I'm talking about the GhostBooster, I think, isn't that what you guys made to limit the range of voltage that the MAP sends to the ECU?

Wesmaster

 

Round 3....

The dedication of this group is amazing! Sorry I haven't been able to post recently, but I'm pretty swamped with work this week (so if you PM/e-mail me, it may take a while to get a response). I spoke with Dave over e-mail yesterday about possible revisions to the "GhostBooster" circuit. As Dave mentioned in a previous post/thread, he was experiencing slight hesitation when poking around in his GhostBoosted car. He attributed this (correctly) to the pull-up resistor on the output of the voltage follower. When I designed the circuit, I knew that the voltage follower would have trouble tracking to ground (0v), but didn't think that it would impact drivability. Well, it turns out I was wrong (it happens once in a while). So, here is a list of 3 possible fixes that Dave & I are mulling over:

1. Remove the pullup resistor (as Dave has done)
Benefit: Improves the down-tracking ability of the voltage follower (no positive offset near 0v)

Drawback: Limits the upper output of the voltage follower to ~+3.5v

2. Use a +12v supply
Benefit: Allows you to realize a 0 - ~+10.5v output range with no positive offset near 0v

Drawbacks: In the event of a catastrophic failure, +10.5 may appear on ECU MAP input and "bad things" may happen. Not truly "in-line" as it requires a +12v supply.

3. Use a +12v supply with a +8v voltage regulator
Benefit: Allows you to realize a 0 - ~+6.5v output range with no positive offset near 0v.

Drawbacks: Increased circuit complexity/cost. Not truly "in-line" as it requires a +12v supply.

I will try to post schems for these 3 solutions tonight. Any thoughts/ideas are welcome!

-koejing

 

has there been any further discussion by anybody with comptech about the electronic solution?

After my drive to work this morning, my conclusion is that the newest check valve does very little to resolve the problem for me. Response seems to be slightly better, but the car pretty much drives the way it did with the rev1 check valve.

It sounds like there is nobody that is 100%, except maybe Dave with the "ghostbooster", and a few of us (Wesmaster and myself? more?) that still have performance well below what is possible.

At this point, I am certainly ready to try something else.

 

koejing, I

 

Rock,

Haven't heard anything from Comptech, but I would be more than happy to work with them if they decided to pursue an electrical solution.

-koejing

 

I think we should start versioning the check valves, I'm getting confused as to which set up everyone is running.

I'm on v2.0 of the check valve, this being the first hose method sent after we all had hesitation. We know that there were altered versions of 1.0, those being altered by SC onwers not Comptech.

From what I understand Comptech shipped out version 3.0 of the check valve; and it might be the package that's waiting for me at the apartment office.

Rocketman, what version are you running now?

I'm running version 2.0, and I have had only one instance of lag - over a week ago...everything else has been good. Possibly, it will be even better with v 3.0.

Wesmaster

 

I'm on the first "hose" version of the check valve and I plan to have the second "hose" version installed and tried today. I'll see how it goes. I have yet to have any hesitation but the performance seems to be lacking a little with my butt dyno.

 

Wes, from what I understand the revisions schedule should be something like this: (Note: I did not experience any of the Ver 1.XX)

Ver 1.00 Small black block under MAP Sensor
Ver 1.10 Small silver block under MAP Sensor
Ver 2.00 Black squarish block under MAP Sensor (what mine delivered with)
Ver 2.01 Same as 2.00 w/ RT tweaked diaphragm
Ver 3.00 Hose setup w/ Honda check valve 0.020 orifice
Ver 3.01 RT Hybrid of 3.00 using Honda Valve at TB (0.020)
Ver 3.02 RT Hybrid w/ fish tank valves up the KAZOO!
Ver 3.10 Hose setup w/ Low Cracking Press Valve 0.035 orifice
Ver 3.11 RT Hybrid of 3.10 at TB w/ 0.020 orifice and parallel fish tank check

I'm pretty sure Comptech had versions prior to V1.00 as well as iterations in between that we never saw.
(Note 2: Ver 2.01 is an easy fix and works flawlessly!)

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RT
[B]Wes, from what I understand the revisions schedule should be something like this:

 

Wes, I believe you are getting 3.10, unless you already had that?????