(7163) What the EFR turbos should have been
 

So after a lot of time contemplating whether I would get a GTX2867 or EFR6758 I eventually came across something I hadn't heard of before, the EFR7163...

Now this turbo is what the EFR's should have been from the very beginning!

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2897/dsc00999s.jpg

Think of this as essentially a second generation EFR with a whole new "mixed flow" turbine design. Here's a some reading on what advantages mixed flow turbines bring.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...deer11_sun.pdf

Garrett has been using the same outdated turbine wheel for decades so clearly engineers can come up with something better by now, right? Mixed flow is that better design. So what does this mean for us in terms of end results? Well, it means faster spool on a larger turbo for both low and high rpm power.

Review from Perrin:
Borg Warner EFR-7163 Test and Tune » PERRIN Performance Official Blog

Faster time to torque than the 6758 (Spools about the same but makes more power):
http://blogperrinperformance.com/wp-...58bad17bar.jpg

Spools faster than the 7064 (Shouldn't say 6758):
http://blogperrinperformance.com/wp-...17barboost.jpg

Here's a good quote from a guy running a prototype model on his Mazdaspeed 6:
"The spool is unreal. We went from vacuum to 22 psi in 400-500 RPM ANY time we hit the gas above 2400 RPM."

So what are your thoughts guys? Seems like a pretty big leap in turbo performance to me and the "revolution" the EFR's were supposed to be.

2014 RELEASE UPDATE!

The 7163 is finally available to buy and in new housing options like 0.80 T4 twinscroll and V band IWG or EWG
BorgWarner EFR 7163 Turbo - Full-Race.com

Here's what the compressor map looks like:
http://www.full-race.com/store/image...-content-1.jpg

Here's it overlayed with GT30 maps. Much broader.
http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/for...1387583072.png

Overlayed with a GTX3071. Still broader.
http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/for...1387651872.png

And here's what it should theoretically do on an SR20 at 25psi and 7500rpm max:
BW Match Bot Map

http://i39.tinypic.com/2w1vz1g.jpg

More map points on a 2L, courtesy of Kingtal0n:
#/f/attachments/tech...ekingtal0n.jpg

Image of the change in turbine geometry:
http://www.full-race.com/store/image...content-11.jpg

Looks like they upped the power estimates by 50hp from their original 225-500hp range:
http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Cover...3891_adj-L.jpg

This R35 is already breaking records with twin 7163s:

What record it is exactly, I'm not sure.

I dont believe in miracles, nor crappy comparisons and commercial bullshit. And i would like to see real flowmaps.

From your test :

There is no miracle, the turbo spools faster than a gtx3076r and makes 20 less HP, and the tester says its test rig limits top end ... so in the end it spools sooner than a gtx3076r, but i guess it also makes 50 less HP at the same pressure. They just are not the same application.

Finally, i would really like to know the price difference, what you actually know about "mixed flow", and how you know garrett is not using that already.

Yes, this turbo is pretty awesome. I'm hoping they make it available in twin-scroll T4 housing.

However, it won't be available for quite a while, as not even the regular EFR's are available. Trust me, I'm on the waiting list.

Croustibat, you have to be kidding about Garrett using Mixed-flow technology. They haven't updated about their designs in forever besides the new GTX wheels.

Mixed flow turbines essentially allow the turbine wheel to capture more energy at low exhaust speeds by striking a compromise between radial (typical turbo design) and axial turbine flow. I don't have a degree, so I can't go into all the crazy formulas, but that is the gist of it.

This turbo isn't released yet so no flowmaps currently.

So the EFR takes a hit in top end but the GTX doesn't? How do you figure the difference goes from 20Hp to 50Hp? They're both subject to the same disadvantage so I'd say the test is fair.


They're not released yet so neither are the prices. There really isn't anything new here in terms of materials cost or manufacturing difficulty so I'd say prices will be about the same plus a little extra for R&D for the mixed flow turbine. Did you read the pdf I linked to about turbine efficiency? Mixed flow turbines showed a clear improvement in efficiency. And no, Garrett is not using mixed flow turbines on their GT/GTX series turbos but maybe they are on some diesel or industrial application I am not aware of. They are still using turbines from the 70's in the GT/GTX; it's only the compressor that has been improved. I know at the very least they have some diesel turbos with variable geometry turbines but I'm not sure of any other advancements they are pursuing on the turbine side.


PoorMans180SX, it looks like you've got it. Radial turbines flow perpendicular to the axis of rotation while axial turbines flow parallel. Mixed flow turbines are a combination of the two flowing diagonally I guess you could say. And yes, it's gonna be a bit of a wait. Current estimate on the regular EFR's is August/September while these new ones won't show up until the end of 2012 or early 2013. Also, I'd venture a guess that there will be a twinscroll housing just based off of how they make the twinscrolls only for the larger wheels that this has and also how they state there will be new housings available.

Also, lol at the spammer info...

I like the testing, it's pretty much the same as I do!
The testing I've done for the GTX2867 vs the GT2871r has been flagged, as they are not comparable. I think that means the gtx2867 is not an upgrade for the 2871r 56 trim.

Garrett does have to step their game up. they only compete with themselves.
While other manufacturers try to out do them at every turn.
This turbo (EFR7163) is a game changer for sure
More power at the same boost, and faster spool that's what we want right!

Can you clarify this?


And I found some good info about these on a Mazdaspeed 6:
Full-Race Bound! - Mazdaspeed Forums

Here's an a good quote from the guy who's running it:
"The spool is unreal. We went from vacuum to 22 psi in 400-500 RPM ANY time we hit the gas above 2400 RPM."

That's ridiculous transient response for a turbo that flows this much...

And here's his dyno results from page two:
http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...sn/bestrun.jpg
Keep in mind this is on an AWD Mazdaspeed 6 which is going to have more transmission loss than our RWD cars. It also has an extra 0.3L on us though...

I suggest you guys read through the first few pages too instead of just what I posted here. They talk a lot about their impressions which are more important than dyno numbers imo.

I was told they are not marketing the gtx2867 turbo as an upgrade from the gt2871r 56 trim. The gtx3071r is an upgrade from the gt3071r.

And I would retune if the graph looked like that on an sr20. Looks good for drifting though.

Did you read through any more of the thread? That was on 87 octane (not sure why that's all he had access to...) and with a restrictive intake/exhaust. Fix those problems and the torque won't fall off like that. There's no reason this turbo should tail off up top with only the 22psi or so he was running on it. Assuming this has a similar compressor map to the 7064, I wouldn't expect it to start tailing off until 25psi or so on a 2.3L and even higher on our 2.0L. That's assuming a 7k redline; take it to 8-9k and I'm sure you'll see it fall a bit.

And why is the GTX2867 not an upgrade vs the GT2871? It flows 4lbs more and with a 4mm smaller compressor which means better response.

I'm dealing with sr20 engines and real world scenarios.
I've done testing with the 2867 and the 2871, in my case the 2867 needs more boost to achieve the same power output. If I wanted an upgrade from a gt2871r, it would not be the gtx2867. It would be a gtx3071!
Coming from a 2560r or 2860r then yes the 2867 looks much better, but like you stated there are even better options soon to come.

btw 20psi vs 24psi
I don't think my stock engine would stay together running 24psi on my gt2871r est 425-440

Very Very Sexy indeed. Borg Warner is starting to become a new favorite of mine too...:drool:

GTX3071R is the way to go in my opinion for any 2-3 liter 4 cylinder that is looking for good mid-range power and torque...very little trade off great turbo.

I've never seen these results. Can you post them in the GTX2867 thread or here please? I'd like to see.

Yes but quite the tease too! I just wanna have at it already! :boink:

I only quoted you but it also applies for the other that answered.

What i meant is simple: the test protocol is bad, so its results go to the bin.

that PDF has nothing but marketing terms on it, and this turbo is not released. It may be good when it is, but as of now we really know nothing. And i kind of become very skeptical when a company claims to have created the holy grail but has nothing right now to backup its claim. Nothing more.

I worked a bit on turbines so i am not a specialist at it, but as far as new technologies go, i know this: when there is a technological breakthrough, people know about it, and everyone follows the trend. So far "Mixed flow" is just a marketing wording.

I am not in any way claiming that turbo is shit. It may be cool. But we know nothing about it, neither its real capabilities, nor its price. Because if it costs twice what a gtx3071r costs, no matter how good it is, i am not getting one.

Fuggin in.

I'm with him...... I've been following the 2867 tests but haven't seen the test you speak of Cotbu...... Can you fill us in? A link? The results? Everything I've seen says the 2867 makes same power as 2871 with faster spool....how isn't that an upgrade(other than them not marketing it as such?)

No I can't! Do you guys find it even remotely funny that you can't find this information? c'mon!

I'm paraphrasing:
Here is how, I tried to explain it. The gtx2867 does spool faster and it should, It does make the same power at a higher boost level, it does use the same turbine housing.
If, I have to run more boost, is it an upgrade to the GT2871r?

The new forged 11 blade design makes it a more effiecient turbo.
This was probably the response of a lowlevel employee, but whatever!

My hands are tied, just test it for yourself, but be real! MHO, it's not worth the money to upgrade from a gt2871r 56 trim.

PS I had a big whiny, crying post of how, and why I couldn't post the info!;)

I'm lost and i suck at reading between the lines......,.... What I gather is....

1. You tested the turbo but the results are NOT posted anywhere....
2. You are "not allowed" to post results because you are somehow linked or obligated to garrett and cant be seen "badmouthing" them???????

Am I at least reading what you're saying somewhat correctly?

1. yes
2. No obligation to Garrett, but yes "badmouthing" is frowned upon!

Don't forget this turbo is already on the market and this information should be available. I asked, why is it hard to find?

Buy it try it, maybe "return it"!

Update
 

I spoke with Raffi at Full-Race and he says Borg Warner is still tweaking the aero on their turbine wheels and "They have made some considerable increases from the first gen 7163 that was unveiled at SEMA". They're hoping to finalize the design and start production by September meaning we may see these second gen turbos by the end of 2012. Early 2013 would be a safer bet tho.

Also, I came across this on MotoIQ:
Team America World Time Attack - ARK Design's BNR32 Skyline GT-R Part 7

Looks like Borg Warner is working on a quick spool valve for divided manifolds based on the location of the "secret parts" and the lever arm extending from it.

A quick spool valve on a divided manifold would have to be a very complicated design, being that you can't just block off half of the exhaust manifold. Interesting none the less.

I am really looking forward to when Borg finally gets all the kinks worked out and has production levels up to par.

A less-covered shot of it:

http://photos.motoiq.com/photos/i-fD...-fDVLkjh-L.jpg

It's not that complicated. You just flow both entries into one scroll, then open it up to flow each entry into its own scroll.

Basically doubles the A/R but you don't get tons of losses at higher RPM where you're running a divided housing on an open collector.

Really not that hard to make it reliable either, considering internal wastegates put up with the same environment and function. Those go for longer than a turbo will last.

Yeah I see what you're saying. I was over-thinking.

Next Gen is here: Full-Race/Borg-Warner EFR7163 in stock location. 440whp/443wtq - NASIOC

And the gradual leak of info continues...

That boost response looks crazy. Can't wait till this thing comes out.

Seriously. I never thought I'd drop the cash to buy a fancy new turbo instead of used but this one is tempting me like no other.

The STI has way too many differences to our engines to compare engine to engine but he gives us a good idea of its relative performance when he says "Damn near stock turbo spool with nearly 200whp more by redline."
The 08' STI came with a VF48 turbo which is around the performance of a GT2860. A GT3076 can make almost 200whp more than a GT2860 just like the EFR7163 makes nearly 200whp more than the VF48.

So in terms of our Garrett turbos, this turbo would make the power of a GT3076 but with the spool of a GT2860. :D

Yeah the 7163 is actually has very similar wheels to the 7064 (obviously from the names) so it will probably flow in the 55lb/min range. Pretty nuts when you consider the spool.

Is that a safe thing to assume? The mixed flow turbine seems like enough of a departure from convention that a 63mm mixed flow isn't going to consume air in the same way a 64mm radial turbine will. Compressor sides are nearly identical though.

Also, I'd like to see BW take their turbine wheels down in size a little; I'm curious to see how that would affect things. Currently BW has their turbines 5-10mm larger than the comparable Garretts and there are a few things to consider with that. They can make a larger wheel than Garrett and still have the same mass. The problem is that it's inertia that keeps the wheel from moving, not mass and inertia increases linearly with mass but squared with radius. So by increasing the radius by 5-10mm over Garretts they might actually be winding up with a higher inertia even though their wheels weigh less. This however is offset a bit because when you increase the radius of the turbine wheel, you're also increasing the torque arm length for the force of the exhaust acting upon it, making it easier to rotate.

There are a lot of things to consider when sizing the turbine, especially when working with a new material that provides a mass decrease. I'm sure BW has done their homework and are certainly smarter than me but I still think it would be interesting to see something like a 7158 or 7155. That ought to flow like a GT2871 but spool like a T25.

Mind you, this is all in terms of their "old" 1st generation EFR turbines. This new mixed flow wheel changes things.

The thing is, if you have big differences in turbine and compressor size, you lose turbine effeciency because the tip speeds are different, and power and transient response are sacrificed. Garrett has finally caught on with their new GTX3576. It's a GTX3076 compressor wheel with a 3582 turbine wheel. Spools exactly the same as a X3076 and makes somewhere around 50whp more.

Check out this article:

Turbo Tech: Compressor and Turbine Map Details

And this:

http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-dyn...-gtx3576r.html

having the turbine and compressor wheels more off balance will not make a better turbo.

The GT2871 is poorly balanced but arguably the most popular turbo for an SR20DET.

I'm just curious to see what would happen...


Thanks for the links!

I'm still waiting to see what pans out when these are actually readily available with many dynos on different engines, not just a few early testers, etc. The GTX turbos are quite expensive considering they don't include a turbine housing, so there is certainly cost parity between Garrett and BW. I think the most potential for us cheap 240SX owners is the internally gated T4 twinscroll options, as you need only a simple divided manifold and v-band downpipe. Less connections, save the expense of a turbine elbow and the hassle of recirculating a WG dump. Of course the only option is the 0.92 A/R, so better hope it works well, and if you go to another snail you're limited to the T4 flange which is uncommon in our world. Garret now has several divided T4 turbine housings for the GT30 turbine however.

BorgWarner EFR 7163 Turbo - Full-Race.com

These are finally available to the public! New turbine housings too, such as .80 T4 twin scroll.

Shame it is still sand cast as it looks quite rough, even compared to other manufacturers who use the same technique. Is anyone here on the list for one? Most likely to be a very popular turbo for the 500 whp crowd

I know of a few Evo guys that are.

Does the roughness in the casting really make that much of a difference? If anything, don't you want the compressor side a bit rough to reduce laminar flow?

And no S/Z chassis guys I know of with this yet but this R35 already broke a record with twin 7163s:



I'm gonna update the first post with some new info by the way.

These look to be roughly $2100-2300 turbos. Yes they add some bits over the equivalent Garrett that's around $1300-1400 sans turbine housing - but that still seems quite the premium for very very similar performance.

It seems it all comes down to the typical "power capability vs. spool" argument, and while there are small differences across manufacturers, it seems between the good ones that there is not much between them if you pick turbos of the same power capability.


I do wish Garrett would update their GT28/GT30 turbine wheels. I know it takes a while, but they're really under no pressure due to BW *STILL* having supply issues with their EFRs. Haven't they been "out" nearly half a decade now, and now have a crappy looking turbine housing to boost production numbers?



And no on the rough turbine housing not making a difference - you would ideally want it to be a mirror finish. It is amusing in that they really touted the turbine housing finish when they were trying to investment cast them, and kept pointing out the crappy finish on Garrett housings... then they come out with some stuff that looks worse than the average Garrett housing a little while later. hah

http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Cover...3891_adj-L.jpg

I'm not seeing the roughness you guys are talking about on the turbine side. Assuming the inlet is as smooth as the inside of the outlet in the picture, it looks pretty smooth to me. The compressor side is rough, yes, but as I was saying before, a rough compressor outlet would be good to promote turbulent flow, wouldn't it? I was agreeing before that the turbine side should be smooth but the compressor side is a different story.

Also, I don't think the numbers are as far off as you're claiming, Def, it's $1850 for a V band EWG 7163 and $2100 for a T4 IWG 7163 at Full-Race. Comparing that to the Garrett without a turbine housing isn't really fair either. Depending on the housing, that's going to up the price $100-250. So it's more like $1850-2100 vs $1400-1650. And that's without counting the money saved by the inclusion of a boost control solenoid, BOV and IWG that's good enough to not require an EWG. Not needing to buy wastegate(s) is a big cost savings and BOVs aren't cheap either.

I'm also going to have to disagree that they're very, very similar in performance.

http://blogperrinperformance.com/wp-...0766317bar.jpg

Look at all that extra torque down low vs a 3076 while still matching it up top. This was on a prototype too. They've since tweaked the turbine geometry further and upped the power estimates by 50hp.

I'd love to see a head to head comparison with a GTX2867 or GTX3071/76 on the same turbine housing. Measure time from full vac to full boost starting around 3-4k (to test response coming out of a corner) on all of them and I bet the 7163 would get there much quicker than both while making more power than the 2867 and matching the 3071/76 in power. To quote the Madzdaspeed 6 tester again, "The spool is unreal. We went from vacuum to 22 psi in 400-500 RPM ANY time we hit the gas above 2400 RPM." I don't think a GTX could do that. You just can't ignore the inertial savings of the Ti wheel, and now BW has a geometry advantage too. I don't see how they could be very close with a distinct physical material advantage for BW. But currently there's very little info, so it's a lot of educated guessing and extrapolating the little data we have.

I'm not really going to argue here, both turbos cost a lot of money, and I think there is a correct application for them all. But I've never seen a single-scroll turbo on a stock STI spool dang near like the stock turbo and be capable of 500+whp. I know I know dyno's don't show transient response, but I'm pretty sure the power curves don't lie.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y20...stockturbo.jpg

I do believe the external gate housings are still investment cast across the EFR line. They only had problems investment casting the more complex internal gate housings.

Ah, that's a shame about the castings on the IWG housings. Would be nice to see a back to back between the internal and external V band housings. Probably not a huge difference but I'd expect a difference none the less.

And speaking of stock STI turbo, the Perrin test shows that well too:
http://blogperrinperformance.com/wp-...vsstg3vf48.jpg

Pretty much identical below 3k but blows it away above that. Too bad this Perrin test is really our only professional source of info on these. And even so, it was with an older prototype. Only a little bit of info out there besides this test and it's all just random forum people.

Another random note. Indy is switching to this turbo for 2014. In 2013 they used the 6758 so, keep an eye on Indy to see a good indicator on how this compares to the first gen stuff.

Let's not forget the aluminum bearing housing, that is pretty cool too.

Well, the Evo guys are super big on dyno'ing their cars and whatnot, I'll make sure and relay any info I get back here. There is at least one T4 twin-scroll version going on a 2.0 liter Evo.

Along with the aluminum bearing housing (which is also much longer) they have ceramic bearings vs Garrett's steel, metal retaining clips vs Garrett's plastic and dual, redundant seals on compressor and turbine side vs Garrett's single seals. Assuming they took care of the shattering turbine issue from a producer not following spec on their alloy, these are looking to be extremely reliable.

Looking forward to those Evo results too.

lol at the GTR breaking records and being more than half a second off of English Racing and Boost Logic.

:TLDR

one day when photobucket is healed
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ps6470faf0.jpg

I just love looking at compressor maps, but I feel like not everybody can get the info they want out of them. So Instead of studying like I should be I took a minute to add what I feel every compressor map should come with...

And I am not sure you can call the 500 horsepower sr20 community a "crowd". Maybe more like a "pond" or "swamp" :D

I'm not sure which record it was they broke but they claim to have some kind of record and that video was just posted two weeks ago. I know there are faster GTRs but perhaps that is the fastest with twin 71mm turbos?

Thanks for the points on the map, Kingtal0n. I put a link and screenshot of my matchbot map results at 25psi and 7500rpm max on the first post but your map shows some points mine does not.

Fixed that for you. People talk about compressor inducer size when they talk about turbos in millimeters :).

I'd sure expect a whiz-bang EFR to outspool a decade+ old GT3076R that has a pretty bad wheel diameter mismatch from the outset.

The EFRs aren't junk, but I've seen a ton of tests pitting them against old old Garrett stuff. The few comparisons I've seen between modern turbos basically shows very very little difference between them. As you get billet compressor wheels on both which up the flow for the inertia and wheel diameter, which then helps out with the spool, lower backpressure etc.


Don't forget that inertia is proportional to radius^2. So while BW might be using slightly bigger turbine wheels to help generate torque and help spool, it also puts the inertia much closer to the more compact inconel wheels that Garrett uses. The new turbine material does have advantages, but it's very very small increases - nothing drastic like it's marketed to be.

Yes, inertia is linear with mass and quadratic with radius but even so that still means BW's claimed halving of mass allows them to make the turbines 1.4x larger and have the same inertia. A 40% increase in turbine size at no inertial cost is pretty dramatic to me. But this is also assuming the material is distributed the same in the turbine design. If BW's wheels have more material at the edges than Garrett's then obviously some of that advantage is lost. Even so, a 10-20% increase in turbine size would still be a formidable benefit. Combine that with the new geometry and twin scroll housing and I don't think anyone has anything to match the 7163.

Where are these comparisons you've seen? I've only seen a handful of comparisons with the first gen stuff and next to nothing on the 7163.

Edit: Found a GTX vs GT comparison
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...r/gtx3076r.jpg

Looks like the GTX isn't much better than the GT. The 7163 that Perrin tested would still beat it pretty handily below 3500 and be about equal above there.
And if anything, the GTX spools slightly later. That makes sense considering they have a more aggressive compressor but the same turbine powering it from the GT.

But my physics book says that a cockroach on a spinning disc that suddenly stops to eat a bread crumb... ah forget it :D

The GTX3076R is a crap turbo, as the GT3076R was already a compressor/turbine mismatch, and putting even MORE compressor on the small 60 mm turbine is just not going to go well. Of course it spools up slowly and barely outpowers it. Get to a more reasonable compressor/turbine wheel speed ratio like the GT3071R to GTX3071R and a better story emerges.


As for TiAl wheels - it's not just all a huge party. The turbine wheels need a larger cross sectional area on the blades to handle the stress since it is a weaker material at high temps than the very nice 718 Inconel of Garrett wheels. Ideally you'd have an infinitely thin turbine blade, so having a thicker blade cuts into your turbine efficiency. To combat this BW went with a full back plate on the turbine wheel like you see on compressor wheels. This enhances efficiency at the expense of a lot of inertia, and also helps give structural stability to the blades by supporting their back end. This all sums up to way more inertia than simple weight measurements would indicate, and a slight hit to turbine efficiency. Which probably explains why most EFR designs are going with higher turbine wheel major and minor diameters for the same "power" compressor wheels vs. the GTX lineup.

This is some good info on TiAl wheels (and other good info on speed ratios, and steady vs. unsteady behavior):

On Mixed Flow Turbines for Automotive Turbocharger Applications

Yeah, the 3071 is a decent match, pretty cool that they came out with the 3576, which is a really nice match. Seems like the 3582 needs a bigger turbine, I helped with a GTX3582 built Evo that really didn't like anything past 30psi.

Some of the EFR's seem really great and others seem average. The 6258, 7163, and the 8374 seem to have really great spool and performance for their size. The others seem more "normal" I guess. Almost everyone that runs one, regardless of what turbo they switched from, raves about the transient response though.

There is no magic.

The only reason EFR looks better or worse is its a half size smaller or bigger than the Garrett you're comparing it to.

EFRs always seem to have exhaust wheels 2-5mm bigger than a garrett with the same compressor inducer. So every review of a EFR ever: "it only spools 100-200rpm later and makes a bit more power and it doesn't hit transitioning into boost."

Shocking.

What the EFR turbos should have been
 

Ummm none of these tests are pushing the Borgs hard at all... We regularly run Borg and Holset turbos to 40+ psi on E85, and they keep making power. Garrett's, not so much.

I don't see why people are so pro-Garrett or pro-Borg. They both make great products, and they all have different characteristics.

Let's not get into oversimplifying for the sake of argument.

Thanks for the research link, Def, it was a good read. And sorry for all the 3076 comparisons. It just seems like I keep finding comparisons done against that; I'd love to see a 7163 against a GTX3071.

I'm getting a vibe that you're thinking mostly of the first gen EFRs though. I realize that the first gen models weren't all they were hyped up to be; the title of the thread even implies they were a letdown. The first gens delivered in terms of transient response but weren't anything spectacular in terms of power, flow or efficiency for the reasons you just stated. But I think the 7163 is going a long way to fix that and the link you posted seems to support that.

The negative you pointed out about the TiAl wheels needing more backplate material is one thing countered by a mixed flow design. To quote the paper: "In addition to this, mixed flow turbine wheels offer the chance to design turbine wheels with reduced inertia. One key benefit is that the back disk is clearly reduced in diameter." So there's some mass at a large radius removed but even before that mass was removed on an MFT, the paper still claims a 46% improvement in inertia for the turbine alone and 30% improvement for the entire rotor assembly with the regular radial turbine.

Another disadvantage is countered by mixed flow: "To achieve the same flow capacity, the blade angle distribution needs to be modified for readjustment of the throat area of the wheel ... because of the aforementioned γ-TiAl design constraints a turbine efficiency penalty of 5% is assumed." With a mixed flow design and it's greater swallowing capabilities, this compromise doesn't have to be made and the efficiency penalty that you mentioned is present on the first gen EFRs isn't incurred with the mixed flow design of the 7163.

Seems like TiAl and MFT tech goes hand in hand. The combination of the two technologies enables what seems like a no compromise turbo. Lower inertia, greater efficiency especially at lower velocity ratio and greater flow. The inertial savings also gives BW a lot of room to play with sizing and the greater air scavenging ability of the MFT means greater torque production which lets them go with a more aggressive compressor design too.

Just look at the 7163 vs the 7064. Nearly identical sizes but the 7163 flows 4lbs/min more. The MFT clearly improved things on the overall flow/power front and data would suggest transients will be improved too from the further reduction in inertia along with low down power from the increase in efficiency at low velocity ratios.

You're right, it's not magic, it's technological advancements. Just in the same way carbon fiber enables better parts, TiAl and MFT enables a better turbine. It's about time we stop using a turbine design from the 70's don't you think? Also, you're still comparing to the first gens which were admittedly underwhelming. Yes, they sized up the turbines slightly but that's because they could with the weight savings from TiAl. Have you ever been in a car with an EFR? In overall power it's going to be similar as you said but the transients of the EFR are unmatched. BW made a design compromise on the first gen turbos. Depending on their wheel sizing, they could have made either a quicker or more powerful turbo but went for balance while improving on transient response instead. They didn't have to make that compromise with the 7163 though thanks to the MFT. It responds like a 6758 but yet it flows more than a 7064. I find that to be a great improvement and am surprised to find little agreement with that in this thread.

Check this link out:
http://blog.perrinperformance.com/bo...-tuned-part-2/
The 7670 isn't one of BW's best EFRs but I think it still showcases your point nicely. On the dyno it's looking like the 7670 is trading blows with the 3076 and spooling slower but when he logged it by time instead of rpm, the 7670 hit full boost a whole half second faster than the 3076. Add up those half seconds coming out of every turn on your favorite race track and you have a significant lap time improvement. Also, even though the Garrett arguably dynoed better, he still preferred the BW for the "feel". Driving just felt snappier and I think that's the whole point of the BW's that people missed on the first gen. To quote a friend who drove a 1.8 vvt Miata with a 6758, "I can't imagine a turbo spooling faster, it was already transparent. It felt pretty much like a v8." He owns an LS1 swapped FC RX-7, I imagine that's what he was drawing a comparison to.

Yea based on all these posts the turbo sounds like it could be awesome. But until I drive a car with one no one can really comment on its feel. Also with the current price point I don't think I'll be trying to afford one anytime soon. And for those whom are going with full builds might shell out the extra cash for it, but the cost of the turbo is a major factor for me.

not much tech to add here but I've been building my drift car for about 3 years now. Had a series of engine failures due to ignorance. But I came from a Gtx3582R and will now be running an EFR8374 on my 2 rotor. Hoping to have some comparison dyno charts etc here in the next couple months.
GTX3582R set up w/dual synapse gates
http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps9d891638.jpg
So far only started on my manifold but I'll be running dual Turbo Smart pro comp 40's on an updated design of the long runner above.
http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps886fd858.jpg

Its not your fault dude, thats what the rotary engine does. I've been trying to get them to add the definition of "hand grenade" to rotary in the dictionary. :D

On a somewhat related note, has anyone seen Honeywell's dualboost turbos with axial turbines and dual compressors? They announced it a while back but just read about it today. Pretty cool tech.

Gasoline DualBoost Turbochargers | Light Vehicle Gasoline Engines | Our Technologies | Honeywell Turbo Technologies
http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pd...esentation.pdf

Apparently they're looking into incorporating VGT and TiAl too. But even in its "basic" form they're seeing a 50% inertia reduction and a significant movement of the peak efficiency to a lower blade speed ratio (~0.6 vs ~0.8) while keeping peak efficiency the same. Steady state performance is the same but they're seeing 50 more NM of torque 0.6s earlier on a 1.6L engine. The mixed flow turbine in the 7163 is a cross between this and the radial turbines we're used to. It would be reasonable to expect some of the same benefits Honeywell had with their axial turbine.

Awesome time for turbo tech right now :D

EDIT: Added one more compressor map overlay with a GTX3071 to the first post.

Neat technology... probably won't see the light of day for a decade+. Unfortunately BW dropped the ball to really push Garrett in the marketplace, so Garrett is keeping investment pretty low on R&D and actual product roll out.

Before you guys jump all over me, BW has made some neat turbos, but actually GETTING them in your hands many years after their launch is still a joke. They're also priced on the very "premium" side of things regardless of the arguments of how a $4 plastic BOV cap or cheap boost solenoid with a IWG change things up.

I completely agree with you there. This thread is proof of that; I started this in 2012 and we still don't have a steady supply. I think I read that the waitlist for the 7163 extends into March... Apparently in the time since, extra R&D has squeezed another 50hp out but come on already, some of us just wanna buy the thing. And yea, probably a while before the dualboost starts showing up. It's an OEM product so I'm sure it will have to go through years of bullshit before it starts to trickle into cars anyone can buy.

Also, Honeywell claims their dual compressor design doesn't make any thrust along the axis of rotation and market that as a feature. Makes sense due to the symmetry cancelling the two thrusts out but wouldn't the new axial turbine create thrust? I imagine having the gas flow across the turbine axially would put a thrust on the axle towards the turbine housing outlet, wouldn't it?

Anyone know the total weight of an EFR 7163 in say a V-band EWG turbine housing vs. a GTX3071R with a TiAL housing?

The EFR 7163 has an aluminum CHRA that saves 2 lbs, but I'm wondering what the overall weight is between them since the GTX line has a pretty compact steel housing.

I don't have a total weight, but I have heard they are considerably lighter, for two reasons.
1 - The turbine is made from Titanium, and is about half the weight of a standard turbine. so you are saving a few pounds with that.

2 - The exhaust housing is this steel versus thick cast iron. So you are saving weight again.

I have heard that the B1 series (6258 & 6758) weigh in at 12lbs,, which is very light. If the aluminum housing saves 2lbs,, and the 7163 is part of their B1 series, then it should be around 10lbs,, which is quite a bit lighter than say a 3071 (say 10lbs or more?)

I have the 6258 and shipping weight was 9,5kg - 21lbs. It is with the now-made sand cast exhaust housing

1. The turbine wheel weight difference is probably on the order of maybe 50-150 GRAMS...

2. The TiAL housing on a Garrett is quite a bit lighter than any Garrett housing, and likely as light as any EWG housing on the EFRs.

I think a GT2871R weighs around 15 lbs last time I weighed one, so 12 lbs sounds possible for a small frame turbo. If the 7163 came in at sub 10 lbs for an EWG version that'd be pretty awesome. It might even sway me a bit that way...

BTW - Treadstone has some interesting EFR investment cast EWG housings. Nothing on their site for the 63 mm wheel, but I imagine it's just a simple machining change to accommodate it.

Tial will be making housings for the EFR line as well as some of the Airwerks line now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What difference does 5lbs really make? I could diet for two weeks and save that in driver weight lol.

The selling point for me is that according to BW, this turbo responds the same as a 6758 but makes 50-100hp more. I think that's pretty damn impressive and if it's true, this turbo beats any midsized Garrett offering. 2871, 2867, 3071, 3076, GTX or GT, the 7163 beats them both in response and power if it delivers what the claims from BW and info on TiAl/MFT indicates.

Interesting - any word on when they're coming out?

Maybe on a fat street car with 2 15's and slammed coils y0! or whatever you kids like to do these days... :p

I've paid quite a bit of money to save 5 lbs in various places on my car, so if I can get something that makes roughly similar performance but weighs 5 lbs less on the heavy front driver's side of the car - hell yea I'll be more interested.


500 rwhp, 8500 RPM, < 2400 lbs, R-comps - sounds like a fun track ride to me...

This is all I know.

https://www.facebook.com/TiALSport/p...701418361155:0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The main reason I can see is the fact that your manifold will support less weight, and therefore hopefully will be less likely to crack or bend. Less weight means less support is necessary.

I'm no stranger to the simplify, then add lightness philosophy; just ask my missing radio, AC, PS and all the interior behind the front seats. I just don't see the 5lb saving as being as impressive as the increased performance of the turbo. I'll take a "free" extra 100hp over losing 5lbs any day.

I noticed you said similar performance again. I'll give it to you that performance was similar in steady state to the GTX line for the first gen EFRs like the 6758 but not with the 7163. The 7163 is like a 6758 that makes 100hp more at no cost in response. If the 6758 was similar to a 2871/2867/3071, then the 7163 definitely beats those by a significant margin and is not similar in performance.

Guess I'll just have to slap one on, make 400ft-lbs 4k to 7k and watch jaws drop :p

I don't know if it's that cut and dry, the 6758's spool up pretty damn quick. That said, I think the 7163's are pretty impressive. If this new turbine tech is a few (or more) percent improvement at low tip speed to flow ratio, then it might really push me to choose one.

The aluminum CHRA is available on all B1 framed EFRs now BTW, at about a $75 premium. I'll pay $75 to save 2 lbs off a turbo that's up forward and on the driver's side of the engine bay.

I'm still not a fan of the IWG. It's done well on the EFRs, but there HAS to be a power hit. Maybe it's small... but it's still there. In addition, there's been a ton of problems of running high boost consistently with an IWG, which is a classic problem since you have to give the WG flapper mechanical advantage over the canister so that you get enough flapper rotation for a limit amount of canister rod movement. Basically, the flapper is further out from the rotation than the WG canister as a general rule, so at high RPMs when turbine inlet pressure rises above boost pressure, your WG is pushed open even with your BC solenoid completely closed off. You can go push/pull, but it's kind of a PITA to tune around across a wide range of boost pressures since you're actively fighting TIP with boost in the canister but still need it to open and control boost.

EWG have much larger control areas, and thus higher spring pressure. They also have a 1:1 ratio of movement, so it generally takes A LOT of TIP to push one open when you want it closed with reasonable base spring pressure.

If you look at the first picture in the thread, you'll see where BW says it spools almost identically to a 6758 and makes 50hp more. That was back in 2012 and they've since done more R&D and upped the rating by 50hp. So that's where I'm getting the 6758 response with 100hp more thing from; I just hope BW delivers on that.

Also, how much of a difference are we talking here? 5-10hp if the gate cracks a bit? If I were to get one, I'd go twin scroll and at $200+ x2 for external wastegates, the internal option looks really good to me so long as there is not a significant impact.

I didn't find any comparisons in power between IWG and EWG EFRs but I did find an example showing that the IWG of an EFR flows better than an EWG on a Garrett.
GT3582R vs EFR-8374 - Undivided T3's - Back-to-Back Dyno K20 - Honda-Tech
The Garrett crept while the EFR did not. I realize creep is not the issue you were discussing here but this is all I found that compared internal and external.

Poor EWG boost control at high boost levels is 100% related to poor WG port placement. Blame the manifold builder putting a sharp 90 degree corner to the WG entrance, not the concept.

EWGs offer superior control to IWGs due to the mechanical advantage I mentioned before. It's a limitation of the design with a reasonably sized canister.

As for "losing power" if you drop from 25 psi to 21 psi because you're blowing the WG open, you'll probably lose an easy 40-50 rwhp on an engine like ours. People have constantly been fighting with really high IWG spring rates on the EFRs to keep the boost consistent, which means you're locked into running "kill mode" boost all the time without much adjustment down if you want a solid boost curve. It's the same problems we face on our GT2871Rs and whatnot to a similar extent. If you've got a base WG spring pressure below 14-15 psi, no way you're going to run above 17 psi to redline with any sort of control.

As far as power goes while under boost due to recirculating the IWG, even assuming it's putting zero turbulence in the turbine exit stream (which is not the case), an EWG increases the effective flow area of the exhaust as you get to your target boost. It's like an instant jump from a 3" to maybe 3.5" exhaust. Tell me that won't make some more power at 500 rwhp...


So the EFR IWGs work just fine within a window, but there are downsides just like any IWG when it comes to boost control. Lots of the Perrin blogs mention the trouble holding boost up top, and once they finally went to really high spring rate canisters or expensive billet push/pull actuators to control it, they don't mention the negatives of how you're almost "stuck" with a high level of boost due to the design compromises.

^ Interesting, I actually purchased the EWG version of the 8374 because I wasn't so sure the IWG would be able to control the higher volume Exhaust gas flow of a 13b two rotor. I won't be running astronomically high boost pressure but in general the rotary makes much more exhaust gas per bang than a piston motor. Even when choosing a turbo the rule of thumb is to take whatever the turbo is rated for say 600-700.. you'd use 650 and divide it by 1.3 Then you'd get a good average of what that specific turbo is capable of on a 2 rotor. A bit off topic but relative and relevant info...

I think you'd be fine with the IWG, as rotaries do not tolerate high exhaust backpressure at all since they're almost like a 2 cycle in many respects.

That said, a well placed EWG is superior for boost control - no doubt about it. A crappy EWG placement is going to make your life difficult no matter how large the valve.

Aasbo's 8374 used to be internal gate, but they welded it shut and welded the wastegates directly to the turbine housing. (This is when the IWG were still investment cast).

http://photos.motoiq.com/MotoIQ/Tech...IMG_1829-L.jpg

Im slammed today but wanted to add my input briefly, hope you guys dont mind:

-first of all, every 2011/2012/2013 EFR turbo is in stock -- EFR 6258, 6758, 7064, 7670, 8374, 9180 - all available with no wait. There is only backorders on the 2014 release EFR7163 (its a brand new production unit) and we're seeing a few, but are told this supply will improve greatly over the next few weeks. Anyone interested to get one, contact us and we will add you to the list (no cost) - once the turbos get here we will contact you with an option to purchase

-lucky2: I agree this is an exciting time for Turbocharger tech. You are correct that the EFR7163 offers EFR6758 spool with greater than EFR7064 performance. This is the first mixed flow turbine BW has used in a performance application and while it took some time to refine it - the end result was well worthwhile. The 63mm MFT wheel inertia is almost the same as the 58mm radial wheel... pretty incredible to realize that. The initial prototype 7163 test results were very positive and the production 7163 delivers 12% higher performance than those protos with no losses. (the Indy cars have been ecstatic with the gains over the previous 6758, this season they expect 2-3s faster lap times across the field)

-Def wrote "I've seen a ton of tests pitting them against old old Garrett stuff. The few comparisons I've seen between modern turbos basically shows very very little difference between them." The test results I see dont correspond what what youve seen. Either way I can understand your skepticism, however with all due respect, I have read many of your comments regarding the EFR turbos. I truly believe if you get any real-world experience with one of these turbos you will have a more thorough understanding/outlook. Having experience with so many turbo setups on stock SR20s over the years, even just the EFR6258 on a 100% stock SR20 is (to me) an eye-opener.

-Def (sorry dont mean to pick on you) -- the change in inertia is greater than you might initially realize. We wouldnt have bothered with all this gamma-ti headache if the difference was as small as you surmise.

-regarding the question of IWG control, the issue is usually confused by people who dont understand how to properly setup an IWG. best results continue to be with the OEM borgwarner stiff WG spring -- SIMPLE. This starts with a base boost of 14-15 psi and can go up to 30+psi. I run my evo with 8374 IWG and 0%wgdc = 15psi while 100% wgdc = 33-35psi. we have many customers with great results and love it (like myself) and some people prefer the EWG. thats why we offer both! in my experience, under 600whp i almost always prefer IWG


-Papadakis/Aasbo's WG's were rerouted to make more noise during drift events (crowds liked the louder EWG over the quiter IWG)


-mannykiller: a twinscroll 8374 will ROCK on a prepped 13B... have fun

thanks

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Geoff. I actually just emailed you guys today, asking about the wait on 7163's, I'm the guy with the @rit.edu address. Glad to hear some solid facts from someone close to the source; that's awesome they were able to keep similar inertia on a wheel 5mm larger. 2-3s in Indy is huge too, 2.5s would be a 6.7% difference on last years 39.658s best lap at Indianapolis. 6.7% improvement on my autocross times would be a ridiculous 4 seconds on a 60 second course. Not that I'm expecting the same improvement on a small autocross course but I'm still thoroughly expecting the 7163 to blow my 2871 away.

Any builds coming up with 7163's that you're aware of? I'd love to see more real world results.


Any chance they published before and after graphs? I doubt they did but that would be perfect to see what effect going external has.

According to BW's Matchbot, you need 42% wastegating to hold 25psi at 7500rpm on a SR20 and exhaust manifold pressure at that point is 35psi. I'm sure 35psi is enough to crack the wastegate open a bit but can it really push it open more than 42%, thus causing a drop from 25psi? I'm gonna venture a guess at no. Once that wastegate cracks, the exhaust is going to lose a lot of its pressure and I can't imagine there being enough pressure still to push it over 42% wastegating.

This is a pretty important question for me, because its a $400+ difference between internal and external on a twin scroll setup. Geoff, any back to back IWG vs EWG dynos on an EFR that you're aware of? I'm sure the externals are better but if the internals are close then I'll put the $400 towards something else.

That's a great change!

No worries on the picking, I appreciate your first hand input.

I'm more playing devil's advocate here as to why I have seen quite a few comparisons and even real world boost vs. time plots and the EFRs struggling to really show a difference. I know those tenths of a second here or there feel huge from a seat of the pants, it's just hard to really quantify it, and I haven't run into any EFR cars out in the wild unfortunately.

I follow EFR posts because I am genuinely interested in them, and I really hope all the theoretical benefits DO translate into a real world jump in turbo performance. I think we're past due for it, but there are a few conflicting reports... or at least there were a year or two ago. I think I've seen more positive EFR data in the past 6 months than the past 2 years. Maybe because more people are getting their hands on them.



Hope you have the time to answer this, as it's something that's a little hard to extrapolate from all the EJ2x and 4G63 EFR results:

In your opinion, what's the best EFR for a well flowing SR20DET - figure VE head for the ultimate SR head flow - for track usage.

-~450 rwhp track power level (so reasonable efficiency all across for heat reasons).
-Roughly 470-500 rwhp range on the street in "kill mode" running it off the map a bit if necessary.
-Powerband should be at least 4-8k RPM, and it'd be better if a few hundred RPM on either side is also nice and strong (so 3.7-8.5k RPM as a wish powerband).


I don't know if the 6758 has got that much oomph in it, but it's a 53 lb/min turbo, so maybe it does? Seems like it'd be awesome response... My only concern with that is I've had a horrible time keeping T25 inlet gaskets to last on track. The M8 studs creep just enough (even stock Nissan inconel ones) that the gasket starts going, then it's all over. I'm betting a TS T4 would hold up better, but I still think a v-band inlet is the easy button for reliable track usage and easy serviceability.

7163 should definitely do the power levels, but roughly where do you think an SR is going to spool it up?



BTW - I'm strongly considering an EFR for my next turbo if you can't tell. :hug:

Def, take a look at the compressor map in the first post, 25psi on the 7163 will make 530hp at 7500rpm according to Matchbot. There's still room left in it too, it will hold that 25psi beyond 8k.

The 6758 just isn't going to have that top end flow since it maxes out at 7lb/min less than the 7163. Given that Geoff just confirmed the 7163 spools similar to a 6758, I can't imagine buying anything other than the 7163 for a 550whp or less build.

But don't buy a 7163 before me! I wanna be first :p

If the 6758 will do near 500 rwhp in kill mode - then I'd be fine with it. I'm all about pushing a compressor to the max to get the best powerband possible. I don't really need a 550 rwhp turbo since I don't see the car ever having the fuel to do that on E85 or wanting to push the transmission I've got that hard.

But if the 7163 is the ticket to making above 450 rwhp, then that's obviously the way to go.

Found this old info on a guy running a 6758 or 6258 on an SR20:

#/f/builds-builds-on...ml#post4685523

Not sure which because he said 6758 initially and then said 6258. Also, he never specified if it's at full boost or just entering boost by 3k. Either way, that's responsive and it did 367whp on 18psi which is a good number for that much boost. 500whp on a 6758 is going to be hard to reach though.

Check out how it maps on a 6758:
HERE
25psi at 7500rpm is pretty much exactly the limit of the 6758's flow. Any higher revs and you're gonna drop boost while the 7163 can hold 25psi to 8500rpm or 30psi to the same 7500rpms.

That was my thoughts... but I saw a guy with a Cobalt do some crazy numbers on a 6758. E85 is also a bit more efficient at HP per lb/min of air.

Yep, I saw that cobalt guy a year or two back also, ridiculous numbers. I think he was spiking up to like 500ft-lbs or something like that... But like you said, E85 had a big role in those numbers.

Here's another guy with a 2L Ecotec engine but this one put out a more reasonable 435whp
Time Attack Forums - View Single Post - The new Borgwarner EFR turbos + SR20 or SR22

EDIT: Found that ridiculous cobalt dyno:
http://www.miataturbo.net/diy-turbo-...e5/#post702554

What the EFR turbos should have been
 

I've seen quite a few cars make nearly 10hp per lb/min on E85 (in person on a mustang dyno). If the EFR series is like the Airwerks series (which would only make sense), then they will keep making power even in the 30-40psi range. I don't see why a 6758 couldn't make 500whp in kill mode on a well modified SR, especially on a dynojet.

I think the real question is how will the 7163 perform in twin-scroll form? Changing setups is a lot easier IMO with the internal gate, and if it's like any other turbo when it comes to twin vs. single scroll, it will be by far the fastest spooling/responding 500whp turbo on the market.

-I agree that positive EFR results continue to come in, and it's largely due to the fact that BW is SHIPPING the turbos. When our customers get the turbos, install them and see the performance and durability are as promised we can rest easy. Fortunately i have not heard of any disgruntled/upset EFR customers in quite a long time

-What fuel are you using on your build? (sorry if i missed it)

-considering your needs for the application which you are describing -- I think a 0.80 a/r twinscroll T4 7163 would be the bee's knees. Thats what i am thinking to setup my redtop as (with a VE head swap). It should have zero difficulty delivering an absurdly broad powerband from 3500-85000rpm.

-If you use our M10 hardware with Heicolock washers and high temp Antiseize, your hardware will stay in place for a long long time, no issues (this hardware comes with our manifolds and kits). M8 hardware is just not as robust or durable. the vband configuration does have it's benefits, and a larger 0.85 A/R for those who plan to run the turbo to the limit is one of them. Vbands are great from a convenience standpoint, but twinscroll IWG is the way to go IMHO!! and its really much easier to service M10 studs on a T4 footprint compared to M8 on a T25 foot

-Id rather not make any guesstimates of spoolup on an SR for singlescroll or twinscroll.. everything ive seen looks the part so i think its just best to wait and get some results first as a benchmark

-I still think the EFR6258 is the bomb-diggity for a stock SR20!! anyone with a basic sr and 2871 or otherwise that can do a back to back for one of these smaller EFRs will be ecstatic

I dont know of any IWG vs EWG back to back comparisons that would answer any questions vs raise more questions - but there were significant efforts invested to ensure that the EFR was "aerodynamically optimized" for minimum losses. Truthfully, I dont think there is any downside to the IWG aside from the smaller A/R and the single port actuation... also Turbosmart is releasing a push/pull IWG actuator for the EFR. not that my plans should have any bearing on your build or specific needs, but I prefer IWG on the cars/engine setups I build for myself

youve got a good understanding of this and how to use the matchbot web page. I agree with most everything youve written, thanks for chiming in.

The 6758 does have slightly lower inertia, and the lab guys tell me there is a spool benefit as a result. The indycar guys indicated there was no downside on the higher inertia 7163 in a 0.85 a/r compared to their 0.85 a/r 6758 but it's still a bit early to know how it will all play out on a 4 cyl engine - and undivided VS twinscroll. There is a lot of learning to be done. Plus we are developing a few other housing ideas to try out on

I agree that 10hp for every lb/min is attainable on an efficient high-VE setup. However I have not seen any EFR6758 exceed 450whp, I believe that HP limit is due entirely to the turbine housing's 0.64 A/R. The new 0.85 a/r housings will likely allow for the increased compressor flow to be used in it's entirety... I am eager to try that out for the 6258 also.


have a great weekend!!

85 000 rpm, niccce! :D

That is beneficial information for all of us, thanks!

I recently bought one and thank you for confirming my decision, I am looking for ultimate in response and 400hp power balance. I have yet to run it, but I should be able to do so in March. I love how easy it is to clock and every nut and bolt is easily accessible

Sorry on leaving fuel out - E85 since a station opened up a mile down the road. No real reason not to go with it. I'll just have to haul some E85 with me to more remote tracks.

7163 TS does sound kinda nice... That's good to know you guys have had good luck with the hardware on track. I know Sierra Sierra had issues with the turbine hardware until they went with your stuff.



Want to sponsor a lowly DE machine with some Full-Race/EFR goodness? :bite:

This is exciting, I like turbine housing options.

Did anything ever come of the "quick spool valve" that was supposedly in development? Like the one that's on the Team America time attack GT-R?

http://photos.motoiq.com/photos/i-fD...-fDVLkjh-L.jpg

Hmm, interesting. I actually like how these turbos react on actual driving. I currently have a EFR8374 IWG and it spools great and makes decent power on my 2jzgte 500WHP on a dynodynamics at 16PSI, 3500ft above sea level.

Question for you Geoff, I recently purchased the EFR9180 EWG and have a new fully built and ported 2JZGTE VVTI and my goals are 850WHP. Will this turbo be reliable spinning to 8000- 8500RPM and reaching my WHP goal? I saw your match bot on supraforums (not sure if it was 3.4 or 3.0) and it seems like this turbo is maxed in that RPM limit. No one seems to like these over on supraforums and they all seem to under perform on their tests or blow up.