Lithium

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

Sorry I guess I should have posted links when I said both data and results I've seen elsewhere suggest there is plenty more on top with a G35 900 even. Will see if I can cross over old tracks so you can see for yourself if you've not actually encountered other promising results yourself https://fb.watch/e0I3wVP5ZT/

Full boost at 4500 and peak power at 6000. That's horrible, and it's not VCams fault.

Ahh yes, this was another thing that irked me. Seriously, going "the 1.01 was really what we needed when we're running the G30 so we'll use that on the G35" when they are running an entirely different turbine wheel and have no intention of pushing the compressor... it's no better than people identifying turbo specs by saying "I've got an Ar70 turbo". The short of my rant is that I'd take much of this test with a big grain of salt.

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.