Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[jet_r31]

Yeh its laying over after half track..in ALL  your  time slips...new ones and  old ones. 

If it kept pulling up top, your 11.1 was a 10 sec pass..

 

Usmair ran 31mph from half track..thats  strong and right  on the money....

cheers

darren

[HarrisRacing]

Yeh its laying over after half track..in ALL  your  time slips...new ones and  old ones. 
If it kept pulling up top, your 11.1 was a 10 sec pass..
 
Usmair ran 31mph from half track..thats  strong and right  on the money....
cheers
darren

And E85 @29 psi vs my 18-19 on 93 octane. I'd like comparisons to other people on pumpgas (I think your comparison is not fair).

On E85 and 30 psi i think I'll have no problem getting deep in the 10's in a car setup for road course work! [emoji106]

[zebra]

15 hours ago, jet_r31 said:

Yeh its laying over after half track..in ALL  your  time slips...new ones and  old ones. 

If it kept pulling up top, your 11.1 was a 10 sec pass..

 

Usmair ran 31mph from half track..thats  strong and right  on the money....

cheers

darren

That would be harris' standard intercooler if I had to guess

[HarrisRacing]

53 minutes ago, zebra said:

That would be harris' standard intercooler if I had to guess

Standard intercooler, 3" exhaust, terrible AEM 380 lph fuel pump (that STILL can't keep up!), Too rich tune, add excuses here! But really the car doesn't feel like it noses over at all. In fact, I had a run-in with a new Z06 with the Z07 package with the A-8 trans and I'll be honest it was a pretty dang dead-heat race for gears 2 and 3 (I'd guess 40 mph to 110). So I dunno, but I'm still getting there and soon to start making changes to go for more power.

I'd still like comparison data to more people with pumpgas and street tires (non drag-radials) to see how I'm falling out on power.

[mr skidz]

Harris you're STILL comparing your car that's not even properly sorted?
Then your coming out with the excuses as to why it's not shining?

sort your car out first then compare to other setups.

[Borci88]

4 hours ago, mr skidz said:

Harris you're STILL comparing your car that's not even properly sorted?
Then your coming out with the excuses as to why it's not shining?

sort your car out first then compare to other setups.

 

'Merica!

[s2d4]

Harris you're STILL comparing your car that's not even properly sorted?
Then your coming out with the excuses as to why it's not shining?

sort your car out first then compare to other setups.

He's free to do what he wants as he progresses his build and learn things along the way like some of us do and I commend him for that.

Now, what is your vested interest in EFR'S that lead you to destroying the last EFR thread and end up being banned for it? What is your vested interest now that you are in the new EFR'S thread?

[HarrisRacing]

9 hours ago, mr skidz said:

Harris you're STILL comparing your car that's not even properly sorted?
Then your coming out with the excuses as to why it's not shining?

sort your car out first then compare to other setups.

 

Do you have any 11.1 sec timeslips on pumpgas and small street tires (notice not even drag radials) in a full size GT-R that you want to share on your turbo setup? Don't forget I'm still on the stock R32 gearbox! I mean say what you want but the car is out-accelerating a LOT of other full size GT-Rs that put down much more power so far.

I've got more left in this setup even on pumpgas...I know it's got a 10 sec pass on pumpgas in it!. It does not mean my car isn't very fast and very responsive for a street car. Again we are all here waiting on data for comparison instead of just words. I'm providing LOTS of data!

[Nismo 3.2ish]

Duncan , if someone starts to derail this thread , just ban him/them and let the rest of us wait for comparisons that will come as others change to or from the EFRs.

The more back to backs the better

[Duncan]

careful what you wish for  I can confirm the mods are keeping a close eye on this thread but haven't seen anything that concerned us in the last day or 3

[XGTRX]

8 hours ago, Nismo 3.2ish said:

Duncan , if someone starts to derail this thread , just ban him/them and let the rest of us wait for comparisons that will come as others change to or from the EFRs.

The more back to backs the better

I think you are missing the point Pete as some of this skepticism is justified.

While transitional response is to be commended by the seat of the pants experience and dyno, the mph numbers just don't stack up.

20 psi on 93 makes 370 wkws and pulls 120mph

30 psi on E85 makes 500 wkws and pulls 132mph

This is why people are skeptical and it needs to be highlighted if people are considering various turbos for their build.

Not having go, as long as people are happy with the performance who cares, but the mph really hasn't demonstrated these turbos are flowing any better up top than old tech which is similar to the GT to GTX data, yet dyno numbers are generous to say the least.

Back to back is great, but let's also see some mph supporting these peak power figures.

I am actually looking forward to Piggaz posting up his results as his setup seems spot on for big mph if the turbo can deliver.

Ps: if a moderator is not happy with this post just pm me and I will stop posting.

 

[HarrisRacing]

I think you are missing the point Pete as some of this skepticism is justified.

While transitional response is to be commended by the seat of the pants experience and dyno, the mph numbers just don't stack up.

20 psi on 93 makes 370 wkws and pulls 120mph

30 psi on E85 makes 500 wkws and pulls 132mph

This is why people are skeptical and it needs to be highlighted if people are considering various turbos for their build.

Not having go, as long as people are happy with the performance who cares, but the mph really hasn't demonstrated these turbos are flowing any better up top than old tech which is similar to the GT to GTX data, yet dyno numbers are generous to say the least.

Back to back is great, but let's also see some mph supporting these peak power figures.

I am actually looking forward to Piggaz posting up his results as his setup seems spot on for big mph if the turbo can deliver.

Ps: if a moderator is not happy with this post just pm me and I will stop posting.

 

Correction. My 18-19 psi was 123 mph and 122 mph respectively and this is not 20 psi yet. A better hookup/launch pretty much always leads to lower mph due to less time to accelerate - It's Newton's third law postulate on drag racing (joke)

But yes guys I see what you are saying...a 505HP C6 Z06 is almost the exact same weight as my car and they run mph almost identical to mine and it's well known they run about 440-450 whp from the factory so can we assume my dyno was about right at 460whp seeing as I have less torque than the big block V8 has? So I guess we need to compare to turbos that will make equivalent power and times at these boost levels and see what we can trend. Perhaps the .92 IWG 8374 acts "small" on an RB26 and that's why it spools so low and feels so responsive in the low end? Sure i could see that. In my case of the car still not being 100% sorted and still almost touching 10's on pumpgas, it could be the case that I have too much cam overlap and I am blowing my boost out of the exhaust (another thing i need to try next time I dyno).

Either way we greatly welcome ACTUAL comparison data and logs from others so I am going to push the ball back into you guys court to provide that because I have asked several people several times to give us some data because as of now my car is: 1) Touching on 10's in the 1/4 and 2) is responsive enough to win FTD in autocrosses. That alone should tell you something about the performance capability on pumpgas.

And I'm willing to bet the 9180 is almost a better choice if you need all out power...I'm reading that I'll only lose 4-500 rpm of threshold but it's a 1000HP turbo all-in.

Soon I'll have the speed gauge and that will tell me where I'm at turbo speed limitation wise...who knows it may tell me I'm only using half ofit's capabilities...but then again if i had -5s or a Precision we'd never know anyway.

[Nismo 3.2ish]

2 hours ago, XGTRX said:

I think you are missing the point Pete as some of this skepticism is justified.

While transitional response is to be commended by the seat of the pants experience and dyno, the mph numbers just don't stack up.

20 psi on 93 makes 370 wkws and pulls 120mph

30 psi on E85 makes 500 wkws and pulls 132mph

This is why people are skeptical and it needs to be highlighted if people are considering various turbos for their build.

Not having go, as long as people are happy with the performance who cares, but the mph really hasn't demonstrated these turbos are flowing any better up top than old tech which is similar to the GT to GTX data, yet dyno numbers are generous to say the least.

Back to back is great, but let's also see some mph supporting these peak power figures.

I am actually looking forward to Piggaz posting up his results as his setup seems spot on for big mph if the turbo can deliver.

Ps: if a moderator is not happy with this post just pm me and I will stop posting.

 

No mate, I am not directing that at anyone, it is just a statement . I do not know why threads get shut if someone says something that might upset someone else. Adults should be able to cop a bit of stick without crying about it , Admin should just tell them to stop and if they don't , kick them off, just gotta luv a bit of banter .

 As long as it does not get "personal" , who cares . I have read a lot of threads over the years that were getting a bit nasty, it usually stops. Even in mine I had to ask some blokes to chill as it does not allow the facts to get out there if the thread gets closed.

All I know is from driving my 3.2L / Vcam and after being in a 2.6L  V spec  2 Nur with Vcam and a 3.0L without a Vcam, both with the 8374 on, I am getting one strapped on ASAP. This does not mean my 6266 is crap , it maybe better up top than the 8374 but as a street car I want it spooling earlier with better transient response.

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Nismo 3.2ish
wrong engine size

[XGTRX]

43 minutes ago, Nismo 3.2ish said:

No mate, I am not directing that at anyone, it is just a statement . I do not know why threads get shut if someone says something that might upset someone else. Adults should be able to cop a bit of stick without crying about it , Admin should just tell them to stop and if they don't , kick them off, just gotta luv a bit of banter .

 As long as it does not get "personal" , who cares . I have read a lot of threads over the years that were getting a bit nasty, it usually stops. Even in mine I had to ask some blokes to chill as it does not allow the facts to get out there if the thread gets closed.

All I know is from driving my 3.2L / Vcam and after being in a 2.6L  V spec  2 Nur with Vcam and a 3.0L without a Vcam, both with the 8374 on, I am getting one strapped on ASAP. This does not mean my 6266 is crap , it maybe better up top than the 8374 but as a street car I want it spooling earlier with better transient response.

 

Fair enough, sounds logical.

Out of interest have you been in many other setups to compare it to? 

And have the set ups you have been in, do they have mph to back up the peak power figures?

[Lithium]

6 hours ago, XGTRX said:

And have the set ups you have been in, do they have mph to back up the peak power figures?

It's such a shame the other thread got trolled to hell, I started it and added as much useful info as I could over the 6 years it ran but it got continuously swamped with banter - but because this trap speed thing sounds like it keeps coming up and while the turbos aren't ACTUALLY for drag racing, the trap speed does indicate that the power is there and we already know the EFRs smash the equivalent GTX/Precisions for response so one would hope that some evidence that they can push a heavy car quickly in a straight line that the power can be made too?

About 3 years ago one of Nizpro's customers ("Steve" with an FG) went through various upgrade stages and eventually ended up with an EFR8374 with T3 internally gated housing on the stock exhaust manifold which he went 9s at just over 140mph with - in a full interior FG Turbo Falcon.  He then upgraded to an EFR9180 and ended up running ~9.4s and trapped as high as 150mph with it, from memory.  He now runs twin EFR7163s and has trapped near 160mph.

A nice big quote, and reference, and a video - what more could you ask for?  I hope this helps clear some things up, ttfn.

 

Quote

 

Mid 2013 arrived and so did the Borg Warner EFR Turbo range. On paper they looked spectacular, massively wide compressor maps, Gama Ti light weight turbine wheels and dual roller bearings. We had now got to the end of the GTX flow rates so the call to Steve was made and the decision to replace the Garrett for the smallest large frame BW EFR was made. On it went. Holly crap, they certainly looked good on paper but the result was the best thing I had seen 17 years of turbochargers. We now had a car with 20 rwkws more than the GTX 35-82r but with better response than the original 76-82. On the street it was simple uncompromising, 6th gear 1300 rpm it accelerated like a train. BOOST out of the hole, with two broken Level two tail shafts in three passes. Enter the Nizpro Level 3 tail shaft upgrade.

By now Simon at XFT using all Nizpro bolt on’s and a large one off Precision had the FG record, but not by much. Being fully aware that we only had 20 rwkws more that the GTX at the top end, we all knew we were not a certainty to gain the title back. Enter the larger BW EFR. With Steve insisting after we ran he wanted the original BW refitted.

BW EFR 91-80 fitted and back on the dyno, power numbers were very impressive, by this time Steve and the Nizpro crew had formed very good friendships and part of the in house joke was never to tell Steve what the power number the car was making, this still continues and shits Steve no end. The amazing part was we now had 100 rwkws more than the GTX but with the same bottom end response. All in a bolt on internally waste gated turbo.

It was December 2013, The Nizpro team had been away for a couple of days water skiing for an end off year break up, Steve rang while we were on our way home stating the weather looked good and Calder Park was having the last meeting of the year and what were the chances of heading down to have a crack. We all arrived back at Nizpro HQ, unloaded the boat and luggage, Steve arrived, Dave and Blake loaded the Vito up with drag tires and the jack and head out.

Two hours later Dave rang me, said you won’t guess what it just ran, I thought, nine sixty, “nope. 9.46 @ 147.89.” The trap speed shows the hp increase we had made and the time reflected the response of the new Borg Warner Turbo. With a number of nine fifty passes under its belt and trap speeds over 148 mph, Steve’s FG, is arguable the most refined version in the country, perfect road manner and bullet proof reliability. With further plans on the drawing board to make more power, a broader power curve and a unique set up just waiting for the green light to go ahead. This clearly demonstrates the need to source the best components at the very start of the project, just in case your goals change along the way.

Ref:http://www.nizpro.com.au/steve-g-ford-fg-9-46sec147-89mph/

 

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Lithium

[Nismo 3.2ish]

8 hours ago, XGTRX said:

Fair enough, sounds logical.

Out of interest have you been in many other setups to compare it to? 

And have the set ups you have been in, do they have mph to back up the peak power figures?

No , it was only recently I was ever in another Skyline, I was and still am new to Skylines and modifying cars, I have no idea how a stock GTR runs, only what I have been told by like minded blokes. I have no idea if there is a better turbo/s for what I want from my car. I have never tried to pass myself off as someone that knows anything about mods and can only talk about my limited experience, but I do have some mates that do know what they are talking about and I listen to them and work out what I will do next

I do not care about the MPH over a 1/4 or peak power figures but I think mine would be pretty handy in full trim over a 1/4, especially with a better driver. I always  wanted response from as close to idle as I can get it and believe from my limited exposure to other setups I find the 8374 is better for this than my 6266 and the 6266 is pretty good. I have been told by many on SAU to buy a V8 or bigger, but I think once the 8374 goes on and they had a chance to drive my car maybe they would change their minds, lol

But if I wanted more top end I would go with the 9180 and still have a responsive R that had a lot more up top ,  but I cannot use it , so I will go with the 8374, if you get a chance try one. If you are ever in the area, try mine after it is done

[r32-25t]

The main influence in trap speed is the number at the top of the dyno sheet, so if 2 cars make 500kw with 2 different turbos then they will trap very close to each other. The mid range will be more relevant on a circuit and shown in the laps times very quickly

[Mick_o]

^^^Correct! This is what these turbos are about! 99% of people arent going to buy an EFR for the drag strip!

These things are all about on/off throttle type of stuff and the widest power/torque band you can just about have "in a turbo car" 

Nicks car (INTUNE) Is setup for hill climbs and fun in the hills as is Piggaz car. 

Although not EFR equipped yet Petes car was built around playing in the bends. 

If i ever scrape the funds together to get my car tuned & re registered then get the 7670 rocking thats what its all about! 

 

[mr skidz]

careful what you wish for[emoji317]I can confirm the mods are keeping a close eye on this thread but haven't seen anything that concerned us in the last day or 3

+1 for unbiased and fair dinkum moderators[emoji108]

[s2d4]

No mate, I am not directing that at anyone, it is just a statement . I do not know why threads get shut if someone says something that might upset someone else. Adults should be able to cop a bit of stick without crying about it , Admin should just tell them to stop and if they don't , kick them off, just gotta luv a bit of banter .
 As long as it does not get "personal" , who cares . I have read a lot of threads over the years that were getting a bit nasty, it usually stops. Even in mine I had to ask some blokes to chill as it does not allow the facts to get out there if the thread gets closed.
All I know is from driving my 3.2L / Vcam and after being in a 2.6L  V spec  2 Nur with Vcam and a 3.0L without a Vcam, both with the 8374 on, I am getting one strapped on ASAP. This does not mean my 6266 is crap , it maybe better up top than the 8374 but as a street car I want it spooling earlier with better transient response.
  [emoji4]

What rear housing on the 8374?