Jump to content
SAU Community

Efr turbo housing and waste gate options.

Griffin

By Griffin,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

Griffin Experienced

Griffin

Posted
Posted
Efr turbo housing and waste gate options.

Im about to start fitting a efr 9174 to rb26 with 264 cams on e85.

Custom manifold.

Is the 1.05 ewg t4 ts housing the way to go and what size waste gate/s will I get away with? 

Will run 25 to 30 psi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HarrisRacing Proficient

HarrisRacing

Posted
Posted

Not sure on the wastegates but I would say you are on the correct path with that housing (without knowing your displacement, intended use, etc). My 2.75 L stock bore stroker will hit 21 psi at 3,600 rpms in 3rd gear from a 2k rolling punch on the .92 IWG 8374. I have smaller cams like you and have set them to overlap for more mid range. It is a punchy street car 93 octane setup for sure and I like it (E85 is still not at the pump here), but I know I'm leaving power on the table at top end with cams overlapped and the smaller IWG housing. You being on the 9174 I would say definitely would require more exhaust AR.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Piggaz Grand Master

Piggaz

Posted
Posted

Twin 38's would be ample!

A few examples of twin 38's being used without any problems;

- Ian's RB34/6466 and no problems running 12 psi

- Intune's RB30/8374. 

-Nismo3.2ish's RB32/8374.

Alot of guys run single 50 mm gates. They have an area of 1964mm2. Twin 38's have an area of 1134.5714 x 2 which is 2269mm2. 

Considering you want to run it "fairly hard", you won't be wasting a hell of a lot of gas, I can't see why you'd need anything larger than twin 38's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Piggaz Grand Master

Piggaz

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Dale FZ1 said:

Valve size is one part of the puzzle.  Efficient flow paths to/from the gates are right up there too.

So if you could run similar manifold/piping as cited above ^^ should be ok.  

Of course. That's assuming the manifold is half decent ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • MBS206
      Skid pans in/around Sydney?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Maybe SAUNSW could see howany members would do a motorkhana day if Schofield's is still available for a reasonable price...
    • MBS206
      Skid pans in/around Sydney?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Skip the concrete, we just need to smooth a field. Mark knows how to drive a grader Duncan   I reckon 100x100 flat area for skid pan style, and then some sort tracks for rally... Duncan's already got a rally car on the premises to...
    • GTSBoy
      PRP RB26 cast block + head prototype running

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • V35_Paul
      Thinking of getting a Q50 300hp and just tuning it instead of getting the Q50 Red or 400R

      By V35_Paul · Posted

    • joshuaho96
      PRP RB26 cast block + head prototype running

      By joshuaho96 · Posted

      Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
×
×
  • Create New...