[s-cars] Re: short shifting to save first?

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

Hap:
Comments inserted.

SJ
In a message dated 1/28/2004 12:28:48 AM Central Standard Time, 
CaptMagu at aol.com writes:
Scott

>I guess we can all depend on you to give us what you think.
That's old news, yes? ;)

> First off my car 
>runs just fine thank you very much. Going with a lighter and shorter BPV 
>spring has done wonders to help with the boost surge which was only a minor 
>nuisance very little of the time.

I could ask for the definition of nuisance, but that's relative I suppose.  
What exactly did the shorter BPV spring do?  Did it "help" with boost surge, or 
*solve* boost surge problem?  How?

> Second I don't think I've lost any of the inherent 
>ECU protection. I still get MAF cut-out if it reads too much airflow. 

The way the ECU and the boost controller work, you get MAF cutout (+ code, 
signal too high), the boost controller caused it.  In motronic, MAF cutout is 
caused (and the system is designed to) provide protection in the case of air 
leaks between the MAF and the IM.  That's not really part and partial to the 
boost control function in the motronic.  IOW it's designed to work the other way 
around.

>And if 
>it feels too much boost or detonation then it will retard my timing, 
something 
>that I don't allow to happen. 

How exactly does the *driver* "not allow that to happen"?   Again, 
highlighting the difference between a stand alone boost controller and the motronic 
integrated boost control.  I understand that you haven't *disabled* the ecu to run 
your ignition and timing maps Hap.  I believe you don't understand the risks 
and benefits of integrated boost control vs stand alone boost function.  Two 
words to ruin your day:  Bad gas.

>Top pressure boost controllers act like big WG 
>springs. 

OR, bottom feed boost controllers can act like small WG springs.  Again, I'm 
not convinced a top vs bottom feeder has benefit wrt the hardware.  According 
to my Profec B instructions, and actually every other boost controller install 
I've done, they pretty much tell you to install it how it works best.  That 
would really depend on the type of WG, the size of turbo to the motor, and the 
gain of the software in the controller vs ECU itself.  Since the boost 
controller and the ECU aren't integrated in function this might change.  I understand 
a lot of folks *want* a top feeder boost controller, I disagree with the 
reasoning.  But hey, motronic *software* can be programmed to be a top control if 
so desired.

>I don't hear a huge cry on your part for those that have turned down 
>their WG springs to repent of their ways.

I don't believe you understand the device.  Because of the limitations of a 
poorly designed WGFV, you can reduce WG cracking with increased spring 
pressure.  If you have boost surging problems, you certainly can decrease spring 
pressure to *increase* wastegate cracking.  I lost the point frankly.

> As far as altitude correction that 
>occurs quite naturally. As I drive down the moiuntain from Everboost, I will 
see 
>an increase in boost level at lower altitudes. 24psi in Everboost at 8000ft 
>and 26psi in Denver at 5400ft

Please define.  How does altitude correction "occur quite naturally"?   I 
don't think the reduction in boost is everything you think it is Hap.  Think 
pressure ratio instead of boost pressure, it might help.  Then in terms of turbo 
map, turbo speed vs efficiency vs non integrated controller.

>As for the benefits they are many. I have 2 lower boost settings for 1st and 
>2nd gear. 20psi for 1st and 24psi for 2nd. This allows me to run this turbo 
>car as it is supposed to run without short shifting and leaving me well 
below 
>the torque curve in that next gear. 

Other than first gear, is second gear really a problem?  What is 20psi in 
first gear in terms of torque and HP?  I might argue that at 20psi  vs HP/torqu 
in a Hapersized prepped S car means that those with anything less (yo Kirby) 
have not a worry in the world wrt transmission damage.

>I also have a boost taper programmed in. The 
>guys with regular RS2 sized tubos come about this naturally as those turbos 
>start to run out of air above 5500rpm. My 57 trim T04E Garrett would give me 
>28lbs of boost until redline. Since Dave Jones and I felt that it would be a 
>good idea not to run the boost out like that

Why?  I don't understand that statement.  If it is creating another problem 
(my suspicion) then fine, but that statement in and of itself makes no sense.

> we've got a taper that starts about 
>6000rpm and falls off gently until redline. Here's a look at my most recent 
>dyno run: http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/15038/hapmacdyno.jpg

 Why the taper?  What is the concern about a higher HP level Hap? Something 
is missing here.  Is the taper a concern, or is the result of running high 
boost/rpm causing other problems really the concern; and for now a taper addresses 
it?  Hap, I've seen hundreds of torque/HP curves over the years.  This is the 
first time I've seen the above addressed as some arbitrary 'concern'.  You 
have a lot of potential that hasn't been met, yet.  IMO.

>You see the horsepower just falling off its high of 412 at 5800rpm. you also 
>see that nice taper going down to 380hp at 6800rpm. The squiggly appearance 
of 
>the line is due to the way the dyno samples its findings.

I'm guessing here, and am thinking if your peak is 5800rpm, you need better 
airflow to the valve.  Specifically, if you can get 28psi to redline (7000rpm?) 
then the intake manifold tuning might be the problem.  Which would explain 
the drop off above 5800.  A traditional double camel would dictate a higher peak 
power rpm. Out of fuel possibly?

>Another benefit is a major reduction in boost creep. The WG stays shut until 
>you get to the desired boost level. 

I see that as a hardware problem.  That's not a "motronic" problem directly, 
only indirectly, nee, incidently.

>We've mentioned the top pressure feature 
>of the Apexi but it is also bottom pressurized and using these functions in 
>tandem gives it a very precise management of boost.

Again, a stepper motor doesn't need to control both top and bottom.  Your 
statement applied to a frequency valve says it all Hap.  To *get* very precise 
management of boost in a FV WG actuator, it needs to control top and bottom.  I 
frankly think that's just addressing the inherent problem of a solenoid valve. 
 Using two small vs one large one sounds like *a* way.  Again, I'm thinking 
stepper motor.

> That brings up the final plus 
>and that's spiking. With all WGFV controlled cars you will get spiking as 
>that boost comes up to the desired level and then is exceeded. The Apexi 
AVCR and 
>my HKS EVC just don't allow this to happen. The boost comes up and levels 
off 
>at the desired boost.

Faster hardware, isn't a software problem.  10x16 and 10x16 sounds like a lot 
more plots than any boost controller I've seen on the market.

I wish I could understand the desire for boost controllers.  I see a lot of 
misunderstandings of boost controllers, in function and application, now 
"concern".  A boost controller is a bandaid for motronics "bleeding" WGFV (hey MLP, 
how bout that one;).  Heal the motronic with better hardware and better 
software, the external boost controller boys will be pining for quite some time.

HTH and my .02 arbitraged thru the peso

Scott Justusson