Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

On 13/09/2022 at 11:58 AM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

In the process of building a nitto 3.2 mated to a PPG sequential. I went back/forth with my EFR turbo choice. I think I will go with the 9180 (twin scroll manifold w/ twin external gates). I feel like going with a 1.45 a/r since I'll be using a sequential.

Any newer takes with this turbo on with a 3.2 stroker?

 

Why 9180?

Why not 8474? 

  • Like 2
On 13/09/2022 at 1:58 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

In the process of building a nitto 3.2 mated to a PPG sequential. I went back/forth with my EFR turbo choice. I think I will go with the 9180 (twin scroll manifold w/ twin external gates). I feel like going with a 1.45 a/r since I'll be using a sequential.

Any newer takes with this turbo on with a 3.2 stroker?

 

What are your power goals?

A mate has an RB30 with the 9180 and a 1.05 hotside, it's nice and responsive but the down side to the 9180 is that it does its best at higher boost levels (compressor wise) while a 3.2 with a decent head will find it easy to run off the map.  The 3litre works very nicely but a 3.2 would arguably be pushing it, the bigger 1.45a/r exhaust housing being a bandaid which doesn't fix the actual cause.

An EFR8474 compressor is actually more efficient in the 20psi range than the 9180, and the turbine wheel is surprisingly up to the task at that level.  I'd consider going 1.45a/r if you have a big head and want to make the most if you consider the 8474 but if you are mainly looking for a super responsive solid power level the 1.05 is likely to work better than many may expect.

Tl;Dr both are solid options - if you want significantly more than a 8474 can do then the EFR9280 is a more tangible improvement than the 9180 is, but the 9280 definitely comes at a cost in boost threshold.  On a 3.2 with a 1.05 you won't see solid solid boost until in the 4000rpm range but they can support a fair bit of power... But you DO need the 1.45 hotside to make the most of a 9280 and they start becoming a pretty laggy setup, I feel like other brands offer better options for that territory.

 

  • Like 1

I personally would use the 9180. While the compressor will perform similar, The 8474 is too small in the rear. You want to keep that pressure ratio down and allow that exhaust to get out. The power will be more manageable too. 

I have a 2.8L, Vcam, and 8474 with a 1.06 rear. It's a weapon and I can see it getting to 750rwhp with ease. 

  • Like 1
On 13/09/2022 at 1:58 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

In the process of building a nitto 3.2 mated to a PPG sequential. I went back/forth with my EFR turbo choice. I think I will go with the 9180 (twin scroll manifold w/ twin external gates). I feel like going with a 1.45 a/r since I'll be using a sequential.

Any newer takes with this turbo on with a 3.2 stroker?

 

I happen to have the same combo but with an Albins that is getting swapped now. Have a look at my sig/profile. I went with the 1.05? housing too.

I think this turbo's spot on if you want response and decent top end.

  • Like 1
On 9/12/2022 at 10:47 PM, Mick_o said:

Why 9180?

Why not 8474? 

I thinking the 9180 for some overhead in boost. I def have been tossing the 8474 and the 9180 in my head. just not sure.

On 9/12/2022 at 11:02 PM, Lithium said:

What are your power goals?

A mate has an RB30 with the 9180 and a 1.05 hotside, it's nice and responsive but the down side to the 9180 is that it does its best at higher boost levels (compressor wise) while a 3.2 with a decent head will find it easy to run off the map.  The 3litre works very nicely but a 3.2 would arguably be pushing it, the bigger 1.45a/r exhaust housing being a bandaid which doesn't fix the actual cause.

An EFR8474 compressor is actually more efficient in the 20psi range than the 9180, and the turbine wheel is surprisingly up to the task at that level.  I'd consider going 1.45a/r if you have a big head and want to make the most if you consider the 8474 but if you are mainly looking for a super responsive solid power level the 1.05 is likely to work better than many may expect.

Tl;Dr both are solid options - if you want significantly more than a 8474 can do then the EFR9280 is a more tangible improvement than the 9180 is, but the 9280 definitely comes at a cost in boost threshold.  On a 3.2 with a 1.05 you won't see solid solid boost until in the 4000rpm range but they can support a fair bit of power... But you DO need the 1.45 hotside to make the most of a 9280 and they start becoming a pretty laggy setup, I feel like other brands offer better options for that territory.

 

Looking at 850whp tops. May be a stretch with a 8474. Either way in not hard set on 850, its just a bs goal.

I want it to be responsive w/o falling over too much at high RPM

So i assume the 1.05 a/r is a better option then?

My head is getting CNC ported, 1+ valves, dual springs, kelford 182-SE cams

overall not looking to push the motor to the limit. wanna set diff boost levels with that 850 being max. street drag use. Keeping that car for life so I want something fun. Slowly building it all up

On 9/12/2022 at 11:03 PM, The Mafia said:

I personally would use the 9180. While the compressor will perform similar, The 8474 is too small in the rear. You want to keep that pressure ratio down and allow that exhaust to get out. The power will be more manageable too. 

I have a 2.8L, Vcam, and 8474 with a 1.06 rear. It's a weapon and I can see it getting to 750rwhp with ease. 

Thx for the comment. I'm think the 9180 is the best option.

On 9/13/2022 at 12:07 AM, Predator1 said:

I happen to have the same combo but with an Albins that is getting swapped now. Have a look at my sig/profile. I went with the 1.05? housing too.

I think this turbo's spot on if you want response and decent top end.

I'll give it a look. thx

On 13/09/2022 at 10:45 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

My head is getting CNC ported, 1+ valves, dual springs, kelford 182-SE cams

overall not looking to push the motor to the limit. wanna set diff boost levels with that 850 being max. street drag use. Keeping that car for life so I want something fun. Slowly building it all up

 

For 850whp, and If you have extensive headwork, then the 9180 probably wont cut it, or it might be borderline. Remember the 9180 is rated to 900hp only. I'm on around 750whp on around 25psi only, mind you, the tune isnt dialled in as it was a 'tidy up' tune only, however I was having IAT issues, so suspect turbo is being choked. I have a wheel speed sensor and EMAP going in along with other bits and pieces so be interesting to see how fast its spinning and how much headroom left.

  • Like 1
On 14/09/2022 at 3:12 PM, Predator1 said:

For 850whp, and If you have extensive headwork, then the 9180 probably wont cut it, or it might be borderline. Remember the 9180 is rated to 900hp only. I'm on around 750whp on around 25psi only, mind you, the tune isnt dialled in as it was a 'tidy up' tune only, however I was having IAT issues, so suspect turbo is being choked. I have a wheel speed sensor and EMAP going in along with other bits and pieces so be interesting to see how fast its spinning and how much headroom left.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at above.  Realistically BOTH turbos will be on their upper end of capability at this power level, but if OP is happy with "getting over 800whp" then I actually am going to go against the grain and say I still think the 8474 is the better option.

The trick with the "pre-black edition" Borg Warner turbos is the 8374 and 9180 compressors let the side down and made it seem like the turbines were more restrictive than they are.  The turbine from the EFR8374 had heaps up it's sleeve but people would often see high EMAP because of the compressor going inefficient and the boost control setup effectively going into "send" conditions.   Same goes for the EFR9180, they are better suited to higher boost/lower flow.   

This is somewhat speculative because I don't have direct experience with the combo, buuuut if I were a betting man I'd back an EFR8474 with a 1.45a/r hotside to be the "best" for if you're looking for a "being able to nudge over 800hp @ hub with epic response" on a build like this.    I wouldn't aim for 850hp, but you may be able to get it as a hero tune type thing.. it'd definitely be getting more on the sendy side though.

To put the compressor efficiency into perspective, I've plotted where the 64% compressor efficiency (ie, the point where it's still happy as but where things usually start getting sad quickly afterwards) for 20psi, 22psi, 24psi, 26psi, 28psi and 30psi on an EFR8474 on the EFR9180 compressor map.   Basically, the EFR8474 is still operating in the happy zone where a 9180 is getting quite into "shut the wastegate and cook the intake air" territory.

 

image.thumb.png.b89f31aa4b168a6839dadcd1c6d63863.png

Edited by Lithium
  • Like 2

Very well put Lithium. 

Just to add to this - on my RB28, 272 JUN cams, fully ported head, the 8374 and 1.06 pretty much fell off the cliff at 650rwhp (front shaft out). Vcam made it VERY responsive on the 2.8L when added later. To put it into perspective, I had to ask my mate because mine has been cut, but he said from about 3k onwards he could feel his foreskin peeling back coming onto boost.

I thought it would have more but nope, 650rwhp on a proper reading dyno at 32psi and she was cooked. 

The 8474 though on a 2.8L and Vcam, noticably more mid range with just the tiniest bit of extra lag. 100-200rpm. But the transient is so much better. 

Edited by The Mafia
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
On 15/09/2022 at 11:16 AM, Lithium said:

Yeah, this is what I was getting at above.  Realistically BOTH turbos will be on their upper end of capability at this power level, but if OP is happy with "getting over 800whp" then I actually am going to go against the grain and say I still think the 8474 is the better option.

The trick with the "pre-black edition" Borg Warner turbos is the 8374 and 9180 compressors let the side down and made it seem like the turbines were more restrictive than they are.  The turbine from the EFR8374 had heaps up it's sleeve but people would often see high EMAP because of the compressor going inefficient and the boost control setup effectively going into "send" conditions.   Same goes for the EFR9180, they are better suited to higher boost/lower flow.   

This is somewhat speculative because I don't have direct experience with the combo, buuuut if I were a betting man I'd back an EFR8474 with a 1.45a/r hotside to be the "best" for if you're looking for a "being able to nudge over 800hp @ hub with epic response" on a build like this.    I wouldn't aim for 850hp, but you may be able to get it as a hero tune type thing.. it'd definitely be getting more on the sendy side though.

To put the compressor efficiency into perspective, I've plotted where the 64% compressor efficiency (ie, the point where it's still happy as but where things usually start getting sad quickly afterwards) for 20psi, 22psi, 24psi, 26psi, 28psi and 30psi on an EFR8474 on the EFR9180 compressor map.   Basically, the EFR8474 is still operating in the happy zone where a 9180 is getting quite into "shut the wastegate and cook the intake air" territory.

 

image.thumb.png.b89f31aa4b168a6839dadcd1c6d63863.png

Agreed 100%. I am thinking of the 9280, but in the meantime I'll see if I can crack 900w on e85.. I seriously doubt it, but I'll find out very soon. I'm hoping the extra cubes and headwork will get me that magic number at the same or similar boost. I'd be happy if i could run higher boost as long as my IAT and EMAP's don't skyrocket.

  • Like 1
On 9/15/2022 at 9:23 AM, The Mafia said:

Very well put Lithium. 

Just to add to this - on my RB28, 272 JUN cams, fully ported head, the 8374 and 1.06 pretty much fell off the cliff at 650rwhp (front shaft out). Vcam made it VERY responsive on the 2.8L when added later. To put it into perspective, I had to ask my mate because mine has been cut, but he said from about 3k onwards he could feel his foreskin peeling back coming onto boost.

I thought it would have more but nope, 650rwhp on a proper reading dyno at 32psi and she was cooked. 

The 8474 though on a 2.8L and Vcam, noticably more mid range with just the tiniest bit of extra lag. 100-200rpm. But the transient is so much better. 

had same experience with the 8374/1.05 on an RB26. 665hp@rear wheels at 28psi was full speed (127k rpm). you would have been overspeeding it for sure at 32psi on an RB28. for me it just nosed over. 

"what does front shaft out" mean?

Edited by burn4005
  • Like 1
On 15/09/2022 at 1:37 PM, Predator1 said:

Agreed 100%. I am thinking of the 9280, but in the meantime I'll see if I can crack 900w on e85.. I seriously doubt it, but I'll find out very soon. I'm hoping the extra cubes and headwork will get me that magic number at the same or similar boost. I'd be happy if i could run higher boost as long as my IAT and EMAP's don't skyrocket.

Unfortunately as per the compressor efficiency stuff I was rambling about above, extra cubes and headwork with a 9180 are a liability - not an advantage.   The compressor doesn't really do it's best work until higher boost levels, boost levels that with a saucy 3.2 you need a lot more flow than the 9180 will provide.   At the boost levels that a well flowing 3.2 will be happiest moving "900hp" levels of airflow are not where a 9180 is really doing it's best work.  

A 9280 would definitely let a 3.2 "hang on" better in the higher rpm, but they are a little lazier and the 1.05 hotside is a bit of a restriction - but it definitely makes a bit more sense.   My general view on the EFR range is that if a 8474/9180 is too far short of someones target then it's time to consider going to something from Precision or Garrett.

  • Like 1
On 15/09/2022 at 2:17 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

Great content!!!

as much as I want to stick with EFR turbos I may need a G-series for the 3.2

Again the 9180 and 8474 will both get you to the 800hp @ hubs area.  Going to Precision or Garrett will definitely be a step backwards in response, if you're wanting to go north of 850hp but not too much then the 9280 is OK with the 1.05 but I was partly addressing situations where you're more looking for a healthy 900+hp.

In the Garrett range you'll be needing to look at a .95a/r G40 1150 btw, which will be laggy than the EFRs - but will do the power quite happily.  

Edited by Lithium

Actually.    Here's some data, this is from a 3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474.   Looks like I've not posted this before.  This is 830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

image.thumb.png.b9d6fba28a00848c5a3cdcc39901fbff.png


 

 

  • Like 1
7 hours ago, Lithium said:

Actually.    Here's some data, this is from a 3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474.   Looks like I've not posted this before.  This is 830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

image.thumb.png.b9d6fba28a00848c5a3cdcc39901fbff.png


 

 

Holy smokes. I'd hate to be the big end bearings on that! 800+Nm under 4k!

On 9/14/2022 at 8:28 PM, Lithium said:

3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474.   830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

image.thumb.png.b9d6fba28a00848c5a3cdcc39901fbff.png

thats a great result, especially considering the 1.05 a/r!  What fuel was this on? agree the 1.45 could be a beast on there but the lowend on this 2jz has to be a LOT of fun

On 9/15/2022 at 10:49 AM, Lithium said:

In the Garrett range you'll be needing to look at a .95a/r G40 1150 btw, which will be laggy than the EFRs - but will do the power quite happily.  

Don't think the g35-1050 will get there ?   

I am pretty close(720rear) on 26psi with scope for more boost and rpm.  

Very happy with the repsonse on a 2.6 with vcam, on a 3.2 it would be amazing. 

On 20/09/2022 at 6:26 AM, Full-Race Geoff said:

thats a great result, especially considering the 1.05 a/r!  What fuel was this on? agree the 1.45 could be a beast on there but the lowend on this 2jz has to be a LOT of fun

This is on E85.  

I know I've said this before but I have more data to back it up now, I think the Borg Warner turbines have been given less credit than they are due in terms of how well they flow because of the previous generation(s) lacking a bit compared to their competition in terms of compressor flow, especially with how the compressor maps looked for some of the EFR range.  The fact that Borg Warner have now released an EFR8370 is evidence of this, in my head.

I had a 2.3litre Mitsi hillclimb beasty recently on the dyno with an S257SXE running the 1.15a/r divided hotside on the dyno recently which had EMAP logging and with 1.8bar of boost in it the thing it still hadn't reached 1:1 EMAP/IMAP at max rpm at 390awkw / 520whp.    It would only be where it starts running out of compressor where the EMAP goes seriously south.  I feel the typical EFR range usually ran into EMAP (and turbine failure) issues because of people trying to drag flow out of compressors which really weren't the best for their size.   

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
    • Yup but for me its the HR ! Cut my teeth on the old holden 6s in the day ! And here's me thinking in the day it was also the 300ZX and the Mitsubishi GT3000 ! All, as well had good lines, but always seemed to need finishing off, style wise.
×
×
  • Create New...