Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[Piggaz]

1 hour ago, Dievos said:

I also have real results of an EFR7670 on an RB26, it was within my power goals and I felt like giving it a go seeing as the resaleability of EFR turbos is good and later going with an 8374 with the same rear housing would make it a straight fit.

From what I found we really had to restrict how quickly it came on due to knock, results were inconclusive as I saw power loss in the exact same RPM area as my R32 Nismo turbos. I am wanting to see how far I can go with this before jumping ship and going to a larger compressor.

0.92 IWG?

[R.3.2.G.T.R]

On 5/19/2018 at 3:28 AM, Piggaz said:

Will be grunty. What gearbox? ?

Haha I hear ya,  will have to think of something, have std with coppermix twin, might have to look around for getrag and npc twin

[Dievos]

On 5/27/2018 at 12:23 PM, Piggaz said:

0.92 IWG?

Yep that's the one!

[360CF]

We are currently using a TS 9180 on a stock-block 1JZ with 264 cams. Made 640WHP on 26psi with a few teething issues and a faulty EBC. Power comes on very nicely for a large turbo and sure holds on well up top.

I certainly expect with some development we will reach 700WHP at the same 26psi though that is certainly dangerous territory on an old long block.

[RICE RACING]

On 2/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, Full-Race Geoff said:

if anyone needs turbos or speed sensors, we have both in stock and happy to match any prices online.  also we have a new Turbo Speed Gauge that is pre-programmed for EFR turbos:

:)

 

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

On 5/26/2018 at 10:31 PM, usmair said:

Tuner prefers eboost

sounds like tuner is lazy to dial in the DC table on the haltech and wire in a rotary switch for boost trims

[Piggaz]

Got the 1.45 A/R turbine housing on the 8374 this week. Compressor surge was getting quite bad in the cold weather even trying to “hold the turbo back”. It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too.

Will will see by how much exhaust pressure drops too. 

God it’s big! Borg Warner and their housings the size of small planets! Gonna have to have a look at the exhaust cam cover and see what I can do with it and get the turbine beanie on. Needs a longer water line which will be done on Monday. 

Dump pipe had to be trimmed 8 mm.

[burn4005]

3 hours ago, Piggaz said:

Got the 1.45 A/R turbine housing on the 8374 this week. Compressor surge was getting quite bad in the cold weather even trying to “hold the turbo back”. It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too.

Will will see by how much exhaust pressure drops too. 

God it’s big! Borg Warner and their housings the size of small planets! Gonna have to have a look at the exhaust cam cover and see what I can do with it and get the turbine beanie on. Needs a longer water line which will be done on Monday. 

Dump pipe had to be trimmed 8 mm.

 

What do mean by having to pull boost out? the cost of EMAP outweighing the benefit of greater MAP?

or EGTs getting too high?

 

PS thats friggin' massive. the 3" outlet looks hilariously small

Edited June 9, 2018 by burn4005

[usmair]

Gee good thing I didn't go 1.45... bit of stuffing around to squeeze it in. 

Interested to see much of a power and lag difference this actually makes.  Back to back dynos please

[Piggaz]

On 6/9/2018 at 2:56 PM, burn4005 said:

What do mean by having to pull boost out? the cost of EMAP outweighing the benefit of greater MAP?

or EGTs getting too high?

 

PS thats friggin' massive. the 3" outlet looks hilariously small

EGT’s weren’t getting high... we had 360 kpa exhaust pressure. 

However, coming on (sub 4000 rpm) it was compressor surging. So if we are “holding it back” early on, why not give it a bigger ass and let it sing up top. Can’t have it either way. 

God knows how the 0.92 guys are going. If I had a 0.92 on my engine it would have been a total waste of time.

[burn4005]

I'm not following.. why did you have to pull boost out up top previously?

 

You said:

 

"It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too"

 

Can't imagine it's surge related (low mass flow issue), or turbo speed related (compressor hasn't changed)

 

 

[Piggaz]

20 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

I'm not following.. why did you have to pull boost out up top previously?

 

You said:

 

"It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too"

 

Can't imagine it's surge related (low mass flow issue), or turbo speed related (compressor hasn't changed)

 

 

It was E MAP related. Hitting 360 kpa. Hoping to drop that somewhat. 

However, don’t need a pressure sensor to tell how much better the engine breathes compared to the twins. The engine note tells you that!

[Full-Race Geoff]

On 6/10/2018 at 7:30 AM, Piggaz said:

It was E MAP related. Hitting 360 kpa. Hoping to drop that somewhat. 

However, don’t need a pressure sensor to tell how much better the engine breathes compared to the twins. The engine note tells you that!

I am interested to see your impressions with the bigger housing.  It does lose a bit of response, I personally prefer the 1.05 for most RB engines due to the balance of response and turbine efficiency. 

To your second point, however, the twin EFR is another level of breathing compared to the single EFR.  when youre at the point of this volume of airflow, I believe the big twins really are the call

[Dale FZ1]

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:30 PM, Piggaz said:

It was E MAP related. Hitting 360 kpa. Hoping to drop that somewhat. 

However, don’t need a pressure sensor to tell how much better the engine breathes compared to the twins. The engine note tells you that!

Hoping you could throw up a data graph trace showing IMAP vs EMAP?

Might help people visualise how that relationship affects the scavenge and overall engine efficiency.

Guessing the engine has become a bit more vocal with the bigger housing.

[Piggaz]

12 minutes ago, Dale FZ1 said:

Hoping you could throw up a data graph trace showing IMAP vs EMAP?

Might help people visualise how that relationship affects the scavenge and overall engine efficiency.

Guessing the engine has become a bit more vocal with the bigger housing.

 I’ll see what I can dig up.

[Lithium]

29 minutes ago, Dale FZ1 said:

Hoping you could throw up a data graph trace showing IMAP vs EMAP?

Might help people visualise how that relationship affects the scavenge and overall engine efficiency.

Guessing the engine has become a bit more vocal with the bigger housing.

Haha yes, I'm very very interested in this as well.    The data geek in my is a little sad that there wasn't at attempt to run it up to max rpm with the 1.05 to get a flat out comparison of EMAP, IMAP and power along with spool between the 1.05 and 1.45 but I understand the position of being a tuner and also owner of a car and having your comfort levels etc. 

While 360kpa:260kpa  EMAP:IMAP (1.38:1 EMAP:IMAP) is starting to build up a bit I didn't personally think it was over the top, especially when so close to the suggested max compressor speed - but who am I to question when someone is willing to try the big housing out on an engine which is as likely as any to justify the large one?      ESPECIALLY with all the data @Piggaz has set up to be able to record.  

How the new housing affects spool, cylinder filling, surge, compressor speed, power etc etc is all very relevant to my interests.  So much science!

Looking forward to seeing how this comes out

Edited June 12, 2018 by Lithium

[Piggaz]

4 hours ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

I am interested to see your impressions with the bigger housing.  It does lose a bit of response, I personally prefer the 1.05 for most RB engines due to the balance of response and turbine efficiency. 

To your second point, however, the twin EFR is another level of breathing compared to the single EFR.  when youre at the point of this volume of airflow, I believe the big twins really are the call

I keep hearing about these twin EFR results on but yet to see any that really stand out. Have you got some results of RB or 2J 6258/6758/7163 twin setups handy that you can throw up?

Twin 6258’s or 6758’s are still quite a lot of airflow and the 67’s outflow a 9180 (Atleast according to the compressor maps). 

[RICE RACING]

Some of us have already done all the comparisons :P

map/tip is the way you should be looking at it as pressure differential across the engine, and its not a text book relationship either, talking 3.15lt engine here on 9180 turbo. Acceleration data in real world is your best indicator if you are running say 1700mB map with optimized ignition and fuel and then on 2850mB map you have double the acceleration, then all the 'theory' of excessive pumping losses on exhaust stroke or egr effects counts for little except maybe on arsebook or some other useless vlogs :)

I agree with Geoff, a 1.05 on the 9180 makes for the best compromise.

[Piggaz]

32 minutes ago, RICE RACING said:

Some of us have already done all the comparisons

All the comparisons? What have you compared? What did you find?

[burn4005]

Oh rice racing is here..

Michael Jackson Popcorn.gif