Suggestions On Boost Issue

[Strife26]

Today my BRZ wasn't playing nice with turbo.

I was just driving around for the second time today. I was in 3rd and got into boost aggressively and it cut out completely. It was gut wrenching like when the traction control kicks in, but I'm pretty certain it was not this. Boost cuts out.

During the same outing I kept driving it and testing the boost and everything seemed fine.

I started trying to do some 0-60 out in the middle of nowhere and it would stutter bad from 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd if I was driving aggressively. I couldn't get a good 0-60 run in because I either had to shift to 3rd and it stuttered or it did it from 1st to 2nd if I was too aggressive.

I'm not sure what it is, but it does it sometimes.

Oil temps were 237 at the highest and not constant.
Coolant temps were highest at like 205. It didn't seem to be overheating or anything just boost cutting when it was winding from 1st spool up to 2nd accelerator smash.

May be a stupid question, but if anyone can offer some insight or a possible cause with explanation, I would greatly appreciate it.

[CSG Mike]

got a log?

[Irace86.2.0]

A loose coupler maybe.

[Strife26]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

got a log?

No I need to figure out the torque logging. Didn't have the laptop + ecutek with me.

If it's doing it tomorrow I will start logging.

A lot of posts online mentioned spark plugs or coils... The kit called for new plugs and gapped very aggressively.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Coheed]

Hmmm, I wonder what a good gap is on these plugs. .025"? That's a super small gap. I've always tried to run the widest gap I can before blowout, because driveability and response are better.

I'm not a big fan of the spark plug design they use in this platform. I know its designed to promote consistent spark with DI, but I've always found single-ground fine-point plugs to have the most consistent spark. And I've had issues with the multi-ground design plugs with messing up timing by delaying the flame propagation, or not properly ionizing for strong spark which requires even smaller gaps and worse performance.

Can't speak for the FA20 plug choice, but I've always wondered if I could get better performance from a more "classic" spark plug design. I've had several false-starts since buying the BRZ new, where it just failed to start up clean. It's interesting the looks you get from people that see a nice new car, that cranks and cranks before sputtering back to life.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Coheed

Hmmm, I wonder what a good gap is on these plugs. .025"? That's a super small gap. I've always tried to run the widest gap I can before blowout, because driveability and response are better.

I'm not a big fan of the spark plug design they use in this platform. I know its designed to promote consistent spark with DI, but I've always found single-ground fine-point plugs to have the most consistent spark. And I've had issues with the multi-ground design plugs with messing up timing by delaying the flame propagation, or not properly ionizing for strong spark which requires even smaller gaps and worse performance.

Can't speak for the FA20 plug choice, but I've always wondered if I could get better performance from a more "classic" spark plug design. I've had several false-starts since buying the BRZ new, where it just failed to start up clean. It's interesting the looks you get from people that see a nice new car, that cranks and cranks before sputtering back to life.

I brought up the issue recently and everyone there and in my research said to keep the stock gap and the stock cold rating. There were a few outliers but the majority were running stock. Some were 400-700hp.

[Strife26]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I brought up the issue recently and everyone there and in my research said to keep the stock gap and the stock cold rating. There were a few outliers but the majority were running stock. Some were 400-700hp.

The gap suggestion came directly from the turbo kit maker. They said it MUST be gapped at .22 and they recommended replacing the plugs even though they are supposed to last a while. I don't mind, but I think this may be the problem. I thought I gapped them right, but being iridium you can't use the coin type tool, so I got another and it was very hard to bend the electrodes.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Strife26

The gap suggestion came directly from the turbo kit maker. They said it MUST be gapped at .22 and they recommended replacing the plugs even though they are supposed to last a while. I don't mind, but I think this may be the problem. I thought I gapped them right, but being iridium you can't use the coin type tool, so I got another and it was very hard to bend the electrodes.

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...87&postcount=2

[Strife26]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...87&postcount=2

Thanks, seen it before, but still recommended and practically demanded by kit developers. I trust they request it for a reason.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Strife26

Thanks, seen it before, but still recommended and practically demanded by kit developers. I trust they request it for a reason.

Does it matter if someone is on e85? E85 runs much cooler so it seems it would. I don’t know if the gap would be effected too. It is possible that a larger gap is safer. That may be why some of the guys who are running monstrr power levels are on stock plugs.

[Strife26]

I'm still on 91. No e85 here . I think it may be the plugs. It would explain some of the behavior.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Does it matter if someone is on e85? E85 runs much cooler so it seems it would. I don’t know if the gap would be effected too. It is possible that a larger gap is safer. That may be why some of the guys who are running monstrr power levels are on stock plugs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk