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

    • I'd be installing 2x widebands and using the NB simulation outputs to the ECU.
    • Nah, it's different across different engines and as the years went on. R32 era RB20, and hence also RB26, the TPS SWITCH is the idle command. The variable resistor is only for the TCU, as you say. On R33 era RB25 and onwards (but probably not RB26, as they still used the same basic ECU from the R32 era), the idle command is a voltage output of close to 0.45V from the variable resistor.
    • It's actually one of the worst bits of Nissan nomenclature (also compounded by wiring diagrams when the TCU is incorporated in ECU, or, ECU has a passthru to a standalone TCU).... the gripe ~ they call it the TPS, but with an A/T it's actually a combined unit ...TPS (throttle position switch) + TPS (throttle position sensor).... ..by the looks of it (and considering car is A/T) you have this unit... https://www.amayama.com/en/part/nissan/2262002u11 The connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit, is the TPS (throttle position sensor) ...only the TCU reads this. The connector on the unit body, is the TPS (throttle position switch) ...ECU reads this. It has 3 possible values -- throttle closed (idle control contact), open (both contacts open, ECU controls engine...'run' mode), and WOT (full throttle contact closed, ECU changes mapping). When the throttle is closed (idle control contact), this activates what the patent describes as the 'anti stall system' ~ this has the ECU keep the engine at idling speed, regardless of additional load/variances (alternator load mostly, along with engine temp), and drives the IACV solenoid with PWM signal to adjust the idle air admittance to do this. This is actually a specific ECCS software mode, that only gets utilized when the idle control contact is closed. When you rotate the TPS unit as shown, you're opening the idle control contact, which puts ECCS into 'run' mode (no idle control), which obviously is a non-sequitur without the engine started/running ; if the buzzing is coming from the IACV solenoid, then likely ECCS is freaking out, and trying to raise engine rpm 'any way it can'...so it's likely pulling the valve wide open....this is prolly what's going on there. The signal from the connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit (for the TCU), should be around 0.4volts with the throttle closed (idle position) ~ although this does effect low throttle shift points if set wrong, the primary purpose here is to tell TCU engine is at idle (no throttle demand), and in response lower the A/T line pressure ... this is often described as how much 'creep' you get with shifter in D at idle. The way the TPS unit is setup (physically), ensures the idle control contact closes with a high margin on the TPSensor signal wire, so you can rotate the unit on the adjustment slots, to achieve 0.4v whilst knowing the idle control contact is definitely closed. The IACV solenoid is powered by battery voltage via a fuse, and ground switched (PWM) by the ECU. When I check them, I typically remove the harness plug, feed the solenoid battery voltage and switch it to ground via a 5watt bulb test probe ; thing should click wide open, and idle rpm should increase... ...that said though, if it starts & idles with the TPS unit disconnected, and it still stalls when it gets up to operating temperature, it won't be the IACV because it's unused, which would infer something else is winking out...  
    • In the context of cam 'upgrader' I mean generally people who upgrade headers/cams - not my specific change. I mean it makes sense that if I had a bigger cam, I may get more false lean readings. So if I went smaller, I'd get less false lean readings. To a point where perhaps stock.. I'd have no false lean readings, according to the ECU. But I'm way richer than stock. My bigger than normal cam in the past also was giving false rich leanings. It's rather odd and doesn't add up or pass the pub test. Realistically what I want is the narrowbands to effectively work as closed loop fuel control and keep my AFR around 14.7 on light sections of the map. Which is of course the purpose of narrowband CL fuel control. So if I can change the switch points so the NB's target 14.7 (as read by my WB) then this should be fine. Haven't actually tested to see what the changed switchpoints actually result in - car needs to be in a position it can idle for awhile to do that. I suspect it will be a troublesome 15 min drive home with lots of stalling and way too rich/lean transient nightmare bucking away for that first drive at 2am or whevener it ends up being. Hopefully it's all tune-able. Realistically it should be. This is a very mild cam.
    • Messing with narrowband switchovers is a terrible bandaid. I don't want to think about it. You are a cam "upgrader" only in concept. As you said, your new cam is actually smaller, so it's technically a downgrade. OK, likely a very small downgrade, but nevertheless. But the big thing that will be the most likely suspect is the change of the advance angle. That change could be equivalent to a substantial decrease in cam lobe duration. I haven't gone to the effort of trying to think about what your change would actually cause. But until someone (you, me (unlikely), Matt, someone else) does so and comes to a conclusion about the effect, it remains a possibility that that is the change that is causing what you're seeing.
×
×
  • Create New...