Lithium

Was just trying to be helpful and I was not making any call about performance, as I don't know what how these perform. I was simply pointing out the fact that manufacturing costs for journal bearing turbos are much lower than ball bearing ones. If you are happy with the fact you are paying the same price (or more) for something HKS are putting much less into than their competitors, then sweet. If the 5R has good design then it definitely could be a good thing, the only info we have is from HKS who are hardly going to say "This isn't really any better than the previous generation but we know people like our name so this should be close enough to justify charging a premium" as part of their marketing. The fact that their comparison is against the T51R-SPL is not setting a high bar these days. Glad you found the info you needed, and again - was just trying to be helpful. Good luck with whatever path you go forward with.

That is horrendously expensive for a journal bearing turbo, it can't be compared with Precision or Garrett turbos price wise as you'll be comparing with DBB things. You should be comparing with things like the Borg Warner S300SX-E, Holset turbos etc. If you are keen to be the guinea pig then I'd be quite interested to see the results, but there is a bunch of HKS/JDM tax on that if they are asking that kind of money for it! And thats just talking about your "hook up" price

To add to this, I've never seen anyone downgrade an EFR - either to a smaller sized EFR, or to a smaller housing... if anything, they go UP.

Sorry my wording wasn't careful enough, I assumed you would only be considering T3 internal gated as it would need no fabrication so only referred to that - but the G25s do not have a T3 flanged option at all. ANY G25 you went for would need a custom manifold or at least a flange adapter just to bolt up to the engine, before you get into dump pipes etc etc. EFR7064 and EFR7670 both have a T3 internal gated option, one of the cars I tune runs an EFR7064 on the stock exhaust manifold with no spacer - makes a bit over 280kw @ hubs on 98 with very impressive response.

G25-550 with .72a/r housing would probably be hard to beat for that kind of target, the trick is it wouldn't be a direct swap. There is no T3 internally gated option, the oil/water lines are different to the old GT-series turbos etc- there would need to be custom fabrication needed to make it work.

Truth For what it's worth, that car is the only car I've actually been in running a Precision turbo and I completely disregard it as an experience to draw anything from because it may as well have been any other car with an intake cam out by a tooth due to VCam basically not working properly, and how obvious an effect it was having even when the car was in neutral. As much as I'm a huge EFR fan, and wanted to see one on that car - my vote at the time was he sort out the issues as the way it was behaving was definitely beyond anything that a turbo could be responsible for... meaning either the owner would be buying a turbo he didn't need to in order to make a lot of improvement, and also that if the only change was the turbo then the EFR would also end up looking like a bit of a nugget as it wasn't going to be able to fix the biggest issue.

At least when I drove it the thing wouldn't even rev off idle properly, there was something quite wrong with how that engine was running so I don't really feel too inclined to judge how the turbo performed off how the car itself performed in that case - I don't really recall the full history, but I have a feeling the 6266 never got tested after the tune/engine issues were fixed? The 8374 went on and everything else was changed all in one shot?

To be fair there were a heap of other things which probably had more to do with that lag than the turbo, I would have been interested to see how the 6266 behaved with those sorted - the EFR was always going to be better, but

Probably actually closer to 450hp/337kw in Dyno Dynamics world - which is still solid! Fwiw, Mustangs actually don't tend to read a lot happier than Mainlines

This part might explain the power targets: Mild 2.6L with forged pistons and rods.... on 98

Nice, what hotside did you choose?

That's a pretty nice long powerband - is this a Gen2 one? What hotside? It's fairly lazy for a 55mm turbo, though not so lazy for the power level

OK, sortof makes sense. When you do the stroker/RB30 upgrade is that for more power or more drivability? Realistically a turbo which is "all in" in the low 4000rpm range on an RB25 isn't necessarily going to be that large a turbo on an RB30... or a turbo which justifies a solid RB30 build is going to bit a bit lazy on an RB25 unless you are actually targetting more of a punchy road car setup. You could get a 6466 with a smaller T4 hotside for the RB25, and order a larger one for when you go with the RB30... just to try and take the edge off. A 6466 would likely be "all in" late 4000rpm range on an RB25

Ouch, that's nasty - not overly surprised though, the Airwerks S366s are pretty lazy for their flow at the best of times - I've never understood why they have been so popular when a lot of people using them actually could do fine with the 60 or 62mm options. Going with the open T4 .88a/r housing and putting it on an RB25 is definitely not setting up a recipe for response. Will you be staying with the T4 open housing? I'm assuming that's why you are looking at Precision... if so, I'd look at the Gen2 PT5862 or at the absolute max a PT6062. I'm not sure why you'd go for a 6466 or a 6870 when you are "only" looking at <700whp Dynojet.... unless you are looking for headroom to make >800whp (6466) or >900whp (6870)? A Gen2 5862 will make well into the 600whp range and be a different car to drive. If you would consider changing your exhaust setup to T4 Divided then your options for good power and response get substantially better, too.

Fuel is a biggy here, too. whp running 91RON on a heartbreaker Dyno Dynamics will be hard hard work, estimated flywheel power on a Dynapack using E85 will be easy as pie.

Agreed, though people building their cars often don't do that much research - and the tuner/engine builder/whoever are often stuck with having to work with decisions that someone have already made.... not many tuners will turn someone away unless they've made a truly awful decision with the parts they've bought or how they've installed them (if they have at this point). I don't tune professionally because dealing with this kind of thing daily would do my head in.

Flipside of that is you get people who spend lots of money on a few quality parts but match or apply them poorly, and naturally often a lot of those expensive parts get ripped for underperforming when they've been sabotaged by poor implementation. Imho a well put together setup using "cheaper" parts (NOT to be confused with shit parts) will much more often than not outperform a setup using all top brand stuff with no well considered/implemented plan.

Also helps to make sure everything is working correctly, and the turbo fits the purpose. That particular result I'm pretty sure there is something not performing correctly, and it's also too big a turbo for the setup/target power level. If you put an EFR8374 onto a bone stock RB26 (stock cams included) and a major boost leak then it's not going to be an inspiring result either.

Will be interesting to see how that goes, it's a bigger turbo than a GT3582R running a T-series turbine so I'd not necessarily count on better response but post results when you get it going. HRC40RS making 650kw @ hubs? Crikey, I use hub dynos and that sounds ambitious to me - though I'd hope that the claim there was at least on higher boost than the 18psi in this comparsion? The GTW3684R is a 62mm, but the GTW3884R has a 62mm option as well - do you know which was used in this comparison?

Any more info? Which EFR is it?

Paging @Sub Boy32

That's pretty much what the G25-660 is.... except with EFR7670 flow

Nice. Alas the only car I've tuned which has an ECU with the ability to handle IMAP/EMAP etc doesn't yet have EMAP sensors - not that I'd necessarily tune it for that, but at the very least it would be nice to throw some math into i2 and try and learn some stuff. I'm mainly going on theory at this stage. I started out playing with modifying Hondas (/ NA tuning) and tried to learn as much as possible and try and apply some of the way of thinking to turbocharging, while having the luxury of being able to use turbocharger matching and tuning to make trade offs one could only dream about when running purely "atmospheric pressure" on both sides of the engine. It really does help learn things when you have people who have experience and data and are willing to share some, so thanks! +1 on the mutual appreciation of how things are done, I do feel that it's being appreciated more in some areas these days than it previously was though - as people aim for bigger power levels they have to work harder to make things not be piles of shit to get power out of, and get it to the ground. Hopefully we all keep learning, getting wiser, and more cool technologies keep getting developed to better allow us to geek out and make things previously inconceivable

Yeah I normally think in PR across the engine, I only flipped it around for the benefit of others who might be reading and may feel more comfortable thinking 1.4x higher exhaust pressure. Haha I wasn't trying to convince you that you should be running an EFR9280, I was just going back to where this all started - which was the release of the EFR9280 and how justified it's existence may be. Maybe the EFR8474 would be more rewarding in that case.....or LS swap...

I am definitely getting deeper, though I'm only starting to play with setups that have THAT much data collection.... so I can't give numbers yet but soon enough. I've not questioned anything you've said on you having an unacceptable bad MAP/TIP, at all - I'm just saying that in lieu of not having any of that data, I'm speculating that there could be a case that the compressor side is actually at least partly responsible for the TIP getting too high. From a theory point of view, I'd argue that once I had the data (or what I've extrapolated from tuning without the MAP/TIP info) is that it would really depend on what the setup is and what I was doing with it. For example, with an E85 street car which may be used for the occasional drag meet or blast through the hills I'd tolerate a much higher MAP/TIP than perhaps for an endurance race car or drag car. Lots of factors to consider, not least "is it stopping me from making more power? " but also response and reliability - though you clearly know that. On different fuels, different engine configs etc I'm sure that an acceptable ratio could be different and no doubt the more data and experience the better in terms of deciding what to go with to be best for that setup. If we had a hypothetical RB30/EFR9180 type setup lets say for sake of argument if you were running an engine that is crossing past 1:1 just before 6000rpm currently then the compressor starts plummeting in efficiency then it could end up running with >1.4 TIP/MAP ratio and climbing steeply by 7000rpm which I would call out of hand. In the exact same scenario (I'm just playing with math and not swearing this is correct, but could be an indication) an EFR9280 could for sake of argument be at 1.2 TIP/MAP ratio at the same place and climbing, but FAR more steadily than the EFR9180 using the exact same hotside. That hypothetical outcome is still obviously not perfect, but I would say would make a HUGE difference.