Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[RICE RACING]

The inertia is allot less on 2 x 7163 v's 1 x 9180, thus Geoff's comments, so everything will improve, especially on transients irrespective of engine rpm/per second (acceleration rate), but the higher this number the more advantage will be on the twin set up. The reason why Honda went from nugget to dominant, only change was turbo specification, there is enough space to do it and you don't need 'horse cock' exhaust manifolds either, far from it, I always found these to be stupid in a turbo engine, even on more sensitive engines types.

Less typing, more testing lets see, first have to break the 9180, but am surprised how much over speed it has taken so far, well off speed and compressor charts! Only real issue with it apart from not enough air flow is not enough transient response, thus the whole idea of twins before going to max homo route and un drivable shit box larger single turbo.

[Lithium]

28 minutes ago, RICE RACING said:

Less typing, more testing  

Sounds good! It'd be awesome if you do get some results, both dyno and real world.  

There is no magic or mystery in the idea that if you can make decent use of 25% more flow that you will go faster, whether you use a single or two turbos to get either result.  One of the fastest GTRs in the world around a track will be going from a 9180 to 120lb/min of high mount twins so look forward to seeing how that comes together too

[RICE RACING]

Without divulging too much I can share that the maximum acceleration of the turbo is around 60,000rpm per second (single 9180 install with 1.05AR), so looking to improve on this. With a more suitable engine type I have recorded nearly 90,000rpm per second (still on the 9180 turbo).

This issue is really exposed on cars with short gearing where you are pulling through lower gears in 1 second or 1.5 seconds, so you just don't reach the boost targets, nice problem to have :)

Loading the turbo by having more appropriate gearing is one solution, but always an improvement via big reductions of inertia is first step, and we need more power capacity so potentially can win in all area's and more happy turbo too, lets see.....

[sneakey pete]

Does anyone actually have some inertia data?
Have heard multiple people say twin 7163's will have less than a 9180 but yet to see any actual info.

I'd be intrigued to know. I'm not sure the 7163's would actually have less but that's my own gut feeling (with no data to back it up)

I think its a moot point though, but an interesting debate none the less, as as said last page, the 7163's do flow more so you still get that reagardless, and there's no single turbo as big in the EFR range to compare it against. Other people I've seen use them use them for the fact they maxxed out their 9180's

[Lithium]

12 hours ago, RICE RACING said:

Without divulging too much I can share that the maximum acceleration of the turbo is around 60,000rpm per second (single 9180 install with 1.05AR), so looking to improve on this. With a more suitable engine type I have recorded nearly 90,000rpm per second (still on the 9180 turbo).

This issue is really exposed on cars with short gearing where you are pulling through lower gears in 1 second or 1.5 seconds, so you just don't reach the boost targets, nice problem to have

Loading the turbo by having more appropriate gearing is one solution, but always an improvement via big reductions of inertia is first step, and we need more power capacity so potentially can win in all area's and more happy turbo too, lets see.....

That's pretty interesting, and pretty impressive really.  I would not be in the slightest surprised if the rpm delta improves going to twin EFR7163s, to compare this kind of acceleration it'd be more accurate (though not perfect) to compare tip speed.  60,000rpm/s rate of change = 286m/s/s acceleration, which you need around 77,000rpm/s to match with the EFR7163s.   

 

8 minutes ago, sneakey pete said:

Does anyone actually have some inertia data?
Have heard multiple people say twin 7163's will have less than a 9180 but yet to see any actual info.

I'd be intrigued to know. I'm not sure the 7163's would actually have less but that's my own gut feeling (with no data to back it up)

I think its a moot point though, but an interesting debate none the less, as as said last page, the 7163's do flow more so you still get that reagardless, and there's no single turbo as big in the EFR range to compare it against. Other people I've seen use them use them for the fact they maxxed out their 9180's

I've never seen any inertia data and I've seen people make big assumptions one way or another, I'm not going to do the topic the injustice of me speculating wildly on that like it could be easy to fall in to.   If we're going to end up with some real world data then we may as well wait for that and see where everything sits - hopefully there aren't other variables at play, like manifolding as close to equivalent and engine spec exactly the same otherwise it'll lose the meaning a bit.  

There really are two different discussions happening here though, from what I can tell - and it's probably worth identifying it so we're not all talking cross purposes.

1) Are the EFR7163s a better match for what RICE RACING is trying to do? By the sound of it, quite likely.

2) Are they going to be more responsive and/or drivable than a single EFR9180 with all other things equal - I'm not so sure, but very interesting to see.  If they manage to be then that is a HUGE thing.

 

[RICE RACING]

If someone else has done this please let us know, but I have seen that it takes from engine revs as long as starting above 3500rpm, consistently 1.5 seconds from a closed throttle to full to reach ~3000mB or ~29psi gauge boost (sea level std day). To keep it simple would be great to see if the twins do this in a lower time. I checked gears 1st to 5th and its consistent so indicative of this turbo mated to this 6cyl engine type. 

p.s. customer personally hates idea of twins and wants a larger EFR, but this one does not give same instant response as it does a different engine thus the request (seems impossible from what I can see) so only real solution I have left to investigate is the twins.....

[Lithium]

11 minutes ago, RICE RACING said:

If someone else has done this please let us know, but I have seen that it takes from engine revs as long as starting above 3500rpm, consistently 1.5 seconds from a closed throttle to full to reach ~3000mB or ~29psi gauge boost (sea level std day). To keep it simple would be great to see if the twins do this in a lower time. I checked gears 1st to 5th and its consistent so indicative of this turbo mated to this 6cyl engine type. 

p.s. customer personally hates idea of twins and wants a larger EFR, but this one does not give same instant response as it does a different engine thus the request (seems impossible from what I can see) so only real solution I have left to investigate is the twins.....

The only people I know who may have a chance of providing this kind of data is @bri73y or @Full-Race Geoff

[RICE RACING]

Its all 'hot air' at end of the day when the turbine wheel flies out back of exhaust it will need larger turbo/s 

Question more would be will the twin EFR shit on any other larger power capacity single turbo? I think we already know the answer to that one.

[Lithium]

1 hour ago, RICE RACING said:

If someone else has done this please let us know, but I have seen that it takes from engine revs as long as starting above 3500rpm, consistently 1.5 seconds from a closed throttle to full to reach ~3000mB or ~29psi gauge boost (sea level std day). To keep it simple would be great to see if the twins do this in a lower time. I checked gears 1st to 5th and its consistent so indicative of this turbo mated to this 6cyl engine type. 

p.s. customer personally hates idea of twins and wants a larger EFR, but this one does not give same instant response as it does a different engine thus the request (seems impossible from what I can see) so only real solution I have left to investigate is the twins.....

What size engine and what kind of setup are you talking about re: this 3500rpm test btw?  3.2 with an EFR9180?

I doubt Borg Warner are going to do a big enough EFR to justify an upgrade from a 9180, though I don't know for sure.   How much of a rush are you guys in to change?   Fairly safe to say that there is very likely to be changes in the turbo market before the year ends...

[Kinkstaah]

Would be curious to see what this is like on another combination, i.e whatever twins are similar to say an 8374.

My 7670 and 2.8 had a similar spool up time, with what 'felt' like 1.5s on a closed throttle to WOT coming out of a corner, and as mentioned here, it did kind of get on my nerves when driving around very tight, twisty roads, its still better than anything else I had tried, but getting that 1.5s down to less than 1.5s would have been the thing I was targetting next.

It just adds up when you come out of a corner (1.5) shift (1.5) then brake, turn, repeat every few seconds.

The transient throttle (i.e 40% to 100% throttle) was near instant, and this is what the EFR was awesome at, but I certainly noticed a different life from CLOSED to open throttle which was one of the reasons my EFR is now for sale (I am going n/a ?)

[burn4005]

 .

Edited June 26, 2018 by burn4005

[Lithium]

21 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

 .

There is actually some info on twins, a member has been running twin EFR6258s on a "good" RB28DETT setup in a track car for years and also tried the EFR7163s briefly.

Here is the dyno results with the EFR6258s: 

 

And his comments on the EFR7163s: 

In the end they spooled as you'd expect from a pair of 7163s so they came off as quick as they went on. I think they made 21psi at around 5700rpm or something.

 

 

[RICE RACING]

1 hour ago, Lithium said:

What size engine and what kind of setup are you talking about re: this 3500rpm test btw?  3.2 with an EFR9180?

I doubt Borg Warner are going to do a big enough EFR to justify an upgrade from a 9180, though I don't know for sure.   How much of a rush are you guys in to change?   Fairly safe to say that there is very likely to be changes in the turbo market before the year ends...

Yes, pick any gear and stand on it from 3500rpm. Same thing is evident on 1-2-3-4-5 gear accel run where not using antilag flat shift, the turbo just takes 'time' to get back up to pressure, I explained it at length to Geoff, who agrees with me and what I have found. There just is not the exhaust pulse energy to kick it up there. To give you an idea on a shitbox 13B engine the exact same turbo accelerates 30,000rpm/s faster! but the internal manifold volume is much less, there is more 'heat', to reach the same pressure value in same conditions takes 1.1 seconds v's 1.5 seconds on this enlarged RB. Thus customer complains saying its much more fun to drive the Mazda by comparison, and even causal occupants in both cars say the same thing too. I dont have the time to f**k around with testing different exhaust manifolds but I cant see a 6 cyl divided horse cock manifold even with twin gates working well myself.

Thus sharing some thought here with others who may or may not have already done this.

[Lithium]

3 hours ago, RICE RACING said:

Yes, pick any gear and stand on it from 3500rpm. Same thing is evident on 1-2-3-4-5 gear accel run where not using antilag flat shift, the turbo just takes 'time' to get back up to pressure, I explained it at length to Geoff, who agrees with me and what I have found. There just is not the exhaust pulse energy to kick it up there. To give you an idea on a shitbox 13B engine the exact same turbo accelerates 30,000rpm/s faster! but the internal manifold volume is much less, there is more 'heat', to reach the same pressure value in same conditions takes 1.1 seconds v's 1.5 seconds on this enlarged RB. Thus customer complains saying its much more fun to drive the Mazda by comparison, and even causal occupants in both cars say the same thing too. I dont have the time to f**k around with testing different exhaust manifolds but I cant see a 6 cyl divided horse cock manifold even with twin gates working well myself.

Thus sharing some thought here with others who may or may not have already done this.

Gotcha.  This is on the OS  3.15?  It hasn't got a big tube manifold or something, has it?  And with the turbine rpm pick up tests are you doing it on the road (ie, where there is gearing and weight of a vehicle involved) or is it steady state against a dyno?     Depending on that lot, what you say paints the picture that could be interpreted to say that inertia isn't your primary problem and that it's got a lot to do with how your exhaust energy etc is being harnessed.  13Bs I guess aren't exactly lacking in creating exhaust energy I guess.

That short-runner/high exhaust energy thing is why I kinda view twins as a no brainer on Vs and singles, and it'd be nice on the straight 6 if it weren't for the fact that everything was so cluttered that the benefits are arguably some what scuttled by the fact that pushing exhaust gas into the turbine isn't the only factor involved in making an engine perform

What kind of spec is the best power vs drivability RB-based setup you're encountered so far?

[RICE RACING]

1 hour ago, Lithium said:

Gotcha.  This is on the OS  3.15?  It hasn't got a big tube manifold or something, has it?  And with the turbine rpm pick up tests are you doing it on the road (ie, where there is gearing and weight of a vehicle involved) or is it steady state against a dyno?     Depending on that lot, what you say paints the picture that could be interpreted to say that inertia isn't your primary problem and that it's got a lot to do with how your exhaust energy etc is being harnessed.  13Bs I guess aren't exactly lacking in creating exhaust energy I guess.

That short-runner/high exhaust energy thing is why I kinda view twins as a no brainer on Vs and singles, and it'd be nice on the straight 6 if it weren't for the fact that everything was so cluttered that the benefits are arguably some what scuttled by the fact that pushing exhaust gas into the turbine isn't the only factor involved in making an engine perform

What kind of spec is the best power vs drivability RB-based setup you're encountered so far?

Yep OS 3.15 set up.

Wifbitz split pulse twin gate manifold. All done on road. Prob not qualified to comment on what is best? but the larger the displacement one's like this has had the widest spread of power. It is the response side that needs some further development work. A power increase is always nice, but the motor has to live  

 

[HarrisRacing]

9 hours ago, Lithium said:

There is actually some info on twins, a member has been running twin EFR6258s on a "good" RB28DETT setup in a track car for years and also tried the EFR7163s briefly.

Here is the dyno results with the EFR6258s: 

 

And his comments on the EFR7163s: 

 

 

 

 

This doesn't look all that impressive to be honest - especially given the $$$ for those twins. I'd have to drive the car to know for sure, but The 8374 looks like a better pick on this still. I can tell you mine on a 2.75L is just straight nasty for a streetcar. I'm about to tune a stock RB26 with my old 8374 EFR .92 on it (next couple of weeks). So I'll FINALLY have a few different cars on the same dyno for you guys for comparisons so we can end the "American HP" debate at least for a little while. 

FYI. I kept my engine after I crashed my car and bought another R32 GTR. It's got a nice fresh stock engine in it with -7's currently that did 406 whp before it maxxed the stock MAF's. I am contemplating trying out this 7670 1.05 we have sitting in the shop that a customer returned still brand new (and went with 8374). Thoughts on this on a completely stock RB26 with exhaust (may add intake cam gear)?

[BakemonoRicer]

I'm very interested now to see how my 7670 1.05 goes on the 2L SR.

No data on SR's yet but if its anything like the results I've seen on the Evo's it'll be just ridiculous.....

@RICE RACING what are your thoughts?

[Kinkstaah]

I can confirm the 7670 is great on a 2.8, so it'll be OK on a 2.6 and most likely pretty bad on a 2.0.

7163 is best for the 2L, but some SR20 people don't believe life exists until 5k and sideways in which case the 7670 will be ideal. There are actually a few reports on the 7670 on the 2L, I want to say a few were tuned by JEM up on their facebook page over the last year or so.

It is similar in size to a GTX3576, which is most would consider to be a pretty big ask for a 2L with a 7k rev limit and RWD.

[burn4005]

10 hours ago, BakemonoRicer said:

I'm very interested now to see how my 7670 1.05 goes on the 2L SR.

No data on SR's yet but if its anything like the results I've seen on the Evo's it'll be just ridiculous.....

@RICE RACING what are your thoughts?

if you're comparing an basic SR20 to a MIVEC evo 9 engine you'll be dissapointed i believe. it'll make power, but not in the same way.

[BakemonoRicer]

Power delivery wise....I don't see how an SR20 w/ VCT is at any disadvantage compared to a MIVEC 9 engine.......

No point comparing RB to SR.... SR is renowned for its early torque & fat ass midrange.....it is the ultimate 2L engine.....

Sounds like it'll be a complete HOLD THE F**K ON experience.... I can't wait