Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[Lithium]

16 hours ago, burn4005 said:

That's strange. The catelog quotes the same inducer/exducer measurements so I'd be very interested in why the map is different and off the wheel or housing is different. I had assume it was the same for 9274 and 9280 without checking. 

Not sure as it has been mentioned that the 9274 is a smaller trim, guessing that they stuffed up the details in the catalog. They are different compressors one way or another

[welshy_32ZILA]

Hi all, Ive been reading through quite a bit of this and various other turbo side threads. Ive got a 32 GTR currently with -5s and e85 and all the other support mods. Making ~370kw. But im looking for more so ive been tossing up between the 8374 and the 9180 until reading about the 8474. Who would be a good person to speak to about sourcing 1? As im quite close to pulling th trigger and ordering 6boost manifold etc.

[burn4005]

Full race guys seem to have an inside line on the EFRs

[Lithium]

6 hours ago, welshy_32ZILA said:

Hi all, Ive been reading through quite a bit of this and various other turbo side threads. Ive got a 32 GTR currently with -5s and e85 and all the other support mods. Making ~370kw. But im looking for more so ive been tossing up between the 8374 and the 9180 until reading about the 8474. Who would be a good person to speak to about sourcing 1? As im quite close to pulling th trigger and ordering 6boost manifold etc.

As @burn4005 said, talk to Full-Race... though they are apparently meant to be becoming available in early 2019- if previous Borg Warner releases are anything to go by then be prepared for a wait.

[welshy_32ZILA]

Hmm thats a shame. I have a damaged 9180 sitting here at the moment that i might use to fab everything up then make a decision on whether to go a 83 or 84 if the 84 is available. Any one got any opinions on when the 8474 would be in at say 25psi on a built 26 with tomei 260 9.15 cams.

[welshy_32ZILA]

1274 710 0017 = EFR-8474 Super Core w. Aluminum bearing housing 1274 710 0019 = EFR-8474 Super Core w. Iron bearing housing 1274 710 0021 = EFR-9174 Super Core w. Aluminum bearing housing 1274 710 0023 = EFR-9174 Super Core w. Iron bearing housing 1280 710 0003 = EFR-9280 Super Core w. Aluminum bearing housing 1280 710 0005 = EFR-9280 Super Core w. Iron bearing housing Bit of info i found for everyone. Seems as though they will be available with aluminium or iron bearing housings. Statement from BW:[Note that we are still going through the final phases of the release process. When these new models are available to order, I will distribute a Product Release Bulletin, as well as the appropriate pricing. This should take place in December 2018. The first deliveries should start in Q1-2019].

[etang789]

On 10/27/2018 at 2:19 PM, Lithium said:

https://www.borgwarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/2018/10/26/trusted-from-raceways-to-driveways-borgwarner-debuts-new-products-at-2018-sema-show

84mm and 92mm compressors for the EFR range are officially being released and will be shown at SEMA this week coming

Finally!

Cannot wait!

On 11/13/2018 at 3:49 AM, welshy_32ZILA said:

1274 710 0017 = EFR-8474 Super Core w. Aluminum bearing housing 1274 710 0019 = EFR-8474 Super Core w. Iron bearing housing 1274 710 0021 = EFR-9174 Super Core w. Aluminum bearing housing 1274 710 0023 = EFR-9174 Super Core w. Iron bearing housing 1280 710 0003 = EFR-9280 Super Core w. Aluminum bearing housing 1280 710 0005 = EFR-9280 Super Core w. Iron bearing housing Bit of info i found for everyone. Seems as though they will be available with aluminium or iron bearing housings. Statement from BW:[Note that we are still going through the final phases of the release process. When these new models are available to order, I will distribute a Product Release Bulletin, as well as the appropriate pricing. This should take place in December 2018. The first deliveries should start in Q1-2019].

How to compare Aluminum bearing housing vs Iron bearing housing?

Edited November 26, 2018 by etang789

[iruvyouskyrine]

Geoff has said in here before that there is no difference between iron/alloy housings except weight and alloy housings require water cooling whereas that is optional (but recommended) on iron housing.

[RICE RACING]

Issue with the 9180 is the turbine flow not being enough, though how much power do you want, always wanting more!

[Lithium]

1 minute ago, RICE RACING said:

Issue with the 9180 is the turbine flow not being enough, though how much power do you want, always wanting more!

Interestingly a drifter (Dan Burkett) running a 2JZGTE Supra has just upgraded to an EFR9274 which has WAY more compressor flow than an EFR9180, and a lot less turbine flow.  I have my reservations about that combo, especially on a 2JZGTE - but if someone is going to do it then I hope they share the results.... though a lot of folks in that position seem to just state what they've got, say they're happy and provide no data.  Understandable I guess, but frustrating.

I wish I had access to more of this kind of hardware, I'd be generating data for days to help me clear the wood for the trees for myself and others  I've been suspicious of how "poor" the compressor flow is for some of the EFRs versus how hard people seem to push them and often wonder if the perceived turbine flow limitations are actually a result of a compounding situation which starts with the compressor efficiency plummeting.   

In what kind of situations do you see the turbine pressure getting out of hand?  

I put together a compressor flow list for my own (and anyone who was interested) where I mapped out flow at a compressor efficiency which I consider a good safe target flow to ask for from each turbo where they are trying reasonably hard and probably wouldn't want to push much more for a race car or anything, but there is definitely some headroom if you wanted to hero run for some reason -  ie, 65% compressor efficiency.  

The list makes some turbos look more impressive than people may expect, and others less impressive... ie, the EFR9180 looks nothing like the 1000hp turbo Borg Warner imply it is.

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

^off topic, but could you pretty please add in GTX3576R Gen 1/2?

[Lithium]

14 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

^off topic, but could you pretty please add in GTX3576R Gen 1/2?

Just compare the GTX3076R Gen1/2, this is only for compressor flow and they both have the exact same compressor   Putting them would make the list longer for no reason, and I'm trying to find a nice balance of info and not tmi 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Lithium

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

1 hour ago, Lithium said:

Just compare the GTX3076R Gen1/2, this is only for compressor flow and they both have the exact same compressor   Putting them would make the list longer for no reason, and I'm trying to find a nice balance of info and not tmi 

Derp moment, long day

 

[RICE RACING]

Here is a little comparison of vehicular performance pulled of Aquamist forum for some context, both EFR9180 equipped.

 

Looking great mate.

Truly inspiring!

Even more inspiring is they still go = durability.
The R34 is close enough or more than the ever quoted willy nilly ~1000bhp mark, and the RX7 is at least as fast and according to the owner actually faster, he is a performance agnostic so no vested interests here, just facts.

Below is a direct comparison within a few days of each other.
Please note, my actual physical power measure is factual, to give it some context a turbo Lotus I put on a Mainline chassis dyno through the tires will make about 420rwhp and on my measure will do 380rwhp, so make of the figures what you will I don't care for dyno racing pissing contests too many bullshit figures out there and lets not even talk about BS American standards on hype/guess machines they use !

Regardless, measure the acceleration at 200kph and compare them and you quickly separate the hype from reality......

RX7 on the left, R34 GTR on the right. Both cars stupidly fast both still running WM50 FTMFW! For those that are technically minded, same turbo on each car, both well exceeding the listed turbo upper speed limit (we establish our own through testing). Rotary engine does about 90bhp/lt/bar and piston around 100bhp/lt/bar. Turbo is a balance of decent power but with true road going ability as proven below.

[RICE RACING]

5 hours ago, Lithium said:

Interestingly a drifter (Dan Burkett) running a 2JZGTE Supra has just upgraded to an EFR9274 which has WAY more compressor flow than an EFR9180, and a lot less turbine flow.  I have my reservations about that combo, especially on a 2JZGTE - but if someone is going to do it then I hope they share the results.... though a lot of folks in that position seem to just state what they've got, say they're happy and provide no data.  Understandable I guess, but frustrating.

I wish I had access to more of this kind of hardware, I'd be generating data for days to help me clear the wood for the trees for myself and others  I've been suspicious of how "poor" the compressor flow is for some of the EFRs versus how hard people seem to push them and often wonder if the perceived turbine flow limitations are actually a result of a compounding situation which starts with the compressor efficiency plummeting.   

In what kind of situations do you see the turbine pressure getting out of hand?  

 

Anything near 8k rpm or above for the below

Piston engine of 3lt with decent air flow (ported head, decent cams, valves etc)

Rotary engine (13B) with street porting

We already have over my prescribed map/tip ratio, keep in mind I do the calibration on the GTR with this directly inputted into the ECU fuel calculation so I can physically see the negative effects of it, in the rotary its built into the main fuel table but I see it in my spread sheet where I derive the air flow through the engine myself. Being a two stroke type engine with 1/3rd more exposure to the negative effects of this going to high the wankel suffers more as is to be expected.

All this is reflected if you look back at a basic metric I use.

BHP/Lt/Bar

To give you an idea on a sub 9,000rpm engine its not uncommon with a well matched turbo and specifically turbine to have 110bhpbhp/lt/bar (given you are using proper level of excess fuel and spark advance). Any time you are under this, then its a pure indicator of an insufficient turbine section. It is not uncommon to liberate 20% power gains by using a more appropriate turbocharger, but as always its a balance to response and peak power.

Good engines will be around 125 to 130bhp level and reciprocating with some more revs its easy to be as high as 150bhp/lt/bar. No way in f**k you can do this with current EFR range, unless going to twins, but there is another member on here who I do some consulting for and they are around the 90 to 100 mark as well on a twin EFR set up, so make of that what you will

As you say sfa people have the 'data' let alone the ability to quantify nor standardize the results so good luck relying on others :) best if you do it yourself as we do I find.

[Lithium]

9 hours ago, RICE RACING said:

Anything near 8k rpm or above for the below

To give you an idea on a sub 9,000rpm engine its not uncommon with a well matched turbo and specifically turbine to have 110bhpbhp/lt/bar (given you are using proper level of excess fuel and spark advance). Any time you are under this, then its a pure indicator of an insufficient turbine section. It is not uncommon to liberate 20% power gains by using a more appropriate turbocharger, but as always its a balance to response and peak power.

Yeah mostly agreed, this is all generally how I've seen things and I feel like there are a lot of situations where people have "under-turbined" their setup but I'm still (probably largely due to lack of data) sitting on the fence about whether the Borg Warners are as bad as they are made out to be - again, to me the compressor maps for the original EFR range are quite asthmatic compared to what most people expect from units of a similar size or ones which are used for similar things. 

For example (I'll make up an ridiculous combo purely to illustrate the point) - if you got a GTX3582R and put it on a suitable spec 2litre engine then your 110bhp/lt/bar(abs) ratio becomes a very realistic target.    Now, if you went and put a GT3571 (same turbine, same exhaust housing) on the exact same engine the ratio you are likely to be able to achieve is very likely to drop considerably.  I'd go out on a limb here and say that if you logged EMAP when trying to achieve the same flow as with the GTX3582R you'll potentially find that the IMAP/EMAP ratio starts plunging as you are forced to jam the wastegate shut in a feeble attempt to try and squeeze more air out of a choked compressor.    

In that situation a "good" intercooler would potentially mask symptoms which could help identify the compressor efficiency plummeting, realistically pre-intercooler intake air temperature would be the best hope of spotting this - or air pressure at the compressor outlet versus turbine speed, to see where on the compressor map you are.  Those things aside, in this hypothetical situation it would be possible to reverse the situation and go from the GT3571 to the GTX3582R and make a HUGE improvement on bhp/lt/bar while running an identical hotside - but making a very significant improvement in how efficiently that hotside converts exhaust energy into airflow.

You mentioned above that you are running off the suggested turbine speed limits for the EFRs, that would pretty much guarantee you are simulating the effect I am talking about above to a degree - where you are driving right off the point where the compressor is working with acceptable efficiency and shutting wastegates to get as much exhaust energy pumping through the turbine as possible to try and squeeze everything out of them becomes necessary.  A better flowing turbine would help alleviate this to a degree, but if you are pushing the compressor to choke flow then you're naturally going have some less than ideal effects elsewhere in the system as well.    

This stuff is where the Full-Race "max rpm = fail zone" thing annoys me a bit, the max rpm is not some magic number where the EFR loses it's wheels - it's a thumbsuck of where you really shouldn't bother pushing the compressor past because while you CAN... the amount harder you need to work the turbo to get any more air becomes pointless, and if you aren't monitoring things you will no doubt cause the temperature/speed/pressure situation which would be conducive to destroying a "fragile" turbine wheel.

The problem with all this is that it doesn't mean that the hotside IS up to more, I don't know, I sadly have never had the opportunity to stalk over data which would help me make an informed call on it - all I can comment on is the data I've seen so far which suggests that a lot of people are asking more of EFR compressors than they really are up for, and this has been helped by Borg Warner showing "79lb/min" on a compressor map which starts becoming inefficient at ~70lb/min over a range of pressure ratios a lot of people like to use.   

I am very eager to see how an EFR8474 behaves on an RB, it may be a really good thing - though what worries me is that the surgeline moves a bit to the right versus the EFR8374 (which was already susceptible to surge on a good RB) so the hotside is very much a question mark, still.

[RICE RACING]

Yeah all good points.

The biggest thing I see is the map/tip is just not good enough (especially in single application on the 9180) the turbine is just too small/poor flowing, personally don't see an issue with the compressor side.

Great match at maximum output for maybe a > 2.4lt engine, not so much on the two examples I gave above, but its all relative, when you have road cars with the breadth of power band (especially on a 13B engine) that shits on everything else and it accelerates at 0.42+G @ 200kph (compare a 700bhp V8 taxi which does 0.32G or so at same velocity) it makes you wonder why we chase constantly more and more.

My personal view these days, is if you can make 20 hours on load (~ 2000 hours road running) or 1% of time at racing duty then you have a combination worthy of talking about currently working through this on multiple types of vehicles! all EFR equipped doing a 9174 on a 2.3 AMS EVO engine ready in next few weeks, all with the same level of electronics and data analysis so can keep you updated

Edited November 27, 2018 by RICE RACING
edit

[Lithium]

35 minutes ago, RICE RACING said:

The biggest thing I see is the map/tip is just not good enough (especially in single application on the 9180) the turbine is just too small/poor flowing, personally don't see an issue with the compressor side.

Good match for maybe a 2lt engine, not so much on the two examples I gave above, but its all relative, when you have road cars with the breadth of power band (especially on a 13B engine) that shits on everything else and it accelerates at 0.42+G @ 200kph (compare a 700bhp V8 taxi which does 0.32G or so at same velocity) it makes you wonder why we chase constantly more and more.

My personal view these days, is if you can make 20 hours on load (over 2000 hours) or 1% of time at racing duty then you have a combination worthy of talking about currently working through this on multiple types of vehicles! all EFR equipped doing a 9174 on a 2.3 AMS EVO engine ready in next few weeks, all with the same level of electronics and data analysis so can keep you updated

Out of curiousity.... with the data you have, what is the MAP/TIP like say if you look for where where the airflow is at around 79lb/min is on the GT-R - I see you are running just over 25psi, which lines up reasonably well with the compressor flow chart I listed above.   It'd be interesting to see if your TIP starts getting uglier after that 79/80lb point or if it is "already there".   

I particularly like the 2nd paragraph, real world go is VERY much what I tend to appreciate - most importantly really is matching the whole engine combination to suit the purpose it is going to be used for.   There is a point where one needs to decide whether making the turbo spool nicely at 3000rpm is going to pay off, or if making the engine make 1000hp at 8000rpm is going to pay off.  All has to suit what the car is going to be used for, the dyno plot's function is just one piece of data to work from.   This is just my hobby, but I've been in some way involved with a few cars which have "gone better than the part list suggest" - in one case having a well respected tuner come up to me and the car owner and ask "How much power is that thing making????" after a race car they were in was driven around by a stock engined SR20DET powered S14 track car running a Kinugawa TD05H-16G that I had only road tuned     "Sorry, we don't know - hasn't been on a dyno yet"   "WHAT?".

The 9174 EVO should be very interesting, another tuner I know over in Oz has done an EFR9174 setup on a stroker EVO and it had an impressive power curve though from memory they hadn't really leaned on it hard - so not sure how it'd be when the compressor starts really working.  Cheers for sharing the data, is very cool stuff to see (y)

Edited November 27, 2018 by Lithium

[burn4005]

I'll have a 9174 result on a 2.6l rb26 in the next few days. Running at same boost (180kpa) my 8374 hit Max speed at to compare. but should be interesting against my 8374 result on the same Dyno. Have turbo speed sensors on both engines and emtron kv8s so logging should be pretty comprehensive

 

 

[Lithium]

45 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

I'll have a 9174 result on a 2.6l rb26 in the next few days. Running at same boost (180kpa) my 8374 hit Max speed at to compare. but should be interesting against my 8374 result on the same Dyno. Have turbo speed sensors on both engines and emtron kv8s so logging should be pretty comprehensive

Awesome - good luck, keen to hear how that goes 1.05 housing?