Turbo-charged

i have a NLR ams-1000 that i use on the dyno for several reasons. ability to controll boost time based for high horsepower cars that have traction issues, a lot of people have boost controllers that you need a rocket science degree to figure out how to use them which wastes a lot of time so i'll use the nlr, manual boost controllers never seem to work right (see below), and its a good way to show customers first hand how well this boost controller works.

this is an H22 with a SC61, pump gas, log manifold, 2 inch charge piping, stock intake manifold, s200.

since he had a manual boost controller i just used the NLR right off the bat. once we finished with the tune, we put the manual controller back on, and to achieve the same target boost up top we had to have a 2psi boost spike in the middle and hope it held up top.

i hate manual boost controllers lol

matt k

the nlr didnt make any more power boost is boost get the manuale to hold the power will be the same this is kind off like snake oil joe. not saying its not a good boost controller but its not going to make more power at the same boost level just because its an nlr

Turbo-charged

who cares about peak power. i posted this to show how the controller holds boost vs. the other controller. obviously the controller that isnt holding boost at high rpm is going to make less power, peak numbers is not what i was trying to point out.

0BoostedJeff

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bob menuts &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the nlr didnt make any more power boost is boost get the manuale to hold the power will be the same this is kind off like snake oil joe. not saying its not a good boost controller but its not going to make more power at the same boost level just because its an nlr </TD></TR></TABLE>

This officially gets the award for the most intelligent post on message board history.

What the heck does snake oil have to do with boost controllers?

.dave

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BoostedJeff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

This officially gets the award for the most intelligent post on message board history.

What the heck does snake oil have to do with boost controllers? </TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Snake oil is a traditional Chinese medicine used to treat joint pain. However, the most common usage of the words is as a derogatory term for compounds offered as medicines which implies that they are fake, fraudulent, or ineffective. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with exaggerated marketing but questionable or unverifiable quality.</TD></TR></TABLE>

.dave

It does look the the NLR overshoots slightly though. Do you have logs of the manifold pressure vs. RPM?


Modified by .dave at 12:36 AM 10/12/2007

.CUBISH.

looks good Joe.. i'll be getting mine next week

matt k

post a log of the boost not a dyno chart that most of the people on here are going to look at a dyno chart witch means nothing. Im not saying the nlr isnt a bad *** boost controller and i know every body there loves it but come on. If your going to compare boost controllers compare there new one to the mbc. An 800$ nlr compared to an mbc i would hope it would do better i can show you logs of a 350$ boost cotroller that will hold 10lbs to 35lbs rock solid but im not trying to sell boost controllers

Turbo-charged

you cant look at the dyno chart and tell there is a boost fluctuation? lol


price has nothing to do with anything, and i will be using the new nlr controller damn near on everything we do. its not about selling controllers at all, its about showing that this boost controller works very well. we make more profit on other controllers, we sell/use a lot of the NLR controllers because they work so well.

Turbo-charged

i got bored and played with some ramps and timers to make a dyno chart that shows you can get the boost to do whatever you want.

this is a different car









i had some others but apparently i didnt save them.

matt k

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BoostedJeff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

This officially gets the award for the most intelligent post on message board history.

What the heck does snake oil have to do with boost controllers? </TD></TR></TABLE>a nice shiny dyno chart of one boost controller making more power than the much much cheaper one win the dyno chart has nothing to do with any thing. now if you would of posted a log showing how much faster/longer/staple the boost was with the nlr the cost of both yada yada. can you see where im coming from

nowtype

Based on your test, you show absolutely no evidence that the NRL is holding the boost constant while the Turbosmart MBC is not. Maybe the Turbosmart MBC is holding the boost constant and the NRL is not. It's a worthless comparison and not worth posting.

I should also add, it's a lot cheaper to take your MBC and turn it up 2psi to make up that 20hp difference vs spending $350 on a fancy EBC. With this particular setup it is clear the person is not about maximum efficiency, so spending $350 on an increase in efficiency that small would be incredibly stupid. Probably could spend $100 on 2.5" charge pipes and see the same 20hp increase.

Turbo-charged

this is in no way shape or form a for sale thread. you are way over analyzing this. it was simply showing the results from swapping boost controllers with out making any other changes.


FWIW the customer is obviously going to swap boost controllers after this, but is going to hold out for the newer NLR controller b/c the ams-1000 is more boost controller than he needs in this particular application

.dave

I think the biggest issue is that theres no target boost level(s)/rate(s) and actual manifold pressure data given. In my opinion, that would be the best way of telling if the boost controller is doing its job.

nowtype

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .dave &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think the biggest issue is that theres no target boost level(s)/rate(s) and actual manifold pressure data given. In my opinion, that would be the best way of telling if the boost controller is doing its job. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Basically. It's a comparison of boost controllers, with no evidence showing the boost pressure. It's about as worthless of a comparison as you can get. I'd be ridiculously hard pressed to spend over $100 for a boost controller.

Turbo-charged

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nowtype &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Based on your test, you show absolutely no evidence that the NRL is holding the boost constant while the Turbosmart MBC is not. Maybe the Turbosmart MBC is holding the boost constant and the NRL is not. It's a worthless comparison and not worth posting.</TD></TR></TABLE>

your right. maybe when we switched boost controllers, and the boost was all over the place, and the dyno chart followed the boost curve exactly....it must have been something else other than the boost controller swap that caused those results lol

George Knighton

The original poster has asked for this to be closed so that he can do more testing.

He will start a new thread later.