Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[minesskyline]

1 hour ago, Lithium said:

Interesting - I would have expected more than that!    Still, must be pretty solid even with that?

That doesn't sound great

Yea, I'm not sure about the oil/wastegate, but it only seems to be a very small amount and only when I'm really hard on it. And 750awhp is pretty nuts already. If there is more, I am pretty happy with where it is now. It just pulls and pulls all the way to 9k rpm. I've already gone through a back set of tires from spinning 3rd and some of 4th.

[Full-Race Geoff]

On 9/2/2017 at 11:40 AM, minesskyline said:

After speaking with the tuner further, I believe that 750 was all he could get out of the setup. If they can do more, I don't know what other changes could be made to extract more power.

im interested to see the chart, and whatever info you can share of the tune/setup.  how much boost, ignition advance and WGDC? Do you have turbo speed sensors?  Do you have a boost chart showing RPM vs boost and where are you reaching 1bar boost?  obviously there are many changes that can be made to extract more power, but thoroughly understanding the baseline is important before changing anything else

On 9/2/2017 at 11:42 AM, minesskyline said:

@Full-Race Geoff Do you know why the wastegates would allow small amounts of oil to be blown out from them? I have the turbosmart wastegates from your site.

All wastegates internal or external will have a small leak from the lower port.  In the case of turbosmart IWG actuators, if you use a 4 port solenoid with pressure in the lower canister it can push assembly lube out of the lower bushing. Turbosmart is fantastic to deal with, if you have any concerns send them a photo of the actuator. 

On 9/2/2017 at 7:22 AM, Piggaz said:

@Full-Race Geoff

Have you seen a 8373/1.45 result at all?

Any news on the 8474?

yes 8374 1.45 was a popular evoX turbo, but 9174 1.45 has pretty well displaced it

8474 and 9280 both required a new compressor housing design.  This will not be released until 2018

[minesskyline]

1 hour ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

im interested to see the chart, and whatever info you can share of the tune/setup.  how much boost, ignition advance and WGDC? Do you have turbo speed sensors?  Do you have a boost chart showing RPM vs boost and where are you reaching 1bar boost?  obviously there are many changes that can be made to extract more power, but thoroughly understanding the baseline is important before changing anything else

All wastegates internal or external will have a small leak from the lower port.  In the case of turbosmart IWG actuators, if you use a 4 port solenoid with pressure in the lower canister it can push assembly lube out of the lower bushing. Turbosmart is fantastic to deal with, if you have any concerns send them a photo of the actuator. 

yes 8374 1.45 was a popular evoX turbo, but 9174 1.45 has pretty well displaced it

8474 and 9280 both required a new compressor housing design.  This will not be released until 2018

Here's the 91 pump gas and e85 dyno plot overlay. Let me know what other information you need that's not represented here. I will get whatever you need. Also, I'm running a megasquirt standalone so I might be able to get the tune as a whole. This is not to say that the tuner did not do a good job, because I believe they did a fantastic job with this build.

Edited September 4, 2017 by minesskyline
Added more info.

[usmair]

9 hours ago, minesskyline said:

Here's the 91 pump gas and e85 dyno plot overlay. Let me know what other information you need that's not represented here. I will get whatever you need. Also, I'm running a megasquirt standalone so I might be able to get the tune as a whole. This is not to say that the tuner did not do a good job, because I believe they did a fantastic job with this build.

now hit the track and tell us the mph you run

[HarrisRacing]

11 hours ago, minesskyline said:

Here's the 91 pump gas and e85 dyno plot overlay. Let me know what other information you need that's not represented here. I will get whatever you need. Also, I'm running a megasquirt standalone so I might be able to get the tune as a whole. This is not to say that the tuner did not do a good job, because I believe they did a fantastic job with this build.

Can't really read from the graph (sorry blurry and at an angle), but what power did it make on pumpgas (looks like 620?) and what boost level to achieve that? Same question for E85. Dang...mustang dyno those are STRONG numbers!

[minesskyline]

1 hour ago, HarrisRacing said:

Can't really read from the graph (sorry blurry and at an angle), but what power did it make on pumpgas (looks like 620?) and what boost level to achieve that? Same question for E85. Dang...mustang dyno those are STRONG numbers!

Sorry, I will take a better picture. 641 on pump at 26psi. 758 at 32psi on e85. The car is really fast. I've been in 9 second cars before and I am more than confident that this is one. I will try to get setup for the track this year to find out officially. 

[HarrisRacing]

Damn. Pure pumpgas and no knock at 26 psig!? I knock around 20.5 on my 8374efr on pure 93 octane (RON 98)

[Lithium]

6 hours ago, minesskyline said:

Sorry, I will take a better picture. 641 on pump at 26psi. 758 at 32psi on e85. The car is really fast. I've been in 9 second cars before and I am more than confident that this is one. I will try to get setup for the track this year to find out officially. 

Oh that's interesting - that sounds a LOT more positive than I expected, what size cams and what headwork do you have again?  Normally 758whp on a US dyno doesn't necessarily represent THAT fast a car.  

 

[admS15]

Oh that's interesting - that sounds a LOT more positive than I expected, what size cams and what headwork do you have again?  Normally 758whp on a US dyno doesn't necessarily represent THAT fast a car.  
 

Aren't Mustang dynos meant to read low or realistic by Oz standards?

[Lithium]

16 minutes ago, admS15 said:

Aren't Mustang dynos meant to read low or realistic by Oz standards?

I am not sure they are totally consistent, my general feeling is the order of "generous" to "heartbreaker" for your average example of each would be Dynapack=Dynojet, Mainline=Mustang, DynoPower (Popular NZ dyno), then Dyno Dynamics... but then there seem to be more generous and also harsher examples of all of those which throw the rules, rules of thumb for dyno comparisons can't ever be taken as gospel from my observations so far.

Sound Performance use a Mustang dyno and they made ~770whp (over 550wkw) out of a 1.05a/r EFR8374 on kill with a hot 2JZ - if that was an absolute then comparing that with this result basically kills the "twins are better" argument for EFRs, which to be fair is a tricky one as there has not yet been transparent public result for twins which have justified their use over a single EFR that I've seen beyond where the twin kit covers what no single EFR can do (ie, twin EFR7163s flow MUCH more than any single EFR).

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Lithium

[minesskyline]

3 hours ago, Lithium said:

Oh that's interesting - that sounds a LOT more positive than I expected, what size cams and what headwork do you have again?  Normally 758whp on a US dyno doesn't necessarily represent THAT fast a car.  

 

Port and polish, bronze valve guides, retainers and valves (I don't remember the brand off the top if my head). Cams are Poncam B's.

[usmair]

btw i now have a 34 getrag with a triple plate clutch sitting on 275 Mickey Thompson radials

im going to try and hit wsid in september, shove 31psi down its throat and better my 134mph

Edited September 5, 2017 by usmair

[HarrisRacing]

3 hours ago, usmair said:

btw i now have a 34 getrag with a triple plate clutch sitting on 275 Mickey Thompson radials

im going to try and hit wsid in september, shove 31psi down its throat and better my 134mph

Currently changing from Haltech platinum to EMU Black. Also resetting my out of spec shims (been this way forever), and going to water/meth injection. 20 psi is 126.7 mph now. I can't imagine 27-31!

[Buraz]

Wouldn't 30+ psi be over spinning the EFR??

[acsplit]

13 minutes ago, Buraz said:

Wouldn't 30+ psi be over spinning the EFR??

Yeah most definatly be he said he does not care.

[Buraz]

Ahh fair enough!!

[Kinkstaah]

Good way to find out whether the overspin problem is instant death or not. Garrett rate their wheels to near-similar maximum RPM too and people don't really seem to care much about spinning them way past it

Please post results

[Lithium]

4 minutes ago, Kinkstaah said:

Good way to find out whether the overspin problem is instant death or not. Garrett rate their wheels to near-similar maximum RPM too and people don't really seem to care much about spinning them way past it

This is kind of a good point which I've been meaning to ask @Full-Race Geoff...  or anyone who has found anything, I've never seen any official Borg Warner documentation on the maximum recommended turbine speed for any of their EFR range - same goes the Garrett range?!

They both have the rpm lines on compressor maps, but there is nothing stated to indicate that any of those imply a maximum rpm - which from all I can tell is treated like a single magic number.  Is there any information available we can refer to?  There has been much noise made about how risky it is to go past the max rpm of any of these turbochargers but without that max rpm I feel awkward sometimes bringing it up without any supplied information.  One of the justifications given for the EFR9174 existing is that it allows for more rpm safely, which implies that the compressor wants to spin faster than the turbine can happily spin at - but that is a number which we are not given... obviously going off the compressor map will result in rpm skyrocketing to try and move any more air as compressor efficiency plummets but surely the intention of the 9174 isn't to encourage running the compressor into uncharted territory?

Clarification would be awesome

 

[MaximuSmurf]

4 hours ago, Lithium said:

This is kind of a good point which I've been meaning to ask @Full-Race Geoff...  or anyone who has found anything, I've never seen any official Borg Warner documentation on the maximum recommended turbine speed for any of their EFR range - same goes the Garrett range?!

They both have the rpm lines on compressor maps, but there is nothing stated to indicate that any of those imply a maximum rpm - which from all I can tell is treated like a single magic number.  Is there any information available we can refer to?  There has been much noise made about how risky it is to go past the max rpm of any of these turbochargers but without that max rpm I feel awkward sometimes bringing it up without any supplied information.  One of the justifications given for the EFR9174 existing is that it allows for more rpm safely, which implies that the compressor wants to spin faster than the turbine can happily spin at - but that is a number which we are not given... obviously going off the compressor map will result in rpm skyrocketing to try and move any more air as compressor efficiency plummets but surely the intention of the 9174 isn't to encourage running the compressor into uncharted territory?

Clarification would be awesome

 

I've got the EFR speed sensor on my S15 (SR20DET). Hits 29psi and tapers to ~23psi. This peaks up at ~140,000rpm (can't remember exact figure). Max turbine speed for each EFR turbo is well documented, pretty sure it's in the manual. My 7163 is 'rated' to 150,600 rpm. Full-Race website lists that the EFR 9174 turbine RPM 'max' is 125,000rpm.

 

I bought the sensor so I could push the turbo to it's top end limit on my engine and still feel a little 'safe' in that it was still within manufacturers specs.

[Lithium]

9 minutes ago, MaximuSmurf said:

I've got the EFR speed sensor on my S15 (SR20DET). Hits 29psi and tapers to ~23psi. This peaks up at ~140,000rpm (can't remember exact figure). Max turbine speed for each EFR turbo is well documented, pretty sure it's in the manual. My 7163 is 'rated' to 150,600 rpm. Full-Race website lists that the EFR 9174 turbine RPM 'max' is 125,000rpm.

 

Awesome, obviously I am missing something then - I've tried looking and so far can't find it, can you please point me at somewhere which either 

a) Specifies specifically that the turbine speed should not exceed 150,600rpm (which is coincidentally the last rpm line on the compressor map, which doesn't have to mean that it's at all linked to max turbine wheel speed

b) Clarifies that the compressor map is constructed to sit within the confines of the maximum speed you should spin the turbine to.

?

I research these things quite thoroughly and I've not seen anything beyond the Full-Race website's "125,000rpm" limit mentioned - that is the only time I've seen a limit mentioned, and it doesn't refer to any Borg Warner official specs I've seen, and I've certainly not seen that in any of the Borg Warner spec sheets I've looked at.  If you are investing heaps of money and intend on pushing hard it really would be nice to have some more clearly communicated specs on this.

I'm not saying that they aren't there, but I have no found anything which I consider clear and exact so admit that I may have missed it but I'm certainly not the only one who hasn't seen it specifically outlined for the whole range and would benefit from that being clarified, so pointing it out would be very appreciated!

Edited September 8, 2017 by Lithium