[Closed] Borg Warner Efr Series Turbos

[XKLABA]

Oh yeah of course, the Falcon is better setup for a quicker time - what I was getting at is its still a bigger heavier car with a smaller more responsive turbo and still traps at similar speeds... so for all intents and purposes probably putting out similar power to the PT7175 despite being only a 67mm turbo with response as it's focus!

I have been well impressed with that result for a fair while, now - could argue the guy with PT7175 could pull that turbo off and put the EFR9180 on and have equal or better everything?!

the ford would also be running a 4.0+ and has it had any weight removed, it would really be pointless to compair the two for the sake of a turbo when the rest is so different, still an great result though

[Lithium]

Nah it was driven in as a full road and did it's business, apparently. Yeah clearly it's going to be more responsive due to being a 4litre, but the 7175 will be laggier than the EFR9180 on the 4litre too - much as the 9180 would be more responsive on the RB.

As you well know (I think!?) a smaller turbo is going to need to work harder to work well on a 4litre - if anything the RB should be more flattering for a comparison between how the two perform, so if it does that kind of result on a Barra then it's VERY impressive to me.

[XKLABA]

A 9 second pass for any road car is impressive, but any turbo on a 4.0 is going to be a lot more responsive then on a 3.0 so comparing turbos on how they work on each is rather point less, and aswell as that they are two very different cars, one is a heavier car with an auto 4.0 on full slicks the other is a slightly lighter manual 3.0 with 4WD on drag radials so they both go about there business completely differently

My point is comparing the two turbos based off the 1/4 mile runs of these two cars means nothing in the scheme of things

[Lithium]

My point is comparing the two turbos based off the 1/4 mile runs of these two cars means nothing in the scheme of things

Means heaps if it's a heavier car and you're looking for an indication of power, given that response and spool while not shown here are an INCREDIBLY safe bet to be on the side of the EFR9180! Trap speed is a really really good indicator of power/weight - it ran 148mph... it's not rocket science that it needs a lot of power to run that fast in a whale.

[XKLABA]

It's a good indication of power or more torque to wieght yes and that ford must make an incredible amount of power/torque for a street car to run that MPH

So clearly the ford makes more outright power then that GTR but it also has the benifit of a 4ltr straight six

Would the result be the same or better on a manual 3.0 as it is on a auto 4.0, I wouldn't be so sure especially as far as ET goes

[Lithium]

So clearly the ford makes more outright power then that GTR but it also has the benifit of a 4ltr straight six

Would the result be the same or better on a manual 3.0 as it is on a auto 4.0, I wouldn't be so sure especially as far as ET goes

Yeah I was more focusing on the trap speed, ET very much would be helped by trans and displacement but again all I was trying to put across is that it has ran a big trap and therefore has a lot of power, no matter how big the motor is you aren't going to be able to do something the turbo isn't able to move the air to support... the 4litre clearly won't be making >500kw wheels without the turbo and it'd have to be making well over that point to run that trap.

Obviously Piggaz needs to get one so we can find out how it goes in a GTR

[Piggaz]

Lol. You're like a dog with a bone, Dan! Haha

[sucram]

You can with NOS

That ford looks like it has been converted to a solid axle and removed the IRS

Who knows whats been done to that thing. My guess is a lot with more to come

While on the topic of ford xr6's im a bit disappointed what aussies have done so far

in terms of developing it.

E.g americans have gone to 4.4l VR38 making 2k hp.

[Lithium]

Lol. You're like a dog with a bone, Dan! Haha

Hahaha thought you'd like

You can with NOS

That ford looks like it has been converted to a solid axle and removed the IRS

Jesus, I keep forgetting why I stop posting on here quickly get reminded (and really starting to learn not to now) when I try to just dip in and give some data which can be used to think about when we have nothing better to refer to. Of course it would with NOS, but we all know that - I'd not be wasting my time talking about it if it was using NOS. From what I know the car is very close to original layout aside from strengthening weaker parts and tweaking the setup to hook.

It's on Nizpro's site: http://www.nizpro.com.au/no-2-steve-g-ford-fg-9-46sec147-89mph/

[XKLABA]

Yeah I was more focusing on the trap speed, ET very much would be helped by trans and displacement but again all I was trying to put across is that it has ran a big trap and therefore has a lot of power, no matter how big the motor is you aren't going to be able to do something the turbo isn't able to move the air to support... the 4litre clearly won't be making >500kw wheels without the turbo and it'd have to be making well over that point to run that trap.

Obviously Piggaz needs to get one so we can find out how it goes in a GTR

No doubt that turbo will make massive power and push good MPHs but what's the point of running 140+MPH if it takes 12seconds to do the 1/4 cause every time you shut the throttle to change gears it take a second to respool the turbo, not saying this IS the case just saying you can't tell by watching a 4.0 auto that providing it gets off the line clean leaves the throttle wide open for the full run

What I think Paul ( and me for that matter ) needs is a pair of 5867s that bolt into the factory location

[XKLABA]

You can with NOSThat ford looks like it has been converted to a solid axle and removed the IRSWho knows whats been done to that thing. My guess is a lot with more to comeWhile on the topic of ford xr6's im a bit disappointed what aussies have done so farin terms of developing it.E.g americans have gone to 4.4l VR38 making 2k hp.

I think you missed his point, that that turbo will make mass power and push high MPHs which is a true indication of power/torque to weight while ET is an indication of setup which includes tune and response

[sucram]

Sorry I didn't do a full csi investigation before posting...

I don't doubt that the turbo can flow it

you aren't going to be able to do something the turbo isn't able to move the air to support... the 4litre clearly won't be making >500kw wheels without the turbo and it'd have to be making well over that point to run that trap.

You made a silly statement, I answered it with a silly statement.

This is the internet, you can rage all you want, heck even do what I did

and "forget" your SAU log on and password created 10+ years ago. No one

will hold it against you or really care for that matter.

[Lithium]

This is the internet, you can rage all you want, heck even do what I did

and "forget" your SAU log on and password created 10+ years ago. No one

will hold it against you or really care for that matter.

Don't mistake a "facepalm" tone with rage, and yes I fully realise all of the above - I'm just too nosy for my own good, but realistically neither me nor the forum seem to be getting much out of the time I am wasting and I don't really have enough of it these days... so yep probably your most reasonable post on this topic.

[MotHot]

7163 sounds like it may be a nice choice. Keep in mind all 7163 are 0.85 a/r (the 0.64 a/r did not offer any gains or earlier spool in lab testing). I would suggest to consider a t3 to vband adaptor on the 7163 vband turbo.

7064 is also an excellent turbo, but i think its physical dimensions would not fit the oem RB manifold as easily and compact as the B1-frame 7163

I recently bought a 7064 and my tuner is struggling a bit to get it fitted into my engine bay.

Car is a R34 GTT with stock manifold. Problem is the exhaust housing (almost) hitting the strut tower.

Will the 7163 with a T3 to Vband adaptor really be a better fit?

I couldn't find any dimensions for the exhaust housing of the 7064 and 7163 aside the BW catalogue pages:

http://www.fin-turbo.fi/uploads/files/EFR7064_1.pdf

http://www.3k-warner.de/files/pdf/BWTS_2014_Performance_Turbo_Catalog.pdf (page 19)

Attached some pics of a friends R34 GTT with a 7670 fitted on the stock manifold.

Very tight fit around the strut tower.

[Ben C34]

It is on there so that's a start!

I wouldn't be swapping turbos when it does actually fit. If it was me I would investigate machining all mating surfaces (turbine housing, both sides of manifold) a few mm each.

That would easily get you 10 mm.

[M@&k]

Make sure you come back and post results once done

[MotHot]

It is on there so that's a start!

I wouldn't be swapping turbos when it does actually fit. If it was me I would investigate machining all mating surfaces (turbine housing, both sides of manifold) a few mm each.

That would easily get you 10 mm.

Like I said - the pictures are from a friends car.

I do have a bit of time before my engine comes back from the engine builder and I have to make the decision.

Thanks for the machining tip though

Make sure you come back and post results once done

Will do (probably around April).

[owen1r]

Got any dyno results for the 7670?

Will be eagerly awaiting your results!

[MotHot]

Dynosheet: http://www11.pic-upload.de/24.10.14/jqwwwwooo3j.jpg

Specs:

- engine stock

- 3" downpipe

- Blitz Nür Spec

- K&N pod filter

- FMIC

- Nistune

- stock manifold

- tuned to 1.3 bar (= 18.85 psi), falling to 1.15 (= 16.68) in the higher revs due to the used boost controller

Same car (= not mine) from the pictures I posted.

Edited December 12, 2014 by MotHot

[zebra]

Does it easy!

But as I suspected earlier in teh thread, 7670 is a little large for the standard manifolding

But So So happy the B-Frame EFR's fit!