Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

No. It would be good for an unopened motor also, of any variety IMO.

They are about 20 years newer than the 2860, think about that in general technology terms and it should make sense why they are out performing the old stuff.

  • Like 1

Man, If I owned a car that could easily mount an EFR (like a GTR or something) I would be allllll over them I think they are awesome turbos, despite them looking a little ugly...

The fitment on something like an EVO is such a pain.. I'm in the process now of TRYING to figure out how to mount one... but because they are so bulky, its difficult. In something like a GTR, it would be epic!

Man, If I owned a car that could easily mount an EFR (like a GTR or something) I would be allllll over them I think they are awesome turbos, despite them looking a little ugly...

The fitment on something like an EVO is such a pain.. I'm in the process now of TRYING to figure out how to mount one... but because they are so bulky, its difficult. In something like a GTR, it would be epic!

Nothing a simple manifold cannot fix. Y so srs?

Man, If I owned a car that could easily mount an EFR (like a GTR or something) I would be allllll over them I think they are awesome turbos, despite them looking a little ugly...

The fitment on something like an EVO is such a pain.. I'm in the process now of TRYING to figure out how to mount one... but because they are so bulky, its difficult. In something like a GTR, it would be epic!

If you get the newer external gate housings it should fit no problem. 4cyl manifolds are easily made/modified.

I am in the same boat once the evo7 is run in, I would like to push the 2.3 stroker to its limits, but lag is a bummer.

If you get the newer external gate housings it should fit no problem. 4cyl manifolds are easily made/modified.

I am in the same boat once the evo7 is run in, I would like to push the 2.3 stroker to its limits, but lag is a bummer.

If your referring to the Tial housings... they are good, but you loose twin scroll. Which is kinda what you want on a single turbo 4cyl... If not, you should just save yourself money by getting a precision.

Fitting the T4 divided is not that simple. Not for a daily driver anyways. The CHRA is longer then the generic Precision or Garrett offering, and so is the turbine housing. Add this in with the bulky compressor cover, and it is a real struggle to fit downlow.

1. You need to notch the gearbox mount

2. If your keeping the A/C in the stock location (I'm currently looking into relocation or replacement with electric), the radius on the dump pipe would be and is horrible.

Mounting internal (or external gate) in high mount configuration has its own issues;

1. Your moving a significant amount of weight HIGHER in the front of the car. It doesn't promote good handling.

2. The 'lower intercooler pipe' or turbo to intercooler pipe has increased length over a low mount, thus kinda defying the whole point of using an EFR - Loosing transient response

The actual construction of the manifold isn't that hard, its more how everything sits. If you can manage to relocate the A/C to give you a better radius on the dump pipe, it would be perfect....

Edited by Tonba

I initially though they were airwerks due to the fact the FMW compressor wheels are apparently the same wheels as EFRs.

But then I saw the pic of what they actually run, which looks to be a custom casting.

borg-warner-turbochargers-used-in-the-iz

Anyone found out if we can get these yet?

I can tell you, keeping the split pulse is nowhere near as important as getting the Ti wheels in there. I will be going a single pulse manifold if nothing twin is available by then, as I believe the whole split V single debate is a bit of a crock.

Externally gating off the housing opens up so many more options, and if the compressor housing is bulky and gets in the way, it will be modified.

I will definitely be low mounting, whatever the turbo I end up with, but if you are seriously worried about a couple of kg mounted 6 inches higher, you have issues. The turbo fits where it fits, and it's my job to make it work.

Dump radius, I have yet to see a good one on an Evo. :P

I can tell you, keeping the split pulse is nowhere near as important as getting the Ti wheels in there. I will be going a single pulse manifold if nothing twin is available by then, as I believe the whole split V single debate is a bit of a crock.

Externally gating off the housing opens up so many more options, and if the compressor housing is bulky and gets in the way, it will be modified.

I will definitely be low mounting, whatever the turbo I end up with, but if you are seriously worried about a couple of kg mounted 6 inches higher, you have issues. The turbo fits where it fits, and it's my job to make it work.

Dump radius, I have yet to see a good one on an Evo. :P

I disagree with a few things there. First off, the whole point of the EFR's is that a whole lot of little things come together to make a noticeable result. The compressor housing is bulky because of the integrated BOV. Now, sure you can modify it so the BOV doesn't exist, BUT the BOV outlet is positioned to 'vent' on the back side of the compressor blades. What this does is on release of throttle, the air vents onto the compressor wheel, to help keep the momentum of the assembly up. In combination with this, you have the light weight turbine AND compressor so the effect of the BOV is greater.

In addition to the above, the twin scroll housing assists in transient response as you do not have exhaust waves/pulses fighting against each other. This minimises losses here.

The light weight turbine is only a piece of the puzzle. Sure you might notice something with it only, but the effect is multiplied with the integrated BOV and twinscroll.

In regards to the high mount, while most people mounting the turbo this way in a street application, wouldn't notice the change in weight distribution, they WILL notice the increase in intercooler pipe length as it contributes to longer spool times and longer transient response time, in comparison to a low mount setup.

And I do agree, Evo's generally have poor dump pipe designs.. so where is the harm in trying to optimise this area?

Edited by Tonba

I can tell you, keeping the split pulse is nowhere near as important as getting the Ti wheels in there. I will be going a single pulse manifold if nothing twin is available by then, as I believe the whole split V single debate is a bit of a crock.

Externally gating off the housing opens up so many more options, and if the compressor housing is bulky and gets in the way, it will be modified.

I will definitely be low mounting, whatever the turbo I end up with, but if you are seriously worried about a couple of kg mounted 6 inches higher, you have issues. The turbo fits where it fits, and it's my job to make it work.

Dump radius, I have yet to see a good one on an Evo. :P

It is so nice when people just make perfect sense!

And Tonba one thing, I can tell you right now that if ppl weren't so scared of axial loads on the compressor wheel causing damage (however manufactured they are to sell product i.e. BOV's) then no one would have them.

Light weight wheels are the biggest part of the puzzle because it is minimising the rotating mass which would have the most direct effect on 'transient response' (just to quite the most recent buzz word going around here).

Agreed Michael.

I don't want a BOV on the compressor housing, or a stupidly long internal gate housing. I have a Tig welder handy which can place both exactly where they need to be to fit.

What I am looking for is the EFR pictured above, Tial housing and all. The shaft speed sensor can even get farked.

  • Like 2

The BOV is incorporated for only one reason, the shaft would fail if you didn't run a bov at a guess, too brittle.

Yes, not like the big beefy Airwerks series based on diesel applications...

Ever seen a BOV on a 600hp CAT engine? Fair enough they don't throttle on/off like we would.

I would only keep shaft speed sensor location just to make sure you didn't exceed recommended limits.

I would only keep shaft speed sensor location just to make sure you didn't exceed recommended limits.

And what, buy a new ECU just so I can log it? I would rather keep the cash aside for a new turbo if it lets go.

Limits were meant to be exceeded. ;)

The BOV is incorporated for only one reason, the shaft would fail if you didn't run a bov at a guess, too brittle.

Borg Warner broke the existing turbocharger mold when it created the EFR line. One of the main goals was integrating other turbo system components into the turbocharger. This ploy can save time, money and headaches. The biggest integration is the inclusion of an integrated blow-off valve. No more bung welding on delicate intake pipes. The BOV is laid-out as a compressor recirculation device that redirects the charge air from the turbo's compressor outlet to a low-pressure point just before the compressor inlet, which really helps keep the unit spooled between shifts.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
    • Yup but for me its the HR ! Cut my teeth on the old holden 6s in the day ! And here's me thinking in the day it was also the 300ZX and the Mitsubishi GT3000 ! All, as well had good lines, but always seemed to need finishing off, style wise.
×
×
  • Create New...