Sup w/them 2024 Summer Projects?
#3931
I went 68mm bosch e throttle, Initially i retrofitted a subaru legacy accelerator position sensor but it was a pain. Evo X pedal would have been far nicer. I have a pedalbox also and i used a rotary encoder sensor like a throttle body sensor now which is far more reliable.
Unless youve got a Motec or lyfe racing etc ecu you wont really gain much from it its more of a headache than anything. Throttle blip doesnt work properly with the run of the mill ecu companies e.g link haltech etc because you cant run 3d tables incorporating brake pressure and what not like you can with motec. Motec you can also adjust the throttle motor PID etc which link and haltech and what not dont allow you to do. Ive never managed to get throttle blip working properly on the link or haltech. So apart from possibly setting up cruise control ( which would be a pain as youd need to wire up buttons for it etc also which take up inputs in the ecu) and ditching factory idle control there isnt alot to gain from them.
Traction control would be possible but again youd need to wire all of your wheelspeed sensors up to the ecu in order to set it up which uses up precious inputs on your ecu. and i dont think it would be sophisticated TC like a Bosch unit or something would give you.
If i was to do it all again i would probably have stayed mechanical and worked out a way to get a cable up from my pedal box to the TB.
Unless youve got a Motec or lyfe racing etc ecu you wont really gain much from it its more of a headache than anything. Throttle blip doesnt work properly with the run of the mill ecu companies e.g link haltech etc because you cant run 3d tables incorporating brake pressure and what not like you can with motec. Motec you can also adjust the throttle motor PID etc which link and haltech and what not dont allow you to do. Ive never managed to get throttle blip working properly on the link or haltech. So apart from possibly setting up cruise control ( which would be a pain as youd need to wire up buttons for it etc also which take up inputs in the ecu) and ditching factory idle control there isnt alot to gain from them.
Traction control would be possible but again youd need to wire all of your wheelspeed sensors up to the ecu in order to set it up which uses up precious inputs on your ecu. and i dont think it would be sophisticated TC like a Bosch unit or something would give you.
If i was to do it all again i would probably have stayed mechanical and worked out a way to get a cable up from my pedal box to the TB.
Also, sometimes I do things just cause I want to do things.
#3932
Evolved Member
Alright folks, Throttle by wire (TBW) stuff starting and looking for a first round of feedback because some of you have thought through this stuff already. I'm planning EvoX throttle assy (I have the assy, will be making an adapter but saving that as a task when new 3d scanner gets here) and Bosch 68mm throttle body. Here's some bulleted thoughts, argue and critique away
So, what do ya'll think? Doesn't necessarily need to be for anyone but me, but if you were making choices for yourself what would you want?
- 68mm throttle body is bigger than stock 60mm, works out to be a great sizing for ported stock manifold. Seems no reason to go 60mm, and bigger than 68mm isn't necessary without going to a higher flow manifold which is outside the realm of this implementation
- O-ring on both sides cause RTV is lame. I spent a good bit of time tonight with O-ring calculators to get 25% crush on a 2.5mm o-ring and have 66-80% void fill and it looks pretty good. But I'm not an O-ring expert, just the minimal I've learned doing a few rounds of basic implementations
- EvoX pedal is arguably not as nice feeling as the GTR assembly (both readily available on Ebay and other sources) but EvoX is cheaper and easier to find. Evo pedal has very little damping force though it does match the feel of the stock cable assembly.
So, what do ya'll think? Doesn't necessarily need to be for anyone but me, but if you were making choices for yourself what would you want?
#3933
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
If the winter list is going this strong, one of ya'll should look at an adjustable turbo support rod we spoke about on the other thread. Enough of us use the oem hot side still but it "should" also translate to T3/4 if you're using the same thread location on the oem block. Someone mentioned the oem o2 had this but it's been so long since i've put eyes on one.
#3934
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (60)
If the winter list is going this strong, one of ya'll should look at an adjustable turbo support rod we spoke about on the other thread. Enough of us use the oem hot side still but it "should" also translate to T3/4 if you're using the same thread location on the oem block. Someone mentioned the oem o2 had this but it's been so long since i've put eyes on one.
#3935
Evolved Member
If the winter list is going this strong, one of ya'll should look at an adjustable turbo support rod we spoke about on the other thread. Enough of us use the oem hot side still but it "should" also translate to T3/4 if you're using the same thread location on the oem block. Someone mentioned the oem o2 had this but it's been so long since i've put eyes on one.
The following users liked this post:
ViciousLSD (Dec 15, 2021)
#3936
I did this for my EFR setup. The turbo is relocated towards the gearbox so I dont use the OE thread in the block, but this is how I did it. It supports the turbo and manifold against the forces from the block shaking around the crank axis but allows for manifold expansion.
The other issue of rigidly attaching to the block is thermal expansion of the manifold. A cast header isn't as bad for thermal expansion as a tubular header. Its probably better creating some sort of anti-gravity loading if you need that with a spring force opposing turbo/manifold mass.
#3937
Evolved Member
Because this is a 2-force member, vibration and loads transmitted through that bar in effect cause extra load on other parts. Honestly, I would run nothing over that.
The other issue of rigidly attaching to the block is thermal expansion of the manifold. A cast header isn't as bad for thermal expansion as a tubular header. Its probably better creating some sort of anti-gravity loading if you need that with a spring force opposing turbo/manifold mass.
The other issue of rigidly attaching to the block is thermal expansion of the manifold. A cast header isn't as bad for thermal expansion as a tubular header. Its probably better creating some sort of anti-gravity loading if you need that with a spring force opposing turbo/manifold mass.
#3938
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (2)
This is one of the reasons I like having a cast manifold. No welds to worry about failing. Word on the street is Artec is making a stock flange investment cast stainless steel manifold soon similar to the vband one they currently offer.
https://www.drifthq.com/products/art...40057327517743
https://www.drifthq.com/products/art...40057327517743
#3940
Its not really a "to each his own" scenario. For this to provide any load restraint vertically it will inherently create a load laterally due to the angle of the support member. That lateral load is restrained via bending forces through the manifold. And because that particular member is greater than 45deg, the resultant lateral load is greater than the vertical load.
Im not trying to be catty here, this type of thing is literally part of my job IRL. Calling out design oddities, and looking for better solutions. I would remake that bracket on the turbo to get the two force member more vertical. So thermal expansion only changed the angle of the bar somewhat insignificantly and it could handle vertical loads without inducing extra stress on the manifold.
Im not trying to be catty here, this type of thing is literally part of my job IRL. Calling out design oddities, and looking for better solutions. I would remake that bracket on the turbo to get the two force member more vertical. So thermal expansion only changed the angle of the bar somewhat insignificantly and it could handle vertical loads without inducing extra stress on the manifold.
#3941
Evolved Member
Its not really a "to each his own" scenario. For this to provide any load restraint vertically it will inherently create a load laterally due to the angle of the support member. That lateral load is restrained via bending forces through the manifold. And because that particular member is greater than 45deg, the resultant lateral load is greater than the vertical load.
Im not trying to be catty here, this type of thing is literally part of my job IRL. Calling out design oddities, and looking for better solutions. I would remake that bracket on the turbo to get the two force member more vertical. So thermal expansion only changed the angle of the bar somewhat insignificantly and it could handle vertical loads without inducing extra stress on the manifold.
Im not trying to be catty here, this type of thing is literally part of my job IRL. Calling out design oddities, and looking for better solutions. I would remake that bracket on the turbo to get the two force member more vertical. So thermal expansion only changed the angle of the bar somewhat insignificantly and it could handle vertical loads without inducing extra stress on the manifold.
#3942
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (60)
This is one of the reasons I like having a cast manifold. No welds to worry about failing. Word on the street is Artec is making a stock flange investment cast stainless steel manifold soon similar to the vband one they currently offer.
https://www.drifthq.com/products/art...40057327517743
https://www.drifthq.com/products/art...40057327517743
#3943
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
Something like that but with wiggle room like Dallas said. It does need to "move" but we're just trying to take "some" of the load off all those gaskets. HPA did one similar to that, just an adjustable rod to "a mounting point". But there's a reason the good downpipes mostly have flex joints. So how do we accommodate. This is believed to be the #1 reason we loose bolts/studs in this area.
#3945
Evolved Member
Something like that but with wiggle room like Dallas said. It does need to "move" but we're just trying to take "some" of the load off all those gaskets. HPA did one similar to that, just an adjustable rod to "a mounting point". But there's a reason the good downpipes mostly have flex joints. So how do we accommodate. This is believed to be the #1 reason we loose bolts/studs in this area.