[Joshboody]

I know there is threads on this, but i was hoping for a simplification. This is how i understand it:

Vacuum pump supplying vacuum to reservoirs and solenoids controling vacuum to wastegate actuators.
1. Car off wastegates open
2. car on vacuum created and wastegates closed
3. regulate boost by controling wastegate actuators by vacuum solenoids increasing / decreasing vacuum.

vacuum created completely separate from engine by pump. MAF measures boost to target and ecu controls vacuum solenoids.

My curiosity is from reading about JB and disconnecting vacuum line to one solenoid. I would think this would lower boost, because less vacuum as system designed for 2 in parallel. JB tricking MAF to read lower boost, vacuum solenoids trigger closure of wastegates. I know the disconnect is not needed with newer tunes, but just curious.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

I know there is threads on this, but i was hoping for a simplification. This is how i understand it:

Vacuum pump supplying vacuum to reservoirs and solenoids controling vacuum to wastegate actuators.
1. Car off wastegates open
2. car on vacuum created and wastegates closed
3. regulate boost by controling wastegate actuators by vacuum solenoids increasing / decreasing vacuum.

vacuum created completely separate from engine by pump. MAF measures boost to target and ecu controls vacuum solenoids.

My curiosity is from reading about JB and disconnecting vacuum line to one solenoid. I would think this would lower boost, because less vacuum as system designed for 2 in parallel. JB tricking MAF to read lower boost, vacuum solenoids trigger closure of wastegates. I know the disconnect is not needed with newer tunes, but just curious.

I hate to admit it, but the solenoid bypass was something that i came up with a few years ago as a short-term solution since our early PROcedes (at that time) didn't drive the boost control solenoids directly. Instead, they just attenuated map to increase boost (like the Jb+). The idea behind the bypass is to raise the effective DC of the system (without actually changing the solenoid DC%) by making one of the two run at an effective 100% DC. This was done by simply bypassing the vacuum line around the solenoid and replace it with a hose coupler. This non-restricted coupler basically behaved like a solenoid at 100% (wide open). With the other solenoid operating within it's typical range (30-40% at full boost), the "average" DC off the system was increased a bit. At least enough to support 13-14psi. Without the solenoid bypass, the system could only support 11-12psi and would throw a underboost limp mode if the tuning device asked for much more boost (by MAP signal attenuation).

The downsides to this solenoid bypass are largely at low loads/partial throttle where the effective DC is increased well beyond what is ideal. This usually results in partial throttle lumpiness and throttle closures (caused by overshooting the boost target).

Luckily, this approach was abandoned in favor of proper boost control shortly thereafter. Other tuners adopted it however

Shiv

[Joshboody]

Great thanks... understand now. solenoid default/off position is open wastegates

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

Great thanks... understand now. solenoid default/off position is open wastegates

Yep.. exactly. The more solenoid DC, the more the wastegates close, the more boost.

[Blk07335i]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yep.. exactly. The more solenoid DC, the more the wastegates close, the more boost.

Shiv, I have a question. After you drive the car and park and let the engine cool sufficiently...if you reach down and grab the rear wastegate actuator arm should it move freely back and forth? Just curious. Thanks.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

The solenoid bypass was popular a few years ago when the procede, JB2, and active processor relied on it to avoid under boost (30FF) codes. But newer tunes with electronic solenoid control like the JB3 made it obsolete.

With the JB+ it has made a bit of a come back as it also repositions the wastegates during cruise for a "lagfix" type effect, similar to what the JB3 does electronically. So you build boost more quickly when getting on the gas. Especially at higher targets like JB+ @ 100%. But it's an optional thing and easy to try and reverse. Most just install the JB+ at default or slightly higher and call it a day.

Mike

[thatsosm]

Personally I dont see the point of having the jb+ at 50 percent or even 75 percent, move the dial all the way to the right. Its kind of like when you are driving and you see a Sl 55 amg in the right lane barely going over speed limit, and then it turns out its some grammy driving it. What is the point of getting it if you not gonna use it to its maximum potential!

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The solenoid bypass was popular a few years ago when the procede, JB2, and active processor relied on it to avoid under boost (30FF) codes. But newer tunes with electronic solenoid control like the JB3 made it obsolete.

I know it is semantics, but come one. The JB1 only existed a little over two years ago with the JB2 being about two years now. A few years ago implies three and that was the start of the XEDE testing period by Vishnu.

Also, you may not have been around when the PROcede adopted the solenoid control about two years ago. Terry stated it was not nessesary which was obviously a marketing ploy which I can appreciate but the irony played out less than a year later with the release of the JB3 which included similar functionality.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I hate to admit it, but the solenoid bypass was something that i came
up with a few years ago as a short-term solution since our early
PROcedes (at that time) didn't drive the boost control solenoids
directly.
...
Luckily, this approach was abandoned in favor of proper boost control
shortly thereafter. Other tuners adopted it however

Scalbert, correct me if I am wrong (since you brought up timelines) I believe it was the PROcede V1 that used this solenoid bypass, which was sold throughout 2007 and early 2008 to the tune of 2000 systems according to Shiv's claims at the time? Hardly the short term "quick fix" described above...

For histories sake at that time it's major competition was the JB2 and Active XEDE both of which used a similar physical bypass. The PROcede V2 which was finally fully available in early 2008 replaced it with electronic boost solenoid offsets, which by many accounts turned out to be a disaster, and the V2 was replaced by the V3 a few months later in 2008 solving the problem. Around that same time the JB3 was
released.

Mike

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Scalbert, correct me if I am wrong (since you brought up timelines) I believe it was the PROcede V1 that used this solenoid bypass, which was sold throughout 2007 and early 2008 to the tune of 2000 systems according to past claims? Hardly the short term "quick fix" described above...

For histories sake at that time it's major competition was the JB2 and Active XEDE both of which used a similar physical bypass. The PROcede V2 which was finally fully available in early 2008 replaced it with electronic boost solenoid offsets, which by many accounts turned out to be a disaster, and the V2 was replaced by the V3 a few months later in 2008 solving the problem. Around that same time the JB3 was
released.

V1 was sold from early 2007 to the fall of 2007. The V2 came out in the fall of 2007 which did away with solenoid bypass; I had my V2 kit in October of that year (some got it in September so still summer for the most part). V3 was not released until about a year ago.

In a nutshell, the JB3 was nearly a year behind in adding solenoid control, and it was the right move. But the time between the release of the JB1/JB2 and the JB3 was a funny period in terms of marketing.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by scalbert

V1 was sold from early 2007 to the fall of 2007. The V2 came out in the fall of 2007 which did away with solenoid bypass; I had my V2 kit in October of that year (some got it in September so still summer for the most part). V3 was not released until about a year ago.

In a nutshell, the JB3 was nearly a year behind in adding solenoid control, and it was the right move. But the time between the release of the JB1/JB2 and the JB3 was a funny period in terms of marketing.

Someone has good memory

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by scalbert

V1 was sold from early 2007 to the fall of 2007. The V2 came out in the fall of 2007 which did away with solenoid bypass; I had my V2 kit in October of that year (some got it in September so still summer for the most part). V3 was not released until about a year ago.

In a nutshell, the JB3 was nearly a year behind in adding solenoid control, and it was the right move. But the time between the release of the JB1/JB2 and the JB3 was a funny period in terms of marketing.

So the PROcede with bypass was sold from late 2006 to ~Oct 2007? How many units do you think were in use during that time? Just trying to get a feeling for how many people ran the solenoid bypass back then. I know hundreds of JB2 users did, and however many XEDE users. Shiv made it sound like 20 people ran it before they thought of something new.

Looking back at old posts I noticed a huge power increase going from the first generation tunes to the newer ones so I'm sure the solenoid control had a lot to do with that. Plus everything you can do with it during off-boost conditions to improve spool speed. Definitely was the right move. I'm not familiar with the arguments against it. Although in the case of the JB+ there is no other option if you want more than the JB+ alone can offer.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

So the PROcede with bypass was sold from late 2006 to ~Oct 2007? How many units do you think were in use during that time? Just trying to get a feeling for how many people ran the solenoid bypass back then. I know hundreds of JB2 users did, and however many XEDE users. Shiv made it sound like 20 people ran it before they thought of something new.

Looking back at old posts I noticed a huge power increase going from the first generation tunes to the newer ones so I'm sure the solenoid control had a lot to do with that. Plus everything you can do with it during off-boost conditions to improve spool speed. Definitely was the right move. I'm not familiar with the arguments against it. Although in the case of the JB+ there is no other option if you want more than the JB+ alone can offer.

Mike

Someone does NOT have good memory.

[boom]

I don't think either one of you have the control over boost that the cp-e unit has. Of course, I'm biased but none of the logs that have been presented by the PROcede users have reasonable scaling to see +/-1psi fluctuations. The JB3 can't log anything. This is the number one reason I went with cp-e.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

So the PROcede with bypass was sold from late 2006 to ~Oct 2007? How many units do you think were in use during that time? Just trying to get a feeling for how many people ran the solenoid bypass back then. I know hundreds of JB2 users did, and however many XEDE users. Shiv made it sound like 20 people ran it before they thought of something new.

Looking back at old posts I noticed a huge power increase going from the first generation tunes to the newer ones so I'm sure the solenoid control had a lot to do with that. Plus everything you can do with it during off-boost conditions to improve spool speed. Definitely was the right move. I'm not familiar with the arguments against it. Although in the case of the JB+ there is no other option if you want more than the JB+ alone can offer.

Correct on the first date range. I believe most early ones were XEDE units and were beta testing. The switch to and wide spread sale of the PROcede Rev 1 started in early 2007. As for number of units sold in that era, I have no clue.

The power increase came by way of the ability to extend the pulse width without the DME knowing (being requested to do so). At first, the limited boost afforded by the JB2 (and less power available) was marketed by BMS as being safer to the turbos (14 PSI on the PROcede) and the solenoid control was not necessary. But then the R Switch was offered (clamping the IAT sensor to make the DME think you are on the sun) which minimized the boost delta and similarly the power deficit. But that was not ideal and the inclusion of solenoid control was adopted by BMS with the JB3 a year later (release date). Clearly, marketing early on as to the reasons why the JB2 produced less power was due to an inability to run more boost. As you very well know, JB3 can and often will, run much more boost than Terry stated was safe at the ~14 PSI just over a year ago.

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by boom

I don't think either one of you have the control over boost that the cp-e unit has. Of course, I'm biased but none of the logs that have been presented by the PROcede users have reasonable scaling to see +/-1psi fluctuations. The JB3 can't log anything. This is the number one reason I went with cp-e.

I think you should go with tunes that run good, safe and are tried on a lot of cars before yours

[boom]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

I think you should go with tunes that run good, safe and are tried on a lot of cars before yours

That's a fair comment but I did do lots of research...

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by boom

I don't think either one of you have the control over boost that the cp-e unit has. Of course, I'm biased but none of the logs that have been presented by the PROcede users have reasonable scaling to see +/-1psi fluctuations. The JB3 can't log anything. This is the number one reason I went with cp-e.

Are you sure? There are plenty of PROcede logs that show rock solid boost control.

However, there is a major difference between how the CPE and the PROcede control boost. The CPE behaves, as I understand it, like a stand alone boost controller and incorporates PID log to achieve and maintain desired boost targets.

The PROcede, on the other hand adjusts the factory boost control targets (by scaling them in either direction) and uses a PID system to make the perceived DC (driven by the DME) in a plausible range.

Shiv

[Joshboody]

so simply CPE adjusts boost reading to DME and procede adjusts signal to solenoid?? what's the difference?

[boom]

the cp-e takes all control of the solenoids away from the dme. It controls them directly and lies to the dme about the boost in a pretty elaborate table. As I read Shiv's response, he scales the dme signal to the solenoids and his scaling is controlled by a PID loop.

I would like to see a boost control graph by a PROcede that shows boost in 1psi increments throughout the rev range. I haven't been around long but all of the logs I saw were so tight that it was impossible to really gauge the stability, boost, timing, or otherwise.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Correct on the first date range. I believe most early ones were XEDE units and were beta testing. The switch to and wide spread sale of the PROcede Rev 1 started in early 2007. As for number of units sold in that era, I have no clue.

The power increase came by way of the ability to extend the pulse width without the DME knowing (being requested to do so). At first, the limited boost afforded by the JB2 (and less power available) was marketed by BMS as being safer to the turbos (14 PSI on the PROcede) and the solenoid control was not necessary. But then the R Switch was offered (clamping the IAT sensor to make the DME think you are on the sun) which minimized the boost delta and similarly the power deficit. But that was not ideal and the inclusion of solenoid control was adopted by BMS with the JB3 a year later (release date). Clearly, marketing early on as to the reasons why the JB2 produced less power was due to an inability to run more boost. As you very well know, JB3 can and often will, run much more boost than Terry stated was safe at the ~14 PSI just over a year ago.

Marketing that less boost is safer seems reasonable and responsible to me. Especially if these were single map systems. I have a lot of customers who stick with lower JB3 maps because they are afraid of long term compressor problems. I also read a few posts about the V2 boost control problems so perhaps that also played in to the marketing, but that was before my time as a vendor. (I did run the JB2 though )

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Marketing that less boost is safer seems reasonable and responsible to me. Especially if these were single map systems. I have a lot of customers who stick with lower JB3 maps because they are afraid of long term compressor problems. I also read a few posts about the V2 boost control problems so perhaps that also played in to the marketing, but that was before my time as a vendor. (I did run the JB2 though )

Mike

This v2 boost control problem claim is really funny to me Mike. Most of it comes from you and Terry. As well as a few fake accounts that have since been banned. Plus a couple of people who fell prey to your collective FUD and didn't know how to read datalogs. Give it a rest and just be thankful that no JB product ever offered datalogging of any sort.

Shiv