BCS testing data
#61
Here are part numbers for you....
http://evoecu.logic.net/wiki/3_Port_...you_will_need:
http://evoecu.logic.net/wiki/3_Port_...you_will_need:
#62
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NNJ
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to GotWheelHop, I've got an AEM BCS to test. I did a little research on it, and it appears to be a MAC 35A 3-port solenoid. There are some MAC identifications on it, but its not enough to figure out the exact feature set. One thing I noticed from the general specs on the MAC website is that the upper operating range is only 50C (122F). If this is true, its not suitable to put it in the stock BCS location.
#64
EvoM Community Team
iTrader: (15)
I hadn't been able to find a solenoid from MAC that was any more similar to the AEM model, and those are what is reported to be the same. What clued you in that it is not, in fact, the same solenoid?
(here is a horrible picture for reference http://aempower.com/images/products/...%2030-4350.pdf )
#65
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
My guess is the AEM solenoid is a proprietory MAC solenoid built to AEM's specs, or just a badged 36A, no telling if they will give you the specs on it or not. It does "look" identical to a 36A though. Maybe testing will determine if its the same.
I've had mine mounted pretty near the stock location for 2yrs now with no problems. I have it soft mounted to a wiring harness with a zip-tie. When it was hard mounted it was extremely noisy.
I've had mine mounted pretty near the stock location for 2yrs now with no problems. I have it soft mounted to a wiring harness with a zip-tie. When it was hard mounted it was extremely noisy.
#67
My guess is the AEM solenoid is a proprietory MAC solenoid built to AEM's specs, or just a badged 36A, no telling if they will give you the specs on it or not. It does "look" identical to a 36A though. Maybe testing will determine if its the same.
I've had mine mounted pretty near the stock location for 2yrs now with no problems. I have it soft mounted to a wiring harness with a zip-tie. When it was hard mounted it was extremely noisy.
I've had mine mounted pretty near the stock location for 2yrs now with no problems. I have it soft mounted to a wiring harness with a zip-tie. When it was hard mounted it was extremely noisy.
#72
EvoM Community Team
iTrader: (15)
#73
So far I've received and tested a stock BCS, a GM BCS, a Tactrix BCS, and an AEM 30-2400 (MAC 35A) BCS. I'll be posting detailed results soon, but here is the bottom line.
Winner: GM BCS - Its an excellent all-around BCS.
Loser: AEM 30-2400 BCS - The one I received is a MAC model 35A. It wins in the latency category with a latency that is about 30% lower than the GM, but the AEM bled far less boost pressure than the other BCSs in the upper duty cycles, so all the boost control range is between 80% and 100% duty rather than from 20% to 100% duty. Its really that bad. What makes it an even poorer choice to use with the stock ECU is that the resistance of the AEM is only 12 ohms. This is about 1/3 the resistance of the stock BCS, and definitely requires a resistor to use with the stock ECU.
If anyone wants anything else tested, send it now by 2 or 3 day mail because I'm ready to wrap up this operation and move on to other things. I'd love to test the Ingersoll Rand. The specs of the Ingersoll Rand that mchuang purchased show a Cv of 0.144 which is lower than the 0.17 Cv of the MAC 35A that I tested, so the Ingersoll Rand could conceivably be worse than the MAC 35A. Another interesting one would be the MAC 36A. It has a Cv of 0.30 which is much higher than the MAC 35A.
Winner: GM BCS - Its an excellent all-around BCS.
Loser: AEM 30-2400 BCS - The one I received is a MAC model 35A. It wins in the latency category with a latency that is about 30% lower than the GM, but the AEM bled far less boost pressure than the other BCSs in the upper duty cycles, so all the boost control range is between 80% and 100% duty rather than from 20% to 100% duty. Its really that bad. What makes it an even poorer choice to use with the stock ECU is that the resistance of the AEM is only 12 ohms. This is about 1/3 the resistance of the stock BCS, and definitely requires a resistor to use with the stock ECU.
If anyone wants anything else tested, send it now by 2 or 3 day mail because I'm ready to wrap up this operation and move on to other things. I'd love to test the Ingersoll Rand. The specs of the Ingersoll Rand that mchuang purchased show a Cv of 0.144 which is lower than the 0.17 Cv of the MAC 35A that I tested, so the Ingersoll Rand could conceivably be worse than the MAC 35A. Another interesting one would be the MAC 36A. It has a Cv of 0.30 which is much higher than the MAC 35A.
Last edited by mrfred; Nov 14, 2008 at 05:59 PM.