Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[whatsisname]

If I had just fitted a nice new BW EFR turbo and wanted to know how much power it produced, I'd happily use any of the respected mainstream dyno options, hub type included.    

[Lithium]

36 minutes ago, whatsisname said:

If I had just fitted a nice new BW EFR turbo and wanted to know how much power it produced, I'd happily use any of the respected mainstream dyno options, hub type included.    

What would matter to me most is a comparison against something I am familiar with.  To me personally Dynapacks/hub dynos are WAY more meaningful than Dyno Dynamics - I have to do conversions and take into account the fact that supposedly semislicks result in different readings to "hard tyres" etc on roller dynos, and that SOME Dyno Dynamics read different... in addition to the fact that I am just generally used to what makes what on a Dynapack.  

I have been tuning using Dynapacks for around 8 years now, and playing with cars which have been tuned/dynod on Dynapacks for 17 so a Dynapack versus a Dyno Dynamics is like comparing speaking English and speaking French to me.  I'm sure the same would apply to most of you, and that's the value of sticking with a given dyno/dyno operator if you can.  

The dyno I actually tune is the same computer as what was used for the first dyno day I ever went to back in 2000, completely irrelevant but still kind of relevant - I can compare a run I did with my Honda Prelude from 2001 with the first Skyline I tuned on ethanol in 2009 with twin turbo V8 300ZX I'll be tuning in the near future, and get a realistic gauge of how their engines all ACTUALLY compare

And to get it more to the topic, here is a dyno plot of a S14 with a high compression/ported/E85 SR20DET with a 1.05a/r EFR7670 "all in" on the same dyno (tuned by Prestige's tuner, not me).  This should work out as around 414rwkw on a Dyno Dynamics by the conversion I usually use

Edited February 14, 2017 by Lithium

[whatsisname]

Irrespective of whether it makes 455.5 or 414kW it is still very impressive response and power for an SR20DET.

It would be handy is there was one international universal calibration standard so dyno data could be compared across the board. It would make it really handy when researching potential upgrades - particularly with the amount of data readily available from the US.   

[sneakey pete]

Pretty sure that's exactly what every one of the dyno companies out there said. And then set out to create it. And then there was one more dyno standard.

[Nismo 3.2ish]

17 minutes ago, sneakey pete said:

Pretty sure that's exactly what every one of the dyno companies out there said. And then set out to create it. And then there was one more dyno standard.

Everyones products are the best and can prove it, lol

[GTSBoy]

The real problem is that roller dynos are easier to get cars on and off quickly, but there is substantial slip at the tyre-roller interface, with accompanying power "loss" and it varies enormously according to a large number of parameters that not everyone can or will control the same way.

[whatsisname]

Roller dynos are obviously more convenient, particular for dyno days and where quick turn around time between cars is a major consideration.

It is certainly fair and reasonable to expect minor variations in tyre to dyno roller 'loss' between dynos and even one car to the next, not just from slippage but also side wall distortion - low profile, hard side wall vs. high profile, soft side wall. But a delta of over 100+kW is clearly well beyond standardised control methods and is heading firmly into out of calibration or deliberate manipulation territory.

 

 

[VFRegal]

14 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

2 sorts.  One has a LOAD CELL.  The other is an inertial type.

The type with a load cell does not "bear" any load.  it simply has a means to measure the torque (with the load cell) while dissipating the power in a brake.  The inertial type work by spinning up a heavy mass and calculating the power put in by the time taken to spin it up (hence, inertial type).

 

/rocket surgery.

yeah..nah.

The brake (water/hydraulic/mechanical/retarder) provides a load against the engine via the driveline set by the operator. The engines ability to work against the load is translated via the torque arm onto the load cell which gives you the force measurement. Power runs are done by ramping the load while the car is held at wot, starting at low rpm obviously.

But this aint the dyno thread

/engineering

 

[Nismo 3.2ish]

5 hours ago, VFRegal said:

yeah..nah.

The brake (water/hydraulic/mechanical/retarder) provides a load against the engine via the driveline set by the operator. The engines ability to work against the load is translated via the torque arm onto the load cell which gives you the force measurement. Power runs are done by ramping the load while the car is held at wot, starting at low rpm obviously.

But this aint the dyno thread

/engineering

 

haha,not the Dyno thread, just looks like it ATM

But we were looking at the comparisons between different Turbos and unless everyone can drive the cars to have a chance to feel the difference, Dyno comparisons are the only way I know to do it , I just wanted to try and understand why there are so many variables regarding Dyno Machines.

From what I can work out, you would have to keep using the same dyno if you can and maybe the Hub type is better regardless if they read higher and "could" give you a more consistent  comparison ?

My tune was off and there were a few problems when I dropped the car off but it was recorded. To be fair I will have to use the original tune on the PT6266 against the new tune for the EFR8374 for what it is worth, lol

I did learn a little about Dynos, win win

[Lithium]

28 minutes ago, Nismo 3.2ish said:

From what I can work out, you would have to keep using the same dyno if you can and maybe the Hub type is better regardless if they read higher and "could" give you a more consistent  comparison ?

My tune was off and there were a few problems when I dropped the car off but it was recorded. To be fair I will have to use the original tune on the PT6266 against the new tune for the EFR8374 for what it is worth, lol

I did learn a little about Dynos, win win

People debate a bit about better, but I feel there is a strong argument that hub dynos offer less variables affecting the final result - so when comparing with other hub dynos the numbers should be pretty legit so long as the same correction method is used.

In terms of yours, just tell us your first thoughts after you give it a cane.  You've done a fair bit of driving on the 6266, the power isn't likely to be insanely different - could be more, could end up being less... but keen to know what you think of it when its done    I'm sure you'll call a spade a spade despite the likes of me, Mick and Piggy leering at you hoping you'll like it haha

[Lithium]

10 hours ago, whatsisname said:

But a delta of over 100+kW is clearly well beyond standardised control methods and is heading firmly into out of calibration or deliberate manipulation territory.

Yeah that's probably reasonable, unless there is some big issue with traction or something.

[GTSBoy]

7 hours ago, VFRegal said:

yeah..nah.

The brake (water/hydraulic/mechanical/retarder) provides a load against the engine via the driveline set by the operator. The engines ability to work against the load is translated via the torque arm onto the load cell which gives you the force measurement. Power runs are done by ramping the load while the car is held at wot, starting at low rpm obviously.

But this aint the dyno thread

/engineering

 

 

You're funny.  Read what I wrote, that you quoted, then read what you wrote in reply.  There is no difference, except that I got there first.  Like being an engineer.  Are you eligible to be a CPEng without having to do all the paperwork?

/real engineering + English comprehension

[Nismo 3.2ish]

21 minutes ago, Lithium said:

People debate a bit about better, but I feel there is a strong argument that hub dynos offer less variables affecting the final result - so when comparing with other hub dynos the numbers should be pretty legit so long as the same correction method is used.

In terms of yours, just tell us your first thoughts after you give it a cane.  You've done a fair bit of driving on the 6266, the power isn't likely to be insanely different - could be more, could end up being less... but keen to know what you think of it when its done    I'm sure you'll call a spade a spade despite the likes of me, Mick and Piggy leering at you hoping you'll like it haha

Yeah Dan,  Piggy and sidemick are bringing to car home for me, so I am sure they will give it a spirited run to test if it over heats, also sure the recycle bin will get a working over, lol

But I will take it by myself for my first drive, you will now if it is not any better, the silence will be deafening , face washed with tears and quivering lips

There are a few fuel and tuning issues that will be sorted and I decided to have a crank trigger installed.

Piggaz has taken to wearing UGG Boots and smoking now, he keeps mumbling  something about" Miss sheepy" ever since he returned from NZ, ????

[VFRegal]

1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

 

You're funny.  Read what I wrote, that you quoted, then read what you wrote in reply.  There is no difference, except that I got there first.  Like being an engineer.  Are you eligible to be a CPEng without having to do all the paperwork?

/real engineering + English comprehension

If you're a real world CPEng then I hope you are doing Grammar as part of your Continuing Professional Development. Because that explanation of dynos was terrible.
I am sure the internet was impressed though.

/Only a MIEAust for 17 years
 

[gzro]

Guys, would like to get some advice on efr choices.

The setup will be HKS step 0 2.8l kit and hks vcam step 2 (think it is 264 intake with 8.5mm lift).  on exhaust cam, i was told i need 272 high lift cam so i m planning to get hks step 2 cam.

turbo choices are efr8374 0.92 internal gate or efr9180 1.05. 

Car is mainly a street car but i do hope to be able to bring it to track in the future.  car is a bnr34 runninb 4.1 final drive.  i decided on 8374 initially but after speaking to a few friends who has had experience with the same turbo on a built 2.6l, i am having second thoughts.  

Which would be a better choice between the 2?

 

Thanks

[Mick_o]

59 minutes ago, gzro said:

Guys, would like to get some advice on efr choices.

The setup will be HKS step 0 2.8l kit and hks vcam step 2 (think it is 264 intake with 8.5mm lift).  on exhaust cam, i was told i need 272 high lift cam so i m planning to get hks step 2 cam.

turbo choices are efr8374 0.92 internal gate or efr9180 1.05. 

Car is mainly a street car but i do hope to be able to bring it to track in the future.  car is a bnr34 runninb 4.1 final drive.  i decided on 8374 initially but after speaking to a few friends who has had experience with the same turbo on a built 2.6l, i am having second thoughts.  

Which would be a better choice between the 2?

 

Thanks

What are your power goals mate? 

Why are you having 2nd thoughts on the 8374?

The 8374 is a beast of a turbo. If a street car id definitely recommend an 8374 with 1.05 rear. On a 2.8 you'll be getting a boot up the ass well under 4000rpm  in 2nd gear and obviously sooner in higher gears. 

My mates 8374 3L combo is spinning all 4 265 ADO8R's at around 3700rpm in 2nd gear. It's f**king awesome! 

[Mick_o]

The bonus of doing it the way i mentioned too is if you aren't happy with the 8374 (which i highly doubt) is that you can chuck the 9180 on without too much fuss! ?

[GTSBoy]

4 hours ago, VFRegal said:

/Only a MIEAust for 17 years
 

In which case, I wonder how it is that you thought my explanation was a bad one.  It is effectively identical to yours.  Measure torque while dissipating the power in a brake.  How hard do you need it to sound?  Who are you trying to impress?

[burn4005]

calm down and get back to talking about turbos. only reason you wouldn't be happy about the 8374 is if you wanted more than 600ish hp at the wheels. its spinning too fast above that and won't last, not to mention compressor efficiency hits the floor, along with VE when the EMAP skyrockets.

Edited February 15, 2017 by burn4005

[gzro]

2 hours ago, Mick_o said:

What are your power goals mate? 

Why are you having 2nd thoughts on the 8374?

The 8374 is a beast of a turbo. If a street car id definitely recommend an 8374 with 1.05 rear. On a 2.8 you'll be getting a boot up the ass well under 4000rpm  in 2nd gear and obviously sooner in higher gears. 

My mates 8374 3L combo is spinning all 4 265 ADO8R's at around 3700rpm in 2nd gear. It's f**king awesome! 

600atw would be nice and slightly more, activated via scramble boost when required would be great.

Feedback i have gotten so far is the 0.92 housing fits perfectly on a 2.6l but on a 2.8l with vcam, maybe i should be looking at something slightly bigger.  I already have the 8374 with 0.92 and getting the 1.05 housing alone is not worth it. 

So the option now is to stick with what i have or sell the 8374 and get the 9180 with 1.05 housing.  Cant remember where I read this but some posted that the response between the 2 are almost the same - maybe 500rpm difference?