Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[Full-Race Geoff]

On 21/02/2019 at 6:17 PM, Deano 1 said:

when's these new 9274 and 9280 gunna be available to buy? seams like they been talking about them for months now. 

they are finally available now ..  it took an eternity

On 21/02/2019 at 2:38 PM, RICE RACING said:

We run the 9180's way past their rated speed and not broken one, but again said it many times, you need an ECU that is 'proven' to do this in reality not on paper or the interwebz of shit that makes all the difference.

Agreed. The EFR9180s were designed for 2011 indycar (2.2L v6 at 12k rpm and low boost).  But indycars use twin 7163 now... so guys like us were the only people using them and overspeed is a real issue on 3L engines at high boost.  We have many customers who have way oversped the 9180's for years without failure at high altitude but neither Full Race nor BorgWarner can advertise that as its beyond the intended design and risking failure.  Peter your syvecs are obviously some of the best setup ECUs around and obviously you do not damage the turbos. 

Regardless -the larger inducer 9280 will move much more air for a given shaft speed.  An overlay of 9180 (black) vs 9280 (blue) comparison is shown here:

 

On 22/02/2019 at 7:34 AM, RICE RACING said:

^ Call Geoff (FULL RACE) or send him an email, he is by far the most reputable one to ask about this in my experience.... re: FACT v's FICTION

thanks mate ?

On 21/02/2019 at 7:26 AM, Lithium said:

Are there any results to share beyond Eric Urness's Evo with the EFR8474?   The 8474 definitely seems like the most exciting things to happen in the EFR (/turbo?) world for some time on initial impressions... Very very curious about the EFR9280, the 9180's compressor leaves a bit to be desired - I'd have liked to have just seen a similar sized compressor with the map filled out nicely would have been a great thing, if the 74mm version doesn't give away too much response and the hotside can keep up then it could be a bit of a game changer as well.

 

Papadakis Racing / Fredrik Aasbo had excellent results testing with the 8474 and 9274.  They are vying for the FD championship and have asked not to share their dyno chart and boost log delta but i will once the season starts and he gives me the OK. 

agree on 9280.  see above.. this is the turbo we should have had in the first place (no comment on dan b)

On 20/02/2019 at 9:34 PM, RICE RACING said:

Most dyno sheets are bad for this reason alone as they do not convey what the road driving experience is like at all well. You could for argument sake make 36psi at 5200rpm, but in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th gears (say 0 to 240kph) make vastly less, and unless you then have a dog box with flat shift feature then you fall off it and its Elton John Aids for all Far better to have a 800bhp engine, that needs 40psi boost, than a nugget with 'big turbo bro' and 28psi cause 1:1 PR across the head like a drag car. Guess what ****, its not a drag car lol...... you actually want to drive it on the street or up in the mountains and have fun, not see who has the biggest pill press or meth lab.

always politically correct in your posts Peter ?

On 20/02/2019 at 9:00 PM, Mick_o said:

Thats a very big claim Geoff. So you think the 74mm turbine is still actually capable of pushing 31lb more than its original intended design? 

Why are BW even bothering with the 80mm Turbine if the 74mm seems to have all the answers?

please do not misunderstand what im saying; these are two different animals despite being quite similar on the compressor exducer. 

9280 is ideal for a well balanced high power engine with reasonable exhaust manifold Turbine inlet pressure.  If using a proper engine management system with shaft speed sensor and calibration up to par, then i think this is a fantastic turbocharger.  and the technically correct solution

9274 is an example of 74mm turbine wheel pushed to the absolute limit.  It will be more forgiving than the 9280 for applications with no shaft speed sensor and questionable calibration (which is sadly many of the evo and 2jz customers we come in contact with).  It has a higher turbine inlet pressure at high boost and slightly lower turbine efficiency, but likely to handle severe overspeed abuse better than the higher stress/larger dia 80mm turbine wheel

On 22/02/2019 at 7:03 AM, Lithium said:

Turns out they mentioned in a short snippet in a video that they touched 1000whp on a US dyno with the EFR9274, then dropped it back slightly.  And yeah, I've mentioned before I know folks who have pushed 9180s off the map and are still running them fine without failure - that max rpm thing is nothing to do with "max turbine speed", it's actually a number that they came up with for determining max compressor wheel speed.  The EFR9174 vs EFR9180 "higher max rpm thing" is nonsense.
...

"power is nothing without control" leaks through to parts picking, ECU and calibration of the whole lot.   Using data and managing the variables you should be able to work out a balance between pushing hard enough to justify the parts and not so hard you don't get an acceptable amount of use.  Pretty much what Borg Warner were doing when they decided on their own limits they suggested for the max tip speeds.

with all due respect, it is not nonsense.  the 80mm turbine wheel is a larger diameter wheel and inherently higher stress blade.  i agree with the 2nd part of your post however

[Lithium]

42 minutes ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

with all due respect, it is not nonsense.  the 80mm turbine wheel is a larger diameter wheel and inherently higher stress blade.  i agree with the 2nd part of your post however

Sorry, I should have clarified what I meant there - I agree (and it should be obvious) that the stresses will be higher on the 80mm, the thing I was talking about being nonsense is the higher rpm limit that is bandied around referring to the compressor speed limits.   There is no published max turbine speed limit from Borg Warner that I've seen anywhere, just an indication for compressor speed limit.

Somehow people have got the idea that you can use the 83/84mm max compressor speed indicator for the 91/92mm compressors which IS nonsense.  The compressor won't suddenly be more capable with a smaller turbine, you're just going to be pushing further off the map and putting things under more strain.  Sure, the smaller turbine will be more tolerant but at the end of the day when you're starting to do that kind of thing you're starting to have to admit the turbo is not the right match for the setup. 

As @RICE RACING has said, he and other people I know have gone a bit past the max compressor rpm for the 9180 and not had failures... albeit closely monitoring shaft rpm to make sure it hasn't gone wildly out of hand.  Anecdotally it seems that you increase the odds of failure (funnily enough), however the turbine failure speed is typically higher than the compressor failure speed and the cases people have had failures there is likely to be more sinister things at play than slightly exceeding Borg Warner's "uredC".

Edited February 28, 2019 by Lithium

[minesskyline]

I currently have a twin 6758 setup on my RB26. I'm moving to a RIPS RB3.2 stroker. Has anybody had any experience with these turbos on this motor (or a 3.2 at all)?

[RICE RACING]

3 hours ago, minesskyline said:

I currently have a twin 6758 setup on my RB26. I'm moving to a RIPS RB3.2 stroker. Has anybody had any experience with these turbos on this motor (or a 3.2 at all)?

Have not used those twins yet, but on 3.15 Tomei engine a 9180 is a bit small of a turbo, lots of posts about it here if you scan back.

But that is all relative to how much power you are wanting to run (read boost). The large capacity engine as Geoff said above is really not meant for a 3L and over set up assuming you are breathing right and using 8k+rpm, ~100bhp/lt/bar as your guide.

If you don't care to search back in short what I found is that the engine response is shit (on the inline 6cyl) and that is on a 1.05AR, but its also horsepower limited to ~1000bhp (max 1070bhp recorded) what you don't get is the transient 1st, 2nd, 3rd gears, cause the engine firing order is garbage basically. The extra engine capacity generates the power low down, but you just don't get the boost response you do with a superior engine phasing (4 cylinder).

Maybe twins is the answer, but anecdotal evidence suggest not. We are talking street cars here with H pattern syncromesh gearboxes, not flat shift. IE: real street cars, not quasi race cars

[discopotato03]

Interesting point about the firing order difference between an inline 6 and 4 cylinders .

The four having a flat plane crank will be different to the usual I6 having 120 degree phased crank pins .

I know of flat plane V8 cranks but I've never heard of a flat plane I6 crank .

My guess is that most RBs , because of their capacity and being dimensionally based on the RB20 block , are a little short in their strokes and rod lengths .

The RB30 is a big departure because being 3/4 of an inch taller block wise allowed a longer stroke and rod length . Also being approximately 3L the cylinder size is very similar to many 2L four cylinders .

A .

 

[minesskyline]

@Full-Race Geoff Any experience with 6758 on 3.2l?

Edited March 3, 2019 by minesskyline

[minesskyline]

23 hours ago, RICE RACING said:

Have not used those twins yet, but on 3.15 Tomei engine a 9180 is a bit small of a turbo, lots of posts about it here if you scan back.

But that is all relative to how much power you are wanting to run (read boost). The large capacity engine as Geoff said above is really not meant for a 3L and over set up assuming you are breathing right and using 8k+rpm, ~100bhp/lt/bar as your guide.

If you don't care to search back in short what I found is that the engine response is shit (on the inline 6cyl) and that is on a 1.05AR, but its also horsepower limited to ~1000bhp (max 1070bhp recorded) what you don't get is the transient 1st, 2nd, 3rd gears, cause the engine firing order is garbage basically. The extra engine capacity generates the power low down, but you just don't get the boost response you do with a superior engine phasing (4 cylinder).

Maybe twins is the answer, but anecdotal evidence suggest not. We are talking street cars here with H pattern syncromesh gearboxes, not flat shift. IE: real street cars, not quasi race cars

I think there is not an apples to apples comparison between the two turbo options. I couldn't find anybody running these twins on RB32. Whatever the 9180 does is probably not very useful or indicative of twin 6258/6758/7163. But I am open to being educated. Very real possibility these snails are too small. I am not smart enough to know.

[RICE RACING]

One topic not debated/considered is available margins of safety and how they can be molested. I am faced with this now and part of the reason either to go twins or just use a 'shittier turbo' choice like the 369SXE....

Say for example you want to make ~850bhp at sea level, but also want to do this at 1000 meters, lets say running a constant map of ~3500mB. The limits I find on a single EFR is that you don't have the flexibility to use or extend way past the PR.. IE: ~3.8 to ~5.2, already finding yourself at/near turbine speed limits, where as the 'dirty old' inconel wheels don't have the "**** I will snap off at random if you over stress me issues"

Not some thing most think about due to geography maybe? or happy to loose power with altitude? not sure?

[GTSBoy]

The correct engineering approach is to design it to make the power you need within sensible margins (or only just outside) in the worst case (at elevation in this case) and not actually push the turbo as hard as it could go in the other case.  That is so long as you aren't happy to have the power fall off with elevation.

[Duncan]

Although it's not exactly Pike's peak, the most important track in Australia is about 850m at the top.  People running MAP sensor need to be  careful with their tune.  But from a power point of view, we all just accept that there is less air to suck in up there and everyone makes less power. 

I'm not sure about the logic that you should try and fix the power output by pushing the setup harder; if it can take more at the top of the hill why can't it take more at the bottom as well? Also, there is the practical issue on that track that power is most useful to get you up the hill, not to take you across the top or even back down to an extent.

[Full-Race Geoff]

On 02/03/2019 at 11:23 AM, minesskyline said:

I currently have a twin 6758 setup on my RB26. I'm moving to a RIPS RB3.2 stroker. Has anybody had any experience with these turbos on this motor (or a 3.2 at all)?

 

On 03/03/2019 at 2:37 PM, minesskyline said:

@Full-Race Geoff Any experience with 6758 on 3.2l?

For this type of setup, I expect twins to be highly advantageous.  Weve got a few 3.0L and 3.4L 2jz-gte customers very happy with twin 6258, 6758 and 7163.  You should be able to keep the twin 6758 setup as is and enjoy it, but i think the 0.85 a/r would be a good idea!  if you wanted more power, swapping to EFR 7163 is a direct plug-and-play fitment, no changes to the setup and will flow considerably more

 

On 02/03/2019 at 2:46 PM, RICE RACING said:

Have not used those twins yet, but on 3.15 Tomei engine a 9180 is a bit small of a turbo, lots of posts about it here if you scan back.  But that is all relative to how much power you are wanting to run (read boost). The large capacity engine as Geoff said above is really not meant for a 3L and over set up assuming you are breathing right and using 8k+rpm, ~100bhp/lt/bar as your guide

the twins really do work beautifully on I6 engines, im eager for you to try.  We would have used twins on 4cyl engines but the available aftermarket twin turbo options would be spooling in the surge region for 99% of 4cyls

On 03/03/2019 at 2:43 PM, minesskyline said:

I think there is not an apples to apples comparison between the two turbo options. I couldn't find anybody running these twins on RB32. Whatever the 9180 does is probably not very useful or indicative of twin 6258/6758/7163. But I am open to being educated. Very real possibility these snails are too small. I am not smart enough to know.

6258 is too small for 3.2L+.  6758 is on the cusp and upgrading the turbine housing to 0.85 a/r may be worth trying..  7163 would be my first choice but 6758 will work

On 05/03/2019 at 1:59 AM, RICE RACING said:

One topic not debated/considered is available margins of safety and how they can be molested. I am faced with this now and part of the reason either to go twins or just use a 'shittier turbo' choice like the 369SXE....

Say for example you want to make ~850bhp at sea level, but also want to do this at 1000 meters, lets say running a constant map of ~3500mB. The limits I find on a single EFR is that you don't have the flexibility to use or extend way past the PR.. IE: ~3.8 to ~5.2, already finding yourself at/near turbine speed limits, where as the 'dirty old' inconel wheels don't have the "**** I will snap off at random if you over stress me issues"

Not some thing most think about due to geography maybe? or happy to loose power with altitude? not sure?

the smaller EFR's have a larger margin of safety.  this is due to the diameter of the wheel and the nature of Titanium Aluminide.  TiAL is not a metal, it's part metallic part ceramic aka "Interstitial Compound" and the smaller the size of the wheel the better the turbine would resist overspeed.  altitude does complicate matters as the turbospeed will be higher at altitude all other factors being equal

On 01/03/2019 at 8:26 AM, Lithium said:

As @RICE RACING has said, he and other people I know have gone a bit past the max compressor rpm for the 9180 and not had failures... albeit closely monitoring shaft rpm to make sure it hasn't gone wildly out of hand.  Anecdotally it seems that you increase the odds of failure (funnily enough), however the turbine failure speed is typically higher than the compressor failure speed and the cases people have had failures there is likely to be more sinister things at play than slightly exceeding Borg Warner's "uredC".

i think the key is people who monitor shaft rpm are probably more on top of their operating conditions and parameters than those who just "let 'er rip".  Fortunately there are some good ways to work with the shaft speed data at this point in time!  certainly much more than early 2010 when efr was first released

[Lithium]

On 05/03/2019 at 1:59 AM, RICE RACING said:

One topic not debated/considered is available margins of safety and how they can be molested. I am faced with this now and part of the reason either to go twins or just use a 'shittier turbo' choice like the 369SXE....

Say for example you want to make ~850bhp at sea level, but also want to do this at 1000 meters, lets say running a constant map of ~3500mB. The limits I find on a single EFR is that you don't have the flexibility to use or extend way past the PR.. IE: ~3.8 to ~5.2, already finding yourself at/near turbine speed limits, where as the 'dirty old' inconel wheels don't have the "**** I will snap off at random if you over stress me issues"

Not some thing most think about due to geography maybe? or happy to loose power with altitude? not sure?

Are you talking specifically your case of 1000m above sea level?  That is around a 10% difference in inlet pressure, so maybe .4 higher PR for the same absolute manifold pressure?   Realistically that is not a huuuuge amount different... a safely matched turbo I'd hope would absorb a lot of that change, overly simplified but on an EFR9180 compressor map the efficiency is pretty good between 3.5:1 and 3.9:1... almost favourable to the higher PR.   The guys who are running their turbos on "kill" will suffer though.

The topic of setting up and tuning for varying altitudes is one which off the internet and over bourbons or laptops has definitely been one I've enjoyed and head scratched on a lot, turbo matching isn't necessarily even the least of the issues.   Thermal management (lower air density = less efficient heat transfer from things you are relying on to cool stuff), and on the other side of the coin - less air density also means less drag, or less power needed to cut though the same volume of air which is more of a thing when you have a lot of speed and/or aero involved.

I feel like this all fits into typical turbo/setup matching strategy, work out what you need from it and make sure it will be able to supply what you need in the situation it will operate in.  Do you think you will be going off the map at 1000m above sea level?  Or have you already run into issues with this?

[RICE RACING]

29 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

The correct engineering approach is to design it to make the power you need within sensible margins (or only just outside) in the worst case (at elevation in this case) and not actually push the turbo as hard as it could go in the other case.  That is so long as you aren't happy to have the power fall off with elevation.

^ Lith and GTSBoy,

Bit for me :)  mostly for a few USA customers who run at very high altitudes. Would not call it a 'race track' as such lol or a sanctioned event hahaha.

But yes already at limits at sea level, and don't see it have any capacity to work without limiting power (which is a sad state of affairs given you are turbocharged, defeats the purpose).

Basically run out of capacity on a single EFR on multiple types tried, 4cyl, 6cl, 2 rotor. OR accept that power will fall off like it does for NA shit boxes.

[RICE RACING]

Have to run something like this lol, same power at top of hill as at the bottom

 

 

[GTSBoy]

I guess the other logical/correct engineering approach would be to have more than one compressor (parallel, series, whatever) and sophisticated control so that one of them is doing the work at low altitude and either both of them or just the other one doing the work at higher altitude.  This is something that a twin-charge system could probably help with a lot.  Use the blower to add some boost and air flow capacity back to the turbo only at higher elevations and use a properly mapped control valve to throttle it into and out of operation and de-clutch it completely at the lower elevations.

[RICE RACING]

Lith,

 

Its a multi faceted problem.

• mapTIP too high
• Phase and Anti Phase control limited (read too high TIP)
• Turbine overspeed
• Comp map (engine dependent) out of flow to right so heats up air allot

Get cars to a level of performance that is kick arse (sea level) then there is little to no margin unless you are going up molehills (sub 300 meters!). Then have to dial back power to keep everything within spec.

For my own car I specified a 369SXE with a larger Tial rear housing just for these reasons, should cover me up to Mount Kosciuszko, just need to find some speed rated snow chains LOL :)

[RICE RACING]

The above nugget:

I got told by the engine builder it does 'nearly 1000bhp' on just over 2 bar boost (no nos), which lets say is 2.1 bar or 3.1 absolute (sea level) which is normal given his F1 turbo back ground > works out to 134bhp/lt/bar........ and they kept that ~1000bhp all the way to the top too.

 

 

FORD RS200 - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

Engine

Geoff Page Racing 2,400cc Inline 4 cylinder Ford Cosworth BDTE racing engine.
Mid-mounted longitudinally.
Cylinder head: DOHC 16 valve.
Compression ratio: 8:1
Turbocharger: Prototype Garrett altitude compressor. Max boost pressure = 35 psi
Management: LIFE F88
Fuel: 116 octane race fuel
Max Power: 950 bhp (PS-DIN) @ 8,000 rpm
Max Torque: 750 lbs ft @ 5,500 rpm
Power booster: 70 litres of Nitrous Oxide gas gives a boost equivalent to 3 minutes at:
Max Power: 1,150 bhp (PS-DIN) @ 8,000 rpm
Max Torque: 850 lbs ft @ 5,500 rpm

 

Engine builder Geoff Page was involved with the BDT-E engines from the start in 1987 and has assembled the engines for almost all the competition RS200s ever built. There are only a handful of specialists in the world who can build these engines, and Geoff is the best of the best. He built the engine and serviced the Mach 2 Racing RS200 that was driven by Stig Blomqvist in the 2002 and 2004 Pikes Peak Hillclimb. From that experience he knew that to beat the elusive 10 minute barrier he would need to find more power and find a solution to the power loss at high altitude.

The 2009 engine has greater capacity at 2,400 cc, the Garrett prototype turbo delivers more boost with greater control at different altitudes and the LIFE ECU is better able to adjust the engine management settings to cope with variable air pressure. This combination with high octane racing fuel delivers 950 horsepower. Finally, 70 litres of Nitrous Oxide gas boosts the power output to 1,150 horsepower for the equivalent of three minutes.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by RICE RACING

[RICE RACING]

Then there is this (EFR in video lol) makes me want to 'slap' a brain dead horse. Kinda makes all the shit we talk about (and do) look very ****ed.

 

[Lithium]

On 3/5/2019 at 12:10 PM, RICE RACING said:

Its a multi faceted problem.

• mapTIP too high
• Phase and Anti Phase control limited (read too high TIP)
• Turbine overspeed
• Comp map (engine dependent) out of flow to right so heats up air allot

Get cars to a level of performance that is kick arse (sea level) then there is little to no margin unless you are going up molehills (sub 300 meters!). Then have to dial back power to keep everything within spec.

For my own car I specified a 369SXE with a larger Tial rear housing just for these reasons, should cover me up to Mount Kosciuszko, just need to find some speed rated snow chains LOL

Absolutely, I realise the variables... though haven't had the data to play with to say much about how all that will be but just some thoughts I'm curious about or which come to mind

* MAP/TIP - You sound to be targetted 3500mbar MAP, and the pressure at the turbine outlet will be down as much as the pressure at the compressor inlet... give or take (not sure how restrictive the feed to your compressor is).   Are you finding at altitude that TIP is going significantly past where it would be at sea level?   

* Makes sense that you will need to bypass less exhaust gas to support a higher pressure ratio

* Turbine overspeed - I think you already alluded to this in a previous post I didn't get to before you added more...  so you are pushing THAT hard already that you don't have much wriggle room.  Are you basically "off the map" already?

* Comp map - I'm guessing this ties with the above comment, as otherwise the EFR9180 looks (to a point) to actually hold better efficiency at higher flow rates than it does at lower ones.  Assuming the pressure ratio needs to be 10% higher to contend with the lower compressor inlet pressure the EFR9180 seems to be in the region of 2% more efficient for flow rates >74lb/min at >3000mbar

It's a shame that the likes of Precision and Xona Rotor don't publish compressor maps, anecdotally they are VERY friendly to high pressure ratios

17 hours ago, RICE RACING said:

The above nugget:

I got told by the engine builder it does 'nearly 1000bhp' on just over 2 bar boost (no nos), which lets say is 2.1 bar or 3.1 absolute (sea level) which is normal given his F1 turbo back ground > works out to 134bhp/lt/bar........ and they kept that ~1000bhp all the way to the top too.

 

Probably going a bit off topic for this thread, but pretty cool!

[Roy]

On 06/03/2019 at 8:28 AM, RICE RACING said:

Then there is this (EFR in video lol) makes me want to 'slap' a brain dead horse. Kinda makes all the shit we talk about (and do) look very ****ed.

 

They binned the EFRs for Precision! At least they are man enough to run twins. Give them another few years and they will finally see the light and rock Trust turbos