Lithium

You mean downgraded to something better matched to what you wanted? The 9174 was laggier than the old Airwerks ?

Did you actually get it tuned ? What have you replaced it with ?

There is no fixed rule, sorry. Depends on how far off the current tune is for it etc - the actual boost threshold is unlikely to change much unless there is something mechanically (cam timing/wastegate/leaks) making it laggier than it should be. What exhaust housing is it running? What was the previous setup, or should I say - what tune it is running on if it's not tuned for this setup? If it's completely untuned then I would take anything of how it drives with a grain of salt, and really not be driving it at all.

Yeah obviously - though the power to pull high 140mph trap speeds is no joke! Funny, I was reading a thread with someone running a 6466 on a Supra and "on kill" they ran a few mid/high 9s at high 140mph traps before snapping a turbine shaft. Your 6262 is punching high!

How are you finding it on the 2.8? Must be pretty perky at that power level

I haven't heard anything beyond what is already in here, I'd definitely update the thread if I have information which I'd be able to share.

I stuck up for it and am pretty much the ambassador for EFRs here lol

Yes.. A rather mysterious Piglet has been keeping me up to date on the bacon you've been making. Absolutely huge effort - I am blown away... There is so much to be impressed with in regards to that result. How confident are you that the same parts list you have would achieve the sake results?

Those guys have done that quite a bit, they're often mega vague with details and the more interesting results - I'm surprised they even said what turbos are on it to be honest.

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, but the original post that video is from specifically mentions that it's during tuning - ie, that's not a full power run. I'm not sure why they didn't show an "all in" run, or say what the final power was but the implication from the guy whose car it is has very much been that this isn't the power it's capable of.

Nice - what setup do you have that on? How is performance?

The 0.80a/r EFR7163 hot side flows the same as the .83a/r T3 EFR7064 hotside, and the .85a/r EFR7163 flows the same as the .92 EFR7064. That dirty old mixed-flow turbine isn't a terrible thing.

I'd stick with stock or at least really mild cams - the likes of @Piggaz have had pretty good results from UE high lift low duration cams on fairly serious setups, they would be very easy to overlook and are very drivable.

I feel like I'm missing something, why are you guys implying this is a disappointing result? I doubt that's on kill, it's not on E85 and it's not given anything away to the GTX3071R (which is a very proven performer on RB25s) but picked a lot up in spool - despite using the bigger housing, which would be more suited to the 660 compressor on a 2litre. Where has it gone wrong?

That'd be interesting for academia's sake but I believe you - there definitely should be a fair difference between the 1.00 6466 and the .84 6262 It's a hard result to argue with, nice work!

Glad you got where I was coming from - was definitely not trying to be a hater or anything, just thinking through everything and I was fairly sure there was a decent chance the same thought process may have gone through your head too. I was pretty sure you'd mentioned the spool was pretty decent and that definitely seems good considering the kind of spool vs power that people used to put up with. This is a .84a/r hotside eh? What diff ratio do you have? Here is a 4.3x drive ratio in 4th gear doing a similar pull with a 1.00a/r 6466 with purely wastegate spring boost control at 1bar (so 1bar happens later than it might with electronic boost targetting an appropriate boost level) and considering how much bigger it should be than a .84 6262 it doesn't necessarily look THAT much laggier. Could look at it that it's time for a 6466? You can see in the preview shot that it's already touching 10psi by 4000rpm and swinging up hard before the gate cracks

Bloody hell. Mainline hub I'm assuming? Either way, huge result - I know this might be a silly question and I don't mean to be a dick by asking it but I'm just interested in knowing your thoughts... are you 100% sure this isn't a 6266? There are plenty of people making less than this with 6266s and even 6466s

That's a really good result, even on a hubber. Nice!

Straight up, you basically have 3 incompatible requirements: 1) EFR9180 power levels 2) Want to be able to get good pull from <4000rpm 3) An RB26 Remove the thing from that list which missing out on will bother you the least. DON'T go with a .92 housing especially on a 9180, its not going to make it worth while. It won't spool the way you want and it will also choke the compressor, worst of both worlds.

What new cam? Got any more info than that?

To add to that - this thread goes back years when someone got Vcam working on a Link without using any extra hardware, the Emtron isn't doing anything new here. Links have been doing this kind of cam control - including on Vcam since the G4 series came out.

Do you have stock displacement, @gzro? If so, then you'll be needing near 5000rpm to keep on steam with a 9180... it is a big turbo for a 2.6. Even on a 2.8 you'd want to be keeping over 4000rpm, the EFR8374 is the max I'd personally go with unless you've got more displacement or a good head.

I was reading through the thread and was going to weigh in anyway, though looks like you're very much on the page I am reading from - so I'll +1 with with a bit more anecdotal evidence to support it In general tuning I think a fair bit gets covered up by people running "rich" mixtures, I actually think a lot of the target AFRs people tend to run with modded RBs (and other motors) are actually masking/to mask these trims from front to back with some types of plenums (and other parts sometimes) - albeit not necessarily deliberately, and often as a roll on from when people tuned on pump gas. What would happen is people would tune and get knock or just from experiences of damaging motors in the past they'd run to something like 11.5 or richer (* results may very, just picking a number people can associate with to make a point), when in fact if you had individual lambda you may actually find that in some cases some cylinders could have been easily as much as 5%+ leaner than the mean. The trick here is that for that to happen, that cylinder is actually seeing 5+% more air - so while people often see it as "it runs lean"... what that actually means is it is getting a significant amount more airflow, so the timing is also going to be more aggressive for that cylinder, and the power level is also going to be 5%+ higher than the "average". Lets say that such a motor is tuned on 24psi, and the target AFR is a 11.5:1 - then this is what effectively happens when one cylinder is getting 5% more air than the rest: - It's own AFR is 12.08:1 - It's "load" is arguably pretty similar to if it was running ~26psi, but it's receiving the same timing as the rest of the cylinders - If the dyno is showing 400wkw, that cylinder could be developing enough power to contribute to making 420kw+ @ wheels while being tuned aggressively (compared to the rest) to do so This is a car which would probably be pretty reliable, and potentially actually be not a wildly rare outcome... it's just that ignorance is bliss. Stuff like this is why it irks me when you get people on the internet criticising a dyno plot's AFR trace etc when they have no idea what the tuner has done, what they are responding to etc - sometimes the tuner has covered a LOT more than some dude on the internet who knows some rules of thumb could even conceive of by just glancing at the dyno plot. Sadly, sometimes a lot worse can also be true. It is technically correct that "these cut and shut plenums work" however, as air is getting to the engine. That's what they're there to do and they'd have to be a pretty big fail to not succeed at that task. Essentially they just have to seal and let air to the right place, there is ALWAYS going to be turbulance and weird acoustic affects meaning that fill isn't working exactly as you'd expect it. Engines don't run in a beautiful constant flow way, but a better design will minimize the clutter - a crappy design / cut and shut will not. At the end of the day if you have a poor design then your engine will not be as reliable or perform as well as it could as there will be situations where the moving parts attached to one cylinder are doing much more work than the moving parts for another and the harder your motor is working the more strain your motor is under for no gain than it needs to be as in effect - your motor is only going to last as long as the bit under the most strain can handle. If all 6 cylinders were doing withing .5% of the one working the hardest then you have the potential to make quite lot more power with much more response etc and no more strain on a single point than one with a shitty plenum. Same goes for manifolding etc as well, of course. It could even be an argument against low mount twins where both turbos clearly don't get perfectly identical inlets and exhaust paths - given the turbines have a direct influence on engine flow and they work independent to each other, I do wonder how much that influences things when driven hard... Anyway. Buy good parts, use a good tuner, get good results

Awesome We already know this but care to elaborate? How does it drive and go? Response decent once on steam considering the 2.6?

I doubt it will happen. There were noises of a 9280 but it seems like the hotside is also a hold up on these things, so they'll probably need a clean sheet or just twins (which I think Nizpro customers have done!?)