[Closed] Borg Warner Efr Series Turbos

[JH32]

8 hours ago, usmair said:

I just dropped mine off to the tuner this morning. Told him to whack 30psi in to the stock motor haha

That's the spirit! Let us know how you go

[joe89]

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?

[minesskyline]

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. 

[Full-Race Geoff]

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 August 17, 2016 by Full-Race Geoff

[tricstar]

3L 8374 and a bloody good driver !
Well done Matt

1st place

[HarrisRacing]

3L 8374 and a bloody good driver !

Well done Matt

This looks to run very similarly to my car response-wise BTW.

[Piggaz]

3 hours ago, mr skidz said:

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

#notinterestedinpeakpowerwithbonnetupondyno

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.

[tricstar]

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.

[Piggaz]

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.

[SimonR32]

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 August 22, 2016 by SimonR32

[R32 TT]

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 August 22, 2016 by R32 TT

[JH32]

10 hours ago, tricstar said:

 

3L 8374 and a bloody good driver !
Well done Matt

1st place

 

Yikes! How fast would you have been going down Riverside Drive at the end there Matt? @R32 TT

[JH32]

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...

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

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

[Nismo 3.2ish]

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

[Kinkstaah]

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?

 

 

[Kinkstaah]

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  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

[r32-25t]

Is it 7k for one of these efr turbos?

[Kinkstaah]

Was just referring to this post here ->:

Yes that is the whole setup, but you kind of need a whole setup to get one of these going.

[Piggaz]

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.