What the EFR turbos should have been

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?)

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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/p...701418361155:0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingtal0n]

Originally Posted by LuckyX2

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

[Def]

Originally Posted by 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

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
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]

Originally Posted by 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
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).

[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.

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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

[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-on...ml#post4685523

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

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

[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

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

Originally Posted by Def

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

Originally Posted by LuckyX2

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

Originally Posted by LuckyX2

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by FullRaceGeoff

..broad powerband from 3500-85000rpm.

85 000 rpm, niccce!

Originally Posted by FullRaceGeoff

-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!

Originally Posted by FullRaceGeoff

-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]

Originally Posted by FullRaceGeoff

-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?

[PoorMans180SX]

Originally Posted by FullRaceGeoff

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?

[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.