Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

They are available lith. Not for black series yet but definitely available for all other efrs. Good for people that have cut up their efrs to fit elbows or don't need bov.

https://www.full-race.com/store/borg-warner-efr/efr-components/borgwarner-efr-compressor-cover-sx-e-style/

3 hours ago, burn4005 said:

They are available lith. Not for black series yet but definitely available for all other efrs. Good for people that have cut up their efrs to fit elbows or don't need bov.

https://www.full-race.com/store/borg-warner-efr/efr-components/borgwarner-efr-compressor-cover-sx-e-style/

Well there we go, that's cool - thanks!!

6 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

I check this thread daily for the same reason. Can't find any results anywhere on the net for any engine at all running a 8474 other than rt Ernie on the evo years ago. 

Ditto. Been keeping an eye out for results for any of the black series and found bugger all.

This wee clip of a 9274 on a 2.2 stroker Evo X suggests they spool well for the size: 

 

On 6/1/2019 at 10:36 AM, gixer said:

On bottom mount T4 twin scroll manifold, will an EFR 7163 CHRA be sitting  higher then 7670 one? Thanks

It depends on where you are measuring exactly -  The manifold side Turbine Inlet and downpipe side Turbine outlet are identically positioned between 0.80 and 0.92 a/r.. there is no difference in axial position.  However the 7670 has a longer CHRA (axial length) and moves the comp housing out further forward.  additionally the B2 frame is a larger bearing housing with fittings that stick out farther from the center.

I dont know what engine or manifold youre looking at or what point you intend to measure - they are similar. although slightly different

On 5/25/2019 at 8:18 AM, burn4005 said:

I check this thread daily for the same reason. Can't find any results anywhere on the net for any engine at all running a 8474 other than rt Ernie on the evo years ago. 

ill find some time and dig some up, we just had an evoX with good results and this week at pike's peak a friend of mine will be giving his k20 / 8474 0.92 the stick with an unlimited class Pikes Peak entry this year.

On 5/23/2019 at 8:33 PM, burn4005 said:

They are available lith. Not for black series yet but definitely available for all other efrs. Good for people that have cut up their efrs to fit elbows or don't need bov.

https://www.full-race.com/store/borg-warner-efr/efr-components/borgwarner-efr-compressor-cover-sx-e-style/

thanks for the plug, SXE style comp covers are available for the legacy EFR turbos.  Waiting on this for the newer 84 and 92 turbos

Edited by Full-Race Geoff
On 6/4/2019 at 7:58 PM, Full-Race Geoff said:

thanks for the plug, SXE style comp covers are available for the legacy EFR turbos.  Waiting on this for the newer 84 and 92 turbos

small correction for your website Geoff, the selection currently is shown as "8374 or 9174 compressor cover"

the 9174 option should be with the 9180 as its the compressor size you're interested in, not the turbine.

  • Like 1
9 minutes ago, welshy_32ZILA said:

Lith have you seen that Garrett have released their new g turbos in mid frame. G30/35. Be interesting to see where they sit on your table of flow. 

Yep, I posted in the thread which is about Gseries - will update the table when exact dates is available. Some extremely promising looking options there 

  • Like 1
10 hours ago, Nosure said:

8474 1.45 a/r on the way.  Should finish it next month sometime. 

Very nice!  What kind of setup is it going to be working with?   

This is definitely the combination of the range which I suspect has the potential likely shine on an RB

Edited by Lithium

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...