Severe boost creep and ECU not hitting overboost protection? FML
03-03-2011, 02:05 PM
#41
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Outside of the Loop-ATL
Posts: 761
Total Cats: 1
A problem that made no sense given that I just changed out the CHRA with an "identical" unit. No one could confirm that Garrett has made any changes to the design on the 2560R...which it's clear they have otherwise I wouldn't have had a IWG flow problem. Turbo and 3" exhaust were on the car long before the turbo failed so it wasn't a problem that could have even been a possibility with the old CHRA. It least you weren't suggesting things like something in my exhaust causing a blockage or that having a 3" exhaust was the cause 
The problem made complete sense. There is your proof that your new turbo was working better then your old, whether was cause they made a change or as I believe you old turbo had been dieing for a while.
the new turbo was spooling a few hundred RPMs ,if not more. This just show there was some difference between the two turbos.
Either way, helps anyone else having the problem to know to just port the IWG and be done with it.
Reply
0
0
03-03-2011, 02:47 PM
#42
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,850
Total Cats: 71
For the record, I was the one posting about a suspected update to the design of the turbine/housing and that no one could confirm and no one else suggested that Garrett had updated the design of the blades or the size of the IWG port....those were all my suggestions that were ignored for the most part. I suspected from the beginning that the IWG port was too small and that a new exhaust housing was going to be ordered anyway, but I was attempting to get confirmation on if newer 2560Rs have a larger IWG port and/or updated wheel design. As soon as I ran the car with the IWG flapper wired open, it was pretty clear that it didn't flow enough. All the parties that deal with these turbos all denied any knowledge that Garrett had updated either part, thus throwing me off on what *should* have been easy problem solving.
There is also no reason for anything I post here to be cross-posted to another forum that I have nothing to do with. As was pointed out, wiring the WG open confirmed the lack of flow through the IWG port. It's not like anyone there gives two ***** about that thread or the outcome anyway.
Yes and no. While it did make sense to me, everything (part numbers) being "the same" as it was before didn't make sense. I highly doubt the turbo was dying for over two years. When the 3" exhaust was added, the turbo was still low-mile and much like new and running 14psi. I suspect it was starting to kick the bucket within a couple of months before the catastrophic failure. Technically, the turbo isn't the same as it was before, something has changed, it's different and better, but there is no concrete proof that Garrett has updated anything...it's still speculation.
There is also no reason for anything I post here to be cross-posted to another forum that I have nothing to do with. As was pointed out, wiring the WG open confirmed the lack of flow through the IWG port. It's not like anyone there gives two ***** about that thread or the outcome anyway.
Yes and no. While it did make sense to me, everything (part numbers) being "the same" as it was before didn't make sense. I highly doubt the turbo was dying for over two years. When the 3" exhaust was added, the turbo was still low-mile and much like new and running 14psi. I suspect it was starting to kick the bucket within a couple of months before the catastrophic failure. Technically, the turbo isn't the same as it was before, something has changed, it's different and better, but there is no concrete proof that Garrett has updated anything...it's still speculation.
Last edited by Doppelgänger; 03-03-2011 at 03:01 PM.
Reply
0
0
03-03-2011, 03:25 PM
#43
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Outside of the Loop-ATL
Posts: 761
Total Cats: 1
For the record, I was the one posting about a suspected update to the design of the turbine/housing and that no one could confirm and no one else suggested that Garrett had updated the design of the blades or the size of the IWG port....those were all my suggestions that were ignored for the most part. I suspected from the beginning that the IWG port was too small and that a new exhaust housing was going to be ordered anyway, but I was attempting to get confirmation on if newer 2560Rs have a larger IWG port and/or updated wheel design. As soon as I ran the car with the IWG flapper wired open, it was pretty clear that it didn't flow enough. All the parties that deal with these turbos all denied any knowledge that Garrett had updated either part, thus throwing me off on what *should* have been easy problem solving.
There is also no reason for anything I post here to be cross-posted to another forum that I have nothing to do with. As was pointed out, wiring the WG open confirmed the lack of flow through the IWG port. It's not like anyone there gives two ***** about that thread or the outcome anyway.
Yes and no. While it did make sense to me, everything (part numbers) being "the same" as it was before didn't make sense. I highly doubt the turbo was dying for over two years. When the 3" exhaust was added, the turbo was still low-mile and much like new and running 14psi. I suspect it was starting to kick the bucket within a couple of months before the catastrophic failure. Technically, the turbo isn't the same as it was before, something has changed, it's different and better, but there is no concrete proof that Garrett has updated anything...it's still speculation.
There is also no reason for anything I post here to be cross-posted to another forum that I have nothing to do with. As was pointed out, wiring the WG open confirmed the lack of flow through the IWG port. It's not like anyone there gives two ***** about that thread or the outcome anyway.
Yes and no. While it did make sense to me, everything (part numbers) being "the same" as it was before didn't make sense. I highly doubt the turbo was dying for over two years. When the 3" exhaust was added, the turbo was still low-mile and much like new and running 14psi. I suspect it was starting to kick the bucket within a couple of months before the catastrophic failure. Technically, the turbo isn't the same as it was before, something has changed, it's different and better, but there is no concrete proof that Garrett has updated anything...it's still speculation.
Well yea no one could confirm if the two turbos really are different or if the whole time you had a defective unit. All that was easy to see is A+B=C.. now you had X+B=D. Therefore A is not equal to X. Simple as that.
As for your cross post, whine.
. You posted about a problem, then fixed the problem. Someone just posted what you posted here so that thread had a close/finish.
Reply
0
0
03-03-2011, 03:28 PM
#44
I don't think anyone was ignoring your suggestion that something in the design had changed, however, the change itself wouldn't really be a solution to your problem so it wasn't discussed in depth whereas possible causes or fixes were. Think about it, you find out for a fact the wheel design was changed, so what? It doesn't fix the issue you were experiencing unless you were to swap back to an older CHRA.
It was posted so that anyone searching there would actually find a Troubleshooting thread with a conclusion. Your presence or absence was not a factor.
Personally, I'm glad you found the issue and got it fixed. Wouldn't have been much fun to deal with during autox.
It was posted so that anyone searching there would actually find a Troubleshooting thread with a conclusion. Your presence or absence was not a factor.
Personally, I'm glad you found the issue and got it fixed. Wouldn't have been much fun to deal with during autox.
Reply
0
0
03-03-2011, 04:40 PM
#45
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,850
Total Cats: 71
Well yea no one could confirm if the two turbos really are different or if the whole time you had a defective unit. All that was easy to see is A+B=C.. now you had X+B=D. Therefore A is not equal to X. Simple as that.
As for your cross post, whine. . You posted about a problem, then fixed the problem. Someone just posted what you posted here so that thread had a close/finish.
As for your cross post, whine.
. You posted about a problem, then fixed the problem. Someone just posted what you posted here so that thread had a close/finish.
A as in the part looks the same, has the same part number but its physically different. I did want to confirm that the CHRA design has been updated for anyone in my position, so rather than getting everything back together and having boost creep, they'll know that older turbo + new CHRA will require a new/ported exhaust housing. It is useful information to know.As for cross-posting, well, it's clear the forum does not welcome me or anything I can add, so why should any "updates" be welcome? Too bad if someone searching finds a dead-end...not my problem.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
StratoBlue1109
Miata parts for sale/trade
21
09-30-2018 01:09 PM
