Lithium

Always learning, looking for/analysing data and hearing other peoples experiences so really it could always change - but at this stage my view is that in this instance by increasing the distance from turbine to the valves you are sacrificing exhaust energy for no reason. There will be wasted heat which could be put into driving the turbine so more exhaust gas is required to generate the same amount of work... and also the greater runner volume means that it will take more time to build drive pressure. The fact that the bends and merges are cleaner probably offset some of the loss from that, but I am pretty convinced that the length of the runners would do more harm than good. The fact that you are collecting with 3 cylinders means that the exhaust pulses are lined up nicely anyway so the volume etc isn't needed to manage collisions, that length runner isn't needed to reduce turbulence so realistically the same idea COULD be applied with much shorter runners much more effectively. So yeah, avoiding the twins versus single debate - my comment can be applied to the sheer size of the manifolds versus what they need to do. If you were bent on twin manifolds and wanted them to perform well I'd lean more in the direction of something like this:

What are the odds this gets bumped - after not thinking about it for years I had a flash back to it last night while pondering some exhaust manifold design ideas we are looking at trying with one of the cars I help with, definitely finding it a bit less surprising that there wasn't any improvement with this after a few more years of learning stuff and looking at data for things :(. Still very cool, but

I've probably been involved with using a couple of tanks of gas just with these two and I live in a different country, so it's probably actually used a bit more than you'd guess looking on here haha. I forget it has a 4inch exhaust though, it's nuts how quiet it is considering

Jun 280deg man cams, petrol tuned to at least .7λ, half cage and Bee-R limiter?

Sweet, so all he needs now is VCam and it will be perfect?

So long as they have 1.45a/r housings

After years of struggling with twins and getting all the awesomeness of power and response with a well matched single why would he go back?

Ftfy

Hard to say without having had a look or go at it all and not knowing which ECU you are running etc, but it seems like there are a couple of things there which definitely are setting up to make it a bit of a challenge to make boost stable.... I'm not a huge fan of the internal wastegate EFRs personally, the 1.05a/r housing with external wastegate seems to be the way to go in most cases but as Welshy says, the 4-port actuator with a 1bar spring in it is definitely likely to make things trickier. You basically end up with much smaller duty cycle differences needed to have a solid impact on wastegate behaviour, and annoyingly a lot of ECUs with closed loop boost control don't factor in the dead time for the wastegate solenoid which means that closed loop corrections are counting the dead time as part of the effective pulse width... not usually an issue when you have a fairly wide duty cycle range for not a huge boost target range, but a bit more of an issue when the amount of the pulse needed to open the solenoid in itself could have a reasonable impact on boost if applied as part of the effective pulse width, if that makes sense? It's likely to make closed loop control have fits unless the ECU is able to provide the closed loop logic with just the effective pulse width to work with. We haven't actually tried it out yet, but one of the cars I work with that need a wide boost range we've plumbed up two 3-port solenoids and will use a PWM output on the Link ECU to regulate pressure to one side of the wastegate just using a table to effectively bump up the spring pressure based off boost target a bit, so we can use a .4 or .6 bar spring and be able to run sufficient boost to justify the setup with acceptable control.

Ahh yep, gotcha. Sounds like the 9280 is a couple hundred rpm or so laggier but the compressor map definitely paints a picture of a lot more flow. I think the 9180 compressor left a bit to be desired, so in that sense it may be a good upgrade depending on how much more power you want, and how much more lag you can live with. A shame results seem to take so long to filter through - most people who have run them so far have not shared anything, and the things shared so far fall well short of what the flow claims would suggest aside from the EFR8474 dyno result from a couple of years ago. Hopefully this changes eventually! Yusss!

G42 definitely has the exhaust flow to back it up - but a significant amount more lag too. Probably the way to go if you are looking for big power, but if you are looking for big power and response doing something a bit different a Xona Rotor 105-69S have the potential to be pretty epic when they get more available.

I might be in the right mood for this, but I love so much about this comment. 1000hp is such a random made up number, like I understand the bragging rights but seriously. If you get an EFR9280 on a strong RB28, and tune it until you hit around 117,000rpm shaft speed then who gives a crap what the dyno says - that is going to be a FAST car. Pick a bunch of parts which work well together and build, tune until it's sent and go forth and enjoy... that is the way to get a happiest result. The reality is those other numbers become academic in the end and sometimes result in people making compromises trying to hit a target which is academic and realistically you will make different power on different days or different situations depending on what various aspects of the tune kick in and compensate for whatever may be going on at the time, as you get ESPECIALLY on big high strain setups. A specific power number which can mean different things on different dynos and even days, or setups is not worth making compromises on imho.

Very good point.

Depends on how harsh the dyno is etc, the compressor flow is there for well >1000hp @ crank on E85 but the question with the EFR range has often been if the exhaust side is up to it given people already run into EMAP issues with the EFR9180.. granted it's hard to know how much that's just due to people running out of compressor on them

It's the same trim as the conventional GT30 turbine, I said in my first post about the G series turbos that the 30 and 35 are the same size

No expert on this side of things but I'll point out some things which may or may be naive points: - High speeds required to push that air mass: They don't spin any faster than any other previous Garretts of the same kind of wheel size. The G3076 spins at similar turbine rpm to flow ~80lb/min as the GT3076R would to push 53lb/min. Just out of entertainment's sake, I checked it out and the G3076 can manage the GT3076R's max rated flow (at it's 145,000rpm compressor speed limit) at as low as ~70,000rpm in the right situation - I am pretty sure that since the GTX series they've used metal bearing cages and dual ceramic ball bearing cores - Non-serviceble cores - Is this any different to any of the other major name ball bearing core manufacturers?

It'd be unreal if their response stayed "comparable" for size with most other turbos as well, the G30-770 (which would be G7160 in Borg Warner naming) is pretty much the equivalent of EFR8374 flow in an EFR7163 size which would be INSANE if it spooled like an EFR7163, though while there still aren't lots of results out there it seems like the G25-660 is probably laggier than the larger EFR7163 - so it'd be a safe bet that the G30-770 is going to be significantly laggier than what you'd normally expect for the wheel sizes. They are still WAY smaller than other turbos which flow similar so I kind of hold hope that it will make up some ground there.

Cheers again for this, in my excitement I forgot to update the list... which is now looking quite healthy. It fit quite nicely in the placeholder I had set aside for it

I've had a quick play with that data, and if I am looking at it right - the 1.01a/r G30 hotside is very comparable to the 1.05a/r EFR8374 hotside which puts things into perspective. The .83a/r G30 hotside falls slightly short of the .82a/r GT35 hotside in flow. I think Garrett have chosen some very nice spread of options with this range.

Understood, and very much appreciated - thanks for sharing - that's awesome. I'm pretty confident they are legit, btw. Just probably weren't meant to be released yet

Much appreciated, sir - maybe throw it in the Garrett G-series thread if that's ok

To yoink from another thread, the compressor map for the G30-770. This is the one from the range I have been REALLY looking forward to, at a glance the compressor flow is sufficient to compete with the likes of an EFR8374 but from a turbo whose wheel sizes are probably closest to the likes of an EFR7163. This thing on a typical street/track spec RB could prove to be absolutely awesome. ]

Well played - any chance of the turbine maps?

Legend! Where did you get that, if you don't mind me asking - feel free to PM. I just want to be sure it's definitely the right map for the right turbo before I nail it down. Also, looks like I estimated it's place in the list perfectly haha