Holset VGT HE351VE Controller
06-01-2010, 10:52 AM
#71
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kent England
Posts: 9
I am pretty clueless when it comes to pld's, last time I touched a programmable logic device was at college 20 years ago, this thread has inspired me to get on with it.
Having read all of this I am going to go ahead and get the bits I need to build one of these controllers thanks Civic TSi
I think that some sort of tps control would be good, it will certainly help fuel economy if nothing ese
My plan is to measure rate of change of throttle position to trigger "boost mode" my feeling is that this may make the response more linear
I think that It’s also worth looking at egt's I will want a set point above which the "vanes" open up to reduce back pressure. This is not so as to avoid setting the unit up properly, just as an override.
I was thinking about putting the unit through a cycle of full closed to full open each time the ignition is turned on to help keep it clean
Another thought is whether or not the pot will remain accurate enough under changes in temperature, I know that water cooling is present, I just worry that the temperature will make the pot rather inaccurate, Would it not be possible to use the hall sensors in the existing board, I have not yet even had the top off of my turbo I just checked end float and put it in a box
Having read all of this I am going to go ahead and get the bits I need to build one of these controllers thanks Civic TSi
I think that some sort of tps control would be good, it will certainly help fuel economy if nothing ese
My plan is to measure rate of change of throttle position to trigger "boost mode" my feeling is that this may make the response more linear
I think that It’s also worth looking at egt's I will want a set point above which the "vanes" open up to reduce back pressure. This is not so as to avoid setting the unit up properly, just as an override.
I was thinking about putting the unit through a cycle of full closed to full open each time the ignition is turned on to help keep it clean
Another thought is whether or not the pot will remain accurate enough under changes in temperature, I know that water cooling is present, I just worry that the temperature will make the pot rather inaccurate, Would it not be possible to use the hall sensors in the existing board, I have not yet even had the top off of my turbo I just checked end float and put it in a box
06-01-2010, 10:55 AM
#72
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kent England
Posts: 9
After getting the turbo out and looking at the open and closed arm positions, the servo will probably end up being mounted off the other actuator holes with the servo floating somewhere over the comp. housing.
Also noticed the rack's pretty damn hard to move with the exhaust housing on. Any suggestions on how to clean the build up off the "fins" or receiver ring? Kero/metholated spirits/acetone + toothbrush?
Also noticed the rack's pretty damn hard to move with the exhaust housing on. Any suggestions on how to clean the build up off the "fins" or receiver ring? Kero/metholated spirits/acetone + toothbrush?
Carb cleaner or brake cleaner should get th job done
06-01-2010, 12:10 PM
#73
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 45
Maybe with a different microcontroller. The Picaxe 18x is limited to 8Mhz. I think that is too slow to accurately read the hall effect sensors. Maybe I'm wrong though. The pot will change readings slightly according to temperature. The trick is having the program use the readings when the engine (and pot) is at normal operating temperature.
06-01-2010, 12:14 PM
#74
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20
I am pretty clueless when it comes to pld's, last time I touched a programmable logic device was at college 20 years ago, this thread has inspired me to get on with it.
Having read all of this I am going to go ahead and get the bits I need to build one of these controllers thanks Civic TSi
I think that some sort of tps control would be good, it will certainly help fuel economy if nothing ese
My plan is to measure rate of change of throttle position to trigger "boost mode" my feeling is that this may make the response more linear
I think that It’s also worth looking at egt's I will want a set point above which the "vanes" open up to reduce back pressure. This is not so as to avoid setting the unit up properly, just as an override.
I was thinking about putting the unit through a cycle of full closed to full open each time the ignition is turned on to help keep it clean
Another thought is whether or not the pot will remain accurate enough under changes in temperature, I know that water cooling is present, I just worry that the temperature will make the pot rather inaccurate, Would it not be possible to use the hall sensors in the existing board, I have not yet even had the top off of my turbo I just checked end float and put it in a box
Having read all of this I am going to go ahead and get the bits I need to build one of these controllers thanks Civic TSi
I think that some sort of tps control would be good, it will certainly help fuel economy if nothing ese
My plan is to measure rate of change of throttle position to trigger "boost mode" my feeling is that this may make the response more linear
I think that It’s also worth looking at egt's I will want a set point above which the "vanes" open up to reduce back pressure. This is not so as to avoid setting the unit up properly, just as an override.
I was thinking about putting the unit through a cycle of full closed to full open each time the ignition is turned on to help keep it clean
Another thought is whether or not the pot will remain accurate enough under changes in temperature, I know that water cooling is present, I just worry that the temperature will make the pot rather inaccurate, Would it not be possible to use the hall sensors in the existing board, I have not yet even had the top off of my turbo I just checked end float and put it in a box
The closed to open to closed sweep is in program and was in CivicTsi's program, I see you've taken it out of your code.
The pot varying with heat is a good point. As much as I would like to use the hall sensors, they only provide relative position, not absolute position like the pot. If you know what position the rack(most likely at an endpoint) is at and how many rotations of the motor it takes to get to the other end you could use them. That's more programming and more testing and I'm lazy, you guys can have a go at it though.
To use them you may need components to boost the output of the sensors to TTL levels. Also gotta figure out which direction the motor's spinning. Maybe make it add one to a position variable every time a signal is seen at a hall effect sensor if spinning towards open and subtract if moving to close rather than polling each of the three sensors.I have neither of the sprays but I'll go get some and see if the rack gets easier to move.
06-01-2010, 12:38 PM
#75
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kent England
Posts: 9
Maybe with a different microcontroller. The Picaxe 18x is limited to 8Mhz. I think that is too slow to accurately read the hall effect sensors. Maybe I'm wrong though. The pot will change readings slightly according to temperature. The trick is having the program use the readings when the engine (and pot) is at normal operating temperature.
I was thinking of a picaxe 28x2 in the 28 starter kit not much more expensive more inputs and outputs as well.
Point taken about normal operating temperature.
06-01-2010, 01:39 PM
#76
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kent England
Posts: 9
Programming the if change of throttle > set, goto "boost mode" won't be hard but on what condition do you get out of it? If you're off throttle for more than a sec or something? If you do do that it will be hard to implement unless you're good with interrupts running in the background. Maybe just jump out of boost mode when MAP is below atm and let it back in when you throttle on again? Now that I think about it, a gearknob mounted switch seems easiest so that you don't miss boost mode if you're easing onto the throttle at a tight corner or have the boost violently kick in at a certain pedal angle.
The closed to open to closed sweep is in program and was in CivicTsi's program, I see you've taken it out of your code.
The pot varying with heat is a good point. As much as I would like to use the hall sensors, they only provide relative position, not absolute position like the pot. If you know what position the rack(most likely at an endpoint) is at and how many rotations of the motor it takes to get to the other end you could use them. That's more programming and more testing and I'm lazy, you guys can have a go at it though. To use them you may need components to boost the output of the sensors to TTL levels. Also gotta figure out which direction the motor's spinning. Maybe make it add one to a position variable every time a signal is seen at a hall effect sensor if spinning towards open and subtract if moving to close rather than polling each of the three sensors.
I have neither of the sprays but I'll go get some and see if the rack gets easier to move.
The closed to open to closed sweep is in program and was in CivicTsi's program, I see you've taken it out of your code.
The pot varying with heat is a good point. As much as I would like to use the hall sensors, they only provide relative position, not absolute position like the pot. If you know what position the rack(most likely at an endpoint) is at and how many rotations of the motor it takes to get to the other end you could use them. That's more programming and more testing and I'm lazy, you guys can have a go at it though.
To use them you may need components to boost the output of the sensors to TTL levels. Also gotta figure out which direction the motor's spinning. Maybe make it add one to a position variable every time a signal is seen at a hall effect sensor if spinning towards open and subtract if moving to close rather than polling each of the three sensors.I have neither of the sprays but I'll go get some and see if the rack gets easier to move.
), for "lift offs" of more than a second or so, would it be possible to hold a memory (short term) of the last vane position, then re apply this position on reapplication of the throttle (just a thought)I have not looked at the hall sensors yet, I am thinking that it will take me a while to get it to work (if I can get it to work
).Over here (England) it is possible to get these cleaners in 5Ltr cans which is way more economic than spray cans, I would strip the turbo down and place the offending parts in a container of cleaner overnight.
Best of luck
Last edited by defibf; 06-01-2010 at 01:41 PM.
06-01-2010, 11:53 PM
#77
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 45
Well, it's official. After burning out two Picaxes, I've given up on trying to get the stock actuator to respond to PWM. I've tried countless frequencies and duty cycles with no results. I'm certain they only respond to CAN bus now. It seems its time to implement my controller. Now it's time for some manifold fabrication. I have a source for the flanges. Does anybody have an idea where to get a good, inexpensive merge collector and mandrel bent pipe?
06-02-2010, 01:14 AM
#78
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20
Merge Collectors:
Vibrant Performance ::.
Cast Turbo Manifold Merge Collector Z10 Motorsports gotta redo flange
Bends:
Burns Stainless LLC - Tubing < 2" ~ 304 SS Tubing ~ 90 Degree Bends 16/17/18/20ga 304
Vibrant Performance ::. sch.10, 304
Ace Stainless 304/316/mild in sch.10 & 40
McMaster-Carr has butt weld fittings as well but I think vibrant was cheaper.
How did you "burn out" the chips? I fried my servo because the guy at the shop gave me some mosfet instead of the BJT causing the power rail to be at 12v instead of the 5v it was supposed to be at.
Vibrant Performance ::.
Cast Turbo Manifold Merge Collector Z10 Motorsports gotta redo flange
Bends:
Burns Stainless LLC - Tubing < 2" ~ 304 SS Tubing ~ 90 Degree Bends 16/17/18/20ga 304
Vibrant Performance ::. sch.10, 304
Ace Stainless 304/316/mild in sch.10 & 40
McMaster-Carr has butt weld fittings as well but I think vibrant was cheaper.
How did you "burn out" the chips? I fried my servo because the guy at the shop gave me some mosfet instead of the BJT causing the power rail to be at 12v instead of the 5v it was supposed to be at.
06-02-2010, 02:13 AM
#79
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 45
Merge Collectors:
Vibrant Performance ::.
Cast Turbo Manifold Merge Collector Z10 Motorsports gotta redo flange
Bends:
Burns Stainless LLC - Tubing < 2" ~ 304 SS Tubing ~ 90 Degree Bends 16/17/18/20ga 304
Vibrant Performance ::. sch.10, 304
Ace Stainless 304/316/mild in sch.10 & 40
McMaster-Carr has butt weld fittings as well but I think vibrant was cheaper.
How did you "burn out" the chips? I fried my servo because the guy at the shop gave me some mosfet instead of the BJT causing the power rail to be at 12v instead of the 5v it was supposed to be at.
Vibrant Performance ::.
Cast Turbo Manifold Merge Collector Z10 Motorsports gotta redo flange
Bends:
Burns Stainless LLC - Tubing < 2" ~ 304 SS Tubing ~ 90 Degree Bends 16/17/18/20ga 304
Vibrant Performance ::. sch.10, 304
Ace Stainless 304/316/mild in sch.10 & 40
McMaster-Carr has butt weld fittings as well but I think vibrant was cheaper.
How did you "burn out" the chips? I fried my servo because the guy at the shop gave me some mosfet instead of the BJT causing the power rail to be at 12v instead of the 5v it was supposed to be at.
06-02-2010, 02:47 AM
#80
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20
I guess I have to? I dunno. I pulled the PIC out but forgot that the servo(yeah, the big expensive one) was plugged in. I wish I fried $5 chip instead of the $60 servo and wouldn't have happened if I wasn't so lazy and pulled a cheapy servo out of an RC car to test with. Big patch of black on the servo's PCB so I'm guessing it's toast. I'll try it again once I sort out my power supply. Still makes servo noises though.
I'll probably get more encouraged once I sell some cars and I have money again. but I'm starting to like your method too, a lot.
I'm leaning towards doing this instead of making a manifold. Turbo's too big to fit between head and strut tower on the two cars I am thinking of using it on. Works out a lot cheaper than making a manifold too. Do you guys think it'll make much of a difference between proper manifold and a manifold with bridge pipe on this vgturbo?
I'll probably get more encouraged once I sell some cars and I have money again. but I'm starting to like your method too, a lot.
I'm leaning towards doing this instead of making a manifold. Turbo's too big to fit between head and strut tower on the two cars I am thinking of using it on. Works out a lot cheaper than making a manifold too.
Do you guys think it'll make much of a difference between proper manifold and a manifold with bridge pipe on this vgturbo?
