instead of single turbo?

>How much more boost can be run with the greddy upgraded sequential
>turbo system? It would seem to me that if you can run up to 15-18psi of
>boost on this upgraded turbo system, that it would be more efficient than
>a big single turbo.  IE: the sequential system will have less turbo lag.
>The only advantage I can see with a big single turbo is that your boost
>stays the same all the way through the power band, once you've achieved
>full boost, that is.  Whereas the sequential system will still have that
>4500rpm drop?

It really depends on what your looking for. Maximum responsiveness, enhanced reliability, maximum bang for the buck or ultimate power potential.

I'm not sure but I believe that the upgrades only flow at most 20% better than the stockers (not really the same thing as efficientcy but will have to do). Not much gain there compared to something like a T-66 or T-78 single with nice big exhaust manifold . A major weakness of the stock setup is of course the restrictive and fragile exhaust manifold and turbo housing. Ever look at them? Fine for 14 lbs of boost on a near stock motor expected to put out no more than 360 RW HP (maybe 385 if you go non seq, hogg out the manifolds and pay very special attention to your fuel system). Still ultimately hopeless for really high flow situations when looking for 450+ hp. Too much back pressure for really efficient high boost no matter how good the upgraded turbos are. I certainly would strongly consider sticking with the stockers without the upgrades if I just wanted 360 hp. and a very responsive street car for a reasonable investment. If the seq. transition bothered me (and believe me it can be quite dangerous at 360 hp) you can still just go non seq. The upgrades though seem just to little bang for the buck, being as pricy as a good single but with less ultimate potential stuck with the crappy OEM manifold/housing. And, unless you go non seq. your still stuck with the rat's nest of stupid vacume lines, control actuators, pre-control actuators/valves, solenoids etc.

A most interesting comparason would be between upgraded OEM non sequential turbos vs a well set up dual BB single system. Hmmmm, all things considered I'd bet on the single to be just (or darn near) as responsive, price competative and with more maximum potential.

Aftermarket Turbos

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:06:15 -0500 (EST)
From: William T Wilson (fluffy@snurgle.org)

> What is the purpose of upgrading the turbocharger, it's efficiency in
> reducing turbo lag, or increasing maximum psi that it can produce.

There are three things that trade off against each other with a turbo. Lag, airflow (measured in CFM), and boost. You can improve any of these but the other two suffer. If you want to improve all three, then your turbo must work harder, which reduces its efficiency. This translates into increased temperature and more "effort" expended to produce a given amount of boost. Turbos have an efficiency range in which they work very well within certain boost and CFM parameters, but rapidly become very inefficient outside those parameters. Typically, a bigger turbo will have an efficiency range better suited to high boost, high flow.

> How can a turbocharger help increase horsepower other than by increase
> the psi that it can produce?

By increasing the airflow. Improvements in VE (such as by opening the intake and exhaust, or by porting) and higher RPM operation require more airflow. Sometimes they happen together. For example, a street port not only improves efficiency, but also moves the HP peak up in the rev range. This requires the turbo to blow more air on both counts.

> What are the components of a turbocharger anyway, compressor wheel,
> shaft? Can anyone tell me about them and how they can be upgraded,

Mostly the important components are the compressor/impeller, the turbine, and the housing. The housing determines how fast the air blows into and out of the system, (a smaller housing accelerates the air in the turbo making it spool faster, but also provides restriction). A smaller housing is better for low (engine) RPM operation and worse for high RPM, even with the same compressor and turbine. The shaft connects the compressor to the turbine but as long as it doesn't fail it makes no difference from a performance standpoint. The turbine and the compressor sizing determines the maximum output, but larger means more lag and more difficult boost control.

> either by replacing parts, or replacing the whole thing?

Typically the whole turbo is replaced, although it is (theoretically) possible to change the parts individually.

Editor's note: See the section above on upgrading the stock turbos for more info on what parts are typically upgraded or replaced. --Steve

_______________

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:16:36 -0500
From: marc.schaefer@am.bnpgroup.com

Three reasons to upgrade the turbochargers on the 3rd Gen. Efficiency, reliability, and power. That's the simple answer. Let me try a brief explanation.

Efficiency, Power

All turbochargers present compromises between flow capacity and turbo lag. The larger the turbo, the slower it is to spool, but the more air it can flow when up to speed. The FD's units were sized for maximum response while meeting the flow requirements of the engine at the targeted power level. Each compressor has an area of greatest efficiency (adiabatic), in which it can compress/flow a given volume of air per unit time without introducing excessive heat in the process. This is defined graphically by a compressor map, and is primarily a function of compressor design, size, and rotation speed. Increase flow to obtain more power on the FD by adding intake, exhaust, intercooler, etc.and you will rapidly find yourself outside the stock turbocharger's efficiency sweetspot, since the compressor must spin faster to maintain the same intake pressure. The main detriment in the 11-13 psi range is that the compressor outlet temps become extremely hot, on the order of 300F, which places additional thermal stress on the engine, and may increase detonation risk. Also, in sequential twin-turbo cars, the secondary unit is accelerated to a high speed in a closed circuit chamber (surge) to prevent a drop in compressor speed and flow at the switchover point when the compressor comes under load, which would cause a dip in power and torque (the famous dip we all notice in the dyno plots). This power dip, already slightly noticeable in stock cars, becomes much worse in modded cars, since the turbo is already operating at its pre-spin speed just to maintain a given level of boost, and becomes extremely resistant to overspeeding.

Over 14 psi on sequential twin cars with fully open intake and exhaust, the stock turbos actually cause a restriction in the intake path which limit the effective power you can make. Can you upgrade to larger compressor wheels? Sure, but shaft failures often accompany this mod, because the stock shaft was not sized for that weight wheel. You can also clip the turbine wheels for better flow at high speed, but low speed response may be impacted. The switchover problem does not go away.

So, the guys who want BIG power (360 RWHP +) go to a single, large turbo. And they throw in a whole new fuel system just for kicks (also happens to help keep the engine alive). What they gain in power, they lose in response. Drag racers don't care about this because they can pre-load the turbo off the line, use NOS, or some combination of the two, and benefit from tremendous increases in top-end power. Road racers (especially those who drive tight courses) do care, because the car is either way too fast or way too slow (just like the old Porsche 930 Turbos). For them, nothing beats the response of the stock sequential twins.

In terms of reliability, the stock system is extremely complex, not very durable, and most people have no clue how to troubleshoot it. The nest of vacuum hoses and solenoids has driven many an at-home mechanic to the brink of suicide. Even when it does work, it is not entirely consistent in its operation, to put it politely. So you may be left wondering where your second turbo is as you watch Jim's Supra blow past you (probably would anyway). Bad as that is, increasing boost on the sequential system seems to present problems for piggyback boost controllers which are totally beyond the scope of this post (to the extent the post is not already beyond its own scope). The PFS-PMC seems finally to have overcome the majority of these problems but it has taken six years! The solution to this melodrama for some, is to go single turbo: one wastegate, one boost pattern, no vacuum nest, no solenoids, theoretically easy fuel map etc. So say the single turbo guys. And their results at the strip corroborate this view.

Me, I like the twisties, so I will stay twin-sequential for now, for the response. My next upgrade will be either a 20B twin-sequential, or 5.7 liters of V-8 power in something that looks sorta like an RX-7 from the front ;-)

_______________

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:49:41 -0800
From: Max Cooper (max@maxcooper.com)

Let me start by saying that everyone who intends to modify a turbo-charged car should buy, read, and refer to the book _Maximum_Boost_ by Corky Bell. It is a little dated, but the fundamentals are still the same and this book is a very readable and practical introduction to all things 'turbo'. Highly recommended. Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/.

> What is the purpose of upgrading the turbocharger, it's efficiency in
> reducing turbo lag, or increasing maximum psi that it can produce.

Most turbo upgrades are performed to increase peak power, often at the expense of low end power. The average turbo upgrade increases lag. It is up to the purchaser to decide what they want to optimize. There is no turbo that will offer the least lag and the highest maximum power, it is always a balance. Some turbos are "better" than others in that they offer a little more of both than a less good alternative.

> How can a turbocharger help increase horsepower other than by increase the
> psi that it can produce?

There are several ways this can happen. First, you might actually reduce lag and increase low end power if you select a turbo that can create high boost pressure at a low rate of flow. But usually, just as you suggest, you get a turbo that can produce more boost at high RPM (high flow). Another important factor is compressor efficiency. Compressor efficiency is a measure of how much the turbo heats the air at a given boost and flow rate. Greater efficiency (less heating) gives you greater power as the air that comes out of the turbo is more dense with air molecules. It is like driving your car on a cold night -- it makes more power. It also does not have to work as hard to create that level of boost, so you will have less backpressure being caused by the turbo. We all know how important a free-flowing exhaust system is on a rotary, and having an efficient turbo system is especially beneficial for the same reason.

> What are the components of a turbocharger anyway, compressor wheel, shaft?
> Can anyone tell me about them and how they can be upgraded, either by
> replacing parts, or replacing the whole thing?

You basically have the turbine side that is driven by the exhaust gasses, a shaft and bearing in the middle, and a compressor side that compresses your intake air on the other side. The turbine and compressor parts include both a wheel and a housing which give them their performance characteristics. The shaft's diameter is important in the case of the third gen, because it is too small to support large compressor wheels. Most turbos use a regular bearing, but ball bearing turbos offer reduced lag and perhaps increased reliability.

_______________

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:07:17 -0500
From: "Stephen Ziegler" (SMZ4883@yazaki-na.com)

You might want to check out Turbo City out in CA. I've recently sent for a catalogue and if I remember correctly (I'm at work now, so I can't look it up), they have replacement "cartridges", rebuild kits, rebuilt turbos, and I think even new turbos for the 3rd gens. They also have rebuild kits and rebuilt turbos for the 2nd gens for all of those who may be interested. Of course, they have some aftermarket stuff too.

_________________

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:49:02 -0500
From: Steven Kan (skan@ticnet.com)

You can use any of the following turbos I listed below: T62-1, T60-1, TS04, T66 W/ceramic ball bearing

Any of those turbo should work well on rx7. The only reason I pick T62-1 is that it has a relative good flow rate. T60-1 will give you better low end response(Marcus from Apex racing has dynoed 380rwhp@12psi with this turbo). T66 will give you high end horsepower (actually has a better response than the T62-1 if you have the ceramic ball bearing). My friend Brent Bucher dynoed at 399rwhp@17psi using this turbo on a stock motor. He gets full boost at 4krpm vs. 4.5krpm on my turbo.

The only main difference between the setup between my car and the guys i mention above is that I'm still using the stock injectors but both of them are running stock motor and 3.5in exhaust system. I guess there're some gain for running a bigger exhaust system. The reason why I decided to use the T62-1 is because I'm cheap and didn't want to spend too much money for trial and error not knowing what to expect. It's really up to you as to what goals you want to achieve.

BTW, I wouldn't recommend anything smaller than .96 exhaust A/R ratio.

__________________

Jay (styk33@yahoo.com) forwarded this from the Supra mailing list sot there will be differences, but it is a good place to start looking for info.

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:35:51 EST
From: Drizzt3117@aol.com
Subject: [mkiv] Single and Twin turbo kits, and their potential (long)

Since a lot of people have been asking this question, I summarized the most common turbo kits in this email.

RPS:

TS04:
    Most common housings for this turbo are 0.58 and 0.70, it makes
    about 450 rwhp in the former and 500 rwhp in the latter, spools slightly
    slower than stock, and can commonly be used on the stock fuel system.
    This is a good turbo if you have an automatic, and can be daily driven.

T61:
    Somewhat bigger than the TS04, this turbo can make 550-600 rwhp.  It
    requires an upgraded fuel system.  This doesn't lag too much, a T61 car
    lags a bit more than stock, but is streetable, if not particularly
    responsive, could be used for road racing, not sure if I would recommend
    this turbo for a daily driver.

T66:
    Capable of making 600-675 rwhp, the T66 is a bigger turbo yet, this
    is probably as big a turbo as I would recommend for the street, it makes
    full boost right around 4250 rpm on most cars, a significant amount of
    lag, but not horrendous... (full boost being 1.5-1.6 bar)  This is a very
    common turbo, and a nice setup for drag racing with some street driving.

T70:
    Slightly bigger than the T66, the T70 is probably not a streetable
    turbo. Lag is a couple hundred rpm more than the T66, power output ranges
    from 650-750 rwhp... perhaps a bit more with headwork... This is a nice
    turbo for drag racing.

T72+:
    These turbos are only good for drag cars for the most part, lag is far
    more than smaller turbos, power outputs are from 750-1000 rwhp.Twin turbo
    kit: Using T25/28 ball bearing turbos, this kit will make slightly more
    than 500 rwhp, while spooling faster than the TS04 0.70... very good
    choice for a street car that needs more power than BPU.


HKS:

GT2540:
    These twin turbos are used on the UPRD supra, and used in single form
    on quite a few different cars.  Nice turbos, not enormous lag, maybe slightly
    more lag than their brethren the 2835s, but they spool a little faster
    too... i'm told that car makes power in the 900 rwhp range on turbo alone,
    but this could be just a rumor.

GT2835:
    Probably the most common twin turbos used on supras, this kit is large,
    and the turbos have a fair amount of lag, they make full boost in the 5000
    rpm range, perhaps a bit higher.  Very nice top end on this system, and
    I've seen power output in the 700-800 rwhp range fairly consistently with
    the right fuel support.

T04R:
    A fairly large single turbo, this comes with a pretty big exhaust A/R
    stock, 0.96... I would have thought it would be laggy, but my experience
    with it shows otherwise... it spools a touch faster than a T66, but has a
    bit more power output capability... it has made power in the 675-750 rwhp
    range, and is becoming fairly popular because of this.

T51R:
    This is HKS's biggest single turbo that is commonly sold, although it
    isn't THAT much bigger than the T04R.  Probably in between the T66 and T70
    in size, the T04R makes full boost in the 5k range, and none has really
    been able to realize its full power potential... i wouldn't be surprised
    at seeing 800+ rwhp from a T51R under the right circumstances... very
    strong turbo but i wouldn't use it on a street car personally.


Greddy:

T67:
    The T67 isn't used on supras very often, its a TD07-25g turbo, more
    commonly used on MR2s... its capable of right around 600 rwhp, and spools 
    similarly to a T66, so most people choose to go with either the T66 or
    T61.  Again, on the upper limit of streetability.

T78:
    This is one of the more common turbos used on supras... it makes full
    boost somewhat past 5000 rpm, but has the potential to make 750+ rwhp...
    nice turbo, very good top end once it gets spooled... lots of drag cars
    use it, and its fairly inexpensive now.

T88:
    Somewhat bigger than the T78, the T88 has close to 1000 rwhp capability,
    although i would imagine it makes full boost close to 6000 rpm, so a built
    motor is almost a certainty with this turbo... not too expensive but its
    not too usable on most supras so...


Blitz:

Single:
    The Blitz single turbo uses a K27 turbo and is capable of right around
    600-650 rwhp... spools somewhat faster than a T66, and the kit is well
    made, but you need to modify it to work on the US spec supra, pain in the
    ass to do.

Twins:
    Supposedly capable of right around 700 rwhp with about as much lag as
    the single, haven't really heard too much about it to corroborate this,
    but I wouldn't doubt it... kinda of expensive, and this needs heavy
    modification to work on a US spec supra.


Others:

TPC:
    This turbo supposedly has 625-750 rwhp capability with faster spool up
    than a T66... dunno enough about it to really say, but the dyno charts
    seem to show full boost at right around 4500-5000 rpm, which isn't TOO bad
    for a turbo with its power capabilities... not enough people use it to
    really say.


Fastrax:

    Fastrax makes all sorts of custom turbos... my experience with them is
    that they make somewhat more power and spool somewhat faster than the
    turbos they were built off of... fastrax has a lot of experience in the
    drag racing scene, and they make high quality products.  My Fastrax turbo
    supposedly has 750-800 rwhp capability while spooling slightly faster than
    a T66... it certainly spools faster than a T66 in my experience, we'll
    have to see how much it puts down on the dyno.

________________

From: Rich (rich@uprd.com)
Date: August 8, 2000

Just wanted to let you know that the UPRD Supra is using twin HKS 3037S turbos, not the 2540's. The 2540's could never put out the horsepower we are making (921 rwhp, no NOS). Tons of information tho, great site. Keep up the good work, and look for us in the 9's real soon with a stock chassis, stock transmission! Here we come, Ari!

Richard Schroeck
UPRD Sales/Tech
www.uprd.com
877-999-UPRD

________________

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:24:29 -0700
From: "Eric Hsu" (dailo502@hotmail.com)

Single (turbos):

T04E

For the street, the To4E is a great turbo for the FD. Massive, flat torque and a little more power than the sequentials make for a fun street/circuit car. I spent a week with an FD with a T04E and it was pure fun. Expect 350-410 hp with a correctly sized T04E.

RX6

Another good combination for the street/circuit is the RX-6. As for durability, the RX-6 is absolutely bulletproof. The RX-6 was and still is used in many forms of racing including LeMans, Japanese JGTCC, and even came stock on the Ferrari F40. It's so strong that you don't need a blow off valve. On our 1100 hp syline, we use two RX-6s at 2.1kg/cm2 and we do nto use blow off valves. This turbo is STRONG. However, Apex seals flying out the exhaust ports on a rotary will still break turbine wheels. This is not going to be a big power turbo because the turbine section in smaller than your average Garrett, but the compressor side is larger than your average Garrett. Expect 370-450 hp.

T04X

This is an XS Engineering propietary turbo that they use on a lot of the drag Hondas. It seems to work well on a Rotary as well. I drove a car with a T04X two weeks ago and it kicked some serious a$$ with a broad powerband and rockin' top end. It dyno'd at 435 to the wheels on pump gas.

Please note that hp ratings are for 92 octane pump gas. Just thought I'd share a few of my single turbo experiences.

________________

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:31:29 +0200
From: "Bernd Kluesener" (bklues@syskonnect.pp.se)

> I have literally been waiting for years for this group to become more
> interested in single T-O4 turbos on 3rd gens.

I am going this route. Before I decided to do so, I made back-to-back comparisons with the stock turbos in sequential and non-sequential setup in all kinds of driving conditions (city, country road, race track, German Autobahn).

During the winter I rebuilt/ported/balanced the engine and also modified the lubrication system.

Next week, the engine goes on a dynamometer for proper turbo matching and ECU mapping.

We have a few turbochargers lined up for testing:

The flow capacity of these units is in the 380 - 450hp range. Let's see which one we decide one. I prefer driveability and low- and midrange punch over the top figures (which mostly seem to serve for bragging on this list). I am also going a new route with the engine management system. A specialist company in England built an ECU to our specifications.

________________

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:31:12 -0500
From: "Jason Baughman" (jbaughman@columbus.rr.com)

A few people have asked what kind of money goes into putting a single turbo in their Rx7. Here is a breakdown of what you should expect to spend when going single. This is assuming that you're already modified to the max.

T-78 Turbo Kit: includes turbo, downpipe, wastegate and all fittings to bolt up to the stock intercooler. This kit is very complete. One modification that we ran into was we had to grind down and cap the EGR valve. It stuck out to far for the downpipe to fit. PRICE: $3500 (depending where you get it from)

When checking around for fuel requirements for a single turbo, the overall consensus was to run larger 2ndary injectors. I replaced the 850cc with 1200cc. PRICE: $400

I was running a M2 computer, so I had to replace that with something that will control fuel/timing. I went with the PMS, but probably should have gone with the Haltech instead. PRICE: $1200

Labor: Totally depends on labor rates and how competent your tech is. I would figure $1000 to install. That may be a little high, but figure somewhere around there.

Total: $6100 Give or take a few bucks. Sounds expensive, but faster and cheaper than buying a Viper. :)

________________

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:03:57 -0700
From: Aarroneous (aarroneous@pobox.com)

I just helped my friend Dean install the new Apex'i Isamu single turbo upgrade kit into his car tonight. Overall, it's a very nice looking package, but just a word of caution for those of you contemplating purchasing the kit:

________________

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:42:41 -0700
From: "Eric Hsu" (dailo502@hotmail.com)

One word of advice on the Isamu turbo kit. Bolt all brackets and mounts together as the instructions state. If you do not bolt the wastegate to the downpipe, the wastegate pipe or the downpipe WILL CRACK. This is because stainless steel does not take too well to contraction/expansion with vibration. However, stainless steel does look very nice and does not corrode.

The bracket for the wastegate and downpipe does fit. I have tested the Isamu kit on three different FDs to ensure perfect fitment.

________________

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:44:31 -0400
From: "Jason Baughman" (jbaughman@columbus.rr.com)

The HKS T04E kit lets you retain the airpump. It's a very nice and complete kit. One of my friends has that kit and the car is very responsive with minimal lag. We have not dynoed it yet, so not sure the power gains over the stock turbos.

________________

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:07:09 -0600
From: "Steve Obrien" (poweraxel@peoplepc.com)

They are several factors that need to be looked at such as:

You could actually run single turbo with a little trickery on your stock ECU and a couple aftermarket controllers but that will be totally stupid. I'd suggest talking to couple retailers and map out a course first, going single turbo is a huge task. My friend and I are in the process of getting of the stuff needed to go single turbo on his car. We rebuilt his motor w/ 2mm seals, mild port and had the housings cryo treated and decided to go with M2's single turbo kit which actually comes with the manifold and downpipe.

There are several different routes to go in regard to fuel management..personally I suggest the Haltec setup that Rotary Performance sells, I'm sure the Electromotive system is nice but I don't like the way it's setup. The Motec is very expensive and I still haven't found a car that is streetable using that system. Give Brain Richards a call at M2, he's helped us a lot.

________________

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:21:26 -0600
From: "Kevin T. Wyum" (aspi@winternet.com)

> > So has anyone tried parallel twins with a new exhaust manifold that
> > pipes each rotor to its own turbo?  In other words, instead of one big
> > turbo, you run two small turbos completely in parallel.  Does anyone
> > know if a different exhaust manifold would make parallel twin
> > performance more acceptable?
>
>Someone has, I want to say Trev D. did this a long time ago.
>I believe that Jim LaBreck is the custodian of that information.
>
>The manifold would definitely have to be designed and a set of turbos
>selected.  I think the problem here, is that it would cost more to buy 2 smaller turbos
>than one medium one.  I don't know how much better low-end would be, ala do you 
>get instant boost at 3k/rpms like stock.  Maximum boost doesn't offer any hardcore 
>math to calculate the things I thought it did -- you'll need to get a hold of some SAE 
>papers and maybe some other references to work out the math.
>
>The Supra guys do this, not sure how well it performs compared to a single turbo.

Actually yes Trev and I designed and built an independent twin setup. It's actually pretty ideal and is still on my car right now (minus the turbo's). It's a thick stainless plate, 1/2 inch I think attaching to the block and exhaust ports. From there we used Inconel tubing directly from the exhaust port to each turbo independently with independent external wastegates venting back into the exhaust stream after the turbos. Each turbo was a ceramic ball bearing T4 60-1 compressor with a T3 exhaust side. I forget the A/R ratio on the exhaust side off the top of my head. Had 2 or 3 exhaust housing of different ratios we could swap out pretty easily depending on which aspect of spool and flow we wanted. All of it came back together into a single 3 inch pipe bolting into where the normal Midpipe would connect.

The initial testing was hindered because of a wee minor problem with a compressor bypass valve. The valve was stuck open on one of the turbo's creating a 3/4 inch diameter boost leak : ). Even with that enormous leak the car made 20 psi boost easily. Of course it didn't give any real indicator of how much power it would produce with that leak and did severe damage to the turbine, actually burning the turbine wheel apart.

Anyway I eventually did find the problem with the compressor bypass (blowoff) valve problem and was able to simply plug the valve for some initial real testing. Although I only got a few tests off before the burned turbine warped the shaft. Keep in mind this was not on a stock car. It was a heavily bridge ported motor with long exhaust port timing, an enormous fuel system 4 850cc's and 2 550's with dash 10 supply lines and an SX fuel pump using C16 116 octane leaded gas. Having had the car run 11.1 on a stock motor with upgraded stock turbos before, I had a good idea of how power felt for that. The tests I got after plugging the CBV were absolutely phenomenal. I've never felt torque even remotely close to that in a rotary before and the power was just nuts. I reached 20 psi of boost by approximately 4k rpm. By applying full throttle even at 50 odd mph the tires would start to spin on Hoosier 305/40 17's.

The next night I went out to test it the shaft warped and I got the nasty screech of compressor wheel starting to scrape the housing etc. When I pulled the turbo's off and took a peek I got to see that the 3/4inch leak for a few weeks was just way too much for that turbo, the ends of that turbine were burned off etc. The other turbo actually looked pretty good.

That was towards the end of the season and where the real epic began : ). I sent the turbo's off to Turbonetics to be rebuilt in no real hurry since winter was coming before they'd likely be done. So I went back to normal winter stuff like doing real work etc. and finally the turbo's are done and shipped to me. So I write out the company check and the jovial UPS man show's up at the office, errrr whoops Turbonetics forgot to mark the box as Company check okay. Sigh, it get's shipped back to Turbonetics. Fine send them again and make sure you list Company check as okay. Turbonetics of course says, so sorry of course I won't forget to mark that this time and I'll send them again. A month or two goes by and eventually I get a tag from UPS that the turbos are here, AGAIN. Another voided check later I see they forgot to list company check as okay again. Sheesh, come back tomorrow I'll just get cash for it in the morning. Stop at the bank grab cash for it and come into work. UPS man arrives, here's the correct cash amount, thank you. Errr uh oh sorry we changed our policy just recently and can't accept cash anymore. So the Turbo's go back to Turbonetics again. So I eventually call Turbonetics to ask Ola what's going on with this, I'll just send you a check before you ship this time or put it on a personal credit card instead. Oh we're sorry Ola is no longer with us. Okay so let me talk to whoever else I should so I can get my turbo's back please. I'm starting to forget some names now since there's been about 4 or 5 of them. Each time I reach someone they have no clue where the turbos are and tell me they'll call me back when they find them and the invoice etc. Of course like you'd expect it got lost in the shuffle and I'd have to call back a few weeks later to see if they'd found them etc.Eventually they're found but they can't find the invoice amount for them. I'll call you right back after I find it so we can take care of this. Whoops the guy that found them is no longer working here now at my next call. Same drill all over again. I'm not sure where they are etc. I'll call you back after I find them. This ridiculous drill goes on for about 1 1/2 years over at least 4 different people from the initial sales guy I brought them from, Ola. Eventually this last spring I'm completely fed up with this and say screw it, I send a check to Turbonetics for about $100 over the approximate amount and a cover letter explaining all the garbage that's been going on so that when they do finally find everything the hoops will end and I can finally get my $3000+ turbo's back and put my car back together. Well early this winter after pretty much forgetting my car exists in the back corner of the garage covered in 2+ years of dust I get a letter from Turbonetics. Here the letter is verbatim so you can share in my enthusiasm for Turbonetics at this point.

    Dear Mr. Wyum:
Acount # phonenumber here Thank you for sending in the check. Put as far as our accounts go your account has been closed for quite sometime. So inclosed is your check. Thank You, Carolyn Thompson"

*I didn't make any typo there btw. That was the carefully considered letter exactly as they sent it to me after 2+ years of screwing me (smile)

Of course I left out about 20 phone calls to supposed managers like some John Wang guy that would never return calls etc. The best part about this all. Errr gee thanks for sending my check back after 10 months and never returning my calls but YOU FORGOT TO RETURN MY $3000.00+ TURBO'S THAT YOU STILL HAVE!!!!!!

Not really sure you can call that project shelved but it's definitely removed a great deal of wind from my sails sadly.

Kevin T. Wyum

P.S. Trev's death in the middle of all that didn't help things for that matter. I don't know that we ever intended to market the set up seriously as we both doubted there were enough people interested in putting out $5000+ for a high end set up like that.

Turbo Manifold

Date: 27 Mar 2001 18:32:29 -0800
From: Steve OBrien (poweraxel@peoplepc.com)

HKS makes good cast and s.s. maifolds..standard T04 flange

________________

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:03:34 -0500
From: James T Fredericks (jfrederi@juno.com)

> I'm going to need to have a manifold made.  I would like to have a
> Stainless steel one made.  I understand there is a shop or person in
> Florida that does this type of stuff.  

South Florida Performance: 305-233-8520

________________

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:19:21 -1000 (HST)
From: richardt@lava.net (Richard H Thomason)

I purchased an ss exhaust manifold from South Florida for my T-66 conversion. They swore there would be no clearance problems with this set-up. Alas, they were quite wrong. I had to spend another $150 to have it modded locally. Then I decided to ditch the whole thing because the ports were just too dinky (stock sized for a non-ported car). HKS's excellent super strong cast iron manifold with big, gnarly ports was a logical step but alas it did not fit either. So, I ended up having the fellow who first modded the South Florida manifold do an ss unit. Boy did he do a good job. Thing was a work of art. Big ports, super thick walls, no fittment problems....

The moral of my story is know what you need. If your engine is ported on the exhaust side, don't ruin the whole thing with a stock port manifold. Annnnd, don't trust anyone who says that their manifold will fit your monster T-99 or whatever size you are thinking on getting. Turbo housing sizes vary, so get the manifold manufactured locally if you can so they can actually check the clearances.

__________________

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:20:07 -1000 (HST)
From: richardt@lava.net (Richard H Thomason)

The fabricator's name is Keith Miyashiro, owner of Awsome Fabrications, Custom Metal Works (808-351-9514).

I just got off the phone with him and he "reminded" me that neither the manifold he did for me, nor the one made by South Florida Performance were stainless steel (yes, I'm an idiot). He also said that the reason he and SFP do not do ss is that it cracks too easily on rotaries in particular. He did not say he would refuse to do ss, only that he would never be able to confidently say that it would hold together very long.

Anyway, what he did for me was a steel manifold with 1/2 inch thickness flange and 3/16 inch pipes (2 and 1/2 inch diameter ports for my particular application which had very aggressive exhaust porting). He can do different sized ports of course.

Price: $450 (I paid more, but he would love to do work for more members of this list). This price is not dependent upon more than one order. If several people make orders the price would drop to $425.

I did not get a price for ss but can, or anyone is of course welcome to just call him.

Regardless of the fact that I'm too stuuupid to remember that mine wasn't ss, I still stand by my opinions that he did a great job. Nice welds, very solid construction, nice pipe bends. It was better looking than the SFP manifold and I was completely happy.

If members want to try to set up a group buy, I can help if necessary. I really like this guy personally and would love to get him some business.

_______________

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:47:09 -0600
From: "Steve OBrien" (poweraxel@peoplepc.com)

S.S. Manifolds are not the best for rotaries due to the heat. Theres a slight chance of cracking at the welds with S.S. Cast Iron might weight more but it can take the heat better

Turbo Vacuum Hose Replacement

Picture of the turbo controls w/ silicone hose installed:

Turbo controls

One word of warning to those replacing/tieing your vaccum hoses - there was some discussion on this on the autocrossing mailing list a while ago. It seems that tie-wrapping or even glueing the hoses is illegal in the stock category. The rules read that if it is not permitted in writing in the rule book, it is not allowed. And glueing the hoses is not allowed. Most everyone on that list admitted that it is kind of dumb, but if someone was a really poor loser, they could protest you for glueing the hoses on so they don't pop off. I suppose it also means that Loctite is illegal. Sort of a dumb situation, but just something to be aware of. The silicone hoses would definately be illegal, and a lot easier to detect. Some of the stock hoses have clips on them to keep them secure, but not all. These would be harder for someone to protest than the more obvious tiewraps. I don't know which hoses came with the clips. Check the manual. --Steve

___________________

Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:59:13 PDT
From: "Mike Putnam" (mike_putnam@hotmail.com)

Having obtained several samples from various vendors I found that the 70 durometer hardness silicon tubing available at McMaster-Carr is better suited for automotive use than the 50 durometer tubing most automotive sources sell.

>And McMaster-Carr also have small Viton tubing, which is
>probably the best alternative for the vacuum hose replacement job,
>though it costs more.

My high temperature testing of Viton, Neoprene and Silicon vacuum tubing is completed and my new digital camera has arrived so I will be posting results soon. The test involve exposing the tubing to motor oil maintained at 130 degC for 1,000 hours. The results don't look good for the silicone tubing. At 500 hours the silicone tubing split lengthwise while the Neoprene tubing became very hard. Even after 1,000 hours the Viton tubing looks as though it just came out of the box.

___________________

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 00:45:37 -0500
From: "Nicholas Riefner"

I don't know if anyone is interesed, but Cam at Pettit Racing told me *not* to use the blue silicone hosing. He said that if there is any defect at the end of the hose where you cut it, that it will begin to split quickly. He told me to use Goodyear 5/32" vacuum hosing and tie wraps. He said the 5/32" hose will fit tighter over the fittings. Given his participation in endurance racing etc..., I think that's what I'll do when it comes time.

___________________

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:10:21 -0700
From: Dana Bourgeois

Mostly Mazda doesn't recommend silicon hose. Says that oil and gas fumes will make a gooey mess of it. In the larger sizes you can find lined silicon hose that doesn't have this problem but not in the small (4mm) sizes of our control hoses. And oil spray/gas fumes are *gonna* be going through those hoses.

I am not recommending anything here, just passing on what one expert feels is good advice. Has anyone had degredation of their silicon hoses due to oil/gas exposure?

____________________

While researching 2-3/4" silicone hose for my IC, I found out that there is a special kind of silicone hose for environments where it could get exposed to fuel or oil. It should be fluoro-silicone lined. So this does jibe with the other posts above. The special kind of hose is more expensive than the regular silicone hose too. --Steve

____________________

Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 11:10:07 PST
From: "Mike Putnam" (mike_putnam@hotmail.com)
Subject: (rx7) Re:[3] Vacuum Hose, Silicone vs. Fluorine

Since it's getting close to vacuum hose replacement time for me and the subject is under discussion... From what I can gather there are two schools of thought on what type of vacuum hose material to use on the third gen. My observation is that the majority of people choose silicone hose. With a small minority going to high temperature fluorine rubber hose. Here is what I see as the advantages and disadvantages (most of this info came from a hose/tubing supply catalog I had lying around. So, if you have different data, don't blame me):

SILICONE TUBING
Operating temp -60 F to 460 F
Resistant to oil grease and solvents
Durometer Shore A hardness of 50
   kink resistance - fair
   abrasion and cut resistance - poor
Due to a lack of abrasion/cut resistance tie-wraps
   or glue are recommended for securing.
   (Unfortunately, the highest service temperature
   for tie-wraps is below 200 F.
Widely available, comes in many colors
Cost (from tubing/hose supply catalog) $1/ft

FLUORINE RUBBER TUBING
(Sold under various trade names such as Viton, Fluran, etc.
I think that Pettit sells Goodyear's version of this tubing)
Operating temp -25 F to 400 F
Resistant to oil grease and solvents
Durometer Shore A hardness 60
   kink resistance - good
   abrasion and cut resistance - good
Spring clamps can be used for securing. ($0.20/clamp at Home Depot)
Comes only in black
Not available at most auto supply stores/catalogs
Cost (from tubing/hose supply catalog) $1.44/ft

So, silicone is cheaper, more readily available, has a slightly higher service temperature, and comes in many cool colors. Its disadvantages are: relative lack of kink, abrasion and cut resistance which is why most people use tie-wraps or glue to secure the hose. Unfortunately, tie-wraps aren't resistant to high temperatures.

Fluorine Rubber is more expensive, hard to find, and has a slightly lower service temperature. Its advantages are kink, cut and abrasion resistance which allows you to use spring steel hose clamps.

___________________

Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:18:00 PST
From: "Mike Putnam" (mike_putnam@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: (rx7) Re:[3] Vacuum Hose, Silicone vs. Fluorine

>I am somewhat skeptical of silicone's resistance to gas and oil. It
>seems to soften over time.

Max is right, here are the ratings from a "Chemical Resistance of Materials Chart" that I use at work:

48 HOUR RATING SCALE
A- no effect
B- minor effect
C- moderate effect
D- severe effect

Chemical      Flourine Rubber        Silicone
Gasoline            B                   C
Motor Oil           B                   C
Synthetic Oil       A                   B
Sperm Whale Oil     A                   A

These tests are based on 48 hr exposures at 72 F. The table makes a big deal about not using the data for higher temperatures or longer periods of time, which would probably magnify the effects. The chart did not specify what type of synthetic oil they used, so it may not be synthetic motor oil. I threw sperm whale oil in there just because I know someone on the list is thinking "I've used nothing but sperm whale oil in my rotary for over 200,000 miles with no ill effects, even though Mazda doesn't recommend it" 8).

___________________

I can answer the question of what sperm whale oil is used for - it used to be (is) used in the differential. I used some back before I knew better. It was considered to be better than petroleum-based oil. It stunk bad. Or is that stunk good? :-)
--Steve

___________________

(Editor's note: I am including the posts on the vacuum line below anyway. If you choose not to use it, at least there is some good info on quantities and lengths. --Steve)

____________________

Max Cooper has a MUST-READ site for this: Hose & Ties.

___________________

I ordered my hose online from Baker Precision.

Baker Precision
2865 Gundry Ave.
Signal Hill, CA 90806 USA
800 - 959 - 7757
562 - 427 - 2375
Fax 562 - 426 - 5294

___________________

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:34:49 -0700
From: Spencer Hutchings

Get at least 20 feet of 4mm and 10 feet of 6mm. That should be plenty. Don't for get the wire ties or safety wire to hold them in place. I use wire ties on the "cool" side and safety wire on the "hot" side.

___________________

Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 18:31:59 EST
From: EDRX7

(I got mine from) Elite Motorsports.

EM099: 3rd gen RX-7 hose replacement kit (blue) $39

The 'hose replacement' kit includes blue silicone hoses required & tie wraps necessary to replace your worn out rubber vacuum hoses. Red & yellow silicone hoses can be chosen for (EM099) at an additional $5/kit ($44)

EM098 FD3S (3rd gen RX-7) hose replacement kit (yellow) $44
EM097 FD3S (3rd gen RX-7) hose replacement kit (red) $44
EM091 Silicone hose (blue) 4mm $1.00/foot
EM092 Silicone hose (yellow) 4mm $1.25/foot
EM093 Silicone hose (red) 4mm $1.25/foot
EM094 Silicone hose (blue) 6mm $1.50/foot
EM095 Silicone hose (yellow) 6mm $1.75/foot
EM096 Silicone hose (red) 6mm $1.75/foot
Silicone hose joint 2 1/4" $4/inch
Silicone hose joint 2 1/2" $4.50/inch
Silicone hose joint 2 3/4" $5/inch

NOTE: Silicone hoses are available in 3 colors: blue, yellow & red. Please specify color. Silicone hose joints are only available in blue.

Here's what you get in the kit:

vacuum hose kit $45.00 total
includes:	14' 4mm hose blue
            10' 6mm hose red
            100 4" tie wraps

__________________

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 06:52:42 EST
From: EDRX7

I also wondered about the possibility of the silicone tubing collapsing or being pinched. The stock lines are preformed and much stiffer than the silicone lines. The silicone lines can be collapsed very easily.

BTW. There was 14' of 4mm tubing and 9' of 6mm tubing along with 100 4" ties wraps in the kit. For those of you that want to compare prices by buying it by the foot.

_________________

From: Gene Guffey (geneguffey@hotmail.com)
Date: Friday, March 03, 2000 5:33 AM

I found a good deal on vacuum hose at

http://www.hosetechniques.com/

They are having a sale on there RX-7 hose kit. Just thought I would pass it along for anyone interested on the list.

Here's what ya get.

The sizes of hose are:

3.5mm ID, 40 feet:  fits all the small vacuum lines under and over
                    the intake manifold and extra feet for 
                    aftermarket boost controllers.
4.0mm ID, 15 feet:  Windshield Washers.
6.0mm ID. 16 feet:  Intake manifold and radiator overflow and there
                    is extra hose for aftermarket boost controllers.
8.0mm ID,  4 feet:  other locations as necessary.

14 colors to pick from.

____________________

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:18:44 -0500
From: rotary@mediaone.net (Carlos Iglesias)

>I also wondered about the possibility of the silicone
>tubing collapsing or being pinched. The stock lines 
>are preformed and much stiffer than the silicone lines. 
>The silicone lines can be collapsed very easily.

I thought so too. To test them, I put a Mity-Vac to both the 3mm and 6mm ID silicon hoses, applied 25" of vacuum, and niether hose collapsed.

_________________

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:14:36 -0600
From: "Westbrook, Chuck"

> What is the prefered method for tying vacuum lines on a 3? Do you use
> plastic zip ties or actual wire like they use in racing to hold bolts in
> place?

Spend the money and get the mini spring clips that Mazda uses. They are reusable, will not melt or brittle with age like ties, and will not cut into the tubes like wire can.

__________________

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:48:18 -0500
From: Max Cooper

HOSE:

I don't know for sure, but I think PFS gets its hose from Baker Precision (http://www.bakerprecision.com/) in Signal Hill, CA. They have red, blue, and yellow for $1.20 a foot, specialty colors are more expensive. I spoke to them and they said they sell thick-walled hose which is less likely to kink than the more commonly available thin-walled stuff. Judging by their location, I think they supply MazdaTrix, and I think PFS uses the same supplier as MazdaTrix. Does anyone have some of their hose to test for kink resistance?

CABLE TIES:

Tefzel is expensive. The only quote I got so far is about $60 for 100 pieces. Stainless Steel is about the same price. While it is not as resistant to UV and chemicals, Heat Stabilized Nylon 4/6 is looking good. It is rated for 275F operation and only costs about $2 for 100.

I just bought 10 bags of 100 from Web-Tronics (http://www.web-tronics.com/). Web-Tronics' minimum shipping charge is $7, and the price is cheaper ($1.88 vs. $2.39) if you buy in quantities of 10 or more. That leaves me with about 8 extra bags (each job requires ~2 bags), so if you want some email me and I'll sell them to you for cost + shipping. The part number is CV-120LW, and they are both weather resistant (UV) and heat stabilized. I think they are black. Problem solved.

___________________

From: Jason (continuum@gashead.com)
Date: 03/01/2002 03:31 PM

The mail from Max Cooper on 02 Mar 1999 talks about the heat stabilized nylon cable ties from Web-tronics. I contacted them this week and they told me the information on their website was incorrect and that they do not sell heat stabilized wire ties. The part number listed in Max's email is for weather resistant ones. They updated their webpage to remove the incorrect information today or yesterday.

I found heat stabilized nylon ties at http://www.nelcoproducts.com for $28.50 (1000 count). That is the smallest package of them they carry. The ties are black, 5" inches long, 3/16" wide, have a minimum bundle size of 1/16", have 40 lbs. min. loop tensile, and are rated at 221F. I didn't get the part number. They do not mind taking orders from individuals and accept credit card payment over the phone. Standard UPS ground shipping is used and is an additional charge over that mentioned above. They also carry Tefzel and Halar for the hard core people.

___________________

For the zip ties, make sure you get ones that are heat resistant. As we all know it it pretty darned hot next to the engine.--Steve

___________________

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:59:33 -0700
From: dbeale (dbeale@harddata.com)

I've been following this zip-tie thread for awhile now, and thought I'd look up the specs. from the manufacturer. I prefer Panduit as they seem to have better quality stuff, though it's often not the least expensive ;-) Max is right, nylon is rated as he said:

Material                  Temp Range
Nylon                    -40 to +185 F
Flame retardant Nylon    -40 to +203 F
TEFZEL                   -50 to +302 F
HALAR                    -50 to +284 F
Nylon 12                 -40 to +176 F
Polyproylene             -40 to +185 F

Looks to me like TEFZEL is the one (for Nuclear and Harsh environments). Part number PLT1M-C76 (max. bundle dia. .87"). There are seven different sizes available. HALAR is for "plenum applications" and would be ok too, but may not be available in small enough sizes (only one is listed - 1.88" max bundle). TEFZEL is a teflon like plastic from DuPont. HALAR is too, but from Ausimont.

They also make stainless steel ones, but I'd be wary of them nicking the silicone tubing, causing it to fail (though they say "no sharp edges"). Part number for these is MLT1S-CP (1" max. bundle).

These should be available from your local electrical and electronics distributors - I suspect you may have to "special order" though.

___________________

Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 10:36:47 -0400
From: Wael El-Dasher (wael.el-dasher@efini.net)

I am sad to say Home Depot no longer carries the small (3/8") clamps for the 4mm ID vacuum hoses. They have a different one that is cheaply made. Squeezing the ends together distorts it, resulting in poor fit over the vacuum hose. The problem is in the squeeze tabs location being almost 180 degrees from each other, where as the old clamps there was only a 60 degree seperation between the squeeze tabs.

KD Rotary has tried to contact the manufacturer only to find out they discontinued the clamp. They are in negociations right now trying to reintroduce them at a substantially lower cost too. In the mean time I had to buy some from Mazda Comp. I suggest you save the following part number for these 8mm clamps (for use with 4mm hoses).

Part number: 9928-30-800
size:        8mm (3/8") for use with 4mm (ID) vacuum hoses
price:       $.65/ea. ($1.10/ea.from dealer!)
source:      Mazda Comp

___________________

For a diagram, plus instructions on how to do the job, see the How-to page on this. --Steve

Turbo Pipe Kit

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:09:40 PST
From: "Jeff Witzer"

> Also the pipe, located under front strut tower bar, connets the
> turbo and the intercooler piping. I always want an aftermarket one
> from long time ago, but there's no one making it.

Not to take away from Kevin, but from the Pettit ((954) 735-0100) on-line catalog (see the picture at Race Parts, halfway down the page):

0803-396 HI-FLOW POLISHED ALUMINUM TURBO PIPE KIT 499.95

This goes turbo-to-intercooler and intercooler-to-throttle-body.

Does the aluminum have a problem absorbing too much heat as it passes over the engine, making the intercooler less effective?

_____________

Tri-Point offers a silicone replacement kit for the turbo pipe hoses. (This is from Samco.) Spencer Hutchings took the following pictures of them on his car: Tri-Point Hose Kit Tri-Point Hose Kit

"Y" Turbo Outlet Duct (Efini Y-pipe)

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:32:00 -0600
From: "Westbrook, Chuck"

The replacement for the front half of the "Y" turbo outlet duct assembly (Mazda calls it an air pipe) has three major changes:

  1. The inside where both turbos feed into is larger with larger and smoother radius turns.

  2. The ABV/BOV (air bypass valve/ blow of valve) connector pipe use to protrude into the cavity mentioned in #1 above, now it is flush with the inner wall and instead of being perpendicular to the duct, angles forwards by about 45 degrees.

  3. The top outlet opening is higher and has two studs that are used to bolt the crossover duct (Mazda air pipe) to the assemble replacing the old rubber coupling hose and two clamps.

The new crossover to IC duct/air pipe is larger inside where it goes under the brace bar, and where it makes the 90 degree bend, has a larger and smoother radius. It does not bolt down to the bracket between the alternator and air pump like it use to. This piece is now made of aluminum!

The two pieces and gasket cost about $230. These changes are to improve the flow rate from the turbos into the IC. They are meant to be used with the stock or stock replacement ICs. Brad Barber who has an ASP IC only uses the front half of the "Y" duct with the studs and flange cut off and then uses a silicone hose to connect it to his IC.

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:11:00 -0600
From: "Westbrook, Chuck"

This Saturday, I installed the Efini turbo upgrade pieces on my 93 R1 which also has a Greddy IC. I ordered the kit from Mazda Competition Parts. It has three pieces:

  1. N3F1-13-234 - gasket
  2. N3F1-13-24X - front half of the turbo "Y" outlet duct
  3. N3F1-13-242B - cross over duct from the "Y" duct to the IC

You also need two common 12MM Mazda nuts, two lock washers, and 2 regular washers Mazda calls these pieces by different names. The front half of the "Y" duct installed perfectly and easily. Had two minor problems with the top cross over duct. Even though it has an indented area so as to not hit the alternator, it is about 1/4" off center. I had to grind down part of the alternator to prevent it from rubbing too hard but it still touches a little. This same duct which connects the "Y" outlet to the IC sits higher than the stock plastic one. I had to raise the Greddy 90 degree connector duct. In so doing the bottom blue silicone hose is just barely long enough to be used. It measures 2 3/4" long and needs to be 4" long.

Haven't had a chance to see if it really makes any difference but will test it soon.

_______________

Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 08:55:12 -0500
From: brad barber (bradrx7@bradbarber.com)

> I thought the reason people use the Efini Y-pipe is to eliminate the
> coupler?  If you cut off the flange and welded a bead, then used a hose to
> connect it to the ASP pipe, wouldn't you be left with essentially the same
> setup as stock?  Are there other differences with the Efini pipe other than
> the flange and "flat" metal tube?

Yes, there is a difference in the castings. The Efini part has the boss and pressed in pipe for the charge valve moved from the primary turbo pressure path. On the original part the boss is obstructing the path. The flange is nice, but I was more concerned with a free flowing intake path.

________________

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:12:09 -0600
From: GDK (gdolittle@postoffice.worldnet.att.net)

> 1. Do the new parts replace the Y-shaped piping leading from the compressor
> outlets AND the pipe running from there to the intercooler?

The "kit", which MazdaComp sells, includes these two pipes, a new air duct leading to the airbox, a new air duct leading to the intercooler, and all necessary gaskets. They also will sell the pipes seperately from the ducts for about $200 (total), which is what I bought.

> 4. Is the connection between the Y-pipe and the next pipe leading to the
> intercooler more reliable than the OEM rubber hose?

Yes! The pipes have metal flanges that bolt together.

> 5. Who sells it?

Rotary Performance (www.rx7.com); MazdaComp

> 6 Anything else I need to know?

I think it's a much improved part over U.S. spec. It won't break or blow out like the stock hoses/connection and it seems to be larger and thus more free flowing. MazdaComp told me the "kit" was supposedly good for 10 to 15 h.p., with most of that coming from improvements in the two pipes.

_______________

Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 08:49:08 -0500
From: "Westbrook, Chuck E." (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)

At the time that I installed the Efini Y pipe on my car, a PFS PMC was being used to controll boost and fuel. My boost went up just over 1 PSI just by adding this mod. Both pipes allow better air flow because: the lower pipe has the BOV port flush mounnted and not protuding into the pipe as before,(2) the top pipe has a larger radius turn and is larger internally in some places.

________________

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:40:24 -0400
From: "Ryan Schlagheck" (ryan.schlagheck@worldnet.att.net)

You can take one of two approaches with regard to the ASP Large for use in conjunction with the (96+) Efini y-pipe. Both are labor intensive, and add another $100-150 to the total price of the IC/y-pipe project.

Brad Barber (bradrx7@swbell.net) has a write up of his procedure on Rob Robinette's website. Brad did in fact use the y-pipe, but not the crossover pipe. Brad's configuration uses the originally spec'd design of the ASP and thus has removed the air pump.

I have successfully installed a Spearco intercooler of the same core size as the ASP large on my FD. The installation can be seen at IC Kit. My requirements were slightly different than the ASP design because I intend to keep my air pump on for the visual inspection and emissions compliance ;-). As such, I modified some existing GReddy hardpipes that originally fit the stock intercooler. Not that much work, but it allowed me to run the air pump and eventually use it with the full Efini y-pipe setup. Images of this setup can be found at Y Pipe. Pardon the crude nature of the image layout. I did this just for you in about ten minutes. :-)

Since the completion of this project, I understand that Mostly Mazda now has the rights to reproduce the ASP medium and large intercoolers. I also understand that Brian Richards at Mostly Mazda will fab up a pipe to run the Large IC in conjunction with the air pump. Though there are no images on the www.mostlymazda.com website showing the optional air pump pipe (as of 18 August 99), I think all you have to do is ask.

_______________

Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:04:38 -0400
From: "kevin kelleher" (kellehkj@earthlink.net)

Y-pipe Results:

Only performance upgrade before last track session was the turbo y-pipe. The unit, about $200 from mazda comp, had rough cast surfaces in and out, more so than oem part. I ground all inside surfaces smooth (pia).

On the track, I have a bleed valve I usually trim to run closer to stock fuel cut at the track, giving 1-2 more psi. I found that, with new y-pipe boost was up fully w/o changing the valve at all. The boost increase showed up mostly at high rpms, where drop off was less than in the past.

This mod results in less pressure drop, mabe 1+ psi, on the upper rpms, for me at about 9 psi up there. For higher powered cars, the reduced pressure drop would be more. This allows more efficient boost with less heat and backpressure, but a big difference in perceived power if regulated to the same boost as before. Also could make things a little leaner up there.

Install tips: Check Robinette's site for info. If you have air pump, remove it. Be very careful unhooking the the larger vac hose to the rear of the oem y-pipe. It is brittle and if broken, massive job to replace. Also, while there, replace the small elbo hose for the bypass relief off the 2nd turbo, as this hose gets hard and leaks. The final position of the cross tube is about 1/3 inch higher than before, and some stock mt IC's, like my Greddy, required a longer than standard connector hose. Got xtra long hose stock from bakerprecision.com.

Blow-Off Valves

Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:07:11 -0700
From: "Jim LaBreck" (jimlab@earthlink.net)

Pop-off valve: A spring regulated valve designed to open at a specific pressure, venting boost to atmosphere and preventing the engine from receiving the full output of the turbos or an unsafe level of boost.

Blow-off valve: A vacuum actuated valve which vents boost to the atmosphere in order to prevent compressor surge when the throttle body is suddenly closed. Also allows quick spool-up after a shift, according to some sources.

Charge relief valve: A valve which vents boost to atmosphere in order to spool the second of a pair of sequential turbos quickly to speed prior to being brought "on-line" by removing the restriction of the closed intake system.

I'm sure you could call a pop-off valve a blow-off valve and be pretty close, but they do serve different purposes. The sequential system on the RX-7 has one blow-off and one charge relief valve. The non-sequential conversion converts the charge relief valve to blow-off duties.

________________

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:21:09 -0700
From: "Jim LaBreck (ECA)" (a-jimlab@microsoft.com)

A blow-off valve releases pressure from the system when vacuum is present at the manifold, indicating that the throttle body butterflies have closed or are closing. This prevents pressure from building up between the turbos and the closed or partially closed throttle body while the turbos are still producing significant output. This protects the throttle body and the turbos and also (so some say) allows the system to pressurize more quickly after gear shifts...

A pop-off valve vents when pressure has reached a certain level. It is not controlled by vacuum (although the pop-off valve can be repurposed as a blow-off valve after a non-sequential conversion) but rather by pressure. Indy cars used this method (before the elimination of turbocharging) to limit boost without a wastegate. In our application, their use is intended to vent pressure created by the second turbo while it is being spooled to bring it on-line. In Brooks' case, he is using an additional valve to vent pressure from the system between the turbos and the engine (including intercooler, piping, throttle body, and intake manifold) when the pressure reaches a specific level. This happens regardless of the position of the throttle body, is not controlled by the presence of vacuum, and is intended to prevent excess pressure in the event that spiking or creep (or wastegate actuator, wastegate or boost controller failure) raises the boost level above a safe amount for the engine to deal with.

If the pop-off valve spring is adjusted for 15 psi, the valve should open and vent the system until pressure has dropped to a safe level. Obviously, if you intend to run 15 psi, this is not where you're going to set the pop-off, as it will tend to flutter, or fluctuate between opening and closing as boost reaches and then drops below 15 psi. The valve that Brooks is using is adjustable up to 18 psi, I believe.

So, the pop-off is used to control pressure created by the rear turbo in a factory setup, but one can be added to vent excess pressure from the system on any setup, non-sequential or factory, twin or single turbo. The blow-off valve does not perform this safety feature, but only vents when the throttle body is closing and vacuum is present in the manifold. It therefore cannot help in an overboost situation until the driver steps out of the throttle. As overboosting happens far too quickly for that to be a practical solution, the pop-off is the ideal fail-safe for unsafe levels of boost present in the system.

________________

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:27:40 -0800
From: "David H. Lane" (dlane@peabody.jhu.edu)

Bypass and Blow-off valves are designed to relieve turbo pressure in the intake system when you take your foot off the gas. The two purposes for this are to keep the throttle butterflies from "chattering" under the pressure, and also to keep the column of compressed air in the system from bogging down the turbo, which could delay spool up in the next gear slightly.

A bypass valve releaves the pressure by venting it back into the intake system before the turbo. A blow-off valve accomplishes the same thing by venting the air into the atmosphere (which is what give you its characteristic sound).

Third gens, and most high performance factory turbo cars, come stock with bypass valves. Those who modify their cars sometimes think that the stock set-up will not flow enough air to work if the boost is elevated.

A couple of years ago, I posted a question about measured results with a blow-off valve and got a single response that some group or other had determined the benefit(not on RX-7s) between nothing and a blow-off valve was only .1 second in the quarter mile. This makes me seriously doubt that the stock bypass system on a 3rd gen would not be able to handle all but the most radical modifications.

My car (GSL-SE with aftermarket turbo) has a bypass valve that was part of the original kit. Bill Hahn--basically a drag racer--added a blow off valve when he fabricated my intercooler ducting, saying that it would only activate after full throttle running, while the bypass valve would handle the rest. Corky Bell, who designed the turbo kit quipped that he "didn't think much of those things" when asked about blow-off valves.

So, Shiv and the others are essentially correct. If your car is anywhere near stock (including the stock bypass valve) a blow-off valve will have minimal, if any effect--other than to make a funny sound and announce to the world that your car is modified.

If you are adding a turbo to a N/A engine, and if the kit doesn't include a bypass valve, there is merit to adding a blow-off valve for the performance increase and for keeping the throttle plates comfortable. And, you get the funny sound thrown in. My wife says she kind of likes the sound, but since I already have a bypass valve I would probably remove the thing if it were not welded into the intake plumbing.

________________

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:19:26 -0600
From: "Kevin T. Wyum" (aspi@winternet.com)

Don't bother with any aftermarket blowoff valve if you are looking for performance. The stock is more than adequate. If you simply have the desire to hear a noise stick a valve cover breather filter in the hose at the end of the stock hose. It'll make all kinds of noise. The only other real reason for one is if you want a pretty little piece to point at and show to your friends. There will be no significant performance difference no matter how many adjectives the seller puts in the name, a japanese tradition. People in the know will simply look at it on your car and think, he has no clue.

_______________

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 22:05:32 -0800 (PST)
From: NetBlazer (netb@world.bc.ca)

The car comes stock with the equiv of two blow off valves. They are made of a very light composite (i.e.- they will react faster than one made from a material with more mass), and IMO are superior to the aftermarket ones avail.

Don't waste your money... there are many things on the third gen that could definately be improved on. The blow off valves(s) are not one of them.

P.S.- A friend bought an R1 with a Greddy BOV on it. I removed it, and compared its ID with one of the stock ones, and the Greddy one had a noticably smaller ID which explains why it makes more noise, as noise indicates restriction.

______________

From the Autospeed"
article on performance myths:

Aftermarket Blow-off Valves Give Your Car More Power, Making It Go Heaps Faster...

Vehicle manufacturers fit blow-off valves to reduce turbo flutter noise (when configured in a closed-loop arrangement), and we've also heard suggestions that they improve turbo life. Perhaps so. But today in the aftermarket there are numerous dual-chamber, sequential, double-whammy super-dooper BOVs that cost upward of A$500 - which in reality, perform no better than most humble OEM parts.

An aftermarket valve can perform better than OEM valves, but only with those standard valves that leak under boost. If you've replaced a BOV that used to seal perfectly, we guarantee you'll be splitting hairs trying to measure any on-road gains. On the other hand, one professional workshop we know suggested one of their cars went harder WITHOUT its big shiny blow-off valve...

If you really must have one, it is more than likely for the mystical sound effects and so people can be "double whammy'd" when you pop the hood. A standard BOV bought from a wrecker is the most cost-effective approach.

______________

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:04:00 -0600
From: "Westbrook, Chuck" (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)

Actually the best functioning BOV for the cost is probably one made by BOSCH for the Saab turbo. It is a very plain (ugly) unit but only cost about $27. I got this info from a Toyota Supra (yuck) page. They found it to be a better quality item than their stock BOV. Read all about it at: http://www.supras.com/bov.html.

______________

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:24:12 -0400
From: "Fritz McKellar" (sico@cyberus.ca)

I have a pop-off valve as well. Unfortunately, I recommended the pop-off to Brooks (sorry). I have since shut it down, and so has Brooks I believe. The problem with the valve is that the spring to release the excess boost is too progressive. In other words, the valve will bleed the boost, but only enough to try and keep under the limit. The valve can not open all the way because it requires a higher boost to push it even more open (due to the accomodation of potentially higher boost settings of other vehicle applications). Bad! The turbos will over boost trying to provide the extra boost which the wastegate is saying it is not receiving. What is required to make it work is a very specific resistance spring which blows wide (not partially) open to kill power and potential boost.

______________

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:47:43 -0500
From: "Westbrook, Chuck E." (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)
Subject: RE: (rx7) (all) BOV location

Next to the throttle body would be the best as it would keep the air flow towards it. If you place it near the turbos, then you can get backwards or static directional flow in the system past the turbos.

That is one of the faults of the stock system.

_________________

Now, if you STILL want one after that, read on... --Steve

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:18:21 EST
From: RudylRx7@aol.com

Here's my view on the blow off valves on today's market. They will help a little bit, but not by much considering they cost from $250-330 a piece. Most people get it to dress up the engine bay and they like the "pfffff" sound. Here are your options if you definitely want one on your 7:

Personally, I'll pick the HKS one or the APEXi because of appearance.. But with the $300 I'd rather get something more useful such as fuel/boost controller, mid/down pipe, etc.

Boost Unit Conversion

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:20:16 -0600
From: "Westbrook, Chuck E." (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)

Many owners still get boost conversions wrong because they confuse the different standards, or don't know what unit of measurement their boost gauge uses. It should be stated on the dial face.

My HKS boost gauge reads in Kg/Cm^2. The following is rounded to one decimal point.

One ATM      is equal to 14.7 PSI.

One Kg/Cm^2  is equal to 14.2 PSI.

One BAR      is equal to 14.5 PSI.

(ATM = atmosphere, the normal pressure at sea level of earth's atmosphere)

A good site for conversions.

Boost Control

>Why do people not just increase the boost like on
>other turboed cars?

The issue is that you can't just crank the boost up w/o other modifications to keep the engine from blowing up, e.g.- new/upgraded computer, bigger IC, possibly 3mm apex seals, etc. And if the engine does not get enough fuel during periods of high boost, you will get detonation and the apex seals will break, so you may need new (higher flow) injectors. And maybe a better fuel pump if you really mod the engine.

So it is not as simple as just cranking the boost up. But I wish it were so... Read on for more info if you want to increase boost and don't mind doing the required upgrades to support it. --Steve

_________________

Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:18:48 -0400
From: "kevin kelleher" (kellehkj@earthlink.net)

The WG sol-valve controls boost by venting the actuator, creating a pressure drop across the pill, with the reduced pressure in the actuator allowing manifold boost above the basic actuator setting of 8 psi (to initiate WG opening). This is a true 'bleed' or vent control system.

STOCK CONTROL

The following 4 notes are the result of testing, not my less appreciated theoretical type stuff. Some of that sneaks in later.

  1. In primary mode, the sol-valve duty cycle is fixed at a high percent open. Averaged voltage was 11.5 volts. This, with the exhaust dumping at the precontrol, limits the boost.

  2. After twin mode kicks in at 4500 at WOT, the duty cycle changes to a more closed condition (4-5 volts), less than half the previous value, and stays about there to redline. This creates lower general boost pressure above 4500 in twin mode, due to less sol-valve venting, causing less pressure drop across the pill, and more pressure proportionally held in the actuator. This also compensates for no exhaust dumping help from precontrol anymore.

  3. If in the previous case you lift at about 4800 rpm, the sol valve closes for no venting. Floor it again and it jumps to 6 volts, dropping down gradually to 4-5 at high rpm.

  4. If you start at low rpm, and ease thru 5000 rpm, voltage stays at 11.5 (max vent). If you ease up past 5500, sol-valve voltage drops to zero, fully closed. (the manual implies twin mode will kick in over 5500 rpm with lite load history.) Now, if rpms are brought back down to 3700, the sol-valve stays closed. Now floor it and sol-valve jumps to about 8 volts, and boost slowly rises, clearly locked in twin mode below 4500 rpm. As you contine up at WOT, voltage drops gradually as before to 4-5 at 7000. The 'locked in twin mode' at low rpm is released by a time factor, or by dropping below about 3300 rpm.

There are other interetsing traits, but these paint the picture pretty well. My conclusion, based on the smooth, repeatable ramping of the duty cycle in twin mode, is that a complex set of maps based on various inputs, are used to passively control boost in an open loop mode. I like the low rpm boost kick that generally results. The 'max boost cut-out vs rpm' table on Steve Cirian's great site suggests the general boost profile that was desired by Mazda.

AFTER MODS:

After heavy mods, I and others found boost (and spiking) was generally up. This is due to increased vol-efficiency, and higher hp and exhaust flow at the same old boost levels/conditions.

I said the WG flap cracks open at 8 psi. It is about 1/8 inch open (at the edge away from the pivot) at 10 psi, and is opened a max of 1/2 inch at 15 psi. It is likely that max dump capacity occurs at much less than 1/2 inch open, limited by port size. This data was taken off my OEM working system. (Max open was about a 20 degree swing of the WG valve.)

Where before mods, 10 psi at a certain rpm/condition was a result of sol-valve venting to create mabe 9 psi in the actuator, now that amount of opening of the WG is not enough dumping of exhaust gas to keep boost pressure from rising higher. So boost rises more to say 12 psi, and now the actuator pressure is 10 and the wg is 1/8 inch open instead of 1/16 inch for the stock condition, and boost sabilizes at the new higher pressure. Venting duty cycle maps for the sol-valve are the same as before mods.

Larger orifices can recapture stock boost levels and control spikes. But w/o an ECU upgrade, the increased volumetric efficiency with full intake-exhaust-IC leans out the mixture, and ECU upgrades are needed, unless O2 readings can confirm adequate mixture. Each car is a bit different in this area.

PRECONTROL note:

Although some state primary boost is only controled by the precontrol WG, my testing suggested it works in parallel with the main WG to control primary boost. PLEASE, someone with a stock set-up, plug the line to the WG solenoid valve, and see if primary boost drops (this would reassure me, and be proof for doubters). Mine did, but I tested my car with heavy mods. This test is safe.

_________________

Rob Robinette has an excellant page on how the system works.

_________________

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:32:23 -0400
From: "Sandy Linthicum" (sandy-linthicum@nc.rr.com)
Subject: RE: (rx7) [3] Boost Levels at High Elevations

> As far as I understand, if I am at 5500 ft., I can run "higher
> boost" by 2.7 psi, and still have the same absolute boost level if
> compared to sea level.  However, oxygen levels become lower with
> altitude.  So is it really safe to run "more boost" at higher

Yes and no. First, oxygen is distributed evenly through the atmosphere. There's less oxygen at altitude because there's less air, period, not because less of the air is made of oxygen.

The total amount of pressure in the manifold is the same if you run an extra 2-3PSI. But, you have to run a greater turbo pressure ratio to generate that pressure. Your turbos have to blow more air in, and they have less to work with. Consider:

>Depends on sensor used to measure pressure.  If map sensor is a 
>load cell type that is sealed with no outlet to ATM then 12psi
>measured in the manifold is 12psi at sea level or in space.

Sea level, 10 PSI boost = 24.7 absolute manifold pressure / 14.7 ambient pressure = 1.68 ratio

5500 feet, 12.7 PSI boost = 24.7 absolute manifold pressure / 12 ambient pressure = 2.06 ratio.

Your turbos will have to work as hard producing 12.7 PSI of boost at high altitude as they would producing 15.6 PSI of boost at sea level. That means a hotter intake charge.

Secondly, octane is lower at high altitudes. You can get 92 octane in Denver at some stations. But most gas stations at high altitude only have 91 and some don't even have that. This would be fine if it were 1975. Of course they charge "premium" price for the same gas that is mid-grade anywhere else in the country.

>Gas may be lower octane but 93 octane is still 93 regardless of 
>altitute

Combine bad gas with hotter intake... not good. Therefore, be careful turning up the boost at high altitude.

>Intake may be cooler since inlet air would generally be colder.  
>On the other hand, a lot more RPM is necessary at the turbo 
>compressor due to thinner air.

_________________

See the Engine Management Computer page for more info on things like the HKS, Greddy, etc. boost controllers. --Steve

_________________

Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:56:21 -0500
From: "Westbrook, Chuck E." (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)
Subject: (rx7) [3] how boost is controlled

Some owners do not understand how boost is controlled by the stock system. The following does not include the minor affect caused by the pre-control system that does bleed of exhaust pressure and thus affects #1 turbo boost at about 4000rpm. Nor does it include WG solenoid dual cyclic rates. This is a simple direct and major operational explanation.

Boost pressure comes from the #1 turbo thru the air pill/jet to one of the two WG actuator's connectors. This is where people put the manual valve in place of the pill in order to control the pressure build up rate. This is the pressure side of the actuator. The other WG actuator connector connects to the WG solenoid where pressure is bleed off. This is the atmosphere side. If you bleed off no pressure, then minimum boost is built which is equal to the actuator spring tension of about 7psi. If you bleed off more or equal pressure than the pill supplies, then you will have no boost control at all.

__________________

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:40:10 -0600
From: David Liberman (liberman@scott.net)

The air bypass valve only opens when vacuum is applied to it. Notice that the hose for actuation runs directly to the manifold. So, when you take your foot off the gas and create vacuum in the system, it opens and vents pressurized air to the atmosphere instead of letting it slam back into the turbos.

>Also, can anyone tell me how the turbo control, wastegate and turbo
>pre-control all differ. My guess is that the wastegate controls exhaust
>volume to both turbos, the pre-control controls exhaust to the secondary
>turbo separately and I have no idea what the turbo control does but it
>appear to be separate from the wastegate.

Turbo control: located in the exhaust manifold between the rear rotor's exhaust port and the rear turbo. Opens at 4500 allowing exhaust gases to spin the secondary turbo and generate boost.

Wastegate: Located on the turbo housing, in the common exhaust area by the precat port. Begins to open at 7psi, is fully open at 10psi.

Turbo Precontrol: Located on the turbo housing, with its own little port being fed from the exhaust manifold. At 3000rpm, it opens and pre-spins the secondary turbo. The charge relief valve is open at the same time, and the charge control valve is closed, spitting any boost generated by the secondary out the airbox. At 4500, the precontrol closes, and the charge relief closes, and the charge control opens, allowing full secondary boost to combine with the primary.

___________________

Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 20:21:45 -0500
From: Brooks Weisblat (brooks@miamisci.org)

I installed an HKS pop-off valve to my car.....pictures and information are on my website ....goto the whats new section to find it quickly....

below is a text excerpt......

I installed an HKS pop-off valve on the exhaust side of the intercooler. The valve has a spring loaded mechanism that bleeds off excess boost above the set level. You can set the valve too bleed boost between 12 and 18psi by adjusting the screw. The valve reduces boost spiking by bleeding off excess boost. The valve also protects the motor in case something happens where excessive boost would be applied to the motor. While the valve doesn't eliminate boost spiking during the turbo transition, it does lower amount of spiking and also acts a great protective measure for the car.

The HKS part #'s are:

HKS 1404-RA005		Adjustable pop-off valve 
			12-18 pounds
HKS 08108-09159		Flange
HKS 17678-001100	Gasket

The valve hardware came to a total of $65.43 from Stillen Motorsports (714-540-5566). The welding was $40 from a local shop.

________________

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 97 21:56:05 -0500
From: Brooks Weisblat (brooks@miamisci.org)

I have been struggling with different ways to control boost on my car, and I think might have found the "perfect" way to control boost....for my car anyways...

I have been changing the orifice in the wastegate line to control boost for the last year or so. I have tried a manual bleed off valve in the past. And I have been working with the profec lately.

The manual bleed off valve installed as most people do (wyum put my in) makes alot of noise in the car, and I noticed alot of turbo lag on the first turbo.

Changing the orifice is a very tedious and luck of the draw type of procedure. I can either get 10, 14, or 16 pounds of boost....no in between...i want 12.5 for street driving...

The (Greddy) Profec is working well, but im not convinced it controls boost as well as the stock system.

So this is what i tried next.....i installed a bleed off valve in between the turbo and wasteage line. This is the line that the orifice is in. I removed the line that contains the orifice completely, and ran two lines inside the car. One line goes to the turbo, the other line goes to the top nipple of the wastegate. The two lines meet inside that car at the bleed off valve.

With the valve all the way open, the car runs a rock solid 10 pounds of boost on both turbos.

As i start opening the valve the boost increases slightly over the 6 turns the valve has. I can now very precisly dial in the exact boost that i want. With the valve installed in this way, there is not much noise from the valve, and there is absoultely no lag, its running like a dream....

Has anyone else tried this yet??

___________

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 97 08:17:47 -0500
From: Brooks Weisblat (brooks@miamisci.org)

(included stuff snipped)

I am securing the hoses very well. There shouldn't be any pop-off's. But, if there is a cut, or kink in the line, it would restrict the air going to the wastegate, kind of acting like a smaller orifice, and thereby increase boost. I think. Im not sure....

Any other ideas??

however, there is just as much of a chance of any of the other 100 lines popping off, adding one more shouldnt be that much more of a problem...

i bought the valve from home depot.

the other line coming out of the wasteage...the bottom one, is still connected....going to the soloniod...

_____________

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 11:04:41 -0400
From: Rippin (rippin@pottsville.infi.net)

> Are you guys running your manual boost control valves on the wastegate line
> or the turbo precontrol line? My understanding (which I believe is correct)
> is that the precontrol is essentially the wastegate for the 1st turbo. Once
> max boost is reached on turbo 1, the precontrol begins opening, which bleeds
> exhaust pressure to the second turbo to pre-spool it. At this point, the
> wastegate control is doing little, if anything. Then, once the turbo
> control valve flips the big exhaust door open, exhaust gas is evenly divided
> to spin both turbos. At this point the wastegate control valve is used to
> bypass both turbos and bleed exhaust pressure.
>
> Thus, a manual valve in the precontrol line only affects boost levels when
> operating on the 1st turbo. If a valve is in the wastegate line, it will
> only control boost when operating in dual turbo mode. If my understanding
> is incorrect, please correct me. However, this is how Cam at Pettit
> explained it (or at least how I understood it), and it makes sense;
> especially when you consider that the precontrol & wastegate diaphragms and
> solenoids are essentially identical and have the exact same hose routing.
> They just connect to different control doors in the turbo assembly.
>
> So, to really control boost effectively you need to install separate manual
> valves in the precontrol & wastegate lines, correct? Is anyone on the list
> running this kind of setup, or has anyone tried it?

Ryan Schlagheck and I are running the dual Manual Boost Control that you speak of. I've found it necessary with cars that have mods which remove the Cat and/or downpipe and do not have an electronic boost controller. The wastegate controller works great for the RPM's above 4500 when both turbos are online, but boost below 4500 would consistently see 13 or higher while placing the car under full throttle load.

Hence the Precontrol Valve. This allows us to control the first turbo boost level easily and safely and have the over 4500 transition come on to another desired level of boost. So far its working great.

I personally have the Manual bleed valves set at 11.5 pounds below 4500RPM's a quick spike to 13lbs at the transition, and then a steady 12 lbs to redline.

Ryan, after just installing his new ECU, will probably be running 10, 12 spike, 10 lbs until we get his new Intercooler installed. The only flaw, which I have also seen with some of the electronic controllers is the outside temp change. Boost goes up a little when it gets colder. So we set them on cool nights, so in the day we run about .5 lbs lower. It's better to be safe then sorry.

__________________

Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 07:46:50 -0500
From: "Westbrook, Chuck E." (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)

> I have the "Home Depot" manual boost control.  Ive been running this mod
> for about 2 months and it is effective.  However, I have not disabled the
> control solenoid and have been told that others do.  Can someone with this
> mod- or knowledge of it, let me know if I should disable the wastegate
> control solenoid.

No, do not disable it unless you only want about 7 psi of boost. It is normally closed and thus would not bleed any pressure. You don't want to bypass it either unless you are running non-seq.

The WG solenoid is cycled at two different rates which affects boost. Before 4500rpm, it is cycled more which bleeds off more pressure from the actuator which allows more boost. This helps when running on only the #1 turbo. After 4500rpm, the WG solenoid is cycled less thus reducing boost.

__________________

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:21:02 -0800
From: "Emilio G. Littel" (emilio@littel.com)

Following Gene Kan's Manual Boost Page, I installed the valves on my 93 Touring and have been "fiddling with the knobs" for the last few weeks. For those who may be considering this modification, here is a table containing the valve opening settings and the resultant boost patterns. The list of (relevant) modifications to my FD is as follows: RSA Cat-Back, Downpipe, Efini intake track. Average air temperature during testing was 55 degrees. Average air humidity was 70 percent. Boost readings were taken via a Blitz mechanical gauge (converted to PSI @ 14.5:1 bar).

ABBT = Average Boost Before Transition.
SBT  = Spike Before Transition.
SAT  = Spike After Transition.
ABAT = Average Boost After Transition.
Valve listings are number of turns from closed.

Combo#    Pre-Control Valve    Wastegate Valve     ABBT      SBT       SAT      ABAT
    1            3.25                2.75           8.7     10.2      10.2       8.7
    2            3.5                 2.75           8.7      8.7      11.6       9.1
    3            3.75                2.5            8.7     10.2       8.7       8.7
    4            3.75                3              8.7     10.2      10.2       8.7
    5            3.875               3.25           8.7     12.0       8.7       8.0
    6            3.875               3.5            8.7     10.2       9.4       8.7
    7            3.875               4              8.7     10.2       8.7       7.3
    8            4                   4              7.3      8.0       8.0       7.3

As you can see, combination # 8 produces the smoothest powerband. Unfortunately, as described by Gene Kan elsewhere and, as verified by my "Dinamometro de nalga", on our FD's, a feeling of smooth power delivery means that there is no real horsepower being produced... On the other hand, combination # 1 seems to be the best all around setting that allows a buffer zone for cold days/denser air. A close candidate is number # 2, but that setting also seems to show a strong probability for boost creep at the top end; again, that is if my "Dinamometro de nalga" serves me correctly. YMMV.

This, of course is work in progress that will be updated as the other modifications (ECU, IC & Intake) are installed.

Ed.'s note: Gene's is a modification of Brook's original strategy. --Steve

___________________

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 06:58:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: TAKESHI988@aol.com

The idea Brooks was employed has been using by either HKS or Greddy a long time ago. The Greddy one is called the t.v.v.c. and the HKS one is called VBC (variable boost controller) What they do is to delay the signal sending to the wastegate actuator, so the wastegate will open later which causes the rise of the boost level I beleive both of them are sold around $250. The t.v.v.c or the VBC is put between the turbo and the wastegate actuator (between the orginal hose running from the turbo to the actuator) By turning the knob on either the t.v.v.c or the VBC, the flow of the air will be more restricted inside them.How they work is like this: For instance, the stock wastegate will open at 7psi. When the t.v.v.c is installed, the boost inside the hose connecting the turbo and the t.v.v.c will be 7 psi but because the the flow of the air is restricted by the t.v.v.c. ,the boost inside the hose connecting the t.v.v.c and the actuator will be lower which means the boost is under 7 psi. If it's under 7 psi then the actuator will not open until 7 psi is realized so the boost level will keep increasing until the boost between the t.v.v.c and the actuator is 7 psi.

          (conncted by hose)
  turbo-------------------------> input of t.v.v.c----->some mechanism which
restricted 
         
air flow---------> output of t.v.v.c------------------------>wastegate
actuator
                                               (connected by hose)

_______________

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 01:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: NetBlazer (netb@core.bisc.com)
Subject: (rx7) [3] stock waste-gate orfice

Jim's car had repeatable boost creep in fourth gear. This was with an open exhaust and non-sequential setup. Once we got a decent clutch in there, most of the problrms went away, except the boost creep at partial throttle positions in higher gears (bad I know, but you do it sometimes)

Anyway pulled the turbos, and took the primary turbo's exhaust housing to my machinist. Looking at the waste-gate orfice with the circular flapper valve open, you could see a ring where the flapper had been closing (wear mark), This ring was offset a little, IE the waste-gate orfice was not perfectly in the center of it. My instructions were to bore the hole (using the milling machine) about 1/2 the difference in diameter between the ring, and the waste-gate orfice, and to put its origin at the origin of the ring, and not the waste-gate orfice's origin. (this requires a mill, and not a drill press)

The bore was most of the way down to the back wall of the exhaust passage (looking in through the waste-gate hole) and opened it up considerably. Comparing it to one of the 93 housings I have sitting around it was a lot larger, and perfectly round, unlike the 93 casting I have. Jim's 95 casting may have been more round than the 93...I didn't check, but don't recall noticing that it was not round like the 93 one (very obvious)

I also used a die grinder on the area where the flapper valve opens toward to give it more room, so it at least doesn't hit like it does stock. The actuator won't let it go very far, but even a little will help.

Anyway we got a chance to test tonight (BTW not a single one of the studs/nuts on the turbo, or downpipe that I had installed galled, unlike Jim's factory studs which most of had galled and the nuts were perm. attached to the studs). With boost set to .7 bar (assuming 1 bar is 14.7PSI then that is 10.29 PSI) the car was rather fast, and we easily hit 140 in my dad's neighborhood entrance (sorta long straight). I was watching the boost on the EVC, and it was mostly at .79 bar (11.613 PSI), and occasionally .81 bar (11.907 PSI). That run was from a dead stop, and went to 7K rpm in each gear thru 4th, and into 5th for a short time (god we were overdriving those low beams till the high got turned on :)

We also drove around and tested at non WOT throttle positions. Never once did the boost creep, or even hint at it. As far as I am concerned the amount I had it enlarged was enough to fix the problems. I would say you could go as much as 75% the difference and not have any problems with it sealing. Also note that the waste-gate orfice develops cracks around it almost as often/fast as the secondary inlet cracks, but is not one that most people will ever see since you must disassemble the housings, and open the flapper valve to see it. This is why I believe you don't hear about it cracking there. It is unknown at this time (or ever?) if machining this out will increase or decrease the chance of cracks around that orfice. My educated guess is that it will decrease it, because there has been some stress releif, plus you are cutting away some of the stock casting edges which may contain irregularities that could contribute to the cracking?....

I feel I should post other options at this time: Running a less restrictive pre-cat back exhaust (with a 3" downpipe) has been shown in some cases to eliminate the boost creep problems. This is most likely due to less backpressure making it more attractive for the exhaust gasses to pass through the waste-gate orfice than the turbine. Its possibly related to a 'sweet spot' type deal where the flow on the more restrictive exhaust is open enough to cause the boost to rise quickly, but not open enough to allow the waste-gate to fully control the boost.

The hollowed pre-cat is somewhat restrictive compared to a 3" downpipe, yet yields decent amounts of power, and definately keeps the boost creep at bay. Its also very quiet. You are losing some power, but this is a less costly option than a 3" downpipe, and having to do the mods to the wastegate.

Other option is to lose the stock turbos and go with something else with larger external waste-gates :) BTW I am almost ready to ship the completed manifold off to Kevin for testing. Just waiting on the machining of 2 of the waste-gate tubes (of all things). And then will be able to have the final welding done (right now 50% is welded, and the rest is tack welded together)

(Note: all of the above assumes non-sequential, and a completly not stock exhaust. IE 3" downpipe, 3" midpipe, and cat back type free flow muffler.)

Trev

P.S. looks like Jim is going to be driving down from Seattle WA to Willow springs CA for Todd's Spet. 29th event with my dad and I. Someone asked me about mods to Jim's car...I typed them, might as well send them to the list as some are pertinent to the above:

- --------------------

> also, i've forgot what LaBreck's car is like (what's been done to it)

It was a 3 month old 95 PEP montego blue rx-7 with 4K miles on it. It now has an R1 front spoiler, no A/C, no fog lights, no power steering, no air pump, very few vacuum hoses, no main accelerated warm up system, no secondary throttle control butterflies, non-sequential, opened up waste-gate, tripoint downpipe, tripoint midpipe with a 12" borla XR-1 welded in the middle, PFS cat back, Mostly Mazda (MM16 ROM) fattest Fuel curve, greddy water pump/alt pulleys, custom billet aluminum front anti-sway bar mounts/radiator move kit, custom intake design, ASP race IC, Hawker genesis battery, racing beat clutch, mazda comp pressure plate, Redline MT90 in tranny, Redline MTL in diff, HKS EVC III, Pioneer CD player, Racing beat front and rear anti-sway bars, Eibach Pro Kit Linear springs, Koni adjustables, Toyo Proxy 17" tires, Konig Villian 17" rims, Porterfield brake pads, Motul brake fluid, 3 wire O2 sensor, Efini badges, and efini rear tailights, a Cosmo fuel pump, and a crane high 6, and 4 trailing spark plugs, the oil filler modification, greddy intake elbow, and an SX adjustable rising rate fuel pressure regulator. Boost gauge, loss of air bag components.

_________________

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 22:08:00 -0500
From: "Westbrook, Chuck" (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)

You could use a manual bleeder valve for the precontrol just like some use on the wastegate. From the description of your problem(13-11-10.5) I would say that your pill/jet is too small for the precontrol. If you are going to run only one boost pressure with your boost controller, it probably is not worth the trouble to install a bleeder valve assembly for it. Instead, just try a larger jet. This is how I optimized my jet.

Run two hoses(one from where each end of the orig hose connected) up to the side of the fender where it can be reached easily. Connect a short 4" piece of hose by two 90 degree connectors to the two hose ends. Have the pill inside the 4" hose. Set up your boost and observe the boost pattern. Then just remove the 4" piece and replace the jet with the next size larger, and rerun your setup and again observe the boost pattern. Repeat the process until the best pattern is obtained. Then remove all of this extra plumbing, and install the selected jet in the orig hose.

________________

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:14:39 -0500
From: "Westbrook, Chuck E." (CWestbrook@tmh.tmc.edu)
Subject: (rx7) [3] Hallman Manual Boost Control Intall And Results

DESCRIPTION

The Hallman adjustable manual boost control system is a spring loaded ball check valve with an inline air bleeder jet. It does not allow air flow until the boost pressure overcomes the spring pressure. The pressure is set with a knob and lock nut.

HISTORY

Since I'm running non-seq, I had bypassed the WG solenoid and was using a .052" jet for bleed control and the infamous brass water control valve for boost control. Use of the WG solenoid was dropped because it bleeds off more before 4500 rpm than afterwards. This was done to help build more boost on the #1 turbo before the #2 came on-line. With non-seq or a single turbo, this would cause higher boost before 4500 then afterwards. This might have certain applications, but I didn't want it. With the WS solenoid working, my valve was opened about 1 1/4 turns for 12PSI boost. With the .052" jet, it was only opened 3/8 turns. The jet method is better because it bleeds off less air and helps boost to build quicker.

INSTALL

It was installed stock and tested two ways. First with the bleed off nipple on the WG actuator capped. The supplied bleed off jet is in the hose that goes from the valve to the WG actuator. The second test was with the bleed off jet removed from the hose and placed onto the original bleed off nipple on the WG actuator. Both ways worked the same, poorly. The reason was due to the size of the bleed off jet, about .078". The system was not bleeding any boost until the valve opened, but then it dumped so much it was worst than my original setup. I changed the jet to my .052" one, and increased the spring pressure until my boost was about 12PSI. Now thing were running better than with my original system.

Post setup removal of the valve and pressure testing showed that it is not starting to pass boost until 7.5 PSI. The system is now working as advertised. The only other minor difference, was in final adjustment of the control knob. They said to start out with the knob unscrewed 1/2" and slowly screw it in until desired boost is reached. My end position is about 9/16" out. This is probably due to the fact that the system was really designed for those DSM cars.

RESULTS

It works better than the manual constant flow valve in theory and use but is it worth the $90. Only dyno results before and after would really show. That will have to wait until the next dyno day here in Houston.

________________

Keep reading - the following is another method of cpontrolling boost. I just added a separate title to make it easier to find from the main menu. --Steve

Pills To Control Boost

Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 20:11:35 -0700
From: Max Cooper (max@maxcooper.com)

_________________

As a preface to the following, here is Tuck's note on changing the pills in the vacuum lines. He is as tactful (but knowledgable) as ever. --Steve

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:33:51 -0400
From: Tuck

...Adjusting boost by screwing with the pills is idiotic. You are not really changing just the boost pressure required to open the wastegate - that is set by the vent solenoid after the wastegate (and the pills determines the effective boost for a given vent duty cycle), you are really changing how quickly the necessary mass of air can flow into the wastegate actuator and begin moving the wastegate.

You can change the boost pressure that the wastegate starts opening by changing the pills, yes, but instead of altering the amount of boost required to open the gate, you are simply making it take longer to get enough air mass to open the gate by restricting the flow. The end result is that when you increase the restrictiveness of the pills and the peak boost you reach gets higher, you are getting boost spikes to that higher boost level until enough air mass can get into the actuator to start opening the gate.

And while few of you may remember this anymore, the pills were the reason that Kevin Wyum used to (incorrectly) say the PFS Gold computer didn't control boost properly. With the first generation of the PFS computer, you had to T the wastegate vents into one solenoid and the end result was that maximum boost with the stock pills was about 13 PSI. If you wanted to go higher you had to change the pills - which effectively increases the range of adjustment that can be made with the single solenoid, but it unfortunately also increases the response time of the wastegate, and the end result is boost spikes. The computer wasn't making the mistake - the user was pushing it beyond its design envelope. The newer one controls both solenoids and can control boost beyond the range of the stock injectors, so there is no reason to screw with the pills to get reliable high levels of boost.

If you want to have individual adjustment over boost on each turbo as cheaply as possible, mount a manual boost controller (which is basically just a knob-adjustable valve) for each of them in the cockpit. You'll retain the relatively quick response of the wastegates with the stock pills, and making the adjustments you want will be much easier.

Or, since you are playing with boost anyway and you presumably have a fuel computer, you can alter the vent maps in something like the PFS PMC to achieve the same effect.

________________

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:35:15 -0500
From: brad barber

I've got to chime in on this. There is a bit of misinformation being bandied about by someone who does not live with a third gen car on a daily basis. Some of us drive and race our cars regularly and have differing opinions and results.

Justin "Tuck" Cordesman pontificated...
> ... adjusting boost by screwing with the pills is idiotic.

Folderol. The technique is primitive, yet effective. Ask Cam Worth, who taught Kyle Krutilek and I, and I would assume many others, how to do it. HE programmed our damn ECUs, so he must have a small idea how to control boost.

> If you want to have individual adjustment over boost on each turbo as
> cheaply as possible, mount a manual boost controller (which is basically
> just a knob-adjustable valve) for each of them in the cockpit. You'll
> retain the relatively quick response of the wastegates with the stock
> pills, and making the adjustments you want will be much easier.

Talk about slow response, if you put long tubing lines routed into and back from the cockpit, you will decrease response time. Brooks and Chuck Broussard found this out.

Using valves located near the diaphragms they control, OR, using different size restrictor orifices (pills) works very well and is relatively inexpensive.

__________________

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:45:58 -0400
From: Tuck

Opinions and results are fine. But the fact remains that using the pills to adjust boost levels is the wrong way to do it because the higher you go with boost by adjusting the pills, the more likely you are to cause boost spikes by slowing wastegate response.

The reason Cam does it that way is because its easier than burning a new eprom for the computer every time. With something like the HKS EVC or the PFS PMC, you can just use control the stepper motor vent (HKS) or solenoids (PMC), and that is the right way to do it because wastegate response will remain fast and reliable. It's also about a thousand times more convenient than screwing with pills and hoses.

>Talk about slow response, if you put long tubing lines routed into and back

You're right. It was misleading to suggest you could just run lines into the passenger compartment for the driver to use to individually control peak boost on the primary turbo, although that does work well enough for controlling peak boost after both turbos are running. However, you might not have the problem with a shorter run into the glove box, and that would still be more convenient than screwing with the pills or popping the hood.

__________________

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:07:28 -0500
From: brad barber (bradrx7@swbell.net)

You will have to enlarge your wastgate orifice to eliminate boost creep. That should be done by anyone who has their turbos off. It's good insurance, and thank Trev Dagley for informing me about the procedure a while back.

> With something like the HKS EVC or the
> PFS PMC, you can just use control the stepper motor vent (HKS) or solenoids
> (PMC), and that is the right way to do it because wastegate response will
> remain fast and reliable. It's also about a thousand times more convenient
> than screwing with pills and hoses.

I agree completely.

(snip)

The remote valve IS more convenient, yet slower in response. As you mentioned before, the BEST method of remotely controlling boost is an electronic stepping motor. I agree completely.

Now if we could find one for less than $350. hehe

__________________

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:49:01 -0400
From: Tuck (sldbrass@darksideresearch.com)

>You will have to enlarge your wastgate orifice to eliminate boost creep.

That is not why changing the pills causes boost spikes. The pill does not change the amount of pressure required to open the wastegate, it changes how quickly you can get enough mass of air into the actuator to start moving it. So the smaller it is, the longer it takes for that mass to build, and the slower it responds to increases in boost. This is not the same as boost creep, which is casued by insufficient flow through the wastegate when ti is wide open to keep boost down.

(snip)

I must add one thing before I send this. Specifically, even with the stock solenoids wide open, you may not be able to get to 15psi, which is the normal goal for high but reliable boost. The best way to get there is to set the solenoid duty cycle as high as it will go to get close to 15psi, and only then to start screwing with the pill to get right to 15. You want the pill orifice to be as large as possible while still allowing you to get to the boost you want so that the wastegate can respond quickly. The increase in peak boost from changing the pill does not create a linear increase in the wastegate response time. IE, a small increase in boost from changing the pill can make a very large difference in how quickly the wastegate responds.

__________________

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:15:45 -0500
From: brad barber

I know the difference between boost creep and boost spikes. I was NOT referring to boost spikes when I made the previous statement, Tuck. You had brought up wastegate response times, and I was just mentioning that while inside the turbos, enlarging the wastegate orifice would help eliminate boost creep. That was all. I did not insinuate the enlarged wastegate orifice would help boost spikes.

____________________

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:28:22 -0500
From: "Jones, Trey" (Trey.Jones@COMPAQ.com)

While the solenoid is operating in duty cycle mode, as opposed to fully open, the aperture of the pill determines the amount of actuation of the wastegate for a given duty cycle. The electrical equivalent of the pill is an inductor. During the step function at the start of boost, the pill impedes the actuation of the wastegate, however, the solenoid is fully open during this time so this should have no effect. After the step function, at the start of boost, the pill has no effect because the solenoid is still constantly open. Next, boost begins to climb and the pre-programmed computer sends a duty cycle to the solenoid. For a given duty cycle, the pill has an equivalent reduction in PSI. Changing the pill aperture effects this pressure. The electrical equivalent would be an AC power source feeding a resistor whose ground leg is connected via an inductor. The inductor has an equivalent series resistance for a given frequency which reduces the power dropped across the resistor. Raise the inductance and the drop across the resistor goes down and the drop across the inductor goes up.

Myself (based on the advice of Cam) and many other list member have successfully adjusted our boost this way. I actually added a pill to the other side of the wastegate actuator, but either side works. The effects of a larger aperture swaps when the pill is adjusted on the other side of the wastegate actuator.

You can change the boost pressure that the wastegate starts opening by changing the pills, yes, but instead of altering the amount of boost required to open the gate, you are simply making it take longer to get enough air mass to open the gate by restricting the flow. The end result is that when you increase the restrictiveness of the pills and the peak boost you reach gets higher, you are getting boost spikes to that higher boost level until enough air mass can get into the actuator to start opening the gate. we a while to figure out that this could be done so hopefully I can save someone else some time.

_____________________