Lithium

Weird flex, but ok. I'm going to restrain myself from going off topic on that one as well haha. The estimated airflow thing is a fair call, however - while it's nice to get a thumb suck it definitely is an estimate which relies on all kinds of things being right which probably aren't always bang on. It's one of the reasons I was interested in TIP, MAP and turbine rpm on the setup you are using, as really it was going to be a more reliable way of getting a gauge of how hard the compressor is working and how much the engine is getting choked by the turbine. I can't answer that at all, have not seen any TIP data The data you have given would make me expect TIP to get AIDS above 6000rpm purely because of the compressor flow, regardless of how well the hotside flows... however I don't know how the MAP/TIP is *before* the compressor starts choking. Maybe the hotside would *also* be a limitation, but if the MAP/TIP isn't bad before 6000rpm then I'd hazard a guess and say that it might actually improve a heap with the bigger compressor and then you'd start finding out if/when the hotside legitimately becomes a restriction of it's own.

Yeah understand not wanting to show it all - not necessary really, most of the data is there relevant to the discussion. EFR9280 could make a huge difference on this engine

Awesome, that's really good data - thanks. What does the colour gradient on the scatter graph represent? It definitely shows that you are running out of compressor pretty early in the revs as I was suspecting, really after 6000rpm it is already working quite hard - by 6900 it is really going to be wondering why it let this happen. No TIP data there but it is mega obvious that the compressor is outmatched by the engine in this setup

Nice, that'll be quite interesting - so you won't push it any harder than the 8374, just to the same boost level? I'm guessing you don't have exhaust manifold pressure logging, but seeing as it seems you have turbine speed - do you have any logs from runs with turbine speed data? I'd be curious about what kind of engine rpm you hit ~110,000rpm turbine speed, and how the engine behaves with the EFR9174 at the same kind of rpm area.

Awesome - good luck, keen to hear how that goes 1.05 housing?

Out of curiousity.... with the data you have, what is the MAP/TIP like say if you look for where where the airflow is at around 79lb/min is on the GT-R - I see you are running just over 25psi, which lines up reasonably well with the compressor flow chart I listed above. It'd be interesting to see if your TIP starts getting uglier after that 79/80lb point or if it is "already there". I particularly like the 2nd paragraph, real world go is VERY much what I tend to appreciate - most importantly really is matching the whole engine combination to suit the purpose it is going to be used for. There is a point where one needs to decide whether making the turbo spool nicely at 3000rpm is going to pay off, or if making the engine make 1000hp at 8000rpm is going to pay off. All has to suit what the car is going to be used for, the dyno plot's function is just one piece of data to work from. This is just my hobby, but I've been in some way involved with a few cars which have "gone better than the part list suggest" - in one case having a well respected tuner come up to me and the car owner and ask "How much power is that thing making????" after a race car they were in was driven around by a stock engined SR20DET powered S14 track car running a Kinugawa TD05H-16G that I had only road tuned "Sorry, we don't know - hasn't been on a dyno yet" "WHAT?". The 9174 EVO should be very interesting, another tuner I know over in Oz has done an EFR9174 setup on a stroker EVO and it had an impressive power curve though from memory they hadn't really leaned on it hard - so not sure how it'd be when the compressor starts really working. Cheers for sharing the data, is very cool stuff to see (y)

Yeah mostly agreed, this is all generally how I've seen things and I feel like there are a lot of situations where people have "under-turbined" their setup but I'm still (probably largely due to lack of data) sitting on the fence about whether the Borg Warners are as bad as they are made out to be - again, to me the compressor maps for the original EFR range are quite asthmatic compared to what most people expect from units of a similar size or ones which are used for similar things. For example (I'll make up an ridiculous combo purely to illustrate the point) - if you got a GTX3582R and put it on a suitable spec 2litre engine then your 110bhp/lt/bar(abs) ratio becomes a very realistic target. Now, if you went and put a GT3571 (same turbine, same exhaust housing) on the exact same engine the ratio you are likely to be able to achieve is very likely to drop considerably. I'd go out on a limb here and say that if you logged EMAP when trying to achieve the same flow as with the GTX3582R you'll potentially find that the IMAP/EMAP ratio starts plunging as you are forced to jam the wastegate shut in a feeble attempt to try and squeeze more air out of a choked compressor. In that situation a "good" intercooler would potentially mask symptoms which could help identify the compressor efficiency plummeting, realistically pre-intercooler intake air temperature would be the best hope of spotting this - or air pressure at the compressor outlet versus turbine speed, to see where on the compressor map you are. Those things aside, in this hypothetical situation it would be possible to reverse the situation and go from the GT3571 to the GTX3582R and make a HUGE improvement on bhp/lt/bar while running an identical hotside - but making a very significant improvement in how efficiently that hotside converts exhaust energy into airflow. You mentioned above that you are running off the suggested turbine speed limits for the EFRs, that would pretty much guarantee you are simulating the effect I am talking about above to a degree - where you are driving right off the point where the compressor is working with acceptable efficiency and shutting wastegates to get as much exhaust energy pumping through the turbine as possible to try and squeeze everything out of them becomes necessary. A better flowing turbine would help alleviate this to a degree, but if you are pushing the compressor to choke flow then you're naturally going have some less than ideal effects elsewhere in the system as well. This stuff is where the Full-Race "max rpm = fail zone" thing annoys me a bit, the max rpm is not some magic number where the EFR loses it's wheels - it's a thumbsuck of where you really shouldn't bother pushing the compressor past because while you CAN... the amount harder you need to work the turbo to get any more air becomes pointless, and if you aren't monitoring things you will no doubt cause the temperature/speed/pressure situation which would be conducive to destroying a "fragile" turbine wheel. The problem with all this is that it doesn't mean that the hotside IS up to more, I don't know, I sadly have never had the opportunity to stalk over data which would help me make an informed call on it - all I can comment on is the data I've seen so far which suggests that a lot of people are asking more of EFR compressors than they really are up for, and this has been helped by Borg Warner showing "79lb/min" on a compressor map which starts becoming inefficient at ~70lb/min over a range of pressure ratios a lot of people like to use. I am very eager to see how an EFR8474 behaves on an RB, it may be a really good thing - though what worries me is that the surgeline moves a bit to the right versus the EFR8374 (which was already susceptible to surge on a good RB) so the hotside is very much a question mark, still.

Just compare the GTX3076R Gen1/2, this is only for compressor flow and they both have the exact same compressor Putting them would make the list longer for no reason, and I'm trying to find a nice balance of info and not tmi

Interestingly a drifter (Dan Burkett) running a 2JZGTE Supra has just upgraded to an EFR9274 which has WAY more compressor flow than an EFR9180, and a lot less turbine flow. I have my reservations about that combo, especially on a 2JZGTE - but if someone is going to do it then I hope they share the results.... though a lot of folks in that position seem to just state what they've got, say they're happy and provide no data. Understandable I guess, but frustrating. I wish I had access to more of this kind of hardware, I'd be generating data for days to help me clear the wood for the trees for myself and others I've been suspicious of how "poor" the compressor flow is for some of the EFRs versus how hard people seem to push them and often wonder if the perceived turbine flow limitations are actually a result of a compounding situation which starts with the compressor efficiency plummeting. In what kind of situations do you see the turbine pressure getting out of hand? I put together a compressor flow list for my own (and anyone who was interested) where I mapped out flow at a compressor efficiency which I consider a good safe target flow to ask for from each turbo where they are trying reasonably hard and probably wouldn't want to push much more for a race car or anything, but there is definitely some headroom if you wanted to hero run for some reason - ie, 65% compressor efficiency. The list makes some turbos look more impressive than people may expect, and others less impressive... ie, the EFR9180 looks nothing like the 1000hp turbo Borg Warner imply it is.

I almost asked if you are running a 1bar spring. In terms of cost versus reward that would be the first area I would be looking at - especially easy to confirm by checking wastegate duty cycle

What was the pre-intercooler intake temps? Presumably that was taken if "compressor seemed to run out of puff" was the official diagnosis. Do you know what boost control solenoid duty cycle is? This looks almost like what I'd expect if the boost control setup was nearing the end of it's ability, like if you were running too soft a spring for the setup - not that the turbo is maxed out. That wavey power/boost curve situation is much more of a "boost control issue" than a "maxed out compressor" type behaviour.

As @burn4005 said, talk to Full-Race... though they are apparently meant to be becoming available in early 2019- if previous Borg Warner releases are anything to go by then be prepared for a wait.

I was working from his sig: (I'm used to Dynapacks and the mph vs power figure don't add up so there may be more to the story) Was 10.61 @ 127.9 mph in 2011 (old tune on 523kw forged 2.6). 2018 power with 2.8 coming soon

Also, he never was the quickest/fastest GT-R. HKS had the record at 7.67, Heat Treatments was the first to beat that with a 7.57 and it's been gradually dropped since. I'm pretty sure Mark's best was 7.6, after HT got in the 7.5s.

It's hard to tell from all this what your knowledge level is and what exactly you need from the turbo, so I'm going to be difficult and ask a few questions - though as others have alluded to, some of this should be between you and your tuner/builder partly for these kinds of reasons. 1) The difference in power, power delivery etc etc required to run a mid 9 can very HUGELY depending on what the chassis is setup like, what tyres are involved, how good the actual dragstrip/driver are, how heavy the car is (or even what drivetrain - is it a GTR?) etc. Using 98RON with ANY Skyline GTR chassis is a big big ask for mid 9s, but if you are running a full weight h-pattern GT-R then this is a *very* serious ask. Can you give us an idea of what the rest of the setup outside of the engine is like? 2) How serious is this 2.8? When you say 30psi and mid 9s on 98 it makes one imagine a very "big" head setup but I don't want to assume anything. If you have a power target in mind that would help things. 3) Your post suggests you want less lag than the T04S, as well as mid 9s etc - have you ever hit the strip with the T04S? And HOW laggy is it? The T04S really isn't that large of a turbo, when I think of GT-Rs which will need to make the power to run mid 9s on pump gas I do not think of things which will be more responsive than a T04s.... the extra displacement may even things up, IF you are hoping to have a more responsive 2.8 setup than what your 2.6 T04S one was but the turbo itself is going to be larger. Any result most people in here are familiar with for getting into the 9s will NOT apply as so much is achieved from pumping craploads of boost through a smallish cam setup on E85 which results in fat torquey power curves with decent response and capitalising on the fact that you don't really have to dance around knock at huge boost pressures/high EMAP. All assumptions I am making about what you're trying to achieve is vastly different to this, I am inclined to think you are going to need a much larger turbo and are going to end up with a laggier setup than you expect if you are serious about shooting for mid 9s. You're going to need as much VE as possible and keep the rpm spinning at the dizzy end of the tacho so the cylinder pressures required to make the power you need are as low as possible. This will mean big cams and a large turbo, though the exacts of this may vary depending on what the answers to my above questions are. You are right, there are lots of people with results with these turbos - but when you are talking about a high strung pump gas setup you may as well completely disregard the results unless you are also going to go E85. Edit: Oops, for some reason I read "T51S" as "T04S" - my bad... still not a huge turbo, going to something modern and ball bearing with the stroker may still improve usability a bit but you will still likely need something with bigger wheels to supply the significantly higher amount of power needed to do mid 9s.

Not sure as it has been mentioned that the 9274 is a smaller trim, guessing that they stuffed up the details in the catalog. They are different compressors one way or another

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.