Lithium

There are very few results that I know of, if you aren't in a rush then I suspect there will be a few coming through in the next few months as they are just builds in the process where the turbo was acquired while there is still much left to do. I will definitely post anything I can if I get some results which are ok to share.

For some reason I thought I have posted a couple in here. There aren't many but people have run them. So far I have not seen much to convince me that the EFR9280 is worth singing about, the results I have seen seem to consistently show them as being laggier boost threshold wise (however transient response apparently at least equal, I will post the BMW article on the EFR9180 -> EFR9280 upgrade) and none of them that I have seen have made more power than the EFR9180s could. The few people I am aware of with EFR8474s however all seem happy, they seem actually to spool at least as well and definitely make more power. I hopefully have shared enough stuff in here transparently to make it clear I will share good or bad regardless of my preference or expectation to make it clear I am pretty unbiased - unfortunately there are results I've seen for the EFR8474 which I can't share directly due to the owner wanting to keep it quiet (that is the case for more than just this one) however I *do* know of one which was running an EFR8374 and is now running an EFR8474. It's on a "good" RB, runs a 1.05a/r hot side and it picked up nearly 10% more power at 23psi on E85 - and it was reaching full boost slightly earlier too, more or less in proportion with what was seen on the prototype EFR8474 that was tested on "Ernie's EVO" a couple of years ago. I think the EFR8474 is very much the golden child of the range, and am pretty confident results will reflect that as they creep out into the public. The EFR9280 may still prove to be a worthwhile improvement over the EFR9180, however I am pretty sure it has more compressor than the turbine will support and that may become evident on bigger motors which use them - even with the 1.45 housing (again, check the link I provide at the end of this ramble). I don't even know what the hell Borg Warner were thinking with the EFR9274, I'm not sure what the point of that is. Some pretty good data on the EFR9280 - VVT isn't dialled in properly for the EFR9280 while it was with the EFR9180 this testing which probably is selling the EFR9280 slightly short, but hard to know how much until he gets it back on the dyno. I was going to wait until he does that before posting here, but here it is: http://speed.academy/how-aem-performance-electronics-saved-my-900-whp-engine/3/?fbclid=IwAR2vrR6KnVz4Wzm6j7Nn0F91FxQfvlskPvkZ0_r0BZgEMcySL26VSHvgurY&doing_wp_cron=1564547612.0661499500274658203125

Not sure if FB links work or appropriate but I'll give it a go...

Ha! That is ridiculous, nice work! That's gotta be one of the more stout RB25 setups out there, being SAU people will probably make dyno comments but realistically - an RB25 with 270deg cams and 40psi pumped through it on E85 is going to make some serious power What is the spool like? There is no rpm scale on the dyno plot (NFI why people print plots like that), so a bit hard to tell. Be very interesting to see how it goes at the strip, hope you have a decent trans!

A mate has gone for a 1.05a/r T4 EFR8474 for his R32 GTR.. going on the side of his built RB26, running Kelford 274/10.5mm split duration cams and Hypertune manifolds. Will update with results when that is done, hopefully before summer.

That has potential to be a hell of a fun setup! Hope Garrett don't take TOO long to get those out

You would hope so, but I've seen stranger things...

Good luck, man. Hope everything holds together!

Just to dredge a topic that comes up a bit, I have gone around in circles MANY times with this kind of thing with people regurgitating the "max turbine speed" of EFR thing and while I was pretty confident of my theory, I finally asked Borg Warner techs directly for confirmation on what I feel has been long provided misinformation by people selling EFRs. This is straight from the horses mouth: Both the 9174 and 9180 has the same compressor stage and is technically limited by the compressor wheel. You can run the 74mm turbine wheel faster than the 80mm, but in both cases the compressor wheel is what determines the limit. Which matches up exactly what I've been saying. Yes, the 74mm turbine can be spun faster than the 80mm turbine - but that is irrelevant as the max rpm for the compressor is actually lower, and that is what all of the turbos should be limited to. So the rough "maximum speeds" for the EFR range based on the BW UredC (560m/s tip velocity) numbers are: EFR 6258 - 173,000 RPM EFR 6758 - 160,000 RPM EFR 7163 - 151,000 RPM EFR 7670 - 141,000 RPM EFR 8374 - 129,000 RPM EFR 8474 - 127,000 RPM EFR 9174 - 118,000 RPM EFR 9180 - 118,000 RPM EFR 9274 - 116,000 RPM EFR 9280 - 116,000 RPM The max turbine speed for all of these turbos are higher, so there isn't much need to publish max turbine speeds as if you are hitting them then you are already pushing the turbo outside of it's recommended operating range. The numbers here however are not going to be hugely aggressive, so drifting a little past them is unlikely to cause an issue - it's where you let the turbo speed spiral out of control where issues are likely to occur and I'd guess there is a good chance that most overspeed related failures are to do with boost leaks.

I hope you mean a single 770? :o

It's worth nothing a couple of things he says which contradict each other, he implies it spools 500rpm better than the EFR9180 but then also says its all in between 6000-7000rpm which on a 2.8 is... umm... much laggier than any EFR9180 I've heard of. It's been previously said that it's got a 500rpm wider powerband as the 660s hold on (unsurprisingly) to much higher rpm than the EFR9180 and other turbo setups they ran on it, so if you are willing to rev it to 9000+rpm then it offers the potential to give a broad delivery - as long as you aren't hoping for things to happen earlier in the rev range.

That's a very open ended question. For what power target and on what kind of setup?? Do you have the budget and inclination to do all the fabrication to do twin 550s? (it's not something you'd do on stock manifolds/location). It is the kind of setup which to justify would need a pretty solid engine spec, basically its a 1000hp turbo setup so expect the kind of lag that would come with one and expect to need to do the kind of engine and transmission development needed to support it. If you are looking at making the typical kind of power that people go for with low mount twins then no, imho it is not worth doing.

Nah, offline - but they have had good results making 4" exhaust flow well without being too loud so hopefully one of them will weigh in

Have just been discussing this kind of thing recently. Paging @Piggaz and @Mick_o...

I saw a post on Sinco NZ's Instagram page which made me think of you, how is your build going? Did you end up going Sinco for the manifold or is there someone else doing similar?

Can you post the dyno sheets as images?

When I first went to Oz for WTAC a few years ago I arranged to catch up with @Mick_o and @Piggaz for BBQ and rums and me and Mick were sorting out plans for the evening via PM on SAU. I could get 3 bottles of spirits in duty free so took an order for them for the evening shenanigans, and was somewhat bemused to be asked for a bottle of "Wild Spincter of the universe". I double checked he wasn't just joking around and he repeated "Wild sphincter of the universe, Rare breed. definitely." So yeah, there was a real awkward conversation with the customer service at Sydney duty free until it suddenly dawned on me wtf was going on. Bloody Australians haha

Finally, some testing of an EFR9280 and a whole heap of data from it compared to the EFR9180. Overall it seems really encouraging compared to the EFR9180, but it seems pretty conclusive that even the 1.45a/r hotside is too restrictive to support the huge flow of the new 74mm compressor on a 6 cylinder. The same car they stopped at 116,000rpm with the EFR9180, but with the EFR9280 they didn't reach 116,000rpm but got too much exhaust back pressure. Still, wouldn't be a bad unit! http://speed.academy/how-aem-performance-electronics-saved-my-900-whp-engine/3/?fbclid=IwAR31Gi1JxLfS38HAS9-CyaOwlcoNsqnxzwBHVXWtCfGhosCJhzY9-m1kvwA Also, a dyno plot from a 1.05a/r EFR9280 on a 2JZGTE:

To be fair it pretty much does what it says, so can't exactly knock it I was just amused as I was wondering what witchcraft they may have devised and it turned out to be a standard kind of thing that the setting usually has a much more mundane sounding name haha. So how long before you put it on a dyno and send it? It's definitely looking like a potent combo, and not sure if you've seen the kind of numbers people are getting out of these turbos - but it could surprise some people

Ahh ok, pretty standard - just never seen it called "quick spool" before. Definitely a handy strategy for bringing it up near target quickly, slightly early "cracking" of the gate definitely has a tangible affect on spool.

Nice, that is decent! Legotech doesn't have charge temp estimation? Curious to know what "quick spool" means in this instance, what kind of strategy are they using?

Oh, wow.

I don't know of any results for them so sorry, can't help you directly - but the eyechrometer reports that they look to be aiming for making more power from a setup that you wouldn't be restricted by the stock manifolds anyway... and I can't see how they'd help response at all, so it'd be quite a bit of expense with the possibility of no tangible improvements.

Last part of the Garrett part#, and it gets a bit garbled as people use some of the turbo naming incorrectly at times when comparing them. The GT2860R "-5" is part # 707160-5 The GT2859R "-9" is part # 707160-9 The reason the part number helps to know is that you end up with the right housings to bolt into the stock location.

Still haven't seen anything to suggest that twin gates really do anything useful, have been waiting for something to click it into place for so far all the single gate setups I've been around seem to perform comparably to twin gate ones - both in response and boost control... so I clearly wouldn't have doubted yours would be fine