Lithium

Actually. Here's some data, this is from a 3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474. Looks like I've not posted this before. This is 830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

Again the 9180 and 8474 will both get you to the 800hp @ hubs area. Going to Precision or Garrett will definitely be a step backwards in response, if you're wanting to go north of 850hp but not too much then the 9280 is OK with the 1.05 but I was partly addressing situations where you're more looking for a healthy 900+hp. In the Garrett range you'll be needing to look at a .95a/r G40 1150 btw, which will be laggy than the EFRs - but will do the power quite happily.

Unfortunately as per the compressor efficiency stuff I was rambling about above, extra cubes and headwork with a 9180 are a liability - not an advantage. The compressor doesn't really do it's best work until higher boost levels, boost levels that with a saucy 3.2 you need a lot more flow than the 9180 will provide. At the boost levels that a well flowing 3.2 will be happiest moving "900hp" levels of airflow are not where a 9180 is really doing it's best work. A 9280 would definitely let a 3.2 "hang on" better in the higher rpm, but they are a little lazier and the 1.05 hotside is a bit of a restriction - but it definitely makes a bit more sense. My general view on the EFR range is that if a 8474/9180 is too far short of someones target then it's time to consider going to something from Precision or Garrett.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at above. Realistically BOTH turbos will be on their upper end of capability at this power level, but if OP is happy with "getting over 800whp" then I actually am going to go against the grain and say I still think the 8474 is the better option. The trick with the "pre-black edition" Borg Warner turbos is the 8374 and 9180 compressors let the side down and made it seem like the turbines were more restrictive than they are. The turbine from the EFR8374 had heaps up it's sleeve but people would often see high EMAP because of the compressor going inefficient and the boost control setup effectively going into "send" conditions. Same goes for the EFR9180, they are better suited to higher boost/lower flow. This is somewhat speculative because I don't have direct experience with the combo, buuuut if I were a betting man I'd back an EFR8474 with a 1.45a/r hotside to be the "best" for if you're looking for a "being able to nudge over 800hp @ hub with epic response" on a build like this. I wouldn't aim for 850hp, but you may be able to get it as a hero tune type thing.. it'd definitely be getting more on the sendy side though. To put the compressor efficiency into perspective, I've plotted where the 64% compressor efficiency (ie, the point where it's still happy as but where things usually start getting sad quickly afterwards) for 20psi, 22psi, 24psi, 26psi, 28psi and 30psi on an EFR8474 on the EFR9180 compressor map. Basically, the EFR8474 is still operating in the happy zone where a 9180 is getting quite into "shut the wastegate and cook the intake air" territory.

Overall sounds like a lot of fun

I love this discussion, brings out some interesting and valid points. I've never argued hard against people chosing to stay twins at 350kw as really the single benefits aren't going head and shoulders away from twins YET. I still prefer them, but the argument is less one sided. Now in regards to the high power vs control thing, this is really what got my attention in this discussion - we at the best of times get hard ons for showing and bragging about epic power delivery but the reality is often what matters SO MUCH with racing is making the car driveable, and reliable. A good number of the turbo race cars I've tuned we've done a lot of work in managing the torque to keep the cars predictable, and it can seem like you're just leaving stuff on the table for no use - but honestly its amazing the difference you can make giving what people may grumble and call a "peaky" power delivery. No point making it hit like a train if you are going to be all over the show trying to keep the car on the road. An option you have with the likes of your 6466 that you don't with the twins is you can more or less tune the 6466 to do stuff that makes the twins good, but you can't do the other way around. As a hypothetical thing, if you look at the dyno plot for the twins - which you know you can control the car with nicely then identify the peak torque you make with them, then select a boost curve with the 6466 that never exceeds that torque.... but ramp the boost up to carry the torque to the far end of the dyno plot, instead of letting it plummet like the twins do then you potentially have some degree of having your cake and eating it too. Well maybe a 6466 is a bit more snappy/laggy transient wise than the EFRs/G-series that I've played with but you'll get the gist of the what I'm saying? I've done this kind of thing with numerous FWD/RWD/even 4WD race cars when creeping up in power levels where the owners have decided to try the suggestion as an "in between" while working up with a bigger setup and then ended up finding that it actually at least in those cases made the car easier to drive faster and is generally less hard on the car on the driver and been relatively happy leaving it there. It may seem counter intuitive when we work so hard on finding ways to improve torque, but really in a lot of cases the "how hard is it to get to the torque I'm looking for" is a lot more important than "how much torque can I make?" when you're trying to go fast.

What are your power goals? A mate has an RB30 with the 9180 and a 1.05 hotside, it's nice and responsive but the down side to the 9180 is that it does its best at higher boost levels (compressor wise) while a 3.2 with a decent head will find it easy to run off the map. The 3litre works very nicely but a 3.2 would arguably be pushing it, the bigger 1.45a/r exhaust housing being a bandaid which doesn't fix the actual cause. An EFR8474 compressor is actually more efficient in the 20psi range than the 9180, and the turbine wheel is surprisingly up to the task at that level. I'd consider going 1.45a/r if you have a big head and want to make the most if you consider the 8474 but if you are mainly looking for a super responsive solid power level the 1.05 is likely to work better than many may expect. Tl;Dr both are solid options - if you want significantly more than a 8474 can do then the EFR9280 is a more tangible improvement than the 9180 is, but the 9280 definitely comes at a cost in boost threshold. On a 3.2 with a 1.05 you won't see solid solid boost until in the 4000rpm range but they can support a fair bit of power... But you DO need the 1.45 hotside to make the most of a 9280 and they start becoming a pretty laggy setup, I feel like other brands offer better options for that territory.

That's pretty cool to read! Good on them for making improvements and not making a song and dance about it or offering it as an upgrade, instead just improving the existing thing.

Faster to take off and put on, slower to spool. Pick your preference - though I get the impression cost and spool not being a top priority came into this which makes sense.

I'm really keen to see more results of G40s, so far I've been far from impressed with them but would like them to be a good thing. On paper they always seem QUITE laggy, though the owners sound happy with what they've ended up with... whether it's a transient response thing or they just don't mind a lazy turbo is hard to know due to subjectivity. I do know that G42s can ggf from everything I've seen regarding them, they do the numbers but their EMAP seem high for the lag and general flow you end up with for a "modern" turbo.... so if anything this post makes it sound like GTX3584RS are absolute nuggets of turbos. Yeah the G40 *seems* like it should be a good thing, if you have any real world results or anything I'd be super keen because I've been more than disappointed with what I've seen so far - I'm not hating, as obviously "disappointment" suggests I was expecting more from them.... I just like keeping abreast of what works and what different units strong and weak points are The G35 900 result is *really* surprising for me, was there any other changes involved on that setup? A 6466 is not a lazy turbo and a G35 900 is not a super early boost threshold turbo normally - like not bad, but this is unexpected. We have a G35 900 for a 2JZGTE drag car (900kg car....) so quite interested to see first hand how it performs.

Wasn't 100% sure so the answer wasn't fully directed at you, but generally "in case anyone see or read it that way". That general view makes sense for most, but felt should point out that it's not just wank - well at least unless someone is buying an M1 and using it like a G4+ Plugin haha.

The wording @iruvyouskyrinewas responding to was clearly implying that Motec M1 was just about the cool thing as opposed to the fact that there are definitely advantages to it if you have the money and need. Link/Haltech/Adaptonic need not apply when you are talking "firmware unlocks" in this context, these are packages which means you can load all new functionality specific to what you are doing with your car. You don't have the features ready to go because they don't have the features, and may never get said features with those options. If someone invented (just as a random idea) an electric motor setup that could integrate with an RB gearbox to create a torque fill system to make up to turbo lag then you may (probably won't) NEVER get a release from Haltech, Link or Adaptronic, but with an M1 then it could be a few weeks of development by Powertune's M1 guy to add it to the torque management system and then download the new firmware, update to suit and profit. Those ECUs, and to a greater extent the Emtron are absolutely brilliant for 99% of people, so no hate at all for them... they very much have their place (same place I and MOST of my friends exist) but M1 also has it's place, but it ain't cheap. Doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning when discussing features that the others don't have.

That's actually awesome. The turbo should definitely be capable of plenty of power if everything else is working well, as per the other posts people have made solid numbers with them. If you can live with the spool, then the power should be able to come

True, but compare it with the uncorrected G35 900 2JZ you posted above... the dyno plot I shared was SAEJ1349 corrected which brings dynapack numbers into alignment with Mainline hub etc, basically it's "not so generous" mode. I did that to make sure I wasn't giving an overly inflated number. This is the same pull in SAE, which depending on conditions is likely to be more in alignment with the G35 900 result you shared. Basically 870hp @ hubs with full boost a good part of 1000rpm earlier. Another mate has one on his RB26 and it's over 20psi before 4500. Someone else I know has one on his 26 which isn't running yet, but that will be run full send on E85 - I can post the result here if I don't get piss people off too much by sharing EFR results lol

This is a dyno plot for the 2JZGTE/ 8474 I mentioned, pushed to the point it's working reasonably hard but not ridiculous - 111,000rpm turbine speed and 39psi EMAP for 25psi of boost. It's a nice working solid setup but nothing wildly exotic. Unported VVTi head with drop in cams.

Never considered Precision turbos especially aesthetic lol. The EFRs are definitely an eye sore as default but imho if you don't use the BCS, BOV (using a blank plate), internal gate and powder coat the compressor housing or something like that then they actually are one of the better looking housings but that's all additional cost on top of an already spendy turbo. It is definitely a better unit for your needs otherwise but yeah, should have lead with the fact you are happy to compromise some performance for personal aesthetic tastes - the short answer is that until a few years ago the 6466 was the absolute best option for what you want from it now, and it's still up there... So absolutely worth it if there are other factors which make it appealing to you. No one is going to see it as a silly choice!

Don't think anyone has (or anyone in their right mind would) suggest going twins for this kind of situation. The exhaust housing will very much depend on what turbo it is, not all 1.06 exhaust housings are equal - there can be a HUGE range of what they will support depending on the wheel sitting in the housing and the cross section of the volute. In regards to the turbos being mentioned here the 1.00a/r hotside would probably be ideal for the 6466, or the 1.05 for the 8474. Btw here is a dyno plot for a 1.05a/r EFR8474 on an RB26 with big cams and a ported head on BP98, 14psi and 21psi boost levels shown.

If I were you and were sticking with stock displacement, while wanting it to be nice and responsive while also being able to do near 500kw on pump, and 600kw area on E85 then I'd go a Sinco T4 divided manifold, 1.05a/r EFR8474 and if you're doing headwork then go the Kelford 182B (260deg, 10mm lift) cams - make sure the headwork suits high lift cams, including clearancing. My assumptions here are that you're likely to be tuned on a Dynapack (virtually everyone here use hub dynos) and RBs and EFR8474s are a match made in heaven. 500kw on pump is a bit of a stretch, and the slightly shorter duration cams I've suggested won't make that any easier - but in all honesty that setup will still work very well... whichever fuel you run you'll also have the option of ramping the boost up in the higher rpm when natural torque drops off if you want it to carry power a bit better at the higher end. I know someone with 520kw @ hubs with an EFR8474 on BP98 and various people who have gone over 600kw @ hubs also with 1.05a/r EFR8474s, and they drive insanely well - basically significantly more responsive under foot than a 6266, while making more power. In terms of wastegate that comes down to what the minimum boost you need to run is, twin 40mm obviously is proven if you go separate wastegates - otherwise something in the 50mm area is probably a good idea. The smaller the gate, the harder it is going to be to hold a lower boost level.

All good. I'm not super super familiar with those tbh, I'm not going to bring up other turbos in a thread about Precisions but my opinion is that the Precision turbos really start starting to come into their own from the 64mm+ sizes - usually when you're looking at 75lb/min or less flowing turbos the aim is typically something that is geared towards being more snappy underfoot and the Precisions aren't necessarily famous for their transient response, at least compared to newer releases some other brands. I do know those 3 have been out for a few years now already, and I have at least heard the 6062 is a solid performer in it's own right - makes good power for a 60mm turbo and not particularly laggy. Suggesting that I feel there are better options in no means I think they're nuggets

The general Precision turbo range? If so, there are a couple of pretty epic releases which I've not noticed mentioned in here - the NextGen 7685 and 8085, though they are as much about sneakiness as outright innovation. I know someone who tested the NextGen 7685 versus the Gen2 7685 and the results were absolutely mental, picked up hundreds of hp (literally) and compressor speed as well as EMAP/IMAP was improved even to achieve a much higher power level despite the turbos only being an upgrade on the compressor side. There's been an ongoing trend, basically the 7685 NextGen punching as good or harder than an 8385 and the 8085 being like an 8685... that kind of thing. Those two things are absolute beasts in their own rights, and I'd call them game changers if you are in a 76mm or 80mm inducer class - but just for bigger picture info, in terms of "How are they getting 20% more flow out of the same size inducer when the old one was already insanely good?". They're basically using a loophole in terms of how "inducer" is defined, and the compressor wheels have a stepped inducer so you have the "main" inducer area, then a cut back where the inducer section extends out to the anti-surge port area. For all intents and purposes that antisurge slots have become part of the inlet into the inducer, but that area of the inducer isn't officially counted as "inducer". Sneaky sneaky.

Haven't tried a G30 yet but the G25 are super whistley, though one I played with turned out that the turbo speed sensor port wasn't sealed - bunged it off properly (make sure the plastic plug is tightly attached etc) and it generally behaved quite a bit better but did get a bit less whistly. I've wondered in the past when I see surprisingly laggy/low power results for G series if they also have a similar kind of leak

Here's a link to an article which shows some quotes from someone who tested a 1.21a/r G35 1050 on his 2JZ. 48psi EMAP with 31psi of boost is getting a bit ugly. https://www.garrettmotion.com/fr/news/newsroom/article/dylan-hughes-builds-946-horsepower-e46-bmw-with-3-0-l-2jz-g42-1200-garrett-turbo/

There are a couple of solid G35 1050 results already posted in here suggesting they definitely have a noticeable ceiling above the G35 900 but a couple of things are potentially big factors with the G35 1050 not making the numbers you'd expect. 1/ they are great at high pressure ratios and I also feel that people often package them like a typical 70lb/min turbo and when you're looking for 90+lb/min you need to ensure that the plumbing can support that volumetric flow even though it doesn't LOOK like a big turbo. 2/ The hotside has definitely been identified as being on the weak side for tbe higher power levels. This is one of the reasons the G40 ended up being pretty highly anticipated. For a mix of these reasons I think there are cars running G35 1050s with the intent to get 90lb/min of airflow from the turbo, and the turbo is capable of supporting that airflow in the right situation, but the combination is such that it's not really viable. A drag car I'm involved we had extensive yarns on what turbo to use, as you do, and it basically ended up with the G35 900 as being the choice because as you've kinda observed - potentially the G35 1050 becomes less of an optimal combination and you may as well go G40 if the G35 900 isn't enough for your tastes. Not to say the G35 1050 isn't a weapon, just it feels like a turbo you're going to be really beating on things if you want to max it out.

G35 1050 2JZ with 630kw @ hubs: https://www.facebook.com/groups/jzpowered/permalink/879655039397081/?sfnsn=mo&ref=share Thinking about it, with these results from different tuners, setups, dynos and factoring in that Hawkins got high 600kw with his G35 1050 on his RB I feel like there is some credible data around to show that with the setup working right there is definitely decent power to be had with the G35s

1.5JZ with 550+kw at hubs on G35 900 https://www.facebook.com/192234970820442/posts/pfbid02mAiMFLVhZvvi6aXURwunTmwGTAb6s14JsYW2qpzjZ4JAjbPxQNj7JDZNHDSshD5Ml/?sfnsn=mo