Lithium

Hard to know how much to take from those guys. They seem lovely, and do share a lot of information and mostly (aside from being Garrett drones - understand selling your soul is lucrative but it's been responsible for a heap of misinformation and starting to really frustrate me) sharing sensible data, but mannnn there is what I reckon or at least suspect is some super murky data. A few points I take from this video which I feel even though some of it is not hidden, is easily missed and makes the "data" not super useful at all: 1) The .61 G30-770 test. What a absolute waste of time, the fact that at the start they suspected that it'd be the dream and what was suggested to them indicates they have some poorly informed people advising them. While I've definitely seen an undersized turbine housing actually cost response, I strongly suspect they probably had a super bad boost leak in this test. You can see signs of the compressor hitting full choke pretty much at the point it's hit full boost, its a flat power curve that starts late and low, and they report it's running at max turbiine speed at under 400whp. Seriously. They SHOULD have questioned that and started investigating things before just going "this is what it is and what a fail". The .61 will be a nugget, but not THAT much of a nugget. 2) They straight up admitted that they are not optimising timing for various reasons. Awesome. 3) They also admitted they're not "sending" the G35 900. They did put timing in it, but not optimising it, and not running it up to as much boost as it potentially had up it's sleeve. You can't really take anything from this test other than what it spools like, and the fact that their tuner/data is not complete. There was something else as well but I can't recall it. I feel like they put a lot of time and effort into this, and by doing a bit half arsed job at times made the data not completely valid- but presenting it as though it's authoritative. Honestly, it makes me want to hook up with a mate that has an EFR8474 on his 2JZGTE and try and make a video addressing/tagging these Gseries combos which have been clearly at least partially bankrolled by Garrett as advertisement and provide all the map, turbo speed etc data transparently and show how full of shit some of these sponsored youtuber videos are. Especially when they claim they have "ultimate response 2JZ" which really is not. Sure, it's partly comparing an EFR8474 on a setup which is performing relatively optimally against people who are being Garrett puppets to show results which blow them completely out of the water and isn't necessarily a fully fair comparison. But these clowns are doing sometimes sub par jobs and STILL making people think it's the ultimate result and proven with "data" and it clearly triggers the shit out of me. You could throw a $1000 Holset on one of these engines on a $1000 exhaust manifold and show up these results on a 2JZ. And this isn't me hating on the G-series, as much as there are better (EFR) options out there.

Good point. So in the Falcon example it's running near PR 3.2 where the G35-1050 map runs out at 95lb/min, and we assume @Buttersis effectively running PR 2.7 then the map runs out at closer to 100lb/min, or ~5% more flow than in the case of the Falcon above. Going by that - in the ideal situation it'd be good for up to 1000hp @ hubs on E85 on kill, or 900whp on a roller. At the same point the G35-900 is capable of 80lb/min (I'm assuming you got mixed up and looked at the 900 instead of the 1050 compressor map) which as above shhould be good for 700whp/800hp @ hubs. Still comfortably north of OP. Even the lowly G30-770 should be good for 700hp @ hubs/ 625whp if the hotside is up to it going by that lot.

This is one of the better (but definitely not the only) 900+hp G35 1050 results I've seen. If we bare in mind the G35 hotside is not ideally matched to the compressor, generally considered a bit small for it - and that at PR 2.2 it flows about 95lb/min, then this is kinda a "really well working but not an impossibly perfect best case" indicator for what you might expect from Garrett G-series on a RWD platform running ethanol on a Mainline hub dyno. It fits with my general "1lb/min = 10hp @ hubs on E85" rule of thumb I use, or 9hp @ wheels on an Oz roller dyno. At the same rate you should expect a G35 900 should be able to support 700whp area on a roller dyno, or near 800hp on a hubber with everything working well. Funnily enough people already hit that territory with them, too.

Re: drivetrain loss, don't insult both of our intelligence by creating an argument about semantics. I feel like it should be pretty obvious that the point I was trying to make is that 80lb/min only being able to achieve 600whp is pretty unlikely. I purposefully try not to write a thesis breaking down my points when I am giving the audience the intelligence and general not-being-a-dickness credit that they won't misconstrue what I'm trying to say. In case you legitimately didn't get what I meant by my post, I'll try and make sure we're on the same page. A compressor map doesn't show BSAC (Brake specific air consumption, or literally how much power you end up able to make from a given air mass), it shows adiabatic efficiency. Sure, lower compressor efficiency can have a bit of an effect on BSAC if you've gone off the map and the gate has had to be shut to keep spinning the compressor causing EMAP to get high enough to have an effect on pumping efficiency, but realistically 80lb/min with lower compressor efficiency is still 80lb/min of air. The BSAC of your typical 4-valve, E85 snorting RB is such that you should be able to make WELL over 600whp through a manual on even the harshest of dynos with that kind of mass air flow.

That is super aggressive drivetrain loss estimation, paired with a harsh BSAC estimation considering this will be aboit E85 setups. There are people in Oz making 600whp with turbos which flow 10lb/min less than that. Hub dynos and roller dynos from some other countries will do around 10whp per lbmin of airflow

Something is definitely not right there. I know a good number of people who have used Pulsar G35s and others from their range, as well as the genuine Garretts and they seem more or less on par with each other when everything is working right. Do make sure your turbo speed sensor port is sealed etc. I've definitely come across people with big leaks out that port costing spool and power. Fwiw I've definitely seem numbers well north of those from both Garrett and Pulsar versions and to shake the inevitable Dyno debate, this is probably relevant (and gives you something/someone to look at). Andrew Hawkins also went north of 800hp with his

Sounds like a solid plan Its going to be a monster as is.

Yep this is 100% accurate, you'd not want to run E85 to and from work. The extra volume of fuel you need with ethanol goes up steadily as the blend increases, and that extra fuel usage impacts "just cruising" as well. You definitely need a big fuel system if you want to make 550+kw on E85, though really if you want 550kw+ then you're probably a bit in denial if you think you can cut costs at this stage. Block strength is potentially coming into question, OEM Nissan gearboxes are at the end of their line, the whole build has to be pretty serious at this stage. Going a big fuel system when planning for 700whp+ on a smaller RB is pretty incidental in the grand scheme. This still brings back the "but run flex fuel" thing, if you are aiming at commuting etc you probably don't want/shouldn't have methanol just sitting around in the car waiting for you to thrash it. There is the clear bonus that you don't use it when you're just driving it normally, but then also you don't want it to get contaminated over time or even lose track of the level. It's an extra thing you need to keep an eye on... the flex fuel idea again is one where you only put ethanol in if you want to get up to no good. By E30 you have really good gains and the impact on fuel economy isn't actually that nasty by that point, if you want to get real fancy for an event then you can try and get it up to E50+ but you don't need to measure or think about it. After that, keep putting normal pump gas in it and it'll gradually dilute itself down to E10 or less as you top up with pump gas and the tune will dial itself down to suit. If you have a build that is going to make 550+kw on E85 then it's not going to be gutless on a pump gas friendly tune, and with flex you don't need to keep topping up the WMI, you don't need to do anything special. Just drive the car and the tune will make sure everything is safe and well. That's the kind of reasoning we've used at least But yeah "for now" I'm sure if you can do the 550kw power level with pump and WMI and the 1000s then it's at least a good stepping stone.

It looks like you don't, as @BKsaid - you'll have practically all the advantage of an ethanol blend by E60 anyway, if the flex fuel tune has been done well then the "E75" max tune or even "E85" will really at most be a barely perceptible amount more pep. Big advantage of ethanol is that you're actually officially allowed it on the street and at events, with a WMI kit you potentially have to worry about who notices you are running methanol on your car. Not hating at all, full understand the other reasoning you have for it - just pointing out a couple of things you seem to have a mistaken understanding on or may not have considered about why people usually go ethanol over WMI. In terms of the power levels as well, with appropriate tuning you should also have control over how much power you get. You don't have to go full send on the dyno immediately, or you can go for the max power then but have to option of how much you ACTUALLY use with boost control etc so you can grow into the cars potential. Gotta love modern ECUs etc Anyway, quite interested to see how this build comes out - I have a soft spot for the path less trod, we can learn things from it and as much as going the proven path is usually the safest way to a good result.. it is rewarding having something a little different. Good luck and keep the updates flowing

Buying it at the drum has become erratic too. You can end up waiting for ages for it to become available, or people ceasing to provide it at no warning etc.

He is in NZ, it's likely to be easier and a more known target selling his 9180 and swapping to a 9280 than sending his core to Australia to get his 9180 modified with an undocumented aftermarket wheel and sent back here once freight and tax etc get involved.

Your bolt on mods you describe all sound fine so long as nothing is leaking or blocked. A relatively low shaft speed (as @Piggazsaid and I've alluded to above - I suspect it's higher than you think) isn't going to choke it. If anything the Borg turbos turbine aero is better suited to lower speed operation Blocking off the BOV or cleaning it could help rule out if anything is jamming it open and causing a leak. One way or another you aren't likely to have massive headroom with that turbo but ethanol may pick up quite a bit. As I had mentioned above, if you are kinda hoping for bigger numbers I suspect the likes of a Garrett (Or Pulsar copy of haha) G40 1150 would be a pretty interesting option. There's not anything that is going to beat the 9180 numbers without sacrificing response

G40-1150 (7170) seems like it's sitting it a pretty sweet middle ground, has twin scroll, has a good turbine and will make good power, and we're all curious

Jesus I didn't notice he'd set it to that, lol. https://www.borgwarner.com/go/960S5I Set air density to something more Aucklandy

That's what you're meant to do, line them up on the chart - you also need to fill the compressor efficiency cells out with the efficiency values that line up with the dots on the compressor map. What should essentially happen is you get a general thumbsuck of exhaust back pressure etc. Not super accurate but you can build a loose picture of things. Worth mentioning that you probably have bigger cams/better VE than the default numbers in matchbot, and it seems that you're revving it to at least 7500rpm so probably should update the rpm scale to suit the max rpm at least. I had a super fast rough fiddle with the settings, take with a grain of salt but I'd guess slightly closer to reality for your car currently: https://www.borgwarner.com/go/JMZZ59

I should have been more thorough with my response on the "EFR9280 doing 1000hp" I actually know someone who has cracked 1000hp @ hubs with an EFR9280 on an RB32. It was running a 1.45a/r hotside at the time and EMAP was STILL unacceptably high.... and that's a big step up in housing over the 1.05a/r - so imagine how bad that would be? I understand the next logical comment could be "Well why not run the 1.45a/r then?". The 1.45a/r on a EFR9280 adds significant amount of lag. Like 400rpm on top of maybe the extra 300ish you'd lose in spool going from a 9180 to a 9280. The 1.45a/r EFR9280 acts like a BIG turbo, does crack 1000hp but does it basically completely tapped out and big EMAP when run on an RB32 and you're likely to be looking at full boost getting up near 5000rpm... the combination just starts not really making sense imho. I realise the Rigoli 4G63 makes 1000hp @ hubs in time attack form but you gotta remember that it's on a 2.2litre engine that will run like 45psi to make that power, the 3litre is going to be running in the area of 15psi less boost to try and move the same amount of air on a compressor map that is happier at higher boost levels - basically the 3litre is likely to have similar or higher EMAP with significantly lower IMAP, which doesn't do great things for encouraging air to flow cleanly through an engine. I am a fan of the EFR range but the EFR9280 is one of my less favourite of them just because it isn't "quite" right - at least on RBs IMHO, though if you're "only" looking for 900hp range then going that with the 1.05a/r hotside should give a nice jump in power potential over the 9180 without pushing it too hard and losing too much response. If you're looking for 1000hp+ then it really is probably time to start looking at things which have turbines which are more enthusiastic at that kind of power level.

Another thought here. So I've spoken to people with "similar" engine specs to you who had or do have 9180s on them and you really shouldn't be running into that much of a tapped out situation still really. Like its going to be pushing the compressor a bit, but it sounds like you're potentially dangerously tapped out right now. They've been able to push boost levels beyond what you're seeing so even ignoring the power levels, anecdotally speaking they're probably getting at least as much air into their engines as you are - I'd definitely try and rule out this kind of thing before you spend serious money. One of the guys who I know who runs an EFR8474 had a sudden drop off in performance and pressure tested it all and it came up fine, however it turned out that the Turbosmart "internal BOV" got a bit of grit in it and was jammed open. The trick is it didn't show up in the boost leak test as it leaks straight back into the compressor cover.... so it won't really show up as a leak in a smoke test as it's not leaking to atmosphere, but it WILL actually be effectively a boost leak in use if something like that happens. The stock EFR recirculation valve is also known to just leak even when it's "working" at higher boost levels, so that could also be a possibility. If you haven't already, I'd try and make sure this kind of thing isn't a possibility.

The WGDC not having an effect on boost definitely suggests she's getting pretty tapped out. Bare in mind again that doesn't mean there's not more power if the engine is able to "do more" with the air its already moving, whether the tune is soft or whether you could get more on a better fuel. Your plans sound solid anyway, though I'd be pretty cautious about things with the turbo seemingly tapped - if it's being pushed that hard there IS the potential for significant overspeeding to be going on which isn't ideal at the best of times, the EFR turbine isn't the most tolerant. Re: The 9280, I don't know anyone running one "hard" as such. Jesse Greenslade is at around 890hp @ hubs on E85 at 26psi last I heard. I don't know if that's tapped out, I suspect it's not: I know of someone else with a RB34 running an EFR9280 as well, they hit 925hp @ hubs on E85 and it definitely had more in it. They were "only" after 650kw (870hp) max anyway, the swap to the bigger turbo was more about making the power easier while not losing response over the old turbo - as opposed to actually making max power. Based off what I know with that one all signs suggest it's got plenty up it's sleeve but I don't know how much. I suspect the 1.05a/r hotside will start struggling if you go for 1000hp @ hubs, and the 1.45 adds QUITE a bit of lag - anyone I know who has run it has swapped to the 1.05 on the 9280 so far. Imho if you have your heart set on making 1000+hp @ hubs without being ruthless I'd consider looking at the likes of a Garrett G40-1150.

He's got a solid sized Hypertune intercooler, would hope that's efficient. I did just realise that boost is tapering back to 22-23psi which drops the pressure ratio a bit, and also raises questions of if the tuner had a reason for it and also would partly explain the power rolling off harder.

Right my last posts I tried to do hastily on my cellphone and the posts ended up quite messy - so I've waited until I have a spare moment to properly read your post and try and give you a bit of a clearer picture of how some of this works. Firstly - you ask if because your head flows more you need less flow? Nope, it doesn't work that way. lb/min is basiiiically a combination of how dense the air is, and the volume that is shifted. Increasing head flow increases the volume of air that your engine is capable of moving, the only way to increase the amount of air that goes into the engine without increasing the actual corrected lb/min on the map is by increasing the density of the air (ie, cooling it) before it goes into the turbo. The volumetric efficiency thing is why I mentioned above that I wouldn't suggest a 9180 for a bigger engine with a big head like yours as an option to make >600kw @ wheels because that big capacity and decent ability to move air at lower boost levels puts it in an area that the turbo isn't really likely to be at it's happiest. Secondly, in regards to something about you 82lb/min assumption which hasn't been addressed (sorry I rushed my last responses) - you really can't assume that you're moving 82lb/min of air, there just isn't the data available to accurately estimate that. There could be every chance that your engine is actually moving MORE than that.... and that's because of a key thing we always need to consider when choosing turbos, fuels etc and that's BSAC or Brake Specific Air Consumption. That's basically how efficient your engine is at making power for a given amount of airflow, and the variability of this between setups is why I'm always non-committal about predicting exact power levels for a given engine setup. BSAC relies on a number of things, but the ones potentially most relevant to this conversation are the fuel and how hard the tuner pushes the tune on that given fuel. I highlighted your point that the tuner didn't need to put a lot of timing into her.... I'm not quite sure how to interpret that and am not going to make any assumptions (and am certainly not criticising it) - just sharing some things to consider here. These 10hp per lb/min type guidelines is clearly assuming the engine is operating with a certain amount of efficiency. Here's the trick, if the tuner has been told "don't go past 560kw on the stock gearbox" and found that the car has made that power at safe boost without needing to run a lot of timing then they could be WELL justified in saying "Sweet - Tune is safe as houses and it's making the power my customer wants, ideal!" and leave it there. Here's the clincher with that, a "soft tune" could easily pick up another 10% more power with the timing optimised while still not actually being overly aggressive. On top of this, you could arguably pick up another 10%+ more power over a tune safely optimised on pump gas by tuning it to make the most of E85. Just for a thought experiment, lets assume that with a full optimised (but safe enough) pump gas tune you can make 10hp per lb/min, but your current tune is giving away 10% of that power due to being soft, and on E85 it'd be able to make 10% MORE than on pump gas. Optimised pump gas: 820/10 = Needs 82lb/min of air to make 820hp @ engine (like what you're assuming) "Soft" Pump gas: 82lb/min x 1.1 (for the 10% worse BSAC because of soft timing) = 90lb/min of air So based off those assumptions, what would happen if you are actually running super soft timing and it's moving 90lb/min of airflow? Optimised pump gas: 90 x 10 = 900hp @ crank Ethanol: 900hp x 1.1 = 990hp @ crank Caveat: I am NOT saying this is the case, but it could be an option - and again, it's no criticism of anyone... it's just the kind of thing you need to factor when looking at this kind of thing. So, if we assume you're off the map then there are a couple of things you need to bare in mind. Firstly, as your compressor efficiency "runs out" the intercooler has to do more work to cool the air down and the turbo needs to do more work to move the same amount of air, which means the turbine needs to do more work to drive the compressor which drives up exhaust back pressure. If you had exhaust back pressure and turbine speed data it would not surprise me at all if back pressure was getting a bit wild, and turbine speed is creeping up near the magic 116,000rpm EFR9180 max compressor speed limit. So, if these assumptions were correct - what would happen if you went to an EFR9280? You go from being well off the map to suddenly being at ~64% compressor efficiency which is HAPPY. Your exhaust back pressure will plummet, which will actually increase your engine's volumetric efficiency, you will potentially actually move MORE lb/min for the same boost level, your intake temperatures will drop and you'll pick up a significant power at the same boost on pump gas and more significantly, you have quite a bit of headroom to make more power if you turn the boost up. You'll also lose a few hundred rpm of boost threshold of course, on the same token @GTSBoyhas been referring to velocity at the compressor inducer - that same drop in velocity can make it take a bit longer before the compressor starts operating efficiently, and result in a bit more lag. You don't get a lot of stuff for free, unfortunately. Feel free to question anything I've said there, but hope it helps paint a picture of the kind of things that can be going on and why I often ask lots of stupid questions when suggesting turbos and also when trying to work out what could be going on - also why turbo speed and exhaust back pressure sensors are SUPER useful when optimising big setups like this.

Actually, just noticed that the TCF is set up for estimated flywheel power. Hmm it does seem a bit on the low side for this turbo, I would be checking for other issues in the setup if you haven't had it boost leak tested etc Edit:sorry missed it's on pump gas. Nevermind, this is big power for this turbo on pump gas. As above, it's one which works better at high boost - I'd normally aim for 500-550kw absolute max at the hubs on pump with one of these. Yeah, you'll need a bigger turbo if you want bigger numbers on pump - probably bigger on both sides... I wouldn't be aiming for an EFR for 1000hp on 98. E85, fine. Really 1000hp you should be considering a better fuel regardless of what turbo

There could be other things going on as well but you are definitely at the upper end of that turbo. The 9180's compressor efficiency is better suited to running at higher boost levels, I've generally suggested people who run them not run massive head specs if running an RB with one so they "need" more boost to make their power and run in a happier zone. It is a bit surprising it is getting so hot still though, it shouldn't be THAT bad I wouldn't have thought so I'd be weary of possible boost leaks or something like that. A turbo speed sensor pays off a lot in this kind of situation - but again either way a 3.2 with a big head IS going to choke at modest boost on this turbo, there is not going to be a massive amount more power on the table no matter how you look at it. These are a very good turbo for something that came out 13 years ago - will still be not super easy to get something which makes more power without giving away response but a lot of what you're seeing here is how the engine and turbo need to suit each other very well to get the best results - some setups will make the same or more working the same turbo less. Borg have since released the 9280 which would sit in it's place and walk away from this power level with minimal impact. Already know a couple of people running 3.2-3.4 engines making around 700kw at hubs with them on the 1.05 hotside but it would give a bit away in the lower rpm- but pretty much anything capable of making more than this will.

That's kinda funny, that kind of thing has been said in the past (SAEJ1349 correction results in lower readings than some others, all legit - just different effects) and while the hub dynos do read higher still usually, the difference is NOT as much as people like to convince themselves. It seems to be less of a thing that comes up now that hub dynos are being used more in Oz as well, people realising that it isn't automatically +100kw or whatever. But yeah as you say, just a tuning tool afterall - you gotta use the data in context for tracking sensible expectations and improvements.

Nice, if you haven't yet - hub dynos ftmfw, I have no idea how guys have been struggling with rolling dynos for so long and it's nice seeing Oz workshops etc getting over the ripping on Kiwis for using them because they read high and joining the dark side. Steady state and repeatable tuning is so good, especially knowing that unexpected "not the gains I was expecting here" etc question marks can be linked to issues as opposed to wondering if it's just to do with tyre/roller interfaces etc. The numbers will be a bit bigger than non-US roller dynos but that's not what it's about. Look forward to seeing what this thing does on send, it is a cool setup and definitely got some potential. Good luck (y)

Depends on the block you're using. When tuning RB30s I use an unmodded M8 Bosch donut in an M12 hole in the block (same as 2Js) using one of these thingys: https://www.efisolutions.com.au/knock-sensor-conversion-stud-m12-to-m8 With RB25/26 I *have* used a combination of drilled-to-M10 donut sensors and they've seemed alright, alternately have just had an M8 and M10 bolt welded back to back to make up a similar adapter stud to the Toyota one you use on RB30s and JZs.