Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

good to hear things are working for you john, eager for you to get some seat time and finally experience the turbos at full song. btw did you guys get the ets-pro going

Car survived run in on the dyno today. It made 375kw at 6000rpm off wastegate (16psi), timing at 18degrees and .9lambda so still heaps more to come at final tune. Cams not touched and boost all in below 4000rpm.

Looking very promising.....

ETS Pro all installed but yet to be tested. Will definately let you know how it goes.

Hopefully with the availability issues gone, we can start to see a lot more results and discussion again.

The Boost Lab received one EFR 7064 .92 last week and I snavelled it up straight away. I should get it in about 2 weeks which is roughly when I should get my block back with the Darton sleeves fitted. If I get the turbo before the block, I'll fit a spare rooted SR20 into the car so I can make an exhaust manifold ASAP. I seriously am sooooo keen to get this thing going. 2.2L, 9.6:1 comp, W2A intercooler across the front of the engine, Poncams, E33 fuel mix and EFR 7064 .92 twin scroll should be a shitload of fun for a street car, even on only 15psi through midrange (will taper boost upwards as RPM increases to hold the torque curve dead flat to at least 6000).

That is really off putting hey..

Seems to me like the delays may have been surrounding the turbine housing production and may have even been the cause of those turbine wheel failures. This new 'ugly duckling' housing might be from a more reliable source but at the cost of glamour.

Thats just me guessing though, my 2c worth anyway.

Clearly something dodge going on there.

TS housings were only available in very low numbers, but open scroll were freely available in most sizes...

I reckon someone got there hands on a TS housing and sent it into the chinese photocopier to fill a hole ion the market!

Either that or it was a genuine housing that wasn't supposed to be sold, at least at full retail (ie development version or QA fail etc)

Chris over in NZ got his 8374 TS 6 months ago (new manufacturer batch) and the quality was perfect as expected...

turb3.jpg

That last pic is a 1.05 which is a different housing that's going to be a lot easier to cast.If BorgWarner come out and state that the manky housings are the only way they can reliably make the shape of the .92, I'd be happy enough with it and just tidy up the inside with a Dremel. Deep down inside, I'm really hoping mine doesn't arrive like that though.

That last pic is a 1.05 which is a different housing that's going to be a lot easier to cast.If BorgWarner come out and state that the manky housings are the only way they can reliably make the shape of the .92, I'd be happy enough with it and just tidy up the inside with a Dremel. Deep down inside, I'm really hoping mine doesn't arrive like that though.

100% an EFR8374 TS .92

His build here: http://www.gtr.co.uk...r-then-now.html

No EWGs here...

TurboFit1.jpg

read the link i posted. the customer purchased from a bw-recommended vendor. then, he phoned bw:

"I just spoke with Brian Rhinehart of Borg Warner manufacturing directly. Unfortunately, the photos I have posted are of a genuine Borg Warner EFR 7670 twin scroll turbo."

look at the bolt holes. waaay off center. terrible.

Edited by black bnr32
The complexity of the twin scroll, twin waste-gated design had a rejection rate of over 60% at the foundry with investment casting. Borg Warner tried three different suppliers for the investment cast components, all with the same results. As a result, they switched to green-sand casting around May of this year.

I just spoke with Brian Rhinehart of Borg Warner manufacturing directly. Unfortunately, the photos I have posted are of a genuine Borg Warner EFR 7670 twin scroll turbo. This is how all new EFR units will be manufactured until they can significantly improve the rejection rate of the investment cast units. I asked for a timeframe of when they expect to have units available with investment cast turbine housings, but at the moment, they have no idea. If you or someone you know received an early EFR with the investment cast turbine housing, consider yourself/them lucky.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Brian informed me that Borg Warner conducted extensive flow testing of the green-sand cast units and, while they are not as pretty to look at, the results were all well within the margin of error (less than 1%). In other words, the ugly units perform just as well as the pretty, investment cast units.

That being said, I'm still not 100% satisfied with the inside passages of my specific turbine housing. I may return it for an identical unit if they are still in stock, provided I can get some indication that the replacement will have a better finish.

Edited by SimonR32

Bugger. I guess my 7064 is going to look much like that. As soon as I can get my hands on the EFR 7163 with the new 0.80 divided housing, I'll be switching to that anyway. I only chose the .92 because there were no smaller divided options.

It's very frustrating waiting 2 years for a turbo then it arrives and there is another turbo that's pretty much better in every way already announced.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Wow, selective quoting by first quoter - but still, very very very very VERY disappointed in what BW are doing there. Just when I started warming to the EFR range they are blatantly being crooks, that is disgusting. Understand that they are doing these housings to fill orders, but they REALLY should be telling people (and charging as such) that the product is NOT the investment cast housing version (that is one of the justifications of the pricing and the wait) instead of just supplying them with a nasty surprise.

Here I was working backwards from page 43 in that build thread. That photo was posted in January. What makes you think it's current revision?

It is still current mate, stop spinning rubbish.

WHOA..

Where did that info come from Simon?

That beemer forum that was linked last page

It is still current mate, stop spinning rubbish.

Looks like they have changed the casting process now so he is actually right and the current ones are all going to have these new manky housings

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I think my main complaint with your idea is that there is a veneer of idealism spread across it. You want the simple numbers to make it easier, but all they will do is make it easier for someone to come to the wrong conclusion because the fine details will kick them in the nuts. As it is right now, the tiny bit of arithmetic is NOT the obstacle to understanding what will fit and what will not fit. The reality of trying it is what determines whether it will fit. If you had a "standard rule" that R34 GTT guards have that magic 100mm space from the hub face to whichever side you were worried about, and someone said "excellent, this wheel is only 98mm in that direction, I'll just go spend $4k on them and jam them on my sick ride".....they would just as likely find out that the "standard rule" is not true because the rear subframe is offset to one side by a fairly typical (but variable) 8mm on their car and they only have 92mm on one side and 108 on the other.
    • It still combines inches with mm, especially when you have .5 inches involved, and mm and inches that can go in either direction. This would give a clear idea on both sides of the rim, right away, with no arithmetic. Even better if somebody gives you the dimensions of the arch of multiple cars. i.e GTR may be 125mm, a A80 Supra may be 117mm, or something along those lines. Yes, you can 'know' that going from a 10in rim to a 10.5in rim with the same offset moves both sides about 6mm, but you still have to 'know' that and do the math. Often it's combined. People are going from 9.5 +27 to 10.5 +15. You may do the math to know it, but if it was going from (I had to go look it up to be sure) 241mm/2 - 27 - 93.5mm from the center line to (more math) 266/2 - 15 (118mm) from the center line. Versus 93mm vs 118mm. It's right there. If you know you have a GTT with 100mm guards you can see right away that one is close to flush and the other absolutely won't work. And when someone says "Oh the GTR is 120mm" suddenly you see that the 10.5 +15 is about perfect. (or you go and buy rims with approximately 118mm outward guard space) I think it's safe to say that given one of the most common questions in all modified cars is "How do offsets work" and "How do I know if wheels will fit on my car" that this would be much simpler... Of course, nothing will really change and nobody is going to remanufacture wheels and ditch inches and offset based on this conversation :p We'll all go "18x9+30 will line up pretty close to the guards for a R34 GTT (84mm)" but 'pretty close' is still not really defined (it is now!) and if you really care you still have go measure. Yes it depends on camber and height and dynamic movement, but so do all wheels no matter what you measure it for.
    • But offsets are simple numbers. 8" wheel? Call it 200mm, near enough. +35 offset? OK, so that means the hub face is that far out from the wheel centreline. Which is 2s of mental arithmetic to get to 65mm to outer edge and 135mm to inner. It's hardly any more effort for any other wheel width or offset. As I said, I just close my eyes and can see a picture of the wheel when given the width and offset. That wouldn't help me trust that a marginal fitment would actually go in and clear everything, any more than the supposedly simple numbers you're talking about. I dunno. Maybe I just automatically do numbers.
    • Sure! But you at least have simple numbers instead of 8.5 inches +/mm, relative to your current rims you do maths with as well, and/or compare with OEM diameter, which you also need to know/research/confirm..
×
×
  • Create New...