What the EFR turbos should have been

[LuckyX2]

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/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2011/wednesday/presentations/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Garrett has been using the same outdated turbine wheel for decades so clearly engineers can come up with something better by now, right?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 (http://blog.perrinperformance.com/borg-warner-efr-7163-test-and-tune/)

Faster time to torque than the 6758 (Spools about the same but makes more power):
http://blogperrinperformance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/efr7163vs6758bad17bar.jpg

Spools faster than the 7064 (Shouldn't say 6758):
http://blogperrinperformance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/efr7163vs706417barboost.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 (http://www.full-race.com/store/efr-turbos/borgwarner-efr-7163-turbo-3.html)

Here's what the compressor map looks like:
http://www.full-race.com/store/images/full/borgwarner-efr-7163-turbo-3-content-1.jpg

Here's it overlayed with GT30 maps. Much broader.
http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-83859-0-92399000-1387583072.png

Overlayed with a GTX3071. Still broader.
http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-83859-0-48465400-1387651872.png

And here's what it should theoretically do on an SR20 at 25psi and 7500rpm max:
BW Match Bot Map (http://www.turbos.bwauto.com////aftermarket/matchbot/index.html#version=1.3&displacement=2&CID=122.04&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=71x80&pt1_rpm=2500&pt1_ve=85&pt1_boost=5&pt1_ie=99&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=60&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1600&pt1_ter=1.23&pt1_pw=15.08&pt1_bsfc=0.43&pt1_afr=12&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=3500&pt2_ve=95&pt2_boost=14&pt2_ie=95&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=0.5&pt2_ce=67&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1650&pt2_ter=1.61&pt2_pw=19.93&pt2_bsfc=0.45&pt2_afr=12&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=4500&pt3_ve=100&pt3_boost=25&pt3_ie=95&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=0.75&pt3_ce=69&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1700&pt3_ter=2.32&pt3_pw=40.1&pt3_bsfc=0.48&pt3_afr=11.5&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=5500&pt4_ve=100&pt4_boost=25&pt4_ie=92&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.4&pt4_mbp=0.75&pt4_ce=73&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1700&pt4_ter=2.49&pt4_pw=36.9&pt4_bsfc=0.5&pt4_afr=11.5&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=6500&pt5_ve=105&pt5_boost=25&pt5_ie=90&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.5&pt5_mbp=1&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1700&pt5_ter=2.8&pt5_pw=41.37&pt5_bsfc=0.52&pt5_afr=11.5&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=7500&pt6_ve=105&pt6_boost=25&pt6_ie=90&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.6&pt6_mbp=1&pt6_ce=65&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1750&pt6_ter=3.18&pt6_pw=42.59&pt6_bsfc=0.55&pt6_afr=11&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

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

More map points on a 2L, courtesy of Kingtal0n:
http://zilvia.net/f/attachments/tech-talk/65922d1390787331-what-efr-turbos-should-have-been-blamekingtal0n.jpg

Image of the change in turbine geometry:
http://www.full-race.com/store/images/full/borgwarner-efr-7163-turbo-3-content-11.jpg

Looks like they upped the power estimates by 50hp from their original 225-500hp range:
http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Coverage/NEV-SEMA-2013/i-jFdwzCh/0/L/IMG_3891_adj-L.jpg

This R35 is already breaking records with twin 7163s:
_fmP7c7RGLo
What record it is exactly, I'm not sure.

[Croustibat]

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

From your test :


Not the best comparison because this is the one where the TGV housing was closed on my car. So it was killing the HP up top. Since the smaller turbo spooled slower, its possible that it effect spool a little as well.


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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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.

[LuckyX2]

i would like to see real flowmaps.
This turbo isn't released yet so no flowmaps currently.

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.
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.


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.
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...

[cotbu]

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!

[LuckyX2]

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.

Can you clarify this?


And I found some good info about these on a Mazdaspeed 6:
Full-Race Bound! - Mazdaspeed Forums (http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/forum/f576/full-race-bound-107471/)

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/oo34/djuosnteisn/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.

[cotbu]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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.

[cotbu]

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

[steve shadows]

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

[steve shadows]

gt2871r, it would not be the gtx2867. It would be a gtx3071!

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.

[LuckyX2]

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

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

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

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

[Croustibat]

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.

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.

[Crondy]

Fuggin in.

[gotta240]

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


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?)

[cotbu]

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!;)

[gotta240]

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?

[cotbu]

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"!

[LuckyX2]

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 (http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/2600/pageid/4842/team-america-world-time-attack--ark-designs-bnr32-skyline-gt-r-part-7.aspx)

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

A less-covered shot of it:

http://photos.motoiq.com/photos/i-fDVLkjh/0/L/i-fDVLkjh-L.jpg

[Def]

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.

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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

[LuckyX2]

Next Gen is here: Full-Race/Borg-Warner EFR7163 in stock location. 440whp/443wtq - NASIOC (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2394879)

And the gradual leak of info continues...

[PoorMans180SX]

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

[LuckyX2]

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

[PoorMans180SX]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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 (http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/2366/pageid/4229/turbo-tech-compressor-and-turbine-map-details.aspx)

And this:

http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-dyno-tuning-results/602163-gtx-showdown-gtx3076r-vs-gtx3576r.html

[inopsey]

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.


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

[LuckyX2]

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

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


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 (http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/2366/pageid/4229/turbo-tech-compressor-and-turbine-map-details.aspx)

And this:

http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-dyno-tuning-results/602163-gtx-showdown-gtx3076r-vs-gtx3576r.html

Thanks for the links!

[turtl631]

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.

[LuckyX2]

BorgWarner EFR 7163 Turbo - Full-Race.com (http://www.full-race.com/store/efr-turbos/borgwarner-efr-7163-turbo-3.html)

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

[Motary]

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

[PoorMans180SX]

I know of a few Evo guys that are.

[LuckyX2]

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:

_fmP7c7RGLo

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

[Def]

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

[LuckyX2]

http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Coverage/NEV-SEMA-2013/i-jFdwzCh/0/L/IMG_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-content/uploads/2011/11/efr7163vsgt30766317bar.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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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.


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/y207/Pisadong/EFR7163PumpandE85andstockturbo.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.

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.

[LuckyX2]

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-content/uploads/2011/11/efr7163vsstg3vf48.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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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.

[McRussellPants]

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

:TLDR

[Kingtal0n]

one day when photobucket is healed
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b378/draglarry/blamekingtal0n_zps6470faf0.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

[LuckyX2]

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

:TLDR

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

I know there are faster GTRs but perhaps that is the fastest with twin 57mm turbos?

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

[Def]

http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Coverage/NEV-SEMA-2013/i-jFdwzCh/0/L/IMG_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-content/uploads/2011/11/efr7163vsgt30766317bar.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'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.

[LuckyX2]

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/f154/Canggster/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.

[Kingtal0n]

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

[Def]

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/f154/Canggster/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.

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 (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijrm/2012/589720/)

[PoorMans180SX]

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.

[McRussellPants]

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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.

There is no magic.

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.

Almost everyone that runs one, regardless of what turbo they switched from, raves about the transient response though.
Check this link out:
http://blog.perrinperformance.com/borg-warner-efr7670-turbo-exposed-and-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.

[ultimateirving]

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.

[Mannykiller]

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/yy325/mannykiller/FD%20Build/20131013_131839_zps9d891638.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/yy325/mannykiller/FD%20Build/20140107_135411_zps886fd858.jpg

[Kingtal0n]

Had a series of engine failures due to ignorance.

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

[LuckyX2]

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/our-technologies/gasoline-axial-dualboost-turbochargers/)
http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/120202-EN-Vienna-Motor-Symposium-Presentation.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.

[Def]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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?

[Def]

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.

[guitaraholic]

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?)

[Motary]

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

[Def]

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?)

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LuckyX2]

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.

[Def]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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.

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...

[PoorMans180SX]

This is all I know.

https://www.facebook.com/TiALSport/posts/683701418361155:0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingtal0n]

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


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.

[LuckyX2]

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

[Def]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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 (http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2889919)
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.

[Def]

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 (http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2889919)
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.

[Mannykiller]

^ 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...

[Def]

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.

[PoorMans180SX]

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/Fredric-Aasbo-Engine-Tech/i-PjF4Gzz/1/L/IMG_1829-L.jpg

[FullRaceGeoff]

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

[LuckyX2]

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.


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).

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.

[Def]

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.

That's a great change!


-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.

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:

[LuckyX2]

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

[Def]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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

http://zilvia.net/f/builds-builds-only/377611-drift-machine-build-2.html#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 (http://www.turbos.bwauto.com/////aftermarket/matchbot/index.html#version=1.3&displacement=2&CID=122.04&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=67x80&pt1_rpm=2500&pt1_ve=85&pt1_boost=5&pt1_ie=99&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=60&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1600&pt1_ter=1.26&pt1_pw=23.7&pt1_bsfc=0.43&pt1_afr=12&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=3500&pt2_ve=95&pt2_boost=14&pt2_ie=95&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=0.5&pt2_ce=67&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1650&pt2_ter=1.7&pt2_pw=27.65&pt2_bsfc=0.45&pt2_afr=12&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=4500&pt3_ve=100&pt3_boost=25&pt3_ie=95&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=0.75&pt3_ce=69&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1700&pt3_ter=2.51&pt3_pw=35.01&pt3_bsfc=0.48&pt3_afr=11.5&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=5500&pt4_ve=100&pt4_boost=25&pt4_ie=92&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.4&pt4_mbp=0.75&pt4_ce=73&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1700&pt4_ter=2.71&pt4_pw=41.66&pt4_bsfc=0.5&pt4_afr=11.5&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=6500&pt5_ve=105&pt5_boost=25&pt5_ie=90&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.5&pt5_mbp=1&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1700&pt5_ter=3.05&pt5_pw=45.31&pt5_bsfc=0.52&pt5_afr=11.5&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=7500&pt6_ve=105&pt6_boost=25&pt6_ie=90&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.6&pt6_mbp=1&pt6_ce=65&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1750&pt6_ter=3.5&pt6_pw=46.37&pt6_bsfc=0.55&pt6_afr=11&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)
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.

[Def]

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.

[LuckyX2]

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 (http://www.timeattackforums.com/forums/53410-post62.html)

EDIT: Found that ridiculous cobalt dyno:
http://www.miataturbo.net/diy-turbo-discussion-14/borgwarner-efr-turbos-52625/page5/#post702554

[PoorMans180SX]

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.

[FullRaceGeoff]

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?

-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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'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 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!!

[Motary]

..broad powerband from 3500-85000rpm.

85 000 rpm, niccce! :D

-If you use our M10 hardware with Heicolock washers and high temp Antiseize, your hardware will stay in place for a long long time

That is beneficial information for all of us, thanks!

-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 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

[Def]

-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


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:

[PoorMans180SX]

There is a lot of learning to be done. Plus we are developing a few other housing ideas to try out on.


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-fDVLkjh/0/L/i-fDVLkjh-L.jpg

[amfh403]

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.

[Def]

Anyone currently thinking about purchasing an EFR? I've got a line on some wholesale discounts for them (very slight in low qtys, should get better with more qty), but if there's interest I'll setup a group buy and see what sort of pricing we can all get.

The Full-Race $900 T4 TS manifold also looks very tasty for a lifetime warranty manifold that's made right.

[LuckyX2]

I'm very much so leaning towards buying a T4 7163 as a graduation present to myself this spring. Would your discount on just the turbo be competitive with the presumed discount I'd get buying the whole package (turbo, manifold, dp) from Full-Race?

[Def]

I'm very much so leaning towards buying a T4 7163 as a graduation present to myself this spring. Would your discount on just the turbo be competitive with the presumed discount I'd get buying the whole package (turbo, manifold, dp) from Full-Race?

I don't know what FR's pricing is on a complete kit, so I can't comment on that. Nor do I really know what the pricing could get doing a higher volume of business.

But with pure speculation, yes, I think the discount I get on a single turbo is probably cost competitive with what FR would add it to a package.

[turtl631]

Divided T4 IWG 7163 sounds tasty for a track car setup. I may be in for some such thing in the near future.

[cole d]

When will the t4 version be ready?

[Def]

Already ready. Just a question of placing the order and waiting to get your turbo (they're clearing backlog now).

I'm trying to round up some interest for a bit of a discount in numbers. No money being made here, just passing on the savings as I need to hit $5k to up the discount percentage on an order.

Full-Race also has a very reasonably priced EFR T4 TS manifold for the SR. Can't beat it for the price and lifetime warranty IMO.

[LuckyX2]

Keep me penciled in for a T4 TS, Def.

I'm almost certainly picking one up, it's just a matter of when I'm ready for it (early summer?), who has it in stock and who has the best prices.

Assuming you have access to them when I'm ready and your price is also better than whatever Full-Race can do for a whole bundle, I'll be going through you.

[PoorMans180SX]

I was reading through the EFR thread on NASIOC and came across this interesting quote that Geoff posted from the lead engineer at BW:

"The point of the 7163 was to have a small and light turbo (B1 frame) that will squeak out ~500hp while still spooling/transient as close to a stock-sized turbo as possible.

That being said, if you separate the topics of spool versus transient response - the inertia difference of 7163 vs. 7064 vs. 7670 is significant. We have B2 EFR turbos for people that want bigger power levels! The twinscroll 7163 isn’t for the dynochart crowd, it’s to squeak out 500hp and still feel awesome at 2500rpm. I fully expect a singlescroll 7163 IWG or 7163 EWG to make more top end power. And yes, a 7064C will also make more top end power (especially at very high rpm where dP is more harmful) "

[Def]

Yep, it's more of a response based turbo. That said, I think 500 rwhp and good response is about as crazy as I'd want to go for a non-drag SR. There's just not enough displacement for a say >600 rwhp powerband that doesn't suck unless you can keep it on boil 100% of the time over a narrow window.

The B2 frame EFRs are freakin' huge too, so this little extra headroom and a TS housing in a B1 frame sounds great to me.

Then again, I'm not too crazy about posting up the most amazing dynocharts around.

[cole d]

What kind of price can you get on a Efr 7163 T4 twinscroll? I'm on the wait list at Full Race. I tried to buy one but they would not take my money because the turbo was not in stock.

[cotbu]

What kind of price can you get on a Efr 7163 T4 twinscroll? I'm on the wait list at Full Race. I tried to buy one but they would not take my money because the turbo was not in stock.
It's because 6 year old's can't legally enter into a contract, unless it's on the playground, well there, we all agree that girls have cooties.:-/

[LuckyX2]

The twinscroll 7163 isn’t for the dynochart crowd, it’s to squeak out 500hp and still feel awesome at 2500rpm. I fully expect a singlescroll 7163 IWG or 7163 EWG to make more top end power. And yes, a 7064C will also make more top end power (especially at very high rpm where dP is more harmful) "[/I]

Is he saying that a 7064 will make more power than a 7163 or that a single scroll 7064 will make more than a twin scroll 7064? If he's saying a 7064 will make more than a 7163 (with the same AR), I'm not sure I agree with him; the compressor maps say otherwise. The 7163 map picks up earlier and falls off later than the 7064, it's very wide and pretty much leaves no reason to buy a 7064. The 6758 and 7670 still have a place below and above it though

[PoorMans180SX]

He is saying that the twin-scroll 7163 will be turbine housing limited, and that a 7064 will actually make more top end. The 7064 seems to be very unpopular, and hard to find real results for....

So the real question is how much response are you giving up with the v-band housing? No one currently knows...

[Def]

The mixed flow wheel in the 7163 has its efficiency peak at lower Uc/Uo ratios(0.5-0.6). This translates into better shaft torque when the wheel is moving slower relative to the exhaust gas speed than a normal radial flow designed wheel that will typically peak the efficiency in the Uc/Uo range of about 0.7-0.8.

The tradeoff is you'll have a bit more backpressure at high RPM/high boost situations as the wheel falls out of its ideal Uc/Uo range vs. the radial flow wheel that's really in its sweet spot.


That said, at a 500 rwhp turbo on a 2L level, I'm more than willing to throw away a few HP capacity up top for a better mid-range powerband and sooner spool. How often are you in boost in an engine that powerful on our light cars and wishing you had another 10 HP? How often are you out of boost at say 3k RPM and flooring it and wishing you had another 10 HP? I'd say the later fits my usage on track well on those rare corners that fall a bit out of 3rd's powerband, but are almost all too fast/short to think about 2nd in a 500 rwhp car.

[FullRaceGeoff]

hey guys - a little timeline update: the singlescroll 7163 will start to show up later this month, but the twinscroll T4 7163 is still behind another 4-6 weeks or so. I would not expect to see these turbos readily available for a bit longer still, but as usual we have all the other EFR turbos in stock (BW takes a while to get the new products into production...) - thanks have a great weekend

[PoorMans180SX]

That said, at a 500 rwhp turbo on a 2L level, I'm more than willing to throw away a few HP capacity up top for a better mid-range powerband and sooner spool. .

I personally feel the same way as you, I just wanted to post the info so nobody bought one expecting their twin-scroll 7163 to make 600whp.

I find it pretty amazing that I haven't come across anyone complaining about surge on their EFR's, and that they can put a twin-scroll 7163 on an engine as big as an ecoboost with a non-ported inlet and be fine.

[Def]

Yea, I honestly think with the expected response and 500 rwhp it'll be a pretty awesome turbo. But I know what you mean on the guys wanting to post up huge dyno numbers.

I was thinking about a GTX3071R with a TiAL housing for a long while, but honestly the spool was not looking that great on it. The GTX 71mm wheel seems to also flow more at lower wheel RPM than the old GT 71 mm wheel, so you're asking for even more torque out of the very high trim UHP 60 mm wheel - which it doesn't seem all that great at producing.

I was kinda disappointed at the prospect once you add up all of the items needed $$$ wise, and even though I still think IWGs offer some compromises vs. a good external setup, I think on a twin scroll the cost and difficulty kills going that way with a GTX. And the TiAL housing added quite a bit of expense on top of the kinda pricey GTX.

I even considered the EFR6758, but it's probably more comfortable at 400-420 rwhp range, and any more is really pushing it(yes it can do it, but it's running off the map and IATs and backpressure at shooting up). I'm willing to accept a little more inertia and slightly higher spool RPM to get some more headroom above there. So the 7163 fits the bill perfectly.

No surprises on BW slowly rolling stuff out, but hopefully the wait isn't as long as it was for the first roll out of EFRs.

[LuckyX2]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/10153132_10152272210920860_864603278_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/970711_10152289793697527_5046756874039498708_n.jpg

Jager Racing's STI with a 7163 just took first place in the Redline Time Attack Street class. 1:55.3 at Chuckwalla Valley Raceway is a class record.

Notice the 240sx in 1st overall also :)

[LuckyX2]

Has anyone seen THIS (http://zilvia.net/f/showpost.php?p=5527703&postcount=25) also?

This guy apparently pulled 400whp out of the smallest EFR, the 6258, at 27psi but dropping off to 18 by redline. Says his previous GT2871 was good for 352whp at 18psi, meaning this smaller turbo outdid it by nearly 50whp.

All this on a stock head/block and 93 octane. I'm amazed if this is accurate and not the work of a lucky dyno.

The 7163 flows 16lbs/min more than the 6258...

[Kingtal0n]

Has anyone seen THIS (http://zilvia.net/f/showpost.php?p=5527703&postcount=25) also?

This guy apparently pulled 400whp out of the smallest EFR, the 6258, at 27psi but dropping off to 18 by redline. Says his previous GT2871 was good for 352whp at 18psi, meaning this smaller turbo outdid it by nearly 50whp.

All this on a stock head/block and 93 octane. I'm amazed if this is accurate and not the work of a lucky dyno.

The 7163 flows 16lbs/min more than the 6258...


yeah but the torque from a 2871 comes out 1000 rpm sooner and sits on an OEM exhaust manifold.
also, 27psi on 93 octane sounds like abuse

[LuckyX2]

yeah but the torque from a 2871 comes out 1000 rpm sooner and sits on an OEM exhaust manifold.
also, 27psi on 93 octane sounds like abuse

You sure about that? THIS (http://www.evans-tuning.com/dynos/2010/11/nissan-s13-stock-redtop-swap-gt2871-powerfc-340whp335tq/) is the highest power 2871 build I found on Evans Tuning dynosheet database and it's making 320ft-lbs at 4k rpm. The 6258 dyno I just posted is making nearly the same at 4k (310ft-lbs).

Keep in mind the 6258 is on a stock head too, this 2871 dyno has cams. And the OEM manifold is an advantage in the case that we're talking spool. It's shorter than a tubular, so it spools quicker.

I really don't think you're going to be able to find a 2871 stock SR on 93 that makes 310ft-lbs at 3k, that's ridiculously early torque.

[FullRaceGeoff]

charles' setup is stupid simple to be making 200tq @3300rpm and [email protected] a beat-down-tired haggard redtop SR20 with a FReddy intake manifold. stock everything internally, FR manifold + EFR6258 soft wg spring + 3" downpipe and a random front mount. ive driven a lot of sr's and 2871, none of them hold a candle to this. you can compare dyno charts, but until you are in the driver's seat with an EFR onboard you can't appreciate the difference from an internet discussion forum... the soft wg spring is not helping him, but the setup is absolutely rock solid reliable and roasts tires. also i dont see how he can make that much boost on this soft spring, doesnt seem right, should be more like 20-21 max

[LuckyX2]

I'll never understand these people that spend $1600 on a brand new turbo, then don't throw down the extra $50 for the stiffer wastegate and miss out on a bunch of power up top. So many builds out there tained by things like that. It's rare to find a dyno sheet that isn't followed by limitations like not having the right wastegate, or it had a boost leak, or it was misfiring, etc.

Get your shit together people! :p

Hopefully I'll be able to post some good data when I get a 7163 eventually. E85, 10.5:1 compression, S3 cams, freddy manifold, FR exhaust manifold, etc; my setup ought to be able to wring out whatever power is in it and then do some datalogging with my Haltech to share with everyone. I just hope my transmission holds...

[RalliartRsX]

charles' setup is stupid simple to be making 200tq @3300rpm and [email protected] a beat-down-tired haggard redtop SR20 with a FReddy intake manifold. stock everything internally, FR manifold + EFR6258 soft wg spring + 3" downpipe and a random front mount. ive driven a lot of sr's and 2871, none of them hold a candle to this. you can compare dyno charts, but until you are in the driver's seat with an EFR onboard you can't appreciate the difference from an internet discussion forum... the soft wg spring is not helping him, but the setup is absolutely rock solid reliable and roasts tires. also i dont see how he can make that much boost on this soft spring, doesnt seem right, should be more like 20-21 max

That makes more sense, as although the numbers are impressive, that almost 10psi drop over a few thousand RPM is not ideal and in small turbo territory, that's an overworked turbo (if the wastegate or turbine housing is not to blame atleast).

Howevere, I fully agree with the statement in regards to drivability. It's difficult to extrapolate such a "ghostly" from the dyno :)

[Mannykiller]

Well I don't know about you guys but I am a firm believer after this. A buddy of mine did a direct swap on his fd rx7. I'll be running an externally gated version with a larger hot side. But here is a quote from his build thread.

"so i dyno tuned today, and the short story is that this turbo is awesome. running the same boost as my previous 6262 setup, it made 12psi 1500rpms sooner, and made the exact same power. here are the graphs below (scales are different, and different software, but you can see the difference in response)

so the result was 338whp @ 12psi with very good boost response."


A video
http://youtu.be/VEGLyYgZUhI

I mean look at the tq.... Yes oem ported rotaries will have more linear earlier tq than a ported motor but still. This is just unheard of. Can't wait to get my car running on spring pressure (14lbs) on 91 Octane and 20lbs on e85. Looking forward to the forward progress with our cars and this new turbo!!

[PoorMans180SX]

yeah but the torque from a 2871 comes out 1000 rpm sooner and sits on an OEM exhaust manifold.

also, 27psi on 93 octane sounds like abuse


6258 fits just fine on a stock manifold.

http://zilvia.net/f/showthread.php?t=470359

[PoorMans180SX]

That makes more sense, as although the numbers are impressive, that almost 10psi drop over a few thousand RPM is not ideal and in small turbo territory, that's an overworked turbo (if the wastegate or turbine housing is not to blame atleast).





It's the wastegate.

[Def]

I'll never understand these people that spend $1600 on a brand new turbo, then don't throw down the extra $50 for the stiffer wastegate and miss out on a bunch of power up top. So many builds out there tained by things like that. It's rare to find a dyno sheet that isn't followed by limitations like not having the right wastegate, or it had a boost leak, or it was misfiring, etc.

Get your shit together people! :p

Hopefully I'll be able to post some good data when I get a 7163 eventually. E85, 10.5:1 compression, S3 cams, freddy manifold, FR exhaust manifold, etc; my setup ought to be able to wring out whatever power is in it and then do some datalogging with my Haltech to share with everyone. I just hope my transmission holds...

I'm interested to see what my future engine can do. SR20DET, forged bottom end, SR20VE head, would like to do SR16VE N1 cams and see what the 7163 can really do on a TS manifold. :snoop:

[Kingtal0n]

You sure about that? THIS (http://www.evans-tuning.com/dynos/2010/11/nissan-s13-stock-redtop-swap-gt2871-powerfc-340whp335tq/) is the highest power 2871 build I found on Evans Tuning dynosheet database and it's making 320ft-lbs at 4k rpm. The 6258 dyno I just posted is making nearly the same at 4k (310ft-lbs).

Keep in mind the 6258 is on a stock head too, this 2871 dyno has cams. And the OEM manifold is an advantage in the case that we're talking spool. It's shorter than a tubular, so it spools quicker.

I really don't think you're going to be able to find a 2871 stock SR on 93 that makes 310ft-lbs at 3k, that's ridiculously early torque.

I did not look at the graph close enough. I now see the boost curve passes 18psi around 3,800rpm. It is very similar to a 2871r, however, the 2871 still produces 30~ftlbs more in the 3500~rpm region, and that is with a tubular manifold AND cams. If you had a stock head with a stock manifold, it would be even quicker. But lets be serious; nobody should run oem cams with any upgraded turbo unless it's a disco.

I have a graph, but for best comparison I should overlay the two. Would you like that?

No it isnt 1,000rpm sooner like I said it was. I typed that without really looking at anything.


I also wasn't aware this turbo would fit the oem manfold as well. Also, I am not saying the 2871 is better by any stretch. It just jumped out at me that it should look quicker on paper.
I'd definetely give this new one a try if I had an sr20det :D

[LuckyX2]

I have a graph, but for best comparison I should overlay the two. Would you like that?

Yeah, that'd be cool if you wanna. I don't think that guy has the best setup to be comparing 2871 setups to though. He basically just slapped a 6258 on a stock SR but most 2871 guys are gonna have cams and other supporting mods. So it's gonna be difficult to draw any kind of conclusion from it. I just thought it was incredible that he got 400whp from such a small turbo. I know Borg's billet wheels really help at higher pressure ratios but still.

Well I don't know about you guys but I am a firm believer after this. A buddy of mine did a direct swap on his fd rx7.

Man, you gotta love the way rotaries can spool big turbos.

It's the wastegate.

Is it? A 6258 is way off the map at 27psi on a 2L at 7K rpm. I wouldn't expect such a small turbo to hold boost like that to redline.

I'm interested to see what my future engine can do. SR20DET, forged bottom end, SR20VE head, would like to do SR16VE N1 cams and see what the 7163 can really do on a TS manifold. :snoop:

Mmmm yes, a VE head. One of a few long term upgrades I still have left to do to my SR. I also have some GTi-R ITB's that I'm gonna throw on one of these days. I'll probably lose some top end but should be worth it for the low/mid and throttle response.

[jamg]

i'm loving all this info on a 2871 sized turbo... but does it sure come with a premium.

[PoorMans180SX]

Yeah, that'd be cool if you wanna. I don't think that guy has the best setup to be comparing 2871 setups to though. He basically just slapped a 6258 on a stock SR but most 2871 guys are gonna have cams and other supporting mods. So it's gonna be difficult to draw any kind of conclusion from it. I just thought it was incredible that he got 400whp from such a small turbo. I know Borg's billet wheels really help at higher pressure ratios but still.



Man, you gotta love the way rotaries can spool big turbos.



Is it? A 6258 is way off the map at 27psi on a 2L at 7K rpm. I wouldn't expect such a small turbo to hold boost like that to redline.



Mmmm yes, a VE head. One of a few long term upgrades I still have left to do to my SR. I also have some GTi-R ITB's that I'm gonna throw on one of these days. I'll probably lose some top end but should be worth it for the low/mid and throttle response.


The graph he posted is not the 27psi graph, it is the ~18-19psi graph... It's the wastegate.

Motary says his SR with 6258 has naturally aspirated-like throttle response.

[LuckyX2]

The graph shows him hitting 26.75 on "Analog 1". I assume that is the boost pressure.

I think what he was saying was that he hit 27psi but by 7500rpm was down to 18psi.

[PoorMans180SX]

Okay, I'm dumb. That's what I get for not looking at it again. But still, it's the gate. Look at the Borg Warner charts for desired pressure and what canister you should run. No way the soft canister is holding 27psi. There are people running 35psi on the B1 frame turbos.

[Def]

i'm loving all this info on a 2871 sized turbo... but does it sure come with a premium.

They're really not that much more, especially when you factor in the extras that come with the turbo.

In fact, I'd say street pricing the EFRs are really starting to get quite a bit cheaper than GTX turbos - which is their real competitor.

Of course a billet wheel GTX will destroy a 2871R pretty much everywhere.

[RalliartRsX]

..........
Of course a billet wheel GTX will destroy a 2871R pretty much everywhere.

How do you think the billet wheel GTX stacks up to a similar EFR??

[LuckyX2]

How do you think the billet wheel GTX stacks up to a similar EFR??

The billet wheel, on the 7163 at least, is very aggressive. BW can get away with doing that because of the extra torque at low blade speed ratios offered by the new turbine. The other EFRs have slightly less aggressive aero and are comparable to the stuff coming from Garrett except for higher pressure ratios where the BW parts win out.

However, the real advantage to EFR's is the Ti-Al turbine, that's one thing Garrett can't touch.

[DRFT180]

Let's not forget the redesigned internal wastegate flow paths for single and twin-scroll. Larger bearings and metal cases, dual compressor and turbine piston ring seals.

[Mannykiller]

The billet wheel, on the 7163 at least, is very aggressive. BW can get away with doing that because of the extra torque at low blade speed ratios offered by the new turbine. The other EFRs have slightly less aggressive aero and are comparable to the stuff coming from Garrett except for higher pressure ratios where the BW parts win out.

However, the real advantage to EFR's is the Ti-Al turbine, that's one thing Garrett can't touch.

Gtx turbos are great. But fact is that they're just not as light as the EFR wheels. Response really is night and day difference. I was skeptic when Geoff from full race told me about the EFR's...but after seeing dyno vids and charts with back to back differences... it really is night and day.

[Def]

The GTX stuff ranges from just ok to pretty good IMO. Some of their wheels don't really put up good results for the overall response/spool IMO (GTX2867R comes to mind... the entire GTX30 lineup as well). I think most of this is using pretty old turbine technology and only being able to get so much out of a billet wheel that offers a bit more flow for a little higher RPM and slightly lower inertia of a cast wheel.

The main thing that really makes sense on the EFRs is that a twin scroll turbo setup starts to financially make sense vs. a single scroll. The IWG adds very little cost next to the cost of a full EWG manifold + 2 good external gates and fabbing dump tubes.

I still think IWGs do offer some compromises in boost control (really have to get your canister spring pressure in the right range) - but they can be worked with when they have enough flow area and canister spring pressures to chose from - which the EFRs do.

[LuckyX2]

I still think IWGs do offer some compromises in boost control (really have to get your canister spring pressure in the right range) - but they can be worked with when they have enough flow area and canister spring pressures to chose from - which the EFRs do.

Stiffest spring or go home :D

[RalliartRsX]

The GTX stuff ranges from just ok to pretty good IMO. Some of their wheels don't really put up good results for the overall response/spool IMO (GTX2867R comes to mind... the entire GTX30 lineup as well). I think most of this is using pretty old turbine technology and only being able to get so much out of a billet wheel that offers a bit more flow for a little higher RPM and slightly lower inertia of a cast wheel.

The main thing that really makes sense on the EFRs is that a twin scroll turbo setup starts to financially make sense vs. a single scroll. The IWG adds very little cost next to the cost of a full EWG manifold + 2 good external gates and fabbing dump tubes.

I still think IWGs do offer some compromises in boost control (really have to get your canister spring pressure in the right range) - but they can be worked with when they have enough flow area and canister spring pressures to chose from - which the EFRs do.



Also, to add to this

1) What about those manifold that although are TS, have the two dump tubes merge to one to negate the price of twin piping, twin gates, etc?? Do those inhibit wastegate flow or is is insignificant enough that for a majority of the setups, its a very minor issue??

2) Also, you can simply change out the canister for a proper one from Turbosmart. They are fairly inexpensive (cheaper than a full EWG) and I am not entirely certain I am sold on the plastic setup. Actually, you can purchase both metal versions of both the wastegate and BOV from turbosmart for about the price of one 44MM EWG.

I am liking the EFR stuff :)

[Def]

A fully divided merged WG tube is fine - it's just hard to fabricate it to where it's fully divided.

The turbosmart gate looks pretty nice since changing the spring rate is easy after that. Anybody know the part number to that one? Turbosmart's website doesn't really seem to say "this p/n is for EFRs."

[LuckyX2]

A fully divided merged WG tube is fine - it's just hard to fabricate it to where it's fully divided.

The turbosmart gate looks pretty nice since changing the spring rate is easy after that. Anybody know the part number to that one? Turbosmart's website doesn't really seem to say "this p/n is for EFRs."

If I were buying another IWG for it, I wouldn't get the Turbosmart one, I'd get THIS. (http://www.full-race.com/store/efr-turbo-accessories/efr-billet-wastegate-actuator.html)

$40 cheaper than the Turbosmart and is dual port capable. In dual port setup you can run the boost as high as you want and not have it crack open until exactly when you want it.

I was contemplating getting this but I think I'll just stick to the stiffest sprung canister. At full preload it cracks open at 19.6 psi. I'm gonna be running 25psi or so, which isn't much more than the spring pressure. With my electronic controller making sure it doesn't see any pressure until I want to start controlling, my flapper ought to stay closed right up to 22psi or so when the controller opens.

[Def]

If I were buying another IWG for it, I wouldn't get the Turbosmart one, I'd get THIS. (http://www.full-race.com/store/efr-turbo-accessories/efr-billet-wastegate-actuator.html)

$40 cheaper than the Turbosmart and is dual port capable. In dual port setup you can run the boost as high as you want and not have it crack open until exactly when you want it.

I was contemplating getting this but I think I'll just stick to the stiffest sprung canister. At full preload it cracks open at 19.6 psi. I'm gonna be running 25psi or so, which isn't much more than the spring pressure. With my electronic controller making sure it doesn't see any pressure until I want to start controlling, my flapper ought to stay closed right up to 22psi or so when the controller opens.

Stay away from Forge WG actuators. I have one for a GT2871R and it's kinda crappy IMO - bad design decisions overall. I couldn't even sell the thing on here for like $30.

[LuckyX2]

Stay away from Forge WG actuators. I have one for a GT2871R and it's kinda crappy IMO - bad design decisions overall. I couldn't even sell the thing on here for like $30.

Ah, I wasn't aware of their quality issues. Are there any non Forge dual port models available?

[LuckyX2]

Found some more info from the Subaru guys HERE. (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=41610705&postcount=930)
What's most interesting to me is the bottom graph where the 7163 outdoes the 6758 everywhere.

Found some numbers on the Jager racing STI also, 540whp/494ft-lbs.
You can see their build and dyno run HERE. (http://www.iwsti.com/forums/built-motor-discussion/266309-jager-racing-motor-build-7.html)

[Def]

Ah, I wasn't aware of their quality issues. Are there any non Forge dual port models available?

I haven't seen any. I thought Turbosmart was developing one, but can't find any info with a quick search. Maybe I'm imagining things.

IMO, I'd go single port of an appropriate spring pressure.

Not sure how well your engine will flow, but you might not be able to hold 25 psi up top just because you'll be falling off the compressor map.

[LuckyX2]

I haven't seen any. I thought Turbosmart was developing one, but can't find any info with a quick search. Maybe I'm imagining things.

IMO, I'd go single port of an appropriate spring pressure.

Not sure how well your engine will flow, but you might not be able to hold 25 psi up top just because you'll be falling off the compressor map.

Yeah, I'm just going to be running the 19psi stiff spring.

And it ought to do 25psi fine. I plotted it to 25psi at 7500rpm in the first post:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2w1vz1g.jpg

30psi at 7500 is where it hits the edge of the map.

[Def]

What VE are you using up top? From dyno charts it seems even a DET gets over 100% VE up top.

[Mannykiller]

I don't know if it'll be as apparent on rotaries......but Honestly although BW is leading development... I still don't trust the internal WG as much as I'd trust dual External units. Funny though. Piston motors usually runner much higher boost levels than rotaries. Rotaries utilize much larger exhaust A/R's than piston motors. Rotaries can use the larger A/R's just as efficiently as Piston motors. Yet Rotaries generate more exhaust gas volume. I'm wondering if the Internal Wastegate EFR's will favor piston motors in terms of boost control just because they generate less exhaust gas volume. I just don't see an IWG EFR holding say 25-30lbs on a two rotor solid enough. I'm building a long runner turbo manifold for my external 1.05 EFR8374. I'll only be running 20lbs of boost on E85 and 14lbs on 91 Octane/race gas. But I'm building the long runner with the best possible Wastegate placement in order to hold boost as solid as possible everywhere...from 2500 all the way up to 8900 if I want. I'll keep you guys updated but I expect great things from this turbo with the high exhaust gas volume!

[Def]

You've got it all wrong - IWGs control high boost easier. Low boost on a "large" engine needs lots of flow area. High boost is cake to hold, especially if you're not going to run really high turbine inlet pressures - which rotaries do not tolerate at all (which is why people run huge A/Rs and deal with lazy spool and run low boost).

The BW EFRs have plenty of WG flow area to run >15 psi or so on a reasonably sized engine, and even low boost on most engine sizes as well. You just need the proper spring rate WG canister and the proper amount of WG canister preload.

IWGs do have issues - on piston engines with a "small" turbo on an engine it's keeping the boost up when the turbine inlet pressure rises and forces it open. But that's almost a problem of too much valve area for your WG canister pressure/preload.

A lot of the IWG problems you see are there are because people are stupid and do things like run 0 mm preload on the WG canister rod then complain of lazy boost pressure (minimum preload is 2 mm, something like 4-5 mm is more reasonable).

[LuckyX2]

What VE are you using up top? From dyno charts it seems even a DET gets over 100% VE up top.

I have a link in the original post that will take you directly to my settings. I used 105% VE for everything above 6500 rpm. Ambient is 75F, I upped the intercooler efficiency (per my datalogs of IAT) and reduced exhaust backpressure since I have a straight through 3".

[FullRaceGeoff]

Also, to add to this

1) What about those manifold that although are TS, have the two dump tubes merge to one to negate the price of twin piping, twin gates, etc?? Do those inhibit wastegate flow or is is insignificant enough that for a majority of the setups, its a very minor issue??

if you run a single WG on a twinscroll setup, the inner tubes must be fully divided to retain all the twinscroll benefit. Typically the difference from a dual-EWg twinscroll vs a single-EWg twinscroll is 300-400rpm spool. Fabricated single-EWg manifolds, with dividing walls will almost always crack at the divider (especially on drift or road race cars) hence the reason FR does not do this. With regards to the EFR wastegate tube, it is cast as a divided section and is aerodynamically optimized, so it does not have the stress risers or thermal stresses that a welded/fabricated part would (will not crack.)

2) Also, you can simply change out the canister for a proper one from Turbosmart.

the turbosmart IWg's are great actuators, and excellent spring selections. just be aware you can not give it much preload

I don't know if it'll be as apparent on rotaries......but Honestly although BW is leading development... I still don't trust the internal WG as much as I'd trust dual External units. Funny though. Piston motors usually runner much higher boost levels than rotaries. Rotaries utilize much larger exhaust A/R's than piston motors. Rotaries can use the larger A/R's just as efficiently as Piston motors. Yet Rotaries generate more exhaust gas volume. I'm wondering if the Internal Wastegate EFR's will favor piston motors in terms of boost control just because they generate less exhaust gas volume. I just don't see an IWG EFR holding say 25-30lbs on a two rotor solid enough. I'm building a long runner turbo manifold for my external 1.05 EFR8374. I'll only be running 20lbs of boost on E85 and 14lbs on 91 Octane/race gas. But I'm building the long runner with the best possible Wastegate placement in order to hold boost as solid as possible everywhere...from 2500 all the way up to 8900 if I want. I'll keep you guys updated but I expect great things from this turbo with the high exhaust gas volume!

from a theoretical standpoint - the best wastegate is no wastegate. if your concern of not holding boost up top occurs, its because the turbo is too small or the A/R is too small. Not because of the IWG.

You've got it all wrong - IWGs control high boost easier. Low boost on a "large" engine needs lots of flow area. High boost is cake to hold, especially if you're not going to run really high turbine inlet pressures - which rotaries do not tolerate at all (which is why people run huge A/Rs and deal with lazy spool and run low boost). The BW EFRs have plenty of WG flow area to run >15 psi or so on a reasonably sized engine, and even low boost on most engine sizes as well. You just need the proper spring rate WG canister and the proper amount of WG canister preload. IWGs do have issues - on piston engines with a "small" turbo on an engine it's keeping the boost up when the turbine inlet pressure rises and forces it open. But that's almost a problem of too much valve area for your WG canister pressure/preload. A lot of the IWG problems you see are there are because people are stupid and do things like run 0 mm preload on the WG canister rod then complain of lazy boost pressure (minimum preload is 2 mm, something like 4-5 mm is more reasonable).

:rawk: great post... too bad you dont drive a subaru, some of the clowns on nabisco could benefit from your explanations.


I still think IWGs do offer some compromises in boost control (really have to get your canister spring pressure in the right range) - but they can be worked with when they have enough flow area and canister spring pressures to chose from - which the EFRs do.

one more thing to consider: traditional IWG canisters are a boost actuated device whereas the traditional EWG are vacuum actuated devices. an External-WG is fully sealed on the "close" side, but leaks on the "open side". Conversely the 2-port turbosmart or forge actuators are exactly the opposite. They are fully sealed on the "open" side, but leak on the "close side" <<let me know if this makes sense??>> - the conclusion i drew from doing a ton of WG testing - was that an external WG (which has a leaky bottom port) would function similarly to a 2port vacuum actuated canister (with similarly leaky bottom port). long story short: I am suggesting that exh manifold backpressure is what opens the valve on a traditional EWG (considering the bottom port leaks down so much.).

I have turbosmart sending their latest variation of 2 port IWG to me to try out but I am still unsure if we can do exactly what we need, will be interestign to find out

Stiffest spring or go home :D
:stupid:

Gtx turbos are great. But fact is that they're just not as light as the EFR wheels. Response really is night and day difference. I was skeptic when Geoff from full race told me about the EFR's...but after seeing dyno vids and charts with back to back differences... it really is night and day.

agreed, the garrett turbos are a known quantity - proven reliable and will fit many existing installations. Garrett is selling a ton (and profitably) so there is not much reason for them to change... However the EFR's reduction of rotating mass in half, combined with a high end ceramic ball bearing are 2 major features that are difficult to overcome with traditional GT infrastructure

the real advantage to EFR's is the Ti-Al turbine, that's one thing Garrett can't touch.
:bigok:

The GTX stuff ranges from just ok to pretty good IMO. Some of their wheels don't really put up good results for the overall response/spool IMO (GTX2867R comes to mind... the entire GTX30 lineup as well). I think most of this is using pretty old turbine technology and only being able to get so much out of a billet wheel that offers a bit more flow for a little higher RPM and slightly lower inertia of a cast wheel.

The main thing that really makes sense on the EFRs is that a twin scroll turbo setup starts to financially make sense vs. a single scroll. The IWG adds very little cost next to the cost of a full EWG manifold + 2 good external gates and fabbing dump tubes.

agreed! this thread has some great info in it, keep it going

[khmerpimpin]

I wish we still had Geoff on the evo forums, nice to see more EFR stuff, once I get everything sorted out with full-race hopefully I can get another EFR unit.

[FullRaceGeoff]

^thx i love my evo! my all-time favorite daily driver, evoM banned me because a vendor complained my build thread was unsolicited advertisements.. oh well I thought i had some good info posted in it. im planning to pull the twinscroll 8374 off the car and try a twinsroll 7163 soon should really liven up the lowend tq curve. i run it on E85, there is a taxi refill near the shop, so I plan to keep iwg slammed shut at all times lol

[PoorMans180SX]

[QUOTE=FullRaceGeoff;5622255 I plan to keep iwg slammed shut at all times lol[/QUOTE]


That is the secret to happiness.

[Def]

:rawk: great post... too bad you dont drive a subaru, some of the clowns on nabisco could benefit from your explanations.



I think I'd have to get more flat brimmed Ken Block hats to join that crowd... Plus I enjoy not trying to spin my turbo up with exhaust gasses that have travelled 7 ft by the time they hit the turbine. :)



one more thing to consider: traditional IWG canisters are a boost actuated device whereas the traditional EWG are vacuum actuated devices. an External-WG is fully sealed on the "close" side, but leaks on the "open side". Conversely the 2-port turbosmart or forge actuators are exactly the opposite. They are fully sealed on the "open" side, but leak on the "close side" <<let me know if this makes sense??>> - the conclusion i drew from doing a ton of WG testing - was that an external WG (which has a leaky bottom port) would function similarly to a 2port vacuum actuated canister (with similarly leaky bottom port). long story short: I am suggesting that exh manifold backpressure is what opens the valve on a traditional EWG (considering the bottom port leaks down so much.).

I have turbosmart sending their latest variation of 2 port IWG to me to try out but I am still unsure if we can do exactly what we need, will be interestign to find out


Makes sense on the IWG vs. EWG. I never had any luck with a 2 port IWG actuator, as the bottom port will usually leak so badly that you lose the delta P on that side of the actuator in a hurry.

I'm interested to see how the Turbosmart does. I do wish their IWG actuators were a bit more reasonably priced... they're near the price of an EWG...


BTW - I'm on the wait list for a couple of TS T4 7163 at Full-Race. It still looking like "who the hell knows" on the ETA? :hide:


Glad you're finding the time to post here occasionally, as it's nice to get lots of first hand experience chiming in.

[FullRaceGeoff]

7163 singlescrolls are starting to show up with a little more regularity, however twinscroll 7163s are barely trickling in. they are gun-shy on ETA, the rumours are that things are going well and it wont be an eternity. you are not alone, im dying to get one for myself

[Def]

7163 singlescrolls are starting to show up with a little more regularity, however twinscroll 7163s are barely trickling in. they are gun-shy on ETA, the rumours are that things are going well and it wont be an eternity. you are not alone, im dying to get one for myself

I wonder what the hold-up is? Seems like they should be using the same housing casting as the xx58 B1 turbos and machining for the slightly larger turbine.

At least they have some turbos coming in...

[LuckyX2]

I wonder what the hold-up is? Seems like they should be using the same housing casting as the xx58 B1 turbos and machining for the slightly larger turbine.

At least they have some turbos coming in...

The 7163 is the first of the B1 framed models to come in a twin scroll iirc. So they would need new castings for that but not the single scroll.

[PoorMans180SX]

Considering the exhaust hits the turbine at a 45* angle vs the standard 90*, I don't think it's as easy as machining out the same housings.

[Def]

I could be wrong, but I think the turbine volute is the same, and all the "magic" is in the geometry of the turbine blades.

[FullRaceGeoff]

Def is correct, the mixed flow turbine wheel uses the same volute as a radial flow turbine wheel. the "tip shape" and "blade contour" are what makes this wheel design so unique

[Mannykiller]

Long runner smooth entry on this externally gated 8374!!
http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy325/mannykiller/FD%20Build/20140504_174418_zpswqrbwihv.jpg

[PoorMans180SX]

Def is correct, the mixed flow turbine wheel uses the same volute as a radial flow turbine wheel. the "tip shape" and "blade contour" are what makes this wheel design so unique


Ahhh interesting.

[LuckyX2]

More people with 7163's are slowly rolling in...

http://www.iwsti.com/forums/gr-members-journals/235395-2012-white-pearl-sti-boss-efr-7163-tuned-27psi-such-spool-much-subaru-many-wow.html

bISklKe_orQ

Listen to the induction sound, the turbo basically is always spun up. Also keep in mind he's at 1 mile elevation.

Quote from the owner: "damn thing wants to spool so early literally any time you are above 3k rpms in any gear the car will want to generate 3-5lbs of boost instantly with the lightest of throttle inputs...
It's fun and pretty zippy, can you believe this same car was at 608whp before? In the end the trade off from horsepower to spool was worth it."

[RalliartRsX]

^^ Actually, some of that sound at the beginning is the dyno rollers and not the actual turbo on boil ;)

I like the dyno graph. But a little biased in spool since those scoobys are a 2.5 liter bottom end (although the heads are not the best flow wise).

[Def]

They actually don't spool up turbos much faster on the average dyno pull than an SR. They have so much piping length that the difference between a run immediately following another, and one 30 seconds later can be on the order of 5-10% of spool RPM. They have that much heat loss before the turbine unless everything is close to steady state.

Their heads do suck something fierce as well when it comes to flow.

[RalliartRsX]

^^ Yep, that I do know ;)

[DRFT180]

This 6758 should be strapped to my built KA in a few weeks, along with meth injection. Things will get interesting...

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2932/13946072807_8049d10b5a_c.jpg

[LuckyX2]

^^ Actually, some of that sound at the beginning is the dyno rollers and not the actual turbo on boil ;)

I like the dyno graph. But a little biased in spool since those scoobys are a 2.5 liter bottom end (although the heads are not the best flow wise).

Yep, but if you listen closely you can hear the turbo whistling over it. Even just on light throttle, you can hear the whistling pick up quickly.

[khmerpimpin]

^thx i love my evo! my all-time favorite daily driver, evoM banned me because a vendor complained my build thread was unsolicited advertisements.. oh well I thought i had some good info posted in it. im planning to pull the twinscroll 8374 off the car and try a twinsroll 7163 soon should really liven up the lowend tq curve. i run it on E85, there is a taxi refill near the shop, so I plan to keep iwg slammed shut at all times lol

Are all EFR's getting the aluminum chra's?? If so what is the ETA on them, and going from 8374 to 7163 is a big jump!

I wish they made something in between the 7670 and 8374 with MFT. that would be an awesome turbo.

[FullRaceGeoff]

8374 to 7163 is a big jump. my twinscroll 8374 spools identically to a singlescroll gt3076R, and while that is incredible and allows me 700+hp worth of airflow, ~500 on the top end but spooling 1000+rpm earlier is very hard to argue with... plus it will roast all (4) tires more easily. Im not into highway or drag racing anymore and really just want my evo to have a "response monster" type powerband. the chassis and differentials are sorted and it slides very predictably so i look at this as a powerband that's more fun. I think these guys putting big singlescroll turbos on their evo's are nuts 6466, 6766, hta37, etc for dyno # and drag racing gets old to me

aluminum CHRA is only for the 7163 at this time. We are still hearing from many installers who can not or dont want to connect water lines -- the steel center section is crucial for these installs (obviously the alu needs to be watercooled). Ive requested that they extend the alu option to the largest/heaviest EFR first (9180 and 8374) and we expect that option to become available around SEMA later this year

as for the larger dia MFT rotor option on a B2 EFR turbo, its been discussed. Based on the results we're having with the 7163 we know there is potential for something like that, but in the lab it appears the 7163 is sort of a "sweet spot" for that blade design. There is some interest amongst the team to try out a couple other technologies, but the existing B2 turbos perform *so well* in the lab its pretty hard to top right now, so it remains to be seen what will eventually get approved and make it to market. More than likely it will be 2 years away... the good news is these guys are working on EFR stuff for 8-10 years from now already too, they are committed for the long haul

[Def]

Now they just need to work on their production capacity and being more turbos to the market!!!

[LuckyX2]

rk4AIdOOv1Y

Here's some footage of the 7163 equipped Jager Racing STI at Road Atlanta. Skip to 2:05 for the good stuff.

Notice how quickly he's back in boost after a shift and when he's coming out of a corner too. The moment after you hear the RPM pick up, you hear the turbo too.

[FullRaceGeoff]

hey guys - just wanted to bump this for anyone looking for a 7163, we have them in stock as twinscroll IWG and vband EWG. im planning to spend my july 4th weekend putting one on my evo ;)

[LuckyX2]

More dyno results coming out of the 7163!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/10458478_10152445979702527_2827743843385176918_n.j pg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/q75/s720x720/10353694_10152446058527527_3448898988555633108_n.j pg

Green is the stock turbo and red is the 7163. 557wtq / 535whp is what it came up with and much much more area under the curve than the stock unit.

Some bad new tho, I'm not the first autocrosser with a 7163 now, he's even in my class too... :(

[Def]

That's a pretty tasty dyno. Looks like full boost around 3.7-3.8k, and very high boost at that.

Sounds like an SR with a twin scroll and more heat delivered to the turbine can do ~25 psi around the 3.8-4.2k RPM range depending on a few different factors.

[FullRaceGeoff]

fyi - that chart is the singlescroll vband 7163. they will try a twinscroll at the end of this season, I suspect it will spool 400rpm quicker but lose ~30whp on the top end. we will see..

[huffandpuff00]

bimmer/sr20/efr - at local shop getting finished up and then dyno'd soon!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F1DOynBw6J4/U6C5IcTmAkI/AAAAAAAACeM/UD9ZWWKnUK8/s1600/photo%2B1-780221.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BguLLbmIopQ/U6C5JLD2h0I/AAAAAAAACeY/b2NxkOMPYvM/s1600/photo%2B2-783734.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZoVdYoDPxHE/U6C5JwGPGHI/AAAAAAAACek/_CJloK3TVaY/s1600/photo%2B3-786792.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MM8-COPJ-qE/U6C5KiRK2-I/AAAAAAAACew/O-uPpXyLYuE/s1600/photo%2B4-789500.JPG

[spooled240]

these turbos already have built in bypass valves and some sort of electric boost controller built in the compressor housings?

[huffandpuff00]

yes
http://www.turbos.bwauto.com/files/pdf/efr_technical_data.pdf

[LuckyX2]

P4Vtt8_B0Mk

Here's a nice quarter mile run in an STI equipped with a 7163. Doesn't show off the transients where the EFRs really shine, but still a good video.

[Kingtal0n]

yes
http://www.turbos.bwauto.com/files/pdf/efr_technical_data.pdf

Wait, whats that? A bypass valve as close as possible to the compressor?

Put there by the manufacturer?


say it aint so!!!


"Integrated compressor recirculation valve (CRV) to help avoid compressor surge and backflow during a throttle lift event."

[RalliartRsX]

P4Vtt8_B0Mk

Here's a nice quarter mile run in an STI equipped with a 7163. Doesn't show off the transients where the EFRs really shine, but still a good video.

Wow! Really dig it! What did he run?? According to my stop watch, around mid-high 11s??

[LuckyX2]

Nope, try mid-high 10's. He ran a 10.70 at 131.39 mph (It's in the title of the video btw...)

[RalliartRsX]

Nope, try mid-high 10's. He ran a 10.70 at 131.39 mph (It's in the title of the video btw...)


Nice time (and yeah, my comp at work blocks all tag line sans video, so never even saw the description)!

[Mannykiller]

FInished.......Dyno results coming after this wed. EFR 8374 Dual Turbosmart comp gate 40's Turbosmart upgraded BOV (not sure if it'll even perform better than the recirc) And All Powered by Flex fuel E85. 4" straight through exhaust...should give me something exciting!!
http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy325/mannykiller/FD%20Build/20140613_012614_zpsezersyir.jpg
http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy325/mannykiller/FD%20Build/20140625_220528_zpsde08ay7r.jpg
http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy325/mannykiller/FD%20Build/20140704_123304_zpsp2a4k6ux.jpg

[Mannykiller]

Had to cut the session short due to an obvious over boost problem. But man this turbo is an incredible piece of engineering.

[ultimateirving]

Had to cut the session short due to an obvious over boost problem. But man this turbo is an incredible piece of engineering.

Awesome boost response, great pic.

[Mannykiller]

^Thanks!!!

[Mannykiller]

Here is the Dyno Video...

Aaron parker Fd3s EFR8374 Drift car dyno tune by Abel Ibarra - Taming the Wolf - YouTube (http://youtu.be/RKeNiGs5nSc)

If anyone knows how to embed the video on here please feel free to repost!!! it would be much appreciated!

Now The dyno chart is a bit off because we started the pull late instead of 100% TPS at a lower RPM to get a full Accurate pull But were going to see if Lucky seven can send the print out of the Last dyno pull. But just to get you guys a nice idea.....here is a Shot of one of our pulls messing with the EBC settings..20lbs at 4K RPM!! And I think we can do better by messing with the Duty Cycle!
http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy325/mannykiller/FD%20Build/FB_IMG_14056125906792807_zpsy3c1xt4g.jpg

[RalliartRsX]

Gotta love how Rotaries spool a turbo ;)

[LuckyX2]

RKeNiGs5nSc

Here, I posted the vid for you. Use the YouTube tags (YT or YTHD) and in them put the part of the url that comes after the equal sign. Your video was "RKeNiGs5nSc" for example.

Awesome pull btw. I love how it's so calm and then instantly, BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAA. Talk about throttle response... And you know it's good when it blows the ceiling apart in the dyno room :eek:

[LuckyX2]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/l/t1.0-9/148654_10152538597922527_515349345941716584_n.jpg

Well, the 7163 equipped Jager Racing/Yimisport STI just took not only the Street Class win but also the overall win in the Redline Time Attack. I'd say there's something to this whole EFR thing...

Which btw, mine just came in today fresh from Full-Race. I'll post pictures soon.

[Def]

Definitely post up pics stat!

[LuckyX2]

I had it delivered to my dad's shop rather than the house. Kinda busy prepping for an interview so I don't think I'm gonna make it out there today. Pics tomorrow and installation within a week hopefully.

[Def]

Pics totally aren't loading!

[LuckyX2]

Pics totally aren't loading!
lol, sorry for the delay, I didn't get out there until today.

What's in the box?!
http://i.share.pho.to/0aa09b37_l.jpeg

Oh, just an awesome turbo :yum:
http://i.share.pho.to/3804a433_l.jpeg

Shiny billet compressor
http://i.share.pho.to/3e3bf849_l.jpeg

Side view
http://i.share.pho.to/0fa847ab_l.jpeg

Closer look at the mixed flow TiAl turbine
http://i.share.pho.to/5de88935_l.jpeg

Divided wastegate
http://i.share.pho.to/46625d90_l.jpeg

Manifold and downpipe too
http://i60.tinypic.com/2myt0yf.jpg

This manifold is perfect
http://i.share.pho.to/d738ec9f_l.jpeg

http://i.share.pho.to/f2e1d7ca_l.jpeg

Big thanks to Full-Race for being an awesome company with the highest quality stuff and to Def for throwing together a group buy.

I'll hopefully have this installed within a week and can do some datalogging. Don't expect any dyno pulls soon though, I'm leaving for a cross country drive mid August and will be gone for 2-3 weeks.

[derass]

Interesting to see close up photos of the mixed flow turbine! Besides wastegate flow, does the rearward volute provide both radial and axial turbine flow? It's hard to tell from that angle.

[LuckyX2]

I'll pull the turbine housing off soon and get some more pictures. Until then, there's a picture in the first post that shows the turbine differences.

[LuckyX2]

Started putting the 7163 on today. My oil feed isn't as long as I thought so I'll need another, I snapped an exhaust stud and the downpipe doesn't want to line up with the turbine outlet. Typical issues...

http://i.share.pho.to/90b21365_l.jpeg
http://i.share.pho.to/b031a22e_l.jpeg
http://i.share.pho.to/17debf76_l.jpeg

[insa]

LuckyX2.... I was hoping you would go through with it. Just... freakin awesome!

I'm so looking forward to see dyno results for this. And even more to hear about your first driving impressions.

Would love to change this for my 6258 one day :)

[LuckyX2]

I'll be sure to post my impressions here as soon as it's up and running. That might be a few more days since I ran into some issues like with the downpipe.

How do you like your 6258? I imagine it's a lot of fun.

[insa]

Hope you can resolve that quickly. :) Good luck with that! :)

The 6258 in combination with a stock SR20DET (except for poncams) is really great to drive. Compared to the GT2860RS .86 I drove before that, it feels very N/A'ish and holds power on the top of the rev range much better (as expected ;)). Perfect combination for your everyday street car.

I somehow hope that the TS 7163 you just bought won't spool up that much later than the 6258... ;) I know, wishful thinking..

[Motary]

Hope you can resolve that quickly. :) Good luck with that! :)

The 6258 in combination with a stock SR20DET (except for poncams) is really great to drive. Compared to the GT2860RS .86 I drove before that, it feels very N/A'ish and holds power on the top of the rev range much better (as expected ;)). Perfect combination for your everyday street car.

I somehow hope that the TS 7163 you just bought won't spool up that much later than the 6258... ;) I know, wishful thinking..

I can vouch for that, I don't have my setup tuned yet, but it is way better than my hybrid T04E/T28 setup. It also fits with the stock exhaust manifold, banjo fittings for water lines on block side and you have to grind the block a little to clear the V-band clamp, but it is at the gearbox bolt so no biggie

https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/1601265_10153769007955161_629076404_n.jpg?oh=c6662 cc2dddcf4acfeac7fae6ee5a4d1&oe=544AB8BA

It's stock :D
http://motary.planet.ee/200SX/2014/enginnn.jpg

[Def]

Does the BCS fit with it on the stock mani?

[rbs14kouki]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa74/rbs14kouki/random%20cars/image-38.jpg (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/rbs14kouki/media/random%20cars/image-38.jpg.html)

The gtx35 was t3 twinscroll. (Ar:?)
The efr is t4 twinscroll

The flange is the only thing they switch from the set-up

Its on a sr20vet btw

[Motary]

Does the BCS fit with it on the stock mani?

No, you would have to mount it on the body or anywhere else you find suitable.

[Def]

Any pics of what you have to grind off on the block?

[cured13]

Wonderfull setup Motary, post more pics or link to your build please.

[LuckyX2]

Can someone buy THIS (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2654708), please?

$1300 for a 7163 is ridiculous.

[LuckyX2]

Well, it's gonna be a little while before I get this thing running now...

http://i.share.pho.to/6cc4b9a8_l.jpeg

That's the banjo bolt for the oil feed line and yes, that's the threads from the block broken off in it :mad:

Either going to helicoil it or thread it out to 1/4" NPT since that would be just a little larger than the M12 bolt that was in there. Not sure yet.

Also, I have no idea how the intercooler piping is supposed to fit. I bought THIS (http://www.ebay.com/itm/261528543706?_trksid=p2059210.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT) kit and absolutely cannot see a way it would go together. I'm starting to think they sent me the wrong pipe actually, the pieces are different than in the pictures. Next skill on my to learn list is definitely welding so I don't have to deal with stupid things like this.

In good news though, I got the downpipe to line up after loosening everything and going back at it. Probably a leak from it not lining up right where the downpipe meets the exhaust but I don't really care. It's after the turbo and after the O2 sensor, so whatever. So once the oil threads are fixed and I get some piping that works, it will be good to go.

If anyone reading this is in east PA, I definitely recommend Nyco for any of your fitting needs. I walked in with my old bottom mount oil feed line, told them I needed the same thing but twice as long and $36 and 15 minutes later I walked out with this:
http://i.share.pho.to/4e865326_l.jpeg
Very pleased with Nyco.

[LuckyX2]

Update, the install is VERY close to being done. I just need a 45* or 90* fitting for the coolant feed since the wastegate actuator blocks a straight fitting.

http://i.share.pho.to/ce040d3c_l.jpeg

Tapping the oil feed to 1/4" NPT went smoothly. Time consuming, going just a turn or two at a time but no issues.

http://i.share.pho.to/932989aa_l.jpeg

Even got my eBay piping to work

http://i.share.pho.to/d320cdf6_l.jpeg

For those considering this pipe for a top mount, here's the pipe I had to cut and how much I had to take off. I needed to use one of my own 90* elbows too, since it wasn't supplied.

http://i.share.pho.to/c7111a78_l.jpeg

And here's the finished product:

http://i.share.pho.to/1bf1db99_l.jpeg

http://i.share.pho.to/a7d3f16b_l.jpeg

[insa]

Looking very good! :)

[LuckyX2]

XvqMrb04HoI

Well, she finally runs. Here's a little clip of the boost recovery for everyone. 3rd gear, about 3k and I floored it. Let off the throttle after it got into boost a bit and then got back on the throttle and it was right back where it left off in an instant.

More info soon.

[insa]

It runs! :)

When you're in 4th gear and you floor it from 2k RPM upwards, when do you reach 1 bar of boost? Could you upload some more footage (just some runs, driving around town etc.)?

[FullRaceGeoff]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa74/rbs14kouki/random%20cars/image-38.jpg (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/rbs14kouki/media/random%20cars/image-38.jpg.html)

The gtx35 was t3 twinscroll. (Ar:?) The efr is t4 twinscroll The flange is the only thing they switch from the set-up Its on a sr20vet btw

great comparison, twinscroll vs. twinscroll. Do you know if the gtx35 was a 1.06 a/r or 0.82?

Any pics of what you have to grind off on the block?

I will try and attach some photos of this right now

Does the BCS fit with it on the stock mani?

the stock manifold's cyl #1 runner is a bit too close

here's the finished product:

http://i.share.pho.to/1bf1db99_l.jpeg

http://i.share.pho.to/a7d3f16b_l.jpeg

looking good! have you had any more seat time lately


The 6258 in combination with a stock SR20DET (except for poncams) is really great to drive. Compared to the GT2860RS .86 I drove before that, it feels very N/A'ish and holds power on the top of the rev range much better (as expected ;)). Perfect combination for your everyday street car.

I agree, the 6258 and stock-ish SR20 is an outstanding combination. It feels like there are 4 more cylinders under the hood. Easily one of my all time favorite combinations due to the simplicity and ease of this setup. People are often worried about not making big top-end HP and tend to go right to the bigger turbos.

I somehow hope that the TS 7163 you just bought won't spool up that much later than the 6258... ;) I know, wishful thinking..

singlescroll 7163 will usually spool about 800rpm later than 6258 singlescroll. The twinscroll 7163 will cut that down to around 350-400rpm later than 6258 singlescroll.

bang-for-the-buck a 6258 on stock manifold is hard to beat


I can vouch for that, I don't have my setup tuned yet, but it is way better than my hybrid T04E/T28 setup. It also fits with the stock exhaust manifold, banjo fittings for water lines on block side and you have to grind the block a little to clear the V-band clamp, but it is at the gearbox bolt so no biggie

https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/1601265_10153769007955161_629076404_n.jpg?oh=c6662 cc2dddcf4acfeac7fae6ee5a4d1&oe=544AB8BA

It's stock :D
http://motary.planet.ee/200SX/2014/enginnn.jpg

nice! :naughty:

[Def]

Nice pics Geoff.

What's your idea on relative spool/power differences for a 6758 on a ported stock SR manifold vs. a 7163 on a Full-Race twin scroll manifold? Figure the usual cams on an SR20DET.

I'd think the 6758 would spool up a tad quicker due to the lower wheel inertia, and less manifold volume and shorter runners. Adding up to maybe 200-300 RPM? But I imagine there's a solid 50-70 rwhp difference up top with a higher flowing comp/turbine wheel combo plus better flowing turbo manifold.

Thoughts?

[FullRaceGeoff]

Nice pics Geoff.

What's your idea on relative spool/power differences for a 6758 on a ported stock SR manifold vs. a 7163 on a Full-Race twin scroll manifold? Figure the usual cams on an SR20DET.

I'd think the 6758 would spool up a tad quicker due to the lower wheel inertia, and less manifold volume and shorter runners. Adding up to maybe 200-300 RPM? But I imagine there's a solid 50-70 rwhp difference up top with a higher flowing comp/turbine wheel combo plus better flowing turbo manifold.

Thoughts?

the twinscroll 7163 0.80 vs singlescroll 6758 0.64 is an interesting question. The majority of our SR20 customers run the 6758 0.64 a/r becuase it's so easy to fit an SR, and totally kicks ass on whatever T25 manifold thats in place. we always have them in stock, and while I love the 6258 also, 6758 is definitely more popular

your guesstimates sound reasonable but I cant say with certainty. Keep in mind the 63 turbine wheel has almost the same inertia as the 58mm (due to the mixed flow blade tip design being inherently lightweight at the OD). The larger diameter 71mm compressor wheel is really where the majority of increased inertia comes from

[Def]

A v-band flange welded on a stock manifold sounds like an interesting bottom mount solution on a budget. It would take a lot of collector porting, and still have that stock SR tractor sound, but it'd allow you to clock the turbo on the v-band to where it'd fit with minimal fuss.

But it still seems like at this price point, ya might as well pony up for a quality twin scroll manifold like a Full-Race (:D) to get the most out of the turbo.

[spooled240]

Has anyone ran a 6258 on a ka24de with a bottom mount manifold? Curious to know what modifications were required for this setup.

[FullRaceGeoff]

A v-band flange welded on a stock manifold sounds like an interesting bottom mount solution on a budget. It would take a lot of collector porting, and still have that stock SR tractor sound, but it'd allow you to clock the turbo on the v-band to where it'd fit

If you can weld it properly (preheat and use supermissel rod) it could certainly be done. If prepped/welded improperly there is a chance of cracking, but yeah it could definitely be a sleeper config for the Aussies and anyone else wanting to sound and appear OEM... although its a lot of work compared to the T2 flanged config

it still seems like at this price point, ya might as well pony up for a quality twin scroll manifold like a Full-Race (:D) to get the most out of the turbo.

no argument from me on either point. The twinscroll IWG setups deliver serious bang-for-buck considering you dont need to buy $2000 worth of WG's, flanges/tubes/clamps and bov. However slapping a T2-flanged EFR6758 on the stock manifold is pretty impressive and ridiculously affordable for the performance level. remember what a TR30R used to cost 3 years ago?!

Has anyone ran a 6258 on a ka24de with a bottom mount manifold? Curious to know what modifications were required for this setup.

B1 EFR is nice to package due to the 2.5" inlet and 2.0" outlet on compressor and 3" vband on turbine at downpipe. One of the guys who used to work at FR ran an EFR6258 on his KA24E S13 with bottom mount, required a custom fabricated turbo manifold of course

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc430/BrewedMotorsports/KA24%20Full%20Race%20manifold%20fabrication/Picture038.jpghttp://

[Def]

Geoff, when are you guys expecting the EFR 7163's with the forward facing compressor outlet? Hopefully it's not a 2-3 year thing to ramp up production... And are 7163s starting to roll in with more regularity? I've had to turn away a couple of guys who wanted a turbo in a few weeks and no 7163s were available. :(

Forward facing compressor outlet like so:

http://www.speednik.com/files/2014/11/img_2511.jpg

[rbs14kouki]

Thats it my pte5858 is for sale hahahaha that forward facing cold side is awesome !!!

[FullRaceGeoff]

are 7163s starting to roll in with more regularity? I've had to turn away a couple of guys who wanted a turbo in a few weeks and no 7163s were available.

7163s are available as singlescroll right now (Great supply of those). The Twinscrolls are also arriving (delivery due to arrive on Friday) but its crazy popular so most of the twinscrolls are spoken for 1-2 weeks in advance. If you need one let me or jon know and will check what is available from that.

Dont forget the twinscroll 0.80 a/r EFR6758 is also available,thats a sick little turbo and with the same lightweight alloy center section as 7163 its not to be overlooked for a 430-450hp setup

Geoff, when are you guys expecting the EFR 7163's with the forward facing compressor outlet? Hopefully it's not a 2-3 year thing to ramp up production

Glad you like it! Ive been a big fan of 90-degree compressor outlets on longitudinal applications like SR20, RB26, S2000, F150 eco, mustang etc... it simplifies the piping and is super clean. However pretty much every new release at BW is on a 2 year timeline, which is why we didnt display it at SEMA last year. -- but its about 8 months out from being a shelf-stock part #


Thats it my pte5858 is for sale hahahaha that forward facing cold side is awesome !!!

not to mention the transient response and spool will be a huge improvement compared to the singlescroll 58mm precision :hitit:


FYI - dynochart attached of SR22 with twinscroll EFR7670, ve head w/ factory cams and uprated valve springs - thought you guys would be interested to see this one

FYI#2 - a little OT but cool video, specifically 1:00 - 1:50:
http://youtu.be/zyo_SwYm_K8?t=59s
^^Ford engineer explaining their re-design of the ecoboost cyl head for use with a twinscroll setup

[RalliartRsX]

@FullRaceGeoff: For those 2 photos you posted, what manifold are either running??

Also, can you give a full rundown of each's setup??

[Motary]

Doesn't aiming the MAF directly at the turbine wheel cause problems?

[FullRaceGeoff]

@FullRaceGeoff: For those 2 photos you posted, what manifold are either running??

using our IWG T4 twinscroll manifold:
http://www.full-race.com/store/efr-turbo-manifolds/nissan-sr20det-t4-efr-turbo-manifold.html

these are both customers cars, neither is local, one with twinscroll 7163 and the other with twinscroll 6758 - both aluminum center sections

Doesn't aiming the MAF directly at the turbine wheel cause problems?

I emailed the customer and suggested a longer inlet pipe, however he said he loves it and has no complaints or issues

[Def]

I had no problems at all with a slightly shorter 3" pipe leading up to my Z32 MAF back before I ran a MAP setup. No issues at all with it.

The key with a MAF is to make sure you have a nice radius leading into the MAF adapter (think mini-bellmouth or velocity stack), and roughly 2-3 diameters minimum of straight pipe before you hit the element. More is better, but it works fine with this setup due to the inlet geometry approximating a venturi with the radius on the leading edge. A sharp leading edge on the MAF adapter will need more like 8-10 diameters to fully develop the flow field.

[Motary]

Alright, cool

BW has been busy:

Quick spool valve

http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Coverage/NEV-SEMAparts2014/i-qSqwmpc/1/L/IMG_6118adj-L.jpg

http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Coverage/NEV-SEMAparts2014/i-65PKLpn/1/L/IMG_6119adj-L.jpg

I also really like the forward facing exit on the cold side.

[[email protected]]

Alright, cool

BW has been busy:

Quick spool valve

http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Coverage/NEV-SEMAparts2014/i-qSqwmpc/1/L/IMG_6118adj-L.jpg

http://photos.motoiq.com/Event-Coverage/NEV-SEMAparts2014/i-65PKLpn/1/L/IMG_6119adj-L.jpg

I also really like the forward facing exit on the cold side.


http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a0/a0fc8b9b21395031e46c305c5e88ef52687d86278469478e1f a3a5bb3de35ea8.jpg

someone is listening to me in my sleep.....

[LuckyX2]

YES. I'm glad to see the quick spool valve finally made it into production.

I posted about it HERE (http://zilvia.net/f/showpost.php?p=4779985&postcount=20) on the first page of this thread over two years ago!

[spooled240]

Really cool. I like how the design of the valve doesn't impede the exhaust flow at all when it's opened all the way. Interested to see the dyno charts!

[Mannykiller]

I'm excited about the Quick spool valve as well.... and to see if it makes option for externally gated units as well.... That would be the perfect compromise IMO... The ALum Center housing is tits as well.... I'm always worried about heat... but this seems to be the answer...as long as it's strong enough that is. And lastly.. I didn't think these units could get any more user friendly.. But with a forward facing 90 Degree Charge outlet.... and lessened over-all weight with the alum center section.... I'm thinking this may be the ultimate upgraded Best performing turbo on the market. This is good!

[FullRaceGeoff]

Really cool. I like how the design of the valve doesn't impede the exhaust flow at all when it's opened all the way.

Glad to hear you like it! And yes, good eyes - this design was optimized with CFD - the specific angle used for the "VTV flap" closed position is similar to a singlescroll turbo and no flap. Compared to a traditional aftermarket style valve which the gasses impact at 90 degrees... the reduction in losses due to turbulent flow is significant

YES. I'm glad to see the quick spool valve finally made it into production

The 'VTV' aka 'variable turbine volute' is an effective way to get close to variable A/R performance without the massive cost or risk of vanepack failure. It's still in development, and not yet in production - more than likely this will become available in 2016. The unit on the time attack R32 was the original prototype idea, but its currently looking like the B1 VTV will be 0.80 TS-IWG and the B2 VTV will be 0.92 TS-IWG

someone is listening to me in my sleep.....

:naughty: lol - I especially like this device becuase it converts from small AR singlescroll to large AR twinscroll. Better than the standard QSV's which are singlescroll only

I also really like the forward facing exit on the cold side.

I agree that is a really neat compressor housing, it packages very nicely in longitudinal RWD applications. It is also going to be a 2016 release however

I'm thinking this may be the ultimate upgraded Best performing turbo on the market. This is good!

As a group, everyone on the BW team is committed to constantly stepping things up and raising the bar. The VTV is definitely one of the more exciting changes, and we are always testing and trying new things to determine what will be next. Thanks for your input Aaron! really happy the twinscroll EFR has been trouble free for you

[Def]

Geoff, will the VTV housing likely fit on a current B1 frame EFR of the correct turbine wheel dimensions with no mods once it's released? Looks like an interesting piece, and if you can update an earlier turbo it sounds like an interesting choice.

That said, for a track car it probably isn't a huge benefit since you're above the boost threshold 99+% of the time, so all you're worried about is transient response.

[FullRaceGeoff]

Def - you are correct, the VTV housing will have less benefit on track cars which are operating above the VTV actuation range. If the flapper is going to be in twinscroll position anyway - then the standard twinscroll housing without vtv is the call. Keep in mind VTV is still a concept - all prototypes have been DLMS printed, not yet given the green light to start production with tooling, investment castings etc. I expect its 1 year away, starting to be for sale at SEMA next year.

Yes - The VTV housings are designed to be direct fits for existing EFR turbos, forwards and backwards compatible within the family.. the 6758, 7163 and 7670/8374 are the most popular turbos so we will continue to support them with future innovation

[PoorMans180SX]

Def - you are correct, the VTV housing will have less benefit on track cars which are operating above the VTV actuation range. If the flapper is going to be in twinscroll position anyway - then the standard twinscroll housing without vtv is the call. Keep in mind VTV is still a concept - all prototypes have been DLMS printed, not yet given the green light to start production with tooling, investment castings etc. I expect its 1 year away, starting to be for sale at SEMA next year.

Yes - The VTV housings are designed to be direct fits for existing EFR turbos, forwards and backwards compatible within the family.. the 6758, 7163 and 7670/8374 are the most popular turbos so we will continue to support them with future innovation


Saw the housing in person at PRI. Very cool stuff. The BorgWarner guys were really cool, answering some questions about compressor wheels I had always wondered about. Holding an inconel turbine vs a TiAl one is quite eye-opening, and it seems like the aluminum bearing housing is also going to be expanded to the entire lineup in 2016 as well.

[FullRaceGeoff]

glad you got to stop by! next time make sure to say hi ;)

[rbs14kouki]

7163s are available as singlescroll right now (Great supply of those). The Twinscrolls are also arriving (delivery due to arrive on Friday) but its crazy popular so most of the twinscrolls are spoken for 1-2 weeks in advance. If you need one let me or jon know and will check what is available from that.

Dont forget the twinscroll 0.80 a/r EFR6758 is also available,thats a sick little turbo and with the same lightweight alloy center section as 7163 its not to be overlooked for a 430-450hp setup



Glad you like it! Ive been a big fan of 90-degree compressor outlets on longitudinal applications like SR20, RB26, S2000, F150 eco, mustang etc... it simplifies the piping and is super clean. However pretty much every new release at BW is on a 2 year timeline, which is why we didnt display it at SEMA last year. -- but its about 8 months out from being a shelf-stock part #




not to mention the transient response and spool will be a huge improvement compared to the singlescroll 58mm precision :hitit:


FYI - dynochart attached of SR22 with twinscroll EFR7670, ve head w/ factory cams and uprated valve springs - thought you guys would be interested to see this one

FYI#2 - a little OT but cool video, specifically 1:00 - 1:50:
http://youtu.be/zyo_SwYm_K8?t=59s
^^Ford engineer explaining their re-design of the ecoboost cyl head for use with a twinscroll setup

We just found an other pte turbo with major shaft play at the shop on one of our customer supra

I getting closer and closer to put my jb5858 for sale since its brand new

And go for the 7163

Im running a doc race manifold with a v-band flange on it ... i know that flange works with pte and garrets turbo's !!!

Would the efr 7163 v-band option work on my manifold or should i realy go twinscroll t4

[FullRaceGeoff]

Yes - you can use vband EFR turbos on a manifold flanged for garrett/tial/precision but its not perfectly ideal:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10377428_10152495435247527_7280042560885205952_n.j pg?oh=90ea16beaf69b52d6f498849f20f4fbf&oe=55460F99&__gda__=1426473932_5a6533283550514b4ed0c64729c7ce0 6

TiAL Sport / Turbo By Garrett vband on left, BorgWarner vband at right. Both have similar OD and use the same clamp however they differ internally at the ID diameter and valve seat. Soo the B1 EFR turbo can fit a tial/Garrett flanged manifold but is not perfect at the sealing surface. The tial/Garrett turbo will not fit A BW flanged manifold like the one shown here

I personally think the difference twinscroll T4 makes on a turbo at this power/airflow level is is worth changing manifolds and eliminating the risk of a leak

[Def]

Geoff,

Have you heard of any cars having fastener/gasket sealing issues on the T4 twin scroll housing and your hardware kit and heavy track usage? I imagine having things top mounted makes it significantly easier to keep things sealed up.

I've seen you say that you don't like turbo braces (to the head/valve cover) before, do you still feel that way? I know your manifolds have a lifetime warranty to the original purchaser, but I'm trying to plan my next turbo/manifold setup, and I figure I might as well get all the pieces in place before pulling the trigger.

[FullRaceGeoff]

Def - In my experience it takes a combination of 6 things to maintain a good long-term seal:

-spiralock threads in tool steel flanges, resists loosening during heating/cooling cycles
-use a high quality stud/nut rated for the 'intermittent' temp
-anti-vibration washers (heicolock or nordlock)
-high temp anti-seize and tight hardware
-a thick multi-layer steel gasket is superior to the standard single layer
-Top mounting reduces the load on the studs to be certain. M10 studs are also much better at resisting deformation than M8 hardware
-an alternative to antiseize if the car is an endurance racer is resbond (high temp thread locker)

spiralock threads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLD8xP2k3_k

anti vibration washers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc53qDlvLTw

[PoorMans180SX]

glad you got to stop by! next time make sure to say hi ;)

Hah! I had no idea you were there, otherwise I definitely would have.

BTW, if anyone wants a crazy deal on a used 6758, there is this one on ebay right now...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Borg-Warner-6758-EFR-turbo-like-GT3071R-GT3076R-GT2871R-BW-EFR-ball-bearing-/251759605209?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a9e0ab5d9&vxp=mtr

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/EGYAAOSwBP9UYhyX/$_57.JPG

[FullRaceGeoff]

that is a used indycar turbo, be aware that it uses a different vband flange and clamp, a 3 bolt flanged input and doesnt carry any warranty but is definitely a sweet turbo

[Def]

Def - In my experience it takes a combination of 6 things to maintain a good long-term seal:

-spiralock threads in tool steel flanges, resists loosening during heating/cooling cycles
-use a high quality stud/nut rated for the 'intermittent' temp
-anti-vibration washers (heicolock or nordlock)
-high temp anti-seize and tight hardware
-a thick multi-layer steel gasket is superior to the standard single layer
-Top mounting reduces the load on the studs to be certain. M10 studs are also much better at resisting deformation than M8 hardware
-an alternative to antiseize if the car is an endurance racer is resbond (high temp thread locker)

spiralock threads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLD8xP2k3_k

anti vibration washers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc53qDlvLTw

So do Full-Race manifolds have Spirallock threads in the turbine flanges??? I'm trying to help you be a salesman here Geoff! :l101::snoop:

I've really had issues with flanged turbine connections, so I still sometimes think that maybe a v-band connection would be superior to a twin scroll connection just because it'll stay tight. Yea, v-bands leak a small amount, but they're pretty foolproof on keeping stuff together.

[FullRaceGeoff]

So do Full-Race manifolds have Spirallock threads in the turbine flanges??? I'm trying to help you be a salesman here Geoff!

Def-Full-Race manifolds use spiralock threads in tool steel turbine flanges. It's another small "value add" which most people never realize, but definitely helps keep the hardware in place. good point that we never bring it up, ill ask the front office if this is something we want to promote or not

I still sometimes think that maybe a v-band connection would be superior to a twin scroll connection just because it'll stay tight. Yea, v-bands leak a small amount, but they're pretty foolproof on keeping stuff together.

this is the same argument that happened internally at Indycar with the EFR single turbos. Honda did not want to risk hardware loosening, however they could not lose the "boost" in response and torque that twinscroll on the 9180 gave them -- remember they had to battle twin turbo 6758 chevy/lotuses... so the solution was welding the manifold to the turbine housing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and due to the EFR's quick release cams its pretty easy to work with

When targetting big power/boost without sacrificing response -- If its not twin turbo, its gotta be twinscroll IMHO

[RalliartRsX]

I typically don't post here, but since there is alot of speculation, I figure I would get the ball rolling. This is what I posted from another site


Update

6258
~19psi dropping to 16psi by redline
180SX Blacktop (rebuilt to stock specs 20K miles ago)
Sheetmetal intake
S4 cams
3" Exhaust
3.692 rear end (yeah, long gears, I know!)
265-40-17 tires

- Below is the graph comparison between Virtual Dyno (which I will be using as my baseline), Dyno Jet and Mustang Dyno.

- Also, the A/F needs just a bit more tweaking in the spool region 3500 to 4800 RPM. YOu can most definitely see how rich it is in that regions and having two .4 drops, so will need to be smoothed over a little.

- Only increased about 1 degree in the spool area (2500-4000 RPM) and lots more room to go! Plenty more room to help with spool there as well! Please forgive the sluggish boost response!!!

- Redline timing is about 21 degrees.

- In addition, there was a 1 knock count in the the spool region (around 3300 RPM. I pulled 1 degree, but it is either phantom knock or just rick knock)

Also, this is with 8mm preload on the gate. No problems controlling the internal gate so far


Virtual Dyno (318 WHP and 269 ft lbs)
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/RalliartRsX/EFR19psi_Goodrun_zps34a5ad35.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/RalliartRsX/media/EFR19psi_Goodrun_zps34a5ad35.jpg.html)

Mustang (302 WHP and 259 ft lbs)
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/RalliartRsX/EFR19psi_Goodrun_Mustangdyno_zps74e1efa1.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/RalliartRsX/media/EFR19psi_Goodrun_Mustangdyno_zps74e1efa1.jpg.html)

Dyno Jet (347 WHP and 294 ft lbs)
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/RalliartRsX/EFR19psi_Goodrun_Dynojetdyno_zpsb914fa4c.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/RalliartRsX/media/EFR19psi_Goodrun_Dynojetdyno_zpsb914fa4c.jpg.html)

All in all, fairly happy and this will be the baseline. Once I tweak the timing map for the spool region, I suspect full boost to be several hundred RPMS sooner and holding about 17-18 psi to redline. Also, the HP curve is STILL climbing at the end, so there is still a bit more power to be had it seems.

I may or may not add more boost (may shoot for 22-24psi to see what happens), but I am very happy with the results and the car drives very well.

[xpinoyxmk]

Couple of questions.

1. What are you tuning with?

If I remember base tuning right, thought 21 degrees was pretty aggressive, unless your on e85? Been long though, also what afr are you trying to target?

2. Do you have any pics of your downpipe?

My friends and I were checking clearance the other day and it seemed like fitting the downpipe is there would be really tight/impossible.

[RalliartRsX]

Tuning with Nismotronic. The 21 degrees is not too aggressive as it's only 2 degrees above factory. I am tot on E85. This is on good ol 93 pump. Also, target AF is 11.5 in boost on the lower RPMs tapering down to 11.2-11.4 at redline. Safe tune is the goal

No pics of the downpipe. Manifold was chopped and welded (15 degree angle to angle turbo away from water feed port) in order to fit the EFR and downpipe (Tomei based manifold)

[Def]

21 degrees at redline and 16-17 psi is pretty aggressive for 93. If you're not knocking you're good, but I'd put it on a dyno at zero smoothing and see how ragged the power delivery is when ramping up timing. Usually this will show the very beginnings of phantom knock before a knock sensor will start registering much.

[RalliartRsX]

Smoothing at 2 shows only a slight variance in power delivery at redline and throughout the range (but the road has a slight dip at the end, so the dip at about 6400 was mostly attributed to that).

But yes, looking back at some of my notes, 21 degrees may be "slightly" aggressive. However, only 2 degree above stock. Checking knock sensor and voltage, nothing seems out the ordinary and its about .5-.8 volts below the threshold.

The difference between 2 and 6 smoothing is negligible. 0 Smoothing is incomprehensible and smoothing at 1 is only slightly different than 2.

[Def]

When you reference stock, what are you referencing exactly? Stock SR ECU tables will be way way off the map on a cammed engine at 16-17 psi with a bigger turbo.

Stock ECU tables are also HORRIBLE. Knock out the wazzo on my engine on track with the SMIC, and still even with the FMIC. That's with boost below the stock amount of about 9 psi (BCS removed, so it was straight actuator at about 7.5-8 psi). I ended up turning the CAS back a couple of degrees to get the engine to survive until I could tune the stock ECU myself.

21 degrees at 17 psi, figuring an SR at 8.5:1 likes around 29-31 degrees at 100 kPa, gives you only 0.5 deg/1 psi of timing retard, which is not enough at this much boost in my experience. On track SRs tend to like more like 0.8-1 deg/psi of retard in my experience. A street engine can probably tolerate more like 0.7-0.8 deg/psi of retard. But 0.5 deg/psi is too aggressive.

And too aggressive means it is probably getting some phantom knock here and there in the rev band when things get a little warm, with the occasional higher bit of knock activity. If you don't have a bandpass filter on a specific range of frequencies, you could very well not be picking up phantom knock over valvetrain/bottom end noise.

[FullRaceGeoff]

RalliartRSX - Good feedback, glad to hear you are enjoying the Setup. You may want to consider a stiff WG spring. the mid boost spring with 8mm preload will not give as snappy and quick boost response as a stiff spring at 2-3mm preload but they will both have approximately the same max boost level

[[email protected]]

S4 cams, and only Reving her to 6800, you are missing almost 1K RPM of power. the S4 cams to a great job up top rev her at least to 7200, I would personally rev to 7500.

[RalliartRsX]

Def: Sorry Def, I should have been more definitve with what I used as my base timing table. The Table is from the Basemap of Nismotronic. That is what I use as my base timing map. I can surely post it to show you what the MAP looks like. From my previous experience with these base MAP John provides, there is a fairly safe level built into them and I can get away with a fair amount. HOWEVER, do take note, I ALWAYS pull 2-3 degrees global in the boost regions when I am on track for safety reasons. I also have a EGT I use to keep taps on things as well. In addition, the redline is 6700 or so in the this case (and NOT 7500!).

However, thanks for the advice and your timing map! Will be using it when I get a chance to make a few more changes :)

Geoff: Thank you! I am aiming for one of your topmount TS 7163 setups next, but until I get things situated here (the budget will be dedicated to seat time and tires for now), that will have to wait. Either way, the turbo is doing well so far :)

[email protected]: I am well aware of this (the stock redline is 7500). However, I typically bump up to the redline in stages on my tunes. The above runs (since it was a basline), the limit was set to 6700. It's all in terms of safely approaching the limit.

[Def]

BTW, I've found that with a higher flowing turbine wheel and cams, you can run another 1-2 degrees due to less exhaust residual.

[xpinoyxmk]

Bump where the updates?!