Jump to content
SAU Community

Lithium

Members
  • Posts

    4,726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Lithium

  1. Dan is a very powerful name. I can only imagine what it'd be like to be an Action Dan.
  2. Waiiiiiiiiiiiiit. I'm completely wrong here, I've assumed you're the same ActionDan who was on numerous NZ car forums and moved to Oz and is now on numerous Oz based forums - though now you said "Say what?" I notice you are in Vic, whereas he is in Perth. Well f**k, all this time I've thought you were him ahhaha. My bad.
  3. I am a Honda man from way back, and will own more I suddenly remember at this point that I first encountered you from Toyspeed NZ hahaha.
  4. Real mixed bag in there, why did you get rid of the 40th anniversary? Also, RB20 180SX is a hell of a fun combination - one of my favourite cars I've spent any time thrashing was an S13 with an RB20DET running a TD05-16G and 20psi up it and a mad screamer pipe, so so much fun. Mine goes a little something like this: 1987 Suzuki Alto 1989 Honda Prelude Si 1992 Honda Prelude Si-VTEC 1985 Toyota Corolla FX-GT 1997 Nissan Skyline GTS-25t 1988 Mitsubishi Lancer GLXi (soooo economical and unexciting) 1992 Honda Prelude Si-VTEC (mad regrets for selling the first one) 1981 Toyota Cressida 1997 Ford Fairmont 2004 Honda Saber 25V 2007 Mazda Axela MPS I think I've peaked.
  5. Yeah, it's hard to know how much the lag was from going from the 1.05 to the 1.45 housing - but realistically a setup which previously was OK with the 1.05 housing on the 9180 would need the 1.45 if it was going to be leaned on, so in that kind of setup it is a factor worth counting in I suspect. 50kw or so is beileveable, that's more or less what happened in the case I mentioned as well - except when you are talking 10-20lb/min more flow you'd realistically be hoping for the potential for a lot more than 50kw. It's still a really good improvement in it's own right, and the guy I am talking about is happy with the results - it is a monster now.... but so far for the most part the power increases don't seem to be matching the advertised flow increases. Perhaps hot side? Or perhaps people just not winding them up?
  6. One of the chaps I know went from a 1.05a/r 9180 to a 1.45a/r 9280, in all honesty I was slightly underwhelmed by the results but it actually seems like the tune was not fully aggressive etc - its on a drift car and the main aim was to bring EMAP and turbine speed down while running the same kind of power as the 9180 was so it was never run on kill. It made 700kw @ hubs at 28psi on an RB32 on E85 and was a few hundred rpm laggier than the old 1.05 EFR9180. From memory it was around 110,000rpm turbine speed and not full MBT timing, EMAP was creeping up by this point (it was already past 1:1 on 24psi) , and is noticably laggier apparently. It went from under 620kw @ hubs to 650kw on the same boost (~24psi) so definitely breathes easier.
  7. Nice result, thanks for sharing - it drives me insane that the Mainline logo often overlaps the plots, but you can see that it is comfortably at 20psi by 4000rpm which is very solid for a ~400kw turbo setup on an SR20, definitely better than what I've seen EFR7670s do on them which is very good going.
  8. G30 diagram: G35 diagram: Interestingly the core centre to turbine outlet are 100.5mm from the G25 to the G35s, and the turbine inlet to turbine outlet centreline are 70mm across the range as well. Seems like they've gone to lengths to try and make it easy as possible for any unit from the whole range can drop into the same location
  9. I've asked for boost graphs, will pass anything on if it becomes available but not particularly high boost afaik. This is from the UK so it's on petrol, and will probably be Dyno Dynamics "flywheel" mode. Can probably find out about the v-band dimensions from dimensional drawings on Garrettmotion
  10. Looks that way, boost for boost. The G30-770 compressor flows about 10% more efficiency for efficiency - give or take depending on where it is so on kill that difference should be able to be quite a lot better, and the .83a/r G30 turbine flows about comparable to the 1.01a/r GT30 turbine combo so this definitely is like going up a size in compressor flow and exhaust flow while losing no response.... which can actually end up feeling like an improvement in response given the extra flow all other things being equal. So far the G30-770 is looking like it's real promising
  11. Here's a dyno overlay of a GTX3076R Gen2 with .83a/r hotside overlayed with a G30-770 with .83a/r hot side on petrol at the same boost level. This is on a stock RB25, so more a comparison of how it goes psi for psi within the GTX3076R's limit versus outright potential - which is worth noting that the G30-770 with .83a/r hotside is on paper very similar flow wise on both hot and cold side to an EFR8374 with 1.05a/r hotside:
  12. Eeesh this thing is going to be nasty, good luck sorting the rest out - look forward to seeing what it does
  13. Just happened to roll in here and find this, I like it! My 2c, I'm not 100% sure how it would pan out in reality as there is so little info out there on it - but I would be inclined to put a GReddy intake manifold on it. It may cost a LITTLE low down torque, but it is very unlikely to be a problem if tuned properly afterwards - it won't be enough to offset the gains you've had in other areas and still be torquier than it had been previously and more importantly... you want to make more power, with an NA car you don't have the benefit of boost etc so stretching the torque curve further up the rpm is a massive necessity if you want to increase your powerband and make bigger numbers. I think there is a really good chance that getting the likes of the GReddy plenum on there, which is a unit known to pull the torque up the range a bit - would give you a more rewarding power delivery and generally open it's lungs up a bit. The cams won't be able to do their best work with the stock plenum sitting on there imho.
  14. Cheers for clarifying How did the S369 and the 6870 compare aside from the Borg not smoking? The G42 should be quite interesting, definitely a bit of a step up!
  15. OK that is what I wondered - the old "way off the map" trick is a prime cause for soaring EMAP. The "choke line" from Borg Warner is around 117,000rpm for the S369SX-E - as you start drifting further off from there compressor efficiency will go ballistic as the wheels need to spin way harder to try and move any more air, so the wastegate has to close to try and keep boost going in and you just get raising EMAP and it tries to drive the compressor to get air it really isn't meant to shift. Whether all that air was getting to the engine or not you were WAY off the compressor map, so trying to reduce EMAP by trying bigger exhaust housings etc would have been band aids to the issue. Don't suppose the airflow model you were using gave an estimate of the airflow it reckoned the engine was getting? Wonder if there is a chance there was an airleak or something, or does that power figure match up with 90+lb/min of airflow on that dyno?
  16. Wow, yeah that is pretty bad. I've heard mixed things about the S369SX-E, and Matchbot has no data on the 80mm turbine so I have no idea what to expect... if this is how you would expect it to be or if there is something else going on to inflate it so much, definitely one of those things where turbine speed would work hand in hand to make it clear whether that is definitely "normal" or if there is something compromising the setup. What kind of power was it making, and have you changed now? I wish I had more data on this, again it's pretty clear it has dropped a crapload of EMAP but it's still not clear where it actually is - I don't doubt it's not magically low or anything... just at an acceptable level compared to previously.
  17. Chur - also, link to a build thread for more details on the build:
  18. Hi all, things are mostly dead in here but I figured its still worth recording this somewhere as people here or out in the world who google stuff may find some of this interesting as there seems to be a bit of interest in these turbos from a value for money stand point - but a fair bit of conflicting info... so I thought I'd add something which *I* view as kinda credible info, take it as you will As a bit of background, one of my best mates @Looney_Head has been chipping away at his build in his garage over the years - he has done most of it himself or with help from mates... doing things on a relative budget, but "properly". Probably unsurprisingly here he picked my brain for turbo choices, and around ten years ago the build was going to be a stock/reconditioned RB30 with an R32 RB25 head so the target was around 370kw @ hubs on BP98 so I suggested a Borg Warner S360SX with .91a/r hotside as it could be had for NZ$900 at the time, should offer decent response vs power vs reliability and being a large frame T4 divided turbo there should be an easy upgrade path with minimal changes if he decided to in future. Turns out that was a good plan as feature creep resulted in the build having a forged RB30 bottom end and an R33 RB25 head with some Tomei 256 cams and a mild port job. We knew that the turbo was going to now be well out of it's depth but being that the car is an R32 GTS-t it probably was likely to end up still being a bit of a weapon so when it was already ready we decided to tune it up and find any bugs etc and he could have fun with it for a while. On the dyno as I progressively increase BCS duty cycle it started becoming clear that it was hitting a brick wall pretty much bang on where I expected it to - basically being unkeen to support more than 18-20psi boost at 7000rpm, so we ended up stopping with boost peaking at 23psi and bleeding back to around 19psi and making a very fat 447kw @ hubs on E70ish. See the mighty S360SX dyno plot complete with choke as soon as it hits 600hp: That proved to be a very very fun street package, but the opportunity came up to get our hands on an upgrade for a good price so after much umming and ahhing we settled on an S362SX-E (aka S361SX-E, aka S300SX-E 8376, aka S300SX-E 61/68 depending on whose nomclementure you subscribe to). The process of chosing that was actually pretty challenging due to the conflicting info on the net which is part of the reason for me starting this thread - to share the process and reasoning and then the interim results, hopefully to clear things up a bit. Firstly, our hopes were to free up the flow up top with minimal cost to response. So, questions you may find hard to answer or generally look misleading when looking at these: 1) The S362SX-E with the 76mm turbine wheel (there is an option to use the 80mm wheel) can go directly into an exhaust housing which fits the the S360SX turbine wheel. They are an identical 76mm inducer/68mm exducer profile. 2) Despite being exactly the same size the SX-E turbine wheel is DIFFERENT to the SX wheel, the aero is very obviously different. The SX has "flat tips" while the new SX-E has cupped tips - I'll attach pics, but its pretty obvious how the exhaust gas will react with the wheel as it "hits" and flows through the blades will change. See below: (S360SX turbine left, S362SX-E turbine right): 3) The "76mm .91a/r" turbine flow map on Matchbot relates to the SX-E wheel. I had to work this out anecdotally, but it became clear that the S300SX flat-tip wheel is a bit of a nugget flow wise and in combination with the pretty average flow of the 60/83mm S360 compressor results in very high EMAP if you want to make >500whp. Due to that, and the internet being mainly convinced that the S300SX and S300SX-E turbines are the same people often go for larger a/r turbine housings than they need when going 76mm SX-E turbos. The 76mm .91a/r hotside combo on an S300SX-E flow the same as a 1.05a/r 74mm EFR turbine. It has been proven to support 900whp (US dynos)/ near 600kw (Oz dynos) on the right setup. People are often oversizing the hotsides on Borg Warner Airwerks turbos and living with more lag than they need, imho. So, after my research and deciding that there was a bit of misinformation out there - I decided that going for the 76mm turbine wheel in the SAME .91a/r housing we'd be running should make for minimal sacrifice to response but not actually choke the turbo despite the fact that we had seen massive signs of choke on the old turbo in the same housing (VE was dropping off increasingly badly in the 220kpa and 240+kpa rows in the engine efficiency table - and boost control duty cycle had a major dogleg after 5000rpm to target 240kpa MAP). In terms of compressor wheel, the "S362SX-E" actually has a 61.4mm inducer and 83mm exducer, so identical outer size to the S360SX (or 8375) that was being replaced but only 1.5mm bigger inducer. This wee thing is a bit of a gem on paper, the loose info on the net would suggest that the 63mm and 64.5mm inducer variations are big steps up but after close investigation I found that actually - the compressor maps for those turbos "cut off" at around 54-56% while the 61.4mm one only runs to 58-60%. If you compare these maps at "efficiency for efficiency" then the 63mm BARELY pips the 61.4mm wheel, and the 64.5 has a max of 6% more flow in the 2.2-2.7 pressure ratio range that your focus would be on a decent RB. When you consider that the 63 and 64.5mm wheels are both 87mm exducer, there is no way there is not going to be a significant impact to spool or transient response. The big flow advantages on those bigger inducers are at pressure ratios of 3+, which is not relevant - and the 66+mm inducer is just not relevant to our interests as we weren't looking for huge power. Here is the old and the new turbos: (SX-E left, SX right) I actually overlayed the ol' faithful EFR8374 compressor map (in red) onto the S362SX-E compressor map and it becomes obvious the SX-E is a good thing, having a better surge line but also providing equal or better compressor efficiency at almost every relevant flow/pressure point on the compressor map. So, decision made, turbo install and off we go for some dyno hilarity! At low boost it was like the turbo was identical, it was basically tracking the exact same boost curve and making the same power at ~10psi - no shocks there. What got interesting however is that as I started targetting higher and higher boost levels, the BCS duty cycle could stay relatively "flat" whereas with the S360SX I was needing to bump duty more and more from 5000rpm up - and I also ended up basically copying the VE numbers from 200kpa row and pasting it to every row above that and having lambdas hit target perfectly - while I needed to roll them back with the S360SX. Naturally, this was reflected in power numbers as well. Things were starting to get fun! When I targetted the 240kpa MAP level when there S360SX was done we were all excited and looking forward to seeing what happened things got more dumb than we hoped - the Link did a fuel pressure cut at 6500rpm, and looking at the logs there was indeed a fuel pressure drop starting to set in We ummed and ahhed about it and wondered if the surge tank was a bit too small so tried increasing the ramp rate to do a 6s sweep instead of a 9s sweep but alas no, protection kicked in at exactly 6500rpm We tried bumping base fuel pressure to see what would happen and it did allow is to complete a base run at 240kpa (20ish psi boost) and still no signs of dropping off in turbo flow but alas fuel pressure was still dropping. VERY annoying but we had to call it a day and we are looking the fuel delivery issue for now. Nonetheless, 466kw on 1.4bar with power climbing to redline while making 300kw before 4000rpm was very encouraging. We did do a "controlled" test run at 1.6bar to see what fuel pressure and turbo flow would do etc as dyno time is hard to get so we wanted to be sure that everything else would keep up with more and she is STILL eating it up, hits 1.5bar by 3700rpm on a 9s ramp and we saw a peak of 489kw with SOFT timing so I am very confident that we could have walked past 500kw if we hadn't run into fuel delivery woes! Firstly, shot from the link during a 9s sweep (as I forgot to get a pic of the boost curve from the dyno haha) And the dyno plot.... Red dotted line: Old S360SX-E at 1.4bar bleeding back (same BCS duty cycle as the SX-E runs here) a 9s sweep Solid red line: S362SX-E at 1.4bar on a 9s sweep with fuel cut Solid green line: S362SX-E on a 6s sweep with fuel cut Solid blue line: S362SX-E on a full 6s sweep There was no specific tuning done with the S362SXE at this boost level beyond targetting boost, timing has not been fully optimised at this boost with this turbo. Anyway, I've attached some pics to go with the long story that anyone who knows me will know this is what they were in for when I posted. Thought there might be some useful stuff for anyone who has been curious about these things, but either way this kind of thing is handy for our own records to look back on Feel free to ask questions or offer input or whatever, in regards the fuel pressure thing we are not looking for input on that thanks, please keep the conversation on topic... we have stuff to do there - I've just not shared everything to keep it relevant to turbos. Cheers all!
  19. In NZ at least it's under $2200 for a T25 IWG GTX2860R Gen2 and over $3k for the equivalent G2560 which is a good start haha. That combined with the G25s being a bit laggier means that if I had a setup which would need a bunch more work to support much more than 250kw and I wanted it to be responsive I suspect the extra $800 would be a pretty hard pill to want to swallow.
  20. There is no real data out on this kind of combo but I personally have been unsure whether even the EFR9280 would have enough exhaust flow for the 92mm compressor on an RB even with the 1.45 housing, let along the EFR9274 - granted the 9274 compressor is a bit smaller, but still. I wouldn't have run smaller than 1.45 on tbag combo on a strong RB30, really I would have just gone EFR9280 - if that was too big then the EFR8474 would be a better match but could prove to be entirely wrong. Will be very interested to know how it goes, probably make it easier to make a call on it if someone tries it but that clearly makes you a guinea pig but again - if you had to go 9274 on an RB30 then I personally would have pushed for the 1.45 hotside. Which turbo do you have? For some reason I thought it was an 8374, in which case Your experience probably wouldn't really translate well as the 9274 has almost 40% more airflow potential that the exhaust flow of the setup has to be able to support.
  21. Not on hand, sorry - but I have seen results (1/4 mile and dyno) which have been enough to make me treat the 6062 as though it should be treated a larger turbo, both in spool and power capacity than you'd expect from the wheel sizes. 650-750whp on a US dyno is about the area I was thinking, which is pretty decent from a 60mm turbo - normally more what you expect from a good 62mm.
  22. Same with both of us - had no idea where to go or anything, but was fun to go out for a bit of a lurk about
×
×
  • Create New...