Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

On 1/10/2019 at 11:39 PM, HarrisRacing said:

I think it's pointless to go with anything smaller to be honest because you really don't spool any faster...only reduce topend. 

I'd love to see some data, bit thin on the ground

I've seen the results you got with your IWG .92, looks solid. Unsure about 1.05 rear of the EWG

On 1/10/2019 at 7:52 PM, Taha said:

6466   if your  going to build a stroker later  6266 if your staying 2.6 or a gtx382 or 84

TOO LAGGY! Driven a 6266 on a 3.2L with V cam and it was junk... 

6266 would choke  up top on a  3.2 but each to there own  changing setups can get expensive  so if you plan to build a stroker   get the right turbo   for you and what you plan to do with the car  I see   full boost under 5k  pulls to 9 with 270 cams on a 2.6  shit on my old twin set up  

6266 .84 Was a laggy heap of shit IMO Still took 4-4200 to really wake up. Same car with the EFR 1.05 8374 combo was on by 3500. Its a Much better turbo. Car drove way better from the basement to the top end of town. 

8 hours ago, Mick_o said:

6266 .84 Was a laggy heap of shit IMO Still took 4-4200 to really wake up. Same car with the EFR 1.05 8374 combo was on by 3500. Its a Much better turbo. Car drove way better from the basement to the top end of town. 

To be fair there were a heap of other things which probably had more to do with that lag than the turbo, I would have been interested to see how the 6266 behaved with those sorted - the EFR was always going to be better, but

8 minutes ago, Lithium said:

To be fair there were a heap of other things which probably had more to do with that lag than the turbo, I would have been interested to see how the 6266 behaved with those sorted - the EFR was always going to be better, but

True but that woulda been 200-300rpm at best? Still would never have been in the same realm as the 8374. 

On 1/14/2019 at 9:42 AM, Mick_o said:

True but that woulda been 200-300rpm at best? Still would never have been in the same realm as the 8374. 

At least when I drove it the thing wouldn't even rev off idle properly, there was something quite wrong with how that engine was running so I don't really feel too inclined to judge how the turbo performed off how the car itself performed in that case - I don't really recall the full history, but I have a feeling the 6266 never got tested after the tune/engine issues were fixed?  The 8374 went on and everything else was changed all in one shot?

  • Like 1
10 hours ago, HarrisRacing said:

8474 next month on the shelves.

Is that like free beer tomorrow?

The options being talked about aren't exactly dogs of things, and I agree with Lithium's comment re: having all things fitted and operating properly before turning the torch on turbo A vs. turbo B.

23 hours ago, Lithium said:

At least when I drove it the thing wouldn't even rev off idle properly, there was something quite wrong with how that engine was running so I don't really feel too inclined to judge how the turbo performed off how the car itself performed in that case - I don't really recall the full history, but I have a feeling the 6266 never got tested after the tune/engine issues were fixed?  The 8374 went on and everything else was changed all in one shot?

While you are right that the car was running like a turd. I highly doubt the tune touch ups required would have miraculously turned that turbos behaviour around that much.

It still had 3.2L worth of donk blowing gas up its ass. 

Nothing else mechanical was changed between the turbo swap. 

50 minutes ago, Mick_o said:

Haha dont bank on that with Borg Warner!?

Truth :(

27 minutes ago, Mick_o said:

While you are right that the car was running like a turd. I highly doubt the tune touch ups required would have miraculously turned that turbos behaviour around that much.

It still had 3.2L worth of donk blowing gas up its ass. 

Nothing else mechanical was changed between the turbo swap. 

For what it's worth, that car is the only car I've actually been in running a Precision turbo and I completely disregard it as an experience to draw anything from because it may as well have been any other car with an intake cam out by a tooth due to VCam basically not working properly, and how obvious an effect it was having even when the car was in neutral.

As much as I'm a huge EFR fan, and wanted to see one on that car - my vote at the time was he sort out the issues as the way it was behaving was definitely beyond anything that a turbo could be responsible for... meaning either the owner would be buying a turbo he didn't need to in order to make a lot of improvement, and also that if the only change was the turbo then the EFR would also end up looking like a bit of a nugget as it wasn't going to be able to fix the biggest issue.

Edited by Lithium
  • Like 1

Oh and to add. There is some merit in comparing the 8374 compressor map to 8474. In my case (full build 2.75L stroker w/ ported head and all the stuff) I could actually use the extra compressor map. BUT, the 8374 is actually more efficient by a few percent especially at the lower (pumpgas) boost levels. so...in your application I would still lean towards 8374 IWG .92.

On 1/17/2019 at 8:05 AM, HarrisRacing said:

Oh and to add. There is some merit in comparing the 8374 compressor map to 8474. In my case (full build 2.75L stroker w/ ported head and all the stuff) I could actually use the extra compressor map. BUT, the 8374 is actually more efficient by a few percent especially at the lower (pumpgas) boost levels. so...in your application I would still lean towards 8374 IWG .92.

Yeah they do look pretty good for what they are, but I'd rather avoid all the boost control issues with IWG.

If I'm going through this whole 'upgrade from low mount twins' exercise (ecu/balancer/crank trigger/manifold/turbo/lines/downpipe/etc) it seems wasteful to not do EWG, gates and the piping fabrication at the same time, rather than have to do it all again when I go stroker in the future.

  • Like 1

Thanks to everyone who took some time to respond.

I'm currently leaning towards an 8374 .92 with it's gate welded shut and a downpipe solution that will allow me to change to a 1.05 by adding a small extender later. I'll report back when it all goes down. Cheers

15 minutes ago, shodan said:

Thanks to everyone who took some time to respond.

I'm currently leaning towards an 8374 .92 with it's gate welded shut and a downpipe solution that will allow me to change to a 1.05 by adding a small extender later. I'll report back when it all goes down. Cheers

Well you have done a big 180 on the road to a total f**k upville! ? Do it once do it right!

Why pay for 2 housings and 2 tunes and manifold modifications etc? 

Just throw the 1.05 on and save yourself the money and heart ache of doing things over and over again & pulling your car off the road again? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
1 hour ago, shodan said:

.92s seem to get better response on a 2.6L, so I don't know if the 1.05 is doing it right tbh Mick

Trust me when i say the 1.05 wont be laggy.

I have an EFR 7670 1.05 on my Stock motor 4G63 Evo 9 and i make 500nm by 4000rpm & make 250kw by 4500rpm. I know its not the same turbo but it is 600cc & 2 cylinders smaller so on a "scale of things" is very relative i think. 

As i said save yourself money in the long run by "living with extra lag" its honestly a far better proposition than the abortion you are talking about doing mate!

Essentially you are destroying a turbine housing making it not worthy of buying welding up the gate. You will also need to modify your dump pipe as the IWG housing is way longer than the EWG

Next question is. How are you planning on controlling boost if you are going to weld the gate shut? 

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...