Lithium

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!?)

These turbos (EFR9180s) are already proven to well >140mph in much heavier cars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa-9q9VHocQ

Awesome, look forward to hearing. Good luck with pushing it off the map like that, it definitely doesn't guarantee failure and you at least know that rpm haven't spiralled off massively at the point it's dyno'd to (don't rev it higher though!!)... so while it's more dangerous it hasn't gone way out of control at that point. If it fails earlier than it should however, you also know you've taken the the risk and accepted it VERY keen to see how it drives and goes. They are a beast of a turbo!

That is a huge result - nice work! When do you pick it up? Keen to hear how you find it. I assume the 580kw run is a glory run - while you probably know it anyway would recommend dropping it down a little just to be safe, the extra 20kw on a stock motor probably aren't worth the strain. It's an awesome result even at 116krpm. The compressor obviously still can move more air but what the concern is that it has to work harder and harder to move any more air, which means at the point you are at the turbo rpm can start spinning a lot faster for much smaller increases in airflow which is where the overspeed thing comes from. Cheers for sharing the results - wicked to see and some good data there

Cheers for the update... Solid so far. What do you mean by stock head not so happy ?

No reason there should be any issue using a single gate - using a single gate to control boost on a single turbo is hardly a new or unproven concept.

That makes a lot of sense. Cheers for updating

Nice, I don't really think the 1.05 should be a show stopper at all - especially on a "mild" 2.6, I'd say the turbine speed would be the key thing to keep an eye on. Very interested to see what the difference is from the 1.05 EFR8374! Good luck

Nice work, this sounds like a mental setup. Keep us up to date - hope it works out well

Nice, good! I don't really know what packaging constraints Z32s do or don't have but I suspect this has little relevance to low mount twin configurations on GTRs due to the reasons which have been gone over many times. The single turbos (at least the cores) of the GT28 range are well known to be capable of decent flow in their own right, but needing the smallest possible compressor and exhaust housings, limited space for dump pipes and compressor inlets the turbo starts getting all of the worst case scenario options for performing mean that they really aren't going to perform as well as they are capable of when used as stock location turbos on RBs.

Nice - I look forward to results, I hope they are better than the other ones I've seen so far. What exhaust housing have you got?

Soft timing doesn't make the boost come on instantly or even necessarily much or any faster time vs psi, but yeah it does make for a more violent torque transition on spool which some people like. Have to admit I've done similar things with valve timing etc where people wanted a slower car that they liked the feel of more. Nothing wrong with that, either.

He was a low mount twins man before, was a bit shocked at how much power and torque it made so effortlessly - it still is running a stock gearbox so I doubt he will be winding it up until or if that is resolved. The car is "real world" FAST now so having headroom in the setup is no liability Results from that round of superlap - his fastest time was the one in the video which was clearly not clean, it started raining afterwards and he called it for the weekend but then it dried out later and others kept going... he probably had more time in it. His car is the R32 in the Pro-Street class below (Tony Satherly/Mitsi EVO in Pro Open is the 666 EVO which went sub 1:30s at WTAC 2017)