Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, joe89 said:

May i ask, how much we can set the cam's on the stock capacity & head rb26 with HKS 264 cams? I wanna try +6 intake and -4 exhaust but dunno if it's safe?

Probably best to search or open a different thread for this. Once a big thread like this derails it's hard to get it back on track. 

we have the 4port solenoids in stock if you can not find them locally http://www.full-race.com/store/efr-turbo-accessories/full-race-4-port-boost-control-solenoid-1.html

 

Edited by Full-Race Geoff
3 hours ago, mr skidz said:

Still nobody's bothered to post a log showing any B/W turbo response except me and@HarrisRacing??

#notinterestedinpeakpowerwithbonnetupondynoemoji23.png

It's all good to show logs to compare between different cars and engines but how do you account for the possibility of

- Different capacity

- Different fuel

- Different gear ratio's/gearsets

- Different compression ratio

- Different tyre size

- Different cam timing

and on and on.

Wouldn't it be better to compare between the two different setup's on the same engine, that way most if not all of those potential variables are eliminated? How can you draw a comparison between a 2.8/-5's and a 3.0/8374 for example? But a comparison on the same car that has gone -5's to the 8374 (which in this case are the two setups in question) is almost disregarded?

Not everyone cruises around with a laptop in their car either.

Still nobody's bothered to post a log showing any B/W turbo response except me and@HarrisRacing??

#notinterestedinpeakpowerwithbonnetupondyno[emoji23]




That video shows pretty clearly the response of that turbo.

I imagine some people are too busy getting their cars sorted and driving them to worry about having an Internet battle and defending their setup because Joe Blow with standard position bolt ones is make X psi at whatever rpm.

Not a dig at anyone, just why I think the data is thin on the ground.
33 minutes ago, mr skidz said:

Well those people need not login to this forum if there just going to shit talk back and forwards

The car in the above video went between your precious -5's to a 8374 on a 3.0. With logs off the Motec it was reaching target boost 5-700 RPM earlier (which is consistent with other people that have gone between them), fell back onto boost between gear changes in 1/3rd the time of the -5's and made more power everywhere.

I suppose Matty is too busy winning tarmac rally events to worry about posting up logs online "proving" the setup to the internets.

  • Like 1
41 minutes ago, Piggaz said:

I suppose Matty is too busy winning tarmac rally events to worry about posting up logs online "proving" the setup to the internets.

If he would wind up the boost he would probably win some more :)

As others have said it's so hard to tell because there aren't really back to back results vs others in similar size. Matt's car is awesome and way more responsive than mine but is that the extra 0.4L capacity, the turbo or both. Also most of the gain he gets down low he loses up top as I tend to rev the little 2.6 and he is much more conservative. The end result (in terms of track times) are always very similar, we basically swap times throughout the day at most events we enter.

I'm still willing to give a EFR8374 a go, but I don't know if it will fit on my manifold (Trust T88 split T4 kit) and it's also going to cost a fair bit for new oil/water lines and a dump pipe. I'd actually be more inclined to go a 9180 as it would be a power upgrade where I think the EFR probably wouldn't match the 6262 top end.

Edited by SimonR32

Haha - yeah it could use some more boost Simon..  :)

I'm sorry I've not put up Motec logs in the past for those who've wanted to see. Back at the time I did a bit of comparing because I did more or less change from -5's to 8374 with no other changes.  Right now I can't remember how much 'sooner' it boosted in rpm terms.  Piggaz probably remembers that detail better than I do..  god knows how with his drinking etc.. what I do remember is how quickly it returned to boost between gear changes and it was a little more than twice as fast..   from memory a gear change from 2nd to 3rd took the -5's about 1sec to fully to boost.  (fully).  they came on but sloped up.   The 8374 came back to boost in about 0.3-0.4secs. So it was on and to be honest in car doesn't feel like even that - it seems nearly instant.   This though is 'different' to coming on sooner in the RPM range - but its likely why you don't see it on a Dyno sheet when looking at these turbos. The car feels (and is) more responsive than -5's and yes made more power.

My -5's had stock manifolds, 70mm dumps that merged into a full 4" system

The 8374 uses an IWG 6Boost manifold, on the exhaust side bells to a 4" downpipe and then goes to a 3.5" Titanium exhaust.

The car could use more top end to compete with the likes of Simons car that just seem to get faster, the faster it goes!   But as he points out - that could be down to other things other than turbo choice.  Its funny, he'd like to try a 9180..   I wouldn't mind trying a 6466...   the grass is always greener!

I'd like to get it doing a solid 1.8bar to see it really go - but I think its running out of puff.   I run it at around 1.4bar mostly and is doing about 100,000rpm or a little over. So it has some room yet.

Here is some more video goodness on her way to the finish line..  :)

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_0089.mov

Edited by R32 TT
  • Like 7
3 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

If he would wind up the boost he would probably win some more :)

As others have said it's so hard to tell because there aren't really back to back results vs others in similar size. Matt's car is awesome and way more responsive than mine but is that the extra 0.4L capacity, the turbo or both. Also most of the gain he gets down low he loses up top as I tend to rev the little 2.6 and he is much more conservative. The end result (in terms of track times) are always very similar, we basically swap times throughout the day at most events we enter.

I'm still willing to give a EFR8374 a go, but I don't know if it will fit on my manifold (Trust T88 split T4 kit) and it's also going to cost a fair bit for new oil/water lines and a dump pipe. I'd actually be more inclined to go a 9180 as it would be a power upgrade where I think the EFR probably wouldn't match the 6262 top end.

I tend to agree, I'm not sure you'd see much benefit going to an EFR 8374...

5 hours ago, mr skidz said:

Well those people need not login to this forum if there just going to shit talk back and forwards

easiest way to settle this is provide a log of a similar displacement -5 twins vs. an EFR... then we specifically focus on Time vs. TPS vs. RPM vs. MAP vs. Road Speed OR Gear

I've sat in Brett's R34, it's on off on off on off... unlike a GT-R with a set of twins.. it's offffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff then on, then derp derp.. onnnnnnnnnn

12 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

I'm still willing to give a EFR8374 a go, but I don't know if it will fit on my manifold (Trust T88 split T4 kit) and it's also going to cost a fair bit for new oil/water lines and a dump pipe. I'd actually be more inclined to go a 9180 as it would be a power upgrade where I think the EFR probably wouldn't match the 6262 top end.

I think the 6262 is only rated at 675 BHP, the CEA 705BHP

I have the 6266 CEA Gen 2, rated at 800BHP and the EFR 8374 is about the same top end 800BHP but from I can work out after ridding in Bretts R the 8374 is sharper up to 3500rpm ish

I don't think there's really a lot of sense comparing -5's to anything modern. Really the -5 and -7/-9 are older tech and of course they'll get punted by newer tech.

 

Whats more interesting to me is the comparison made just now, with the 6262 (on a 2.6) vs a RB30 with an EFR8374. The fact those are actually even comparable is somewhat alarming because this thread would have you believe the 8374 with 0.4 more displacement should blast a 6262 into the weeds, but it doesn't. A 6262 is also comparable to a wound-up GTX3582 with a decent manifold as well. The "-5's vs GTX3582" that Motive did also showed a lot of the benefits that are discussed in this thread about how much "Betteretrerer" it was, even if it was 'only' 0.4 faster down the strip (mainly due to more powers)

An argument could be made if the -5's with GTX2863 or GTX2867 cores were compared to an EFR, GTX3582, or Precision 6466/6266. I feel those comparisons would be a lot closer, because it's really more about "-5/-7/-9s" vs "NOT -5/-7/-9"

There's also the element of how much "faster" really is faster in the real world.

Would John Richardson beat that time in the Tarmac Rally posted just now in his ~320kw R33 with a Hypergear on it? That would insinuate bang for buck the EFR is a complete joke if your goal is to go fast.

As a result, the only results you can ever really get are "feels" from people who have directly upgraded... from something modern to something else modern. that has happened....how many times exactly? 0?

 

 

Obviously having power is an important part of the equation.
But it's still only a part of the equation. If you took the savings on not buying an EFR and put them anywhere else, you may get a faster, more reliable, more 'known', more 'cheaper to replace' car as a result of it.

The EFR seems to be super amazo. It does. But people who swap from anything old say this too.
You can see evidence of it above, people who have something "good" don't really want to pull it off and test something else good, because the 6266 makes people happy enough. This is probably why people bolt on their whatever and get a happy result then never post again :P or CERTAINLY don't want to pay 7K!!!! to do a back to back test.

So people don't.
So that's why there's no results :P

There was a decent comparison between a 6266 and 8374 on a 3.4 L 2JZ. Compared both turbos on a Full Race manifold and a HKS manifold.

Pete is looking at going at going from the 6266 to the 8374 on his 3.2/ V cam setup. The tuner involved after quite a lengthy discussionis confident that not only the 8374 would out preform the 6266 quite significantlywith low end grunt, but has made mention that a 9180 wouldn't give away anything to the 6266 low end but would give more top end. The aim is low end twist sub 5-6 K so it looks like the 8374 will get the nod.

Work isn't done yet so don't have any logs.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Jdm DC2R is also nice for a FF car compared to the regular hatches of the time.
    • Now that the break-in period for both clutch and transmission is nearly over I'd like to give some tips before I forget about everything that happened, also for anyone searching up how to do this job in the future: You will need at least 6 ton jack stands at full extension. I would go as far as to say maybe consider 12 ton jack stands because the height of the transmission + the Harbor Freight hydraulic platform-style transmission jack was enough that it was an absolute PITA getting the transmission out from under the car and back in. The top edge of the bellhousing wants to contact the subframe and oil pan and if you're doing this on the floor forget about trying to lift this transmission off the ground and onto a transmission jack from under the car. Also do not try to use a scissor jack transmission lift. You have to rotate the damn thing in-place on the transmission jack which is hard enough with an adjustable platform and a transmission cradle that will mostly keep the transmission from rolling off the jack but on a scissor lift with a tiny non-adjustable platform? Forget it. Use penetrating oil on the driveshaft bolts. I highly recommend getting a thin 6 point combination (box end + open end) wrench for both the rear driveshaft and front driveshaft and a wrench extension. These bolts are on tight with very little space to work with and those two things together made a massive difference. Even a high torque impact wrench is just the wrong tool for the job here and didn't do what I needed it to do. If your starter bolts aren't seized in place for whatever reason you can in fact snake in a 3/8 inch ratchet + 6 point standard chrome socket up in there and "just" remove the bolts for the starter. Or at least I could. It is entirely by feel, you can barely fit it in, you can barely turn the stupid ratchet, but it is possible. Pull the front pipe/downpipe before you attempt to remove the transmission. In theory you don't have to, in practice just do it.  When pulling the transmission on the way out you don't have to undo all the bolts holding the rear driveshaft to the chassis like the center support bearing and the rear tunnel reinforcement bar but putting the transmission back in I highly recommend doing this because it will let you raise the transmission without constantly dealing with the driveshaft interfering in one way or another. I undid the bottom of the engine mount but I honestly don't know that it helped anything. If you do this make sure you put a towel on the back of the valve cover to keep the engine from smashing all the pipes on the firewall. Once the transmission has been pulled back far enough to clear the dowels you need to twist it in place clockwise if you're sitting behind the transmission. This will rotate the starter down towards the ground. The starter bump seems like it might clear if you twist the transmission the other way but it definitely won't. I have scraped the shit out of my transmission tunnel trying so learn from my mistake. You will need a center punch and an appropriate size drill bit and screw to pull the rear main seal. Then use vice grips and preferably a slide hammer attachment for those vice grips to yank the seal out. Do not let the drill or screw contact any part of the crank and clean the engine carefully after removing the seal to avoid getting metal fragments into the engine. I used a Slide Hammer and Bearing Puller Set, 5 Piece from Harbor Freight to pull the old pilot bearing. The "wet paper towel" trick sucked and just got dirty clutch water everywhere. Buy the tool or borrow it from a friend and save yourself the pain. It comes right out. Mine was very worn compared to the new one and it was starting to show cracks. Soak it in engine oil for a day in case yours has lost all of the oil to the plastic bag it comes in. You may be tempted to get the Nismo aftermarket pilot bearing but local mechanics have told me that they fail prematurely and if they do fail they do far more damage than a failed OEM pilot bushing. I mentioned this before but the Super Coppermix Twin clutch friction disks are in fact directional. The subtle coning of the fingers in both cases should be facing towards the center of the hub. So the coning on the rearmost disk closest to the pressure plate should go towards the engine, and the one closest to the flywheel should be flipped the other way. Otherwise when you torque down the pressure plate it will be warped and if you attempt to drive it like this it will make a very nasty grinding noise. Also, there is in fact an orientation to the washers for the pressure plate if you don't want to damage the anodizing. Rounded side of the washer faces the pressure plate. The flat side faces the bolt head. Pulling the transmission from the transfer case you need to be extremely careful with the shift cover plate. This part is discontinued. Try your best to avoid damaging the mating surfaces or breaking the pry points. I used a dead blow rubber hammer after removing the bolts to smack it sideways to slide it off the RTV the previous mechanic applied. I recommend using gasket dressing on the OEM paper gasket to try and keep the ATF from leaking out of that surface which seems to be a perpetual problem. Undoing the shifter rod end is an absolute PITA. Get a set of roll pin punches. Those are mandatory for this. Also I strongly, strongly recommend getting a palm nailer that will fit your roll pin punch. Also, put a clean (emphasis on clean) towel wrapped around the back end of the roll pin to keep it from shooting into the transfer case so you can spend a good hour or two with a magnet on a stick getting it out. Do not damage the shifter rod end either because those are discontinued as well. Do not use aftermarket flywheel bolts. Or if you do, make sure they are exactly the same dimensions as OEM before you go to install them. I have seen people mention that they got the wrong bolts and it meant having to do the job again. High torque impact wrench makes removal easy. I used some combination of a pry bar and flathead screwdriver to keep the flywheel from turning but consider just buying a proper flywheel lock instead. Just buy the OS Giken clutch alignment tool from RHDJapan. I hated the plastic alignment tool and you will never be confident this thing will work as intended. Don't forget to install the Nismo provided clutch fork boot. Otherwise it will make unearthly noises when you press the clutch pedal as it says on the little installation sheet in Japanese. Also, on both initial disassembly and assembly you must follow torque sequence for the pressure plate bolts. For some reason the Nismo directions tell you to put in the smaller 3 bolts last. I would not do this. Fully insert and thread those bolts to the end first, then tighten the other larger pressure plate bolts according to torque sequence. Then at the end you can also torque these 3 smaller bolts. Doing it the other way can cause these bolts to bind and the whole thing won't fit as it should. Hope this helps someone out there.
    • Every one has seemed to of have missed . . . . . . . The Mazda Cosmo . . . . . . what a MACHINE ! !
×
×
  • Create New...