How many of you still run MBC's?
10-18-2004, 12:27 PM
#32
Originally Posted by mmboost
and you'll still be compromising since you can't change the MBC's tuning relative to a load site... that what I meant. You can't "go crazy" anywhere because if you do it'll be KABOOM somewhere else. Not so w/ the UTEC.
Originally Posted by mmboost
that's why I said indirect subset. You're doing something different to accomplish a similar, particular goal.
Originally Posted by vaus
As far as the OLM... it was created to fix an idiosyncrasy in the OEM subaru ECU, not an inherent problem with MBC's in general. If the ECU was designed a bit smarter and used boost or even load as a prominant trigger for the open loop/closed loop switchover, there would be no need for the OLM and everyone could use an MBC w/o worrying about PTFB.
and of course I posted a reply to this:
Originally Posted by vaus
as far as I know, the UTEC does not have the same functionality as the OLM. Yes, with the new firmware, the UTEC takes control of fueling at any point you want irrelevant of the TPS, but it does nothing to kick the ECU into open loop while it takes control. This is what leads to the part throttle hesitation issues with the UTEC that need to be massaged out. When the UTEC takes over fueling at lower than 70% throttle, the ECU keeps trying to maintain stoich a/f by trying to pull a lot of fuel, then when you come out of UTEC control, you get a nasty lean spike until the ECU catches up. If the UTEC implemented a similar algorithm to the OLM, this could easily be avoided.
Originally Posted by mmmboost
running OLF w/ my utec seems perfectly fine... and no EGT issues. The only massaging I've really done for crossover (of course I've only had it since v4.2) is for timing - shift knock, mash knock, etc. Fueling has been amazingly wonderful at crossover as I've tuned the AFRs to expected levels from 0% on.
It seems like we're running in circles here... if you really have something else important to post, please do so, but lets try to keep the repetative/useless posts to a minimum.
-- Ed
10-19-2004, 06:05 PM
#33
a bit more back on topic here guys....
Someone finally posted a review of the OLM and an update now that he also installed an MBC to go along with it.
Here's the link:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...=1#post7858641
and here's a quote for those of you who don't wanna click
:
Someone finally posted a review of the OLM and an update now that he also installed an MBC to go along with it.
Here's the link:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...=1#post7858641
and here's a quote for those of you who don't wanna click
:
Originally Posted by imprez25
Second Drive update:
Installed my MBC last night once I got home from work. I was able to solve all my issues with the installation of the MBC. All operator errors, ha ha.
Once I was finished with the install I took the car for a ride to set the boost levels. Set it at 16 psi in 5th gear. My desire is to have a quick car, not the fastest, nore the most expensive car just a car that will be reliable. So far between the OLM, MBC, Up pipe, and Down pipe I think I have done just that.
With the MBC boost comes up quick and the OLM does it's thing without ever letting you know. There is no sign that the device is working, only if you look at your boost gauge you can see the boost rise after 7psi. There is no hesitation, no stumbling no problems at all. EGT's are normal and not going up. Power is strong throughout the entire rpm range. Hitting boost is now like hitting a rocket tied to the top of the car. I feel the OLM allows the car to have more power down low. This helps with normal in traffic driving. Without the boost controller the car responded like that, more power in the low end, same power on the upper end. Now with the boost controller, the power just pulls you to redline. It feels great!
Big props go to Ed Vaus for coming up with this device. Allowing us 02-03 owners to seemleslly switch between open and closed loop, thus eliminating the PTFB issues caused by a MBC. This device will allow us price conscience people an opportunity to dial in our cars with out spending big bucks to do so. You go ED!
Engine mods and Costs:
Oakos MBC-$38.00
Vaus's OLM- $137.00
ERZ uppipe/downpipe- $210.00
Total costs- $385.00
Smile on my face- Priceless!
Installed my MBC last night once I got home from work. I was able to solve all my issues with the installation of the MBC. All operator errors, ha ha.
Once I was finished with the install I took the car for a ride to set the boost levels. Set it at 16 psi in 5th gear. My desire is to have a quick car, not the fastest, nore the most expensive car just a car that will be reliable. So far between the OLM, MBC, Up pipe, and Down pipe I think I have done just that.
With the MBC boost comes up quick and the OLM does it's thing without ever letting you know. There is no sign that the device is working, only if you look at your boost gauge you can see the boost rise after 7psi. There is no hesitation, no stumbling no problems at all. EGT's are normal and not going up. Power is strong throughout the entire rpm range. Hitting boost is now like hitting a rocket tied to the top of the car. I feel the OLM allows the car to have more power down low. This helps with normal in traffic driving. Without the boost controller the car responded like that, more power in the low end, same power on the upper end. Now with the boost controller, the power just pulls you to redline. It feels great!
Big props go to Ed Vaus for coming up with this device. Allowing us 02-03 owners to seemleslly switch between open and closed loop, thus eliminating the PTFB issues caused by a MBC. This device will allow us price conscience people an opportunity to dial in our cars with out spending big bucks to do so. You go ED!
Engine mods and Costs:
Oakos MBC-$38.00
Vaus's OLM- $137.00
ERZ uppipe/downpipe- $210.00
Total costs- $385.00
Smile on my face- Priceless!
10-19-2004, 09:32 PM
#34
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by vaus
Jason, what the hell are you talking about?? I'm sorry.. maybe you have a point in there somewhere, but I honestly don't see what you're saying here. Why would you need to tune boost relative to load sites??? And how would you even do it.... maybe you meant something different here? In the OEM ecu, boost is pretty much a function of TPS and RPM with some trims for things like temp. AFAIK, it works the same way in the UTEC... just not as well
For a 3rd time: yes, your OLM device is an indirect way of trying to accomplish one of the many things a UTEC can do... aka proper fueling at varying loadsites (a.k.a TPS@RPM). Also, doesn't your device basically mimic the Boost Monkey?
As for people having problems with the fueling switchover, that's why I still run 4.2b instead of 4.2c. Its been nothing but wonderful. I also, however, would not call a software issue between a minor rev as devastating a problem as the problems inherent to MBCs for which you need a secondary device (e.g. your OLM) to solve.
if you really have something else important to post, please do so, but lets try to keep the repetative/useless posts to a minimum.
jason
Last edited by mmboost; 10-19-2004 at 10:00 PM.
10-19-2004, 09:49 PM
#35
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by vaus
a bit more back on topic here guys....
Someone finally posted a review of the OLM and an update now that he also installed :
Someone finally posted a review of the OLM and an update now that he also installed :
jason
Last edited by mmboost; 10-19-2004 at 09:56 PM.
10-19-2004, 11:33 PM
#36
Originally Posted by mmboost
You gotta be kidding. Are you lying to me or something? You've tuned many different types of systems? What do think a loadsite is if its something other than TPS@RPM (for boost in particular in a WRX)?
For a 3rd time: yes, your OLM device is an indirect way of trying to accomplish one of the many things a UTEC can do... aka proper fueling at varying loadsites (a.k.a TPS@RPM). Also, doesn't your device basically mimic the Boost Monkey?
As for people having problems with the fueling switchover, that's why I still run 4.2b instead of 4.2c. Its been nothing but wonderful. I also, however, would not call a software issue between a minor rev as devastating a problem as the problems inherent to MBCs for which you need a secondary device (e.g. your OLM) to solve.
jason
For a 3rd time: yes, your OLM device is an indirect way of trying to accomplish one of the many things a UTEC can do... aka proper fueling at varying loadsites (a.k.a TPS@RPM). Also, doesn't your device basically mimic the Boost Monkey?
As for people having problems with the fueling switchover, that's why I still run 4.2b instead of 4.2c. Its been nothing but wonderful. I also, however, would not call a software issue between a minor rev as devastating a problem as the problems inherent to MBCs for which you need a secondary device (e.g. your OLM) to solve.
jason
trust me, I know what a loadsite is... but you said LOAD. Load is a calculated index value usually based on MAF and/or MAP. So you see, it would not be logical to tune boost against LOAD as you had stated.
I don't understand your point about the OLM accomplishing something similar to the UTEC in a completely different way... Why does that make it any worse or any less useful?
And no, the OLM does not mimic the boost monkey at all actually. The boost monkey was basically a very simple EBC that activated at an adjustable TPS level... nothing like the OLM.
And again... the problem is not inherent to MBC's in general but rather to the WRX ECU... EBC's exhibit the same issues with the stock ECU BTW.
-- Ed
10-19-2004, 11:40 PM
#37
Originally Posted by mmboost
That's intersting... I thought the topic was "How many of you still run MBC's?", not advertisement for your OLM device.
jason
jason
What exactly do you have against the OLM? Its not only for MBC's you know.... it can be used successfuly with EBC's and even unichips. I'm simply trying to provide people with an alternative to the expensive reflashed and UTEC's out there. Mainly for those not wanting to go really crazy with their cars or those who want to wait until they get all their mods before tuning, or people like me who can't afford all the fun toys for their cars, but still want to have fun with it.
-- Ed
10-20-2004, 10:55 AM
#38
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by vaus
oh boy... here we go again...
trust me, I know what a loadsite is... but you said LOAD. Load is a calculated index value usually based on MAF and/or MAP. So you see, it would not be logical to tune boost against LOAD as you had stated.
trust me, I know what a loadsite is... but you said LOAD. Load is a calculated index value usually based on MAF and/or MAP. So you see, it would not be logical to tune boost against LOAD as you had stated.
As for the OLM vs the BoostMonkey... recheck your description of the boostmonkey above, and then recheck check the verbage in your advertisement on BAIC. Sounds a lot like both are faking out the TPS to achieve better AFRs. *Slap mah fro*, a subset of the goals that a UTEC can achieve!
Let's get something very, very clear: I don't have anything against your OLM device and I have never said anything against it nor have I tried to sabatoge it. Infact, my original joke about OLM advertising was based on an admission that it probably does increase MBC performance! In fact, based upon your description of its functionality, it should do just that! However, for the sake of complete honestly, it only solves part of the problems exhibited by MBCs. And that's OK, because to do that you need something that has more comprehensive capability and drop more dimes. The UTEC comes to mind...
And now... back to the original topic of this thread...
And again... the problem is not inherent to MBC's in general but rather to the WRX ECU... EBC's exhibit the same issues with the stock ECU BTW.
jason
10-20-2004, 12:10 PM
#39
Originally Posted by mmboost
OK, I suppose you could honestly argue that TPS@RPM on a UTEC map is not a "loadsite". Funny thing though... the UTEC fuel and boost maps do use TPS to calculate load. I mean, what would you call 0% load column at 4000 RPM row on a UTEC's fuel map? That's a loadsite coordinated by TPS. I figure either you're being a snit about semantics , or you just didn't know that for the UTEC the fuel and timing use both TPS and MAP, and boost just uses TPS... and even though its not technically a "load column", sometimes we call it a "loadsite" for convenience.
As for the OLM vs the BoostMonkey... recheck your description of the boostmonkey above, and then recheck check the verbage in your advertisement on BAIC. Sounds a lot like both are faking out the TPS to achieve better AFRs. *Slap mah fro*, a subset of the goals that a UTEC can achieve!
The problems with MBCs are merely exaggerated with WRX ECUs. I know this from first hand experience and from the many experiences of others. My EBC does not exhibit or exhibits less the issues found with MBCs. My Spec-R doesn't spike, it holds boost solidly and because it holds boost solidly is far less prone to partial throttle issues. (Yes, PTFB is not just a CLF/OLF issue). Because of all that benefit I don't have to make as much of a compromise regarding how high I set my peak boost, and how I set my gain values... a function the MBC doesn't have. Its just... better.
jason
jason
-- Ed
10-20-2004, 02:06 PM
#40
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by vaus
Here is where we differ in opinion mainly. Are you saying you could install an EBC and run it just fine on a stock WRX ECU? I, personally wouldn't do that unless it had a TPS switch functionality like the boost monkey. Otherwise you would run into the same PTFB issues you do with the MBC is you run it on the stock ECU. Plain and simple.
-- Ed
-- Ed
I have found that many MBC issues I have pointed out are mostly alleviated with an EBC simply because they are more accurate, electronic devices. While PTFB is still an issue, its not as bad because, like I said, PTFB is not just an CLF/OLF issue. The things that an EBC does better also helps here. No its not perfect. But its certainly worth spending 3 or 4 times the money.I bought my Spec-R for $300 two or so years ago. The top of the line MBC from TXS is $135. How much for your OLM?
jason
10-20-2004, 02:28 PM
#41
Originally Posted by mmboost
"Just fine" is relative I have found that many MBC issues I have pointed out are mostly alleviated with an EBC simply because they are more accurate, electronic devices. While PTFB is still an issue, its not as bad because, like I said, PTFB is not just an CLF/OLF issue. The things that an EBC does better also helps here. No its not perfect. But its certainly worth spending 3 or 4 times the money.
I bought my Spec-R for $300 two or so years ago. The top of the line MBC from TXS is $135. How much for your OLM?
jason
I have found that many MBC issues I have pointed out are mostly alleviated with an EBC simply because they are more accurate, electronic devices. While PTFB is still an issue, its not as bad because, like I said, PTFB is not just an CLF/OLF issue. The things that an EBC does better also helps here. No its not perfect. But its certainly worth spending 3 or 4 times the money.I bought my Spec-R for $300 two or so years ago. The top of the line MBC from TXS is $135. How much for your OLM?
jason
PTFB is actually pretty much completely a CLF/OLF issue. If the EBC runs more boost bellow 70% TPS than the stock ECU, you will run into a condition too lean for that boost level. The OLM will fix that.
So let's compare prices again...
"Top of the line MBC" - $135 (most good ones are cheaper)
OLM - $130
Total: $265
Your setup:
Spec-R - $300
UTEC - $1049
Total: $1349
And if you really like EBC's:
Spec-R - $300
OLM - $130
Total: $430
Now, in comparing your setup here, I'm not saying that the OLM does everything the UTEC does... that would be obsurd. But for a mildly modded WRX, the boost controller/OLM option is very viable and produces very good results. Sure you're not extracting quite as much power as you might with control over timing and fuel, but this also means there is more of a safety margin. Like I said... just another option.
-- Ed
10-20-2004, 03:47 PM
#42
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by vaus
Jason,
PTFB is actually pretty much completely a CLF/OLF issue. If the EBC runs more boost bellow 70% TPS than the stock ECU, you will run into a condition too lean for that boost level. The OLM will fix that.
Now, in comparing your setup here, I'm not saying that the OLM does everything the UTEC does... that would be obsurd. But for a mildly modded WRX, the boost controller/OLM option is very viable and produces very good results. Sure you're not extracting quite as much power as you might with control over timing and fuel, but this also means there is more of a safety margin. Like I said... just another option.
-- Ed
PTFB is actually pretty much completely a CLF/OLF issue. If the EBC runs more boost bellow 70% TPS than the stock ECU, you will run into a condition too lean for that boost level. The OLM will fix that.
Now, in comparing your setup here, I'm not saying that the OLM does everything the UTEC does... that would be obsurd. But for a mildly modded WRX, the boost controller/OLM option is very viable and produces very good results. Sure you're not extracting quite as much power as you might with control over timing and fuel, but this also means there is more of a safety margin. Like I said... just another option.
-- Ed
MBC ($100, benefit of the price doubt) + OLD = $230
My middle of the line EBC = $300
With what I said about my experiences and others' experiences with EBCs, a decent EBC will do a significantly better job than just an MBC, and appearantly isn't all that shabby compare vs. an MBC+OLM. I understand what you are saying. I understand why the OLM should do what it promises and I don't doubt it does. I admit that the EBC is still prone to PTFB. But I am telling you, from experience, that PTFB was significantly reduced when I got my EBC, before I got the UTEC. MBC creep also contributes to PTFB, again its not just a CLF/OLF issue. This especially true if you're holding medium-high revs as you begin exit a turn waiting for the right moment to quickly squeeze the throttle down for the sweetest exist possible. Maybe its just the way I drive that saved me from PTFB. *shrug* I know what I've seen, though.
And so even though the MBC+OLM would solve my CLF-related PTFB, it still doesn't keep the other MBC downsides at bay. From my experiences, I'd choose the EBC. Smooth, predictable, solid-state boost control.... not to mention I get a digital boost meter, over-boost warning, boost limiting, and meter peak-hold ... and a sweet gadget in my dash with lights that impresses da ladies... well, all of them except for my wife :-/
jason
10-20-2004, 03:58 PM
#43
Jason,
I'm sure that PTFB isn't as severe with an EBC... that's simply because the EBC spools the turbo slightly slower than an MBC. With an EBC alone, you are still in danger of running into a lean part throttle, high boost condition, however, and I don't think you can argue that. So you really can't compare an MBC/OLM combo to an EBC alone.
-- Ed
I'm sure that PTFB isn't as severe with an EBC... that's simply because the EBC spools the turbo slightly slower than an MBC. With an EBC alone, you are still in danger of running into a lean part throttle, high boost condition, however, and I don't think you can argue that. So you really can't compare an MBC/OLM combo to an EBC alone.
-- Ed
10-20-2004, 04:29 PM
#44
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by vaus
Jason,
I'm sure that PTFB isn't as severe with an EBC... that's simply because the EBC spools the turbo slightly slower than an MBC. With an EBC alone, you are still in danger of running into a lean part throttle, high boost condition, however, and I don't think you can argue that. So you really can't compare an MBC/OLM combo to an EBC alone.
-- Ed
I'm sure that PTFB isn't as severe with an EBC... that's simply because the EBC spools the turbo slightly slower than an MBC. With an EBC alone, you are still in danger of running into a lean part throttle, high boost condition, however, and I don't think you can argue that. So you really can't compare an MBC/OLM combo to an EBC alone.
-- Ed
jason
10-20-2004, 05:02 PM
#45
Originally Posted by mmboost
Slower? When I made a right combo of set% and gain I got much better boost response and no spiking than when I had just an MBC.. Not only was it quicker it was smoother climbing. I'm not arguing with you about PTFB, I'm telling you what I've experienced. Theorize all you wish. I'm telling you facts. PTFB was not as bad... OK, fine you want to say it in terms of "lean" instead of "full boost". I can play along. Sure it may have resulted in similar lean conditions. You're right I cannot help but suffer the problems of a CLF-mode ECU attemping stoch AFRs. But like I said and you keep ignoring (or you're just not reading the whole post) I resolved any MBC creep issues and this healped with PTFB problems. So, yeah, it was lean, but not as leaned out as it was... meaning more appropriate boost levels, meaning lower EGTs, meaning less PTFB problems, mean... voila! a richer condition. So, yes, I can make the comparison. In fact, I just did!
jason
jason
Also, I'm not sure what boost creep issue you experienced with your MBC... could you fill me in, b/c I don't think I've experienced it?
-- Ed