Randy or anyone with a Boost guage and have already done this mod. I know you get more boost lower in the rpm range, but after you let off, does the Boost stay up?
I dunno guys, I think they (we) got very lucky on this one and theres going to be no issues with using this piece. Its just that simple. take care

 

Many feel that our aftermkt intakes probably don't filter-out debris as well as the stocker. If so, to what extent does that impact longevity? The aforementioned pulley creates boost quicker, as well as more of it - what are the ramifications to the SC, and other components? Will the SC still go 100k miles, or maybe now 15, 17 or 19% less before failure? No one really knows because no one has been there yet...

Likewise for this mod, who knows. And for those that have already done their assortment of mods, well, you've crossed the Rubicon - and for better or worse. Hold this item to the same degree of scrutiny, and if anything, less because of the investment needed...

Seriously, I doubt anyone who frequents the Performance Forum has any grandiose ideas that these mods don't impact longevity. It goes with the territory...

Enjoy!

 

>>>>Once again if you dont want to try it please don't waste the stamps. We are not developing a product here , it is something we found that works and we are giving it away. We are not doing R&D on your cars as that would emply we are developing a product. There is NO product . I will make you a promise D-Mini that when i get 10,000 miles on the " device " I will PM you personally and tell you it is ok, Deal ?
>>>>
>>>>Randy
>>>>
>>>>Mgr. Gift Dept
>>>>Team M7
>>
>>A group of people associated with M7 determine there is a need to fix a problem with the lag in boost buildup. They develop a device that corrects this issue. This device is a physical device that has physical characteristics. M7 develops a product strategy (i.e. give the device away for free to build up good will and spread your name among the Mini community, while at the same time building a mailing list for potential first clients). You begin a communication campaign for the product which involves giving them away at a hosted pulley party to interested third parties, as well as posting information about the device on bulletin boards. This is supplemented by testimonials from people who have used the product and like it's affects on their car. You develop a financial strategy for this device, in the fact that with the interest in M7, the sucess of this give away and the mailing list you can sell and market more items and ultimately increase sales.
>>
>>As far as I can tell it seems like a product to me. I don't think there is anything wrong with this being a product. Just don't tell us it isn't or that because you didn't do R&D it isn't a product.


I see your reasoning and why you believe that way.You have explained my marketing idea better than I would have been able to and many thanks for that. I think why i am reluctant to call it a product is that we always intended to give it away as a gift and with no price ever being considered I just never thought of it as a product per se.It wil lnever be listed in our product catalog. I still think of it as a gift and not a product .In the big picture what does mean if it is a gift or a product? We've been at this so long I have no idea what the point of this is ayway. I tell you what with all the time you have put into this you win , its a product. Now what do we do ?

Randy
Mgr product pushing
Team M7

_________________
Hamman hm3 17/8 /,BfGoodricxh 215/45 kdw-2,M7 Plasma Booster ,M7 /Venom Nitrous syst,s,H-sport adj camber plates, forge motorsports strut tower 'BMP boost and oil pressure gauge pkg, Piper cross viper intake system, LEDA coil over shock,

 

>>Many feel that our aftermkt intakes probably don't filter-out debris as well as the stocker. If so, to what extent does that impact longevity? The aforementioned pulley creates boost quicker, as well as more of it - what are the ramifications to the SC, and other components? Will the SC still go 100k miles, or maybe now 15, 17 or 19% less before failure? No one really knows because no one has been there yet...
>>
>>Likewise for this mod, who knows. And for those that have already done their assortment of mods, well, you've crossed the Rubicon - and for better or worse. Hold this item to the same degree of scrutiny, and if anything, less because of the investment needed...
>>
>>Seriously, I doubt anyone who frequents the Performance Forum has any grandiose ideas that these mods don't impact longevity. It goes with the territory...
>>
>>Enjoy!
Well said Tony . Thank you for bringing a voice of reason to these troubled times.

Randy
Team M7 :smile:

 

I'd say it's a "GREAT-FREE-PRODUCT"...and thanks again Looking forward to installing it.

_________________

 

is anybody going going to resolve the complete contradiction between how ryephile's yo yo chronicles describe the functioning of a snubber in the bypass vacuum line (will slow operation BOTH opening and closing) and the description given here?

flyboy2160
probationary member of team rational thought

 

>>is anybody going going to resolve the complete contradiction between how ryephile's yo yo chronicles describe the functioning of a snubber in the bypass vacuum line (will slow operation BOTH opening and closing) and the description given here?

If you restrict the flow of air in the tube, I think it will slow both the opening and the closing of the valve.

Another post or two with such clear thoughts will make you a full-fleged member of Team: Rational thought.

M7 would have gotten much more good will and much less bad hateful vibes if they had said "Stuff a piece of brass tubing #3455-3343 0.125" OD 0.0625" ID into the vacuum line".

 

Trippy, that is the part that scares me. Inserting a smaller tube in the stock tube. Why not just make a tube with a smaller interior to replace the whole stock tube? Seems like the inner tube could slide around or whatever and block the flow completely.

Sorry, but I'm thinking twice about putting it on my car. Which is not a bad thing or a bad indicator to M7 per se.

 

>>>>is anybody going going to resolve the complete contradiction between how ryephile's yo yo chronicles describe the functioning of a snubber in the bypass vacuum line (will slow operation BOTH opening and closing) and the description given here?
>>
>>If you restrict the flow of air in the tube, I think it will slow both the opening and the closing of the valve.
>>
>>Another post or two with such clear thoughts will make you a full-fleged member of Team: Rational thought.
>>
>>M7 would have gotten much more good will and much less bad hateful vibes if they had said "Stuff a piece of brass tubing #3455-3343 0.125" OD 0.0625" ID into the vacuum line".
>>

And miss out on all this fun :smile: Not a chance. Trippy so far there have been 278 posts and over 8,382 views of the combined threads and we really wanted to thank you for all the coverage. Hows that ignition mod comming along ? BTW we just announced the availabilty of the new Carbon Fiber Hood in case you were getting bored with this topic and needed something else to chew on. Again thank YOU !

Randy

Team M7

 

I did some R&D and made one myself. I figured M7 already has my address because of my 2 Booster purchases so why get them to double enter my info. What I would like to do next is open on side of the home made “device” larger. So when the charger needs to exhaust I have better aero dynamics for the air to flow back through the tube. Does anyone know which side of the tube needs to be restricted so I can counter sink the other side for better air flow? I hope I’m making sence…Thanks

 

>>Trippy, that is the part that scares me. Inserting a smaller tube in the stock tube. Why not just make a tube with a smaller interior to replace the whole stock tube? Seems like the inner tube could slide around or whatever and block the flow completely.
>>
>>Sorry, but I'm thinking twice about putting it on my car. Which is not a bad thing or a bad indicator to M7 per se.


The inner tube is not goingto move in any direction as it is a tight fit. I know I have sore fingers from putting some of them together today :smile:

Randy
Insertion Mgr
Team M7

 

Randy - One side of the "device" needs to restrict the flow more then the other. Maybe you guys can venturi or funnel the other side of the "device" so it causes less valve delay. Again, I’m not a mechanic …

 

To be honest we have put a good bit of miles on our cars and there is not a noticable lag in the throttle return. Wait until you get it and see if you think it is really necessary. I dont think you will find that to be the case.

Randy
Team M7

 

silver-mini-s writes:
and Pebblecrusher writes:
These concerns can be addressed by using something designed for this purpose. Several companies make them. Here's one from Beswick Engineering. They make all sorts of miniature fluid fittings, including check valves with which the restriction orifice can be bypassed if necessary, to allow unrestricted flow in one direction.

 

I don't see why the bypass valve can't be tied in to the throttle. Why couldn't a servo be used that would open the valve at say half throttle and greater. The servo would snap the valve open when it needed to be open and snap it shut when it needed to be shut. I don't claim to have a vast knowledge of supercharger engineering, but it seems the vacume system is not very efficient.

My envelope is in the mail btw, I look foreward to trying the device. I don't think the added delay in the by-pass opening will seriously effect the air temps in the cylinders, but then again I am no mechanic.

 

[qoute]
>>Here's a question that has been posted many times now and we are still awaiting an answer...
>>I'll paraphrase....
>>
>>What short/long term effects will this reduced vacuum have on these cars????
>>
[/quote]

This is a legitimate question, but I think it is one that m7 is unlikely to spend a lot of time and money testing because they are giving away the "device" for free. But I believe that some "rational thought" may help people reach some general conclusions.

First, the only real effect of the "device," as far as I can tell, is to allow the boost to build faster by causing the valve to close more quickly. Thus, the impact on the supercharger/engine should be about the same as Ryephile's "stiff spring" mod. Because neither of these mods actually increases the max boost of the supercharger, it seems unlikely that there will be any appreciable adverse impact.

Second, what this mod really changes is the timing of when the bypass valve closes. This change is extremely minor - we are talking about times in the fractions of seconds. That is why that throttle response time seems improved, but I strongly doubt that dyno testing would show any significant change in the curves (it allows you to build RPM/boost more quickly, but actual horsepower/torque vs. RPM will not, in my opinion, be impacted much).

In my view, the impact on the supercharger/engine from this mod is substantially less than the impact from reducing the pulley or doing any other mod that actually increases the boost from the supercharger, which is not to say there is no impact at all. For those reluctant to to any mod to their cars because they are fine with stock performance, don't do it. For those who are willing to pull their cars to get better performance, this will probably have a lot less impact that what you have already done.

I think the way m7 did the mod is pretty clever on this front. Because they did not replace the tube entirely, the mod is virtually invisible from the outside, thereby drastically reducing the possibility of a warranty denial. And, if there is a problem, the "device" can be removed quickly and easily before taking the car in to the dealer. I agree with some people here that perhaps replacing the entire tube would be a more elegant solution, but that might run the risk of warranty denail.

 

>>[qoute]
>>>>Here's a question that has been posted many times now and we are still awaiting an answer...
>>>>I'll paraphrase....
>>>>
>>>>What short/long term effects will this reduced vacuum have on these cars????
>>>>
>>[/quote]
>>
>>This is a legitimate question, but I think it is one that m7 is unlikely to spend a lot of time and money testing because they are giving away the "device" for free. But I believe that some "rational thought" may help people reach some general conclusions.
>>
>>First, the only real effect of the "device," as far as I can tell, is to allow the boost to build faster by causing the valve to close more quickly. Thus, the impact on the supercharger/engine should be about the same as Ryephile's "stiff spring" mod. Because neither of these mods actually increases the max boost of the supercharger, it seems unlikely that there will be any appreciable adverse impact.
>>
>>Second, what this mod really changes is the timing of when the bypass valve closes. This change is extremely minor - we are talking about times in the fractions of seconds. That is why that throttle response time seems improved, but I strongly doubt that dyno testing would show any significant change in the curves (it allows you to build RPM/boost more quickly, but actual horsepower/torque vs. RPM will not, in my opinion, be impacted much).
>>
>>In my view, the impact on the supercharger/engine from this mod is substantially less than the impact from reducing the pulley or doing any other mod that actually increases the boost from the supercharger, which is not to say there is no impact at all. For those reluctant to to any mod to their cars because they are fine with stock performance, don't do it. For those who are willing to pull their cars to get better performance, this will probably have a lot less impact that what you have already done.
>>
>>>>
>>I think the way m7 did the mod is pretty clever on this front. Because they did not replace the tube entirely, the mod is virtually invisible from the outside, thereby drastically reducing the possibility of a warranty denial. And, if there is a problem, the "device" can be removed quickly and easily before taking the car in to the dealer. I agree with some people here that perhaps replacing the entire tube would be a more elegant solution, but that might run the risk of warranty denail.


Hey do you need a part time job? :smile: I couldn't have said it better if i tried and I did. One additional note is we are sending a replacment for the vacume tube with the " device " installed inside .The tube will appear to be very close to stock unless you remove it . As you mentioned if you were really concerned you could easily replace it with your original tube before going in for service. Thats a whole lot easier than say a 15% pulley :smile: I believe this is the " elegant " solution you were refering to. Again thank you for the post.

Randy
Team M7

 

Jkagan :smile:

Thank you for your...informative... interesting.....well written...well thought-out.... post.

I really appreciate the effort :smile:


Peace,
D

 

>> Second, what this mod really changes is the timing of when the bypass valve closes.

See Bypass theory of operation for a more technical discussion of the effects of a tube restriction.

It appears that several members think this will slow down both the supercharger engagement and the supercharger disengagement providing "smoother" but slower supercharger operation.

This is not the thread for technical discussions of a general theory of supercharger bypass valves.

 

I put a sc kit on a Miata about 6 years ago. It also required a one way valve in one of the vacuum lines going to the bypass valve. Without it, it ran like crap.

Tom

 

The restriction slows the BPV operation, and in both directions. So what. The yoyo makes it obvious that it is too fast at present. How then, does the throttle response appear quicker with the restriction when the BPV operation must be occurring slower thereby? Without instrumentation it may not be possible to know.

<speculation>
1. It is tied to the average HP developed with yoyo compared to the HP developed without. If there is a maximum boost that can be developed, and if torque is proportional to boost, any oscillation in the boost would result in boost that varies from the maximum during valve closed to some lower value at valve open. The avg HP, a function of torque and RPM, averaged over the elapsed time period of the yoyo could be less than the avg. HP obtained for a non yoyo. It feels quicker, maybe even is.

2. It results from a software interaction with the manifold pressure. If not, then how else could a software change (v38) correct what appears to be a mechanical instability? If so, then the interaction of the ECU with the change in vacuum dynamic response introduced by the restriction could result in operation that could be much different than the response due to a change in the BPV alone, i.e., there is an unaccounted for software interaction during operation with the device resulting in quicker throttle response.
</speculation>

I'm hopeful that none of this really matters. Though the jury has not completely filed back into court on v38, v38 has been reputed to fix the yoyo, and to provide other benefits as well. BMW chose to tackle the yoyo with a SW patch, not a restriction orifice. I have an envelope in the mail to M7, but I might emply the restriction orifice or similar only as a last resort, if v38 does not fix the yoyo.

 

I understand that there may be some confusion on this point, so I thought I would insert a quote from the "technical" thread that may clear this up. This comes from dgszweda1 (who does not believe that the benefits of the "device" outweigh its costs.

As dgszweda1 correctly notes on the other "technical" thread, a side-effect of the increased closing time of the valve is that less heated air will be diverted from the supercharger (i.e. more supercharged air will be kept inside the supercharger/engine). This will certainly lead to increased wear. As I mentioned earlier, however, the difference in timing is very small, so it is hard for me to see how this could have any appreciable impact on longevity.

As an aside, anyone concerned about the impact of the increased heat as a result of this mod should stay away from Ryephix #1 (the tie-wrap), as this seems to result in a complete bypass of the bypass valve (personally, I think it is a very clever idea - elegant in its simplicity and cheap!). Once my knuckles recover, I'm going to give that one a try and see how it impacts performance.

 

jkagen,

I agree with you that the wear may be minimal. I would really like to see measurements. Maybe someone who has the setup and the free time could do it some time. As always, at least in my book, problems are always theoretical until they are measured. The problems that I am ascerting sound correct on paper, but until they can be proven with measurements, then the con's are really up in the air. I think the pros of the device, don't really need much measurement since there seems there is a growing consensus amongst people that they feel greater throttle response.

 

>>And miss out on all this fun :smile: Not a chance. Trippy so far there have been 278 posts and over 8,382 views of the combined threads and we really wanted to thank you for all the coverage. Hows that ignition mod comming along ? BTW we just announced the availabilty of the new Carbon Fiber Hood in case you were getting bored with this topic and needed something else to chew on. Again thank YOU !
>>Randy>>Team M7

Yes, that's right. Lots of posts and views for a vendor product with admittedly no technical discusion from the "inventor". And continuing banter of vendor announcements.

If that isn't a formula for a kick into a Vendor Announcements I don't know what is.

The fact that it is "free" makes no difference. And they keep bragging about the posts and views as if anybody cares except those trying to sell something.

Mark? Ero? Hune? Is anybody there?

 

Agreed. :smile: