Lithium

The units are lb/min, and I've selected the spots where compressor efficiency drops below 65% - which is where I tend to use as a line to draw to indicate where the lower compressor efficiency can start taking it's toll in terms of the intercooler and exhaust side having to work harder than you'd hope in order to keep the airflow increases coming. There is very rarely something for free, and I don't doubt that this is no exception - however smart designs and making the compromises in the right places to target the best end result can make it seem like it's almost for free. It remains to be seen with this, however I've long thought the compressor side on the EFR range is letting the side down a bit. I'm not 100% sure if I'd have preferred them to do it how they have gone about it, I would have liked to have seen an option of an upgraded EFR8374 with a smaller trim for those ultimately happy with around the high 70/low 80lb/min flow and then the additional option of the full fledge EFR8474 we now see before us. If Borg Warner used Precision naming then the EFR6264 would now be called an EFR6764, which probably tells more of the story. A few years ago Borg Warner did release the EFR7163 as a BIG trim wheel, like 57mm inducer with 71mm exducer and that also stretched the compressor efficiency down and across and I remember from those point being a bit concerned from the playing down of the size with their naming that it'd be a lot laggier than people expected - but in real life it actually spools better than the EFR7064 but pumps not far off 60lb/min of air, so there does seem to be a bit of method to their big trim madness. Granted, they did the MF turbine with that turbo as well - but lb for lb I think it's arguably the best proven spooling/responding turbo for it's airflow.

That's quite a cool way of looking at it, it puts across a reasonable amount of what you were implying. It also goes some way to show that "nothing is for free" - there usually is some compromise in the mission for getting better, or at least more targeted performance. I do think your graph scale exaggerates the higher peak efficiency effect the old gen EFRs have versus the "Black series" - especially when you factor in when they occur. The absolute maximum efficiency difference the EFR8374 offers over the EFR8474 is 10%, at 40lb/min..... where inefficiencies are not going to be anywhere near as costly, imho. It will be interesting to see if that few % in efficiency reduction at lower flow levels will really have any meaningful loss in response, I doubt it will be anywhere near enough to make up for the increase in MOI with the 91mm compressor. On the flipside, the EFR8474 is 10% more efficient than the EFR8374 at ~75lb/min and the difference keeps stretching up from there (as the EFR8374 is quickly reaching stonewall from here) and is flowing >90lb/min by the time it reaches the same compressor flow the EFR8374 was at when that 10% greater efficiency is hit. There is a HUGE amount of improved flow area and efficiency, all things considered. PS, Is there a reason you missed out the EFR9280? It's not got the same compressor map as the 9274.

Those look pretty grunty but I'm quite disappointed that they are putting across the impression that the two G42 releases are the only new G-series being released at this time, it's really missing the mark of what people are looking for. Borg Warner on the other hand have quite possibly nailed it

Updated my little compressor flow list with a bunch to include the "Black series" EFR additions

I'm not quite sure what you are looking at tbh, I suspect one of us is missing something. At ~PR2.6 (where most people start running to the top end of the EFR8374's efficiency on RBs) the EFR8474 is at 60% efficiency at nearly 90lb/min, which is more than the EFR9180 manages - let alone the EFR8374. The testing done earlier in the piece (pretty sure it was posted in here) on a built Evo 9 showed not meaningful loss in spool between the EFR8374 and the EFR8474 and a good 100whp more power.

https://www.borgwarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/2018/10/26/trusted-from-raceways-to-driveways-borgwarner-debuts-new-products-at-2018-sema-show 84mm and 92mm compressors for the EFR range are officially being released and will be shown at SEMA this week coming

I'm going to put my neck out here and say I'd bet a cheeseburger that if there is a "wheel size equivalent" of the GTX3071R that the G30 will not spool as well. I think with a lot of turbos, ESPECIALLY the G-series you need to pay attention to the flow levels provided and compare response with other turbos which provide that amount of flow. I would view it that the flow efficiency "mm^2 for mm^2" is much higher, while the response "mm^2 for mm^2" is a bit worse. If you want to compare a G-series with an equivalent GTX-series for response, compare the G25-660 with a GTX3076R - it'll be hard to get a much closer comparison between two completely different series of turbos. If you want to compare the G30 with something to get a gauge of the response improvements, you should be comparing with a GTX35-series turbo. That's how I view it, anyway.

I was conflicted about it tbh, it looked much better than the out-going Garrett turbos however - if you compare his SR20 result with the SR20 result posted for an EFR7163 in the Borg Warner thread recently it leaves things looking like the G25-framed turbos may be overshadowed by an old dog.

Yeah, I've been saying for a while that all the noises I heard suggested that they intended on releasing the rest of the range - and have certainly not heard anything to suggest that doesn't still apply. There seems to be a fair likelyhood we'll see G-series "up to 1000hp", which presumably will mean up to around 90lb/min turbos.

Pretty much everything you said in your post in regards to the turbo match and compression are along the lines of my thinking, so I'm not going to write a huge wordy one - nice I think turbine flow on EFRs is often a scape goat for when EMAP spirals as the compressor efficiency rolls over on some of the EFR range. I've never seen a decisive result which shows any significant improvement in boost threshold either, and can't think of any convincing reason why more compression would directly drive the turbo harder by enough of a margin to give any significant gains. There are definitely improvements in torque from improved fuel conversion efficiency so it's a very worth while change as it also comes into effect off-boost. I suspect people put down the increase torque they experience when driving a car with more compression to extra spool, and realistically the fact the engine can accelerate the car harder will mean time vs boost will improve on the road - but that's likely more because the rpm have picked up more in the same time, more rpm = more exhaust flow = able to drive the turbo better so there is a response improvement, just the cause and effect are not as direct as some might thing

Yeah they are clearly an improvement over the GTX series, though if you look at the most recent result added to the EFR thread of the EFR7163 on an SR20 it makes it seem like there is more catching up to do to get to EFR status - granted the 7163 is probably the best performer "per pound" of the EFR range.

Nice data! Cheers for sharing, and imho there is room for a little more compressor with these hahaha - they should give them even just a mild update on the cold side

I had guessed that the power rolling over may have been partly necessity to avoid leaning out with the fuel pump starting to max out?

That's a really nice result! Still having boost control issues, though? The turbo should have more flow in it, which is a shame - but that is a massive delivery for an SR20! How does it drive?

That's pretty unlucky with the 7670 Not something you hear happening, the few EFR failures I have heard of have been overspeed / turbine wheel related 9180 on a 3.4 sounds like a real hearty combination though!

The funny thing is that G25-660 already has a hotside which is comparable to the biggest hotside available for the EFR7670, and compressor wise flows slightly better at all the points one would be likely to use on an RB25/26 if they were looking for a fast road car. Need more real world results to get a gauge of what spool is actually like, but I can't see any reason why despite seeming so small - a G25-660 is actually big enough to cover the needs of your typical punter building a quick road car

Looks like they've updated them!

Got some compressor maps for me?

Fark yeah, good call on mapping the 8474 in there - GET ON IT Borg. That would change the game if it delivered on that :o Also +1 on the G-series scaling. This stuff is all on paper, but imho the simple job of just compiling some points into one list kind of explains some of the things we see happening in practice on some of these turbos. The G25-660 with a .92a/r hotside could be quite a surprising beast on an RB25....

100%. One of the reasons I decided to break it down as often people just seem to look at the power claims or the peak airflow levels without considering the compressor efficiency. The EFR9180 doesn't really seem to be a turbo best suited to a setup which can flow a heap of air in it's own right, at least based off what I've done here it would indicate it'd roll over early if you treated it like a 90lb/min turbo and tried to flow that at relatively low boost. On the flipside, you could potentially shove one on a solid RB26 and crank a heap of boost through it and potentially make more power than you would with an RB32 with big cams capable of making lots of power without heaps of boost

And because people like this kind of thing, a loose translation of what kind of area these flow figures may convert to in dyno numbers if everything else is up to the task. Bare in mind, these numbers are not what I'd say are "on kill", but where the compressor is starting to really earn it's keep - they should have more to give, but the things start working harder to get there and you start moving more into "how optimised is this setup" territory. These numbers aren't a guarantee of what setups WILL hit using these turbos, it's what the turbos should be able to achieve working reasonably hard - but not too hard... and of course me making a bunch of assumptions lol. Turbo 20psi 25psi 30psi GTX3071R 339 352.6 359.3 GTX3071R Gen2 345.78 352.6 359.3 EFR7670 359.34 379.7 386.5 S257SX-E 366.12 386.5 406.8 G25 660 372.9 406.8 400 GTX3076R 400.02 413.6 420.4 Gen2 GTX3076R 400.02 413.6 420.4 GTW3476R 406.8 433.9 454.3 EFR8374 440.7 461 467.8 GTX3582R 474.6 488.2 501.7 Gen2 GTX3582R 474.6 508.5 522.1 EFR9180 501.72 535.6 569.5 GTX3584RS 508.5 542.4 569.5

Hi all, There have been all kinds of conversations on and off SAU about single turbo options for RBs (and other engines really) in the current state of the game and while I've not seen any evidence of compressor maps being inaccurate, different manufacturers use different ways to normalise and present the numbers, different cut off points, and different ways of estimating hp from compressor flow which can result in people expecting too much or too little from their turbos. I've decided to semi-roughly translate it all into an even measure and shove what I consider "the most relevant" turbos for most people who would be talking about turbo choices in here, and split the compressor flow potential they have at 20psi, 25psi and 30psi - using "65% compressor efficiency" as a cut off. Those are fairly familiar and reasonable reference points, and as you exceed 65% I view it that it's where the intercooler and hotside are starting to have to carry disproportionately more of the load to keep things happier. This is the "you're pushing it" zone, imho - even if it's not really maxing the turbo out. It seems to be a reasonable way of gauging them on a similar scale if you're going to being matching the turbos for real world performance. It may not be PERFECT but I think it gives enough of an idea of how they may compare, I'm pretty sure all these turbos have hot side options which are pretty close to supporting the exhaust flow needed these days - give or take, but some of the numbers here may explain a few interesting things seen.. Hope it's vaguely interesting reading Turbo 20psi 25psi 30psi GTX3071R 50 52 53 GTX3071R Gen2 51 52 53 EFR7670 53 56 57 S257SX-E 54 57 60 G25 660 55 60 59 GTX3076R 59 61 62 Gen2 GTX3076R 59 61 62 GTW3476R 60 64 67 EFR8374 65 68 69 GTX3582R 70 72 74 Gen2 GTX3582R 70 75 77 EFR9180 74 79 84 GTX3584RS 75 80 84

Yeah, hard to disagree with most of this. The last bit... I still need more data, and while I agree re: the choking engines - it seems quite a bit like the data is there, but Borg Warner have presented it in a way to make it seem "better than it is" They have mapped lines way past where compressor efficiency would be falling over, the "95lb/min" line which they so clearly mark for the EFR9180 is VERY misleading imho. You have to pay attention to the numbers, not just treat the right most lines as the target. I think there is a very real chance that the bigger G-series turbos coming out from Garrett could give Borg Warner a kick in the pants.

Yeah, next time I've got a dyno handy this will be worth a try to get a gauge of the NZWiring kit solution. To be clear, I've never debated that the crank trigger setup isn't the ideal solution *but* this data makes the difference look much worse than I expected... so far. Yeah going by the data so far it looks worse than I expected, albeit still would love to do this testing with something like NZWiring's kit.

These turbos are designed focussing on response for a power level, not max power level for a wheel size.... all the information is there to determine whether the flow will suit what you're trying to achieve, to make sure you are able to choose appropriately from that. There are plenty of cases where you can go up a size in EFR versus a competitor and still end up with better transient response and make up for, if not more than make up for the flow difference penalty you may have had using a size down.