Lithium

I would never have bought or recommended an EFR9280 for this kind of power level (helped by the fact I've seen less impressive results from them), there is not much info on exactly how hard this one is being pushed, but I still feel like this result is worth knowing about if you hadn't already given GameOn aren't unheard of or anything. EFR9280 on a VVTi 2JZGTE making 1130hp @ hubs with respectable spool is a solid result no matter how you cut it https://fb.watch/gA5azNc8fg/

A screen shot of boost / rpm log showing where target boost is hit would probably be pretty meaningful, I've already posted dyno plots of these things pushing 800+hp to the hubs on a 3litre - the flow potential of them shouldn't really be in question at this stage, but how it comes on with an RB28 would be pretty good data to see. There is always talk about how good these come up between gears etc, but not that much data for people and I can fully see why people develop an attitude that the enthusiasm for these turbos are just fanboism, as opposed to earned respect for being that good.

Nice, actually really interested to see how the .85 divided setup goes - please post results when it's done The 9174 will be interesting as well but better suited to a 1.05a/r hotside.

Yeah. I wouldn't assume that the 6470 is kinda a smaller 6870, class legal turbos are designed with max flow for inducer size possible - which does not at all promise to maintain the response you'd expect from the size (not to say that it won't work out ok anyway, just can't promise). Fwiw most 67mm class turbos are pretty laggy but make mental power for their size, and I fully expect the 6470 will be crazy power for a 64mm - it wouldn't shock me at all if they behave like a turbo at least as big as a 6870.

Sorry taken me some time to respond, been super busy lately - but public holiday today so have a moment to yarn about turbos. So this will be on Racepace dyno, which is a roller dyno? Assuming the things which have been assumed so far, these are my suggestions: 1) If you're in a rush and trying to spend as little as possible, I've seen 500+kw result results on Oz based Mainline hub dynos for G30 900s but that's squeezing the lemon pretty hard, feels like the G35 900 copy (PSR 6262G) would have to be the go if you're going the Pulsar direction. I'd go the .83a/r hotside option, really not sure if or how much the 25DE Neo head will be a problem... pound for pound your results so far suggest that it'll be up for 500kw with that G-series turbine/compressor combo will do with more boost going through them but really depends on what magical fluid dynamic stuff which may be beyond me might happen when you start trying to push more gas through the smaller ports. I wouldn't bother with the divided housing change as that involves a bunch of reworking, and if you're trying to save time and not spend money to "do it right" then it's not worth investing in all new manifolds and fabrication - if you're going down that path then you should be doing : 2) The "right way" would be a 1.05a/r T4 divided EFR8474. It'd be glorious for a setup like this IF the head didn't become a limitation.

It wouldn't really be a valid test, my statements assume someone is running a native twin scroll housing. Any observations I (and pretty much anyone else here) offer relating to EFRs assume twin scroll housings. Any data for them and suggestions relating to them apply to the housings they come with. For it to be realistic it'd have to be a typical G35 setup and typical EFR setup, matched appropriately for the car they're going to be running on.

800-850 is a pretty big step up from where you are, imho you'd need to go up an exhaust housing size (or two) to support the extra power - especially on a 600cc larger donk. That's going to take a lot of steam out of the response, and while it's not going to be rubbish still... it imho will shift it outside of EFR league (well, further outside of). So I wasn't saying it's rubbish or not a valid option, just when we're talking about an EFR8474 then imho it's definitely a step backwards. That's because EVERYTHING is a step backwards, nothing against the G35.

This is on E85. I know I've said this before but I have more data to back it up now, I think the Borg Warner turbines have been given less credit than they are due in terms of how well they flow because of the previous generation(s) lacking a bit compared to their competition in terms of compressor flow, especially with how the compressor maps looked for some of the EFR range. The fact that Borg Warner have now released an EFR8370 is evidence of this, in my head. I had a 2.3litre Mitsi hillclimb beasty recently on the dyno with an S257SXE running the 1.15a/r divided hotside on the dyno recently which had EMAP logging and with 1.8bar of boost in it the thing it still hadn't reached 1:1 EMAP/IMAP at max rpm at 390awkw / 520whp. It would only be where it starts running out of compressor where the EMAP goes seriously south. I feel the typical EFR range usually ran into EMAP (and turbine failure) issues because of people trying to drag flow out of compressors which really weren't the best for their size.

Actually. Here's some data, this is from a 3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474. Looks like I've not posted this before. This is 830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

Again the 9180 and 8474 will both get you to the 800hp @ hubs area. Going to Precision or Garrett will definitely be a step backwards in response, if you're wanting to go north of 850hp but not too much then the 9280 is OK with the 1.05 but I was partly addressing situations where you're more looking for a healthy 900+hp. In the Garrett range you'll be needing to look at a .95a/r G40 1150 btw, which will be laggy than the EFRs - but will do the power quite happily.

Unfortunately as per the compressor efficiency stuff I was rambling about above, extra cubes and headwork with a 9180 are a liability - not an advantage. The compressor doesn't really do it's best work until higher boost levels, boost levels that with a saucy 3.2 you need a lot more flow than the 9180 will provide. At the boost levels that a well flowing 3.2 will be happiest moving "900hp" levels of airflow are not where a 9180 is really doing it's best work. A 9280 would definitely let a 3.2 "hang on" better in the higher rpm, but they are a little lazier and the 1.05 hotside is a bit of a restriction - but it definitely makes a bit more sense. My general view on the EFR range is that if a 8474/9180 is too far short of someones target then it's time to consider going to something from Precision or Garrett.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at above. Realistically BOTH turbos will be on their upper end of capability at this power level, but if OP is happy with "getting over 800whp" then I actually am going to go against the grain and say I still think the 8474 is the better option. The trick with the "pre-black edition" Borg Warner turbos is the 8374 and 9180 compressors let the side down and made it seem like the turbines were more restrictive than they are. The turbine from the EFR8374 had heaps up it's sleeve but people would often see high EMAP because of the compressor going inefficient and the boost control setup effectively going into "send" conditions. Same goes for the EFR9180, they are better suited to higher boost/lower flow. This is somewhat speculative because I don't have direct experience with the combo, buuuut if I were a betting man I'd back an EFR8474 with a 1.45a/r hotside to be the "best" for if you're looking for a "being able to nudge over 800hp @ hub with epic response" on a build like this. I wouldn't aim for 850hp, but you may be able to get it as a hero tune type thing.. it'd definitely be getting more on the sendy side though. To put the compressor efficiency into perspective, I've plotted where the 64% compressor efficiency (ie, the point where it's still happy as but where things usually start getting sad quickly afterwards) for 20psi, 22psi, 24psi, 26psi, 28psi and 30psi on an EFR8474 on the EFR9180 compressor map. Basically, the EFR8474 is still operating in the happy zone where a 9180 is getting quite into "shut the wastegate and cook the intake air" territory.

Overall sounds like a lot of fun

I love this discussion, brings out some interesting and valid points. I've never argued hard against people chosing to stay twins at 350kw as really the single benefits aren't going head and shoulders away from twins YET. I still prefer them, but the argument is less one sided. Now in regards to the high power vs control thing, this is really what got my attention in this discussion - we at the best of times get hard ons for showing and bragging about epic power delivery but the reality is often what matters SO MUCH with racing is making the car driveable, and reliable. A good number of the turbo race cars I've tuned we've done a lot of work in managing the torque to keep the cars predictable, and it can seem like you're just leaving stuff on the table for no use - but honestly its amazing the difference you can make giving what people may grumble and call a "peaky" power delivery. No point making it hit like a train if you are going to be all over the show trying to keep the car on the road. An option you have with the likes of your 6466 that you don't with the twins is you can more or less tune the 6466 to do stuff that makes the twins good, but you can't do the other way around. As a hypothetical thing, if you look at the dyno plot for the twins - which you know you can control the car with nicely then identify the peak torque you make with them, then select a boost curve with the 6466 that never exceeds that torque.... but ramp the boost up to carry the torque to the far end of the dyno plot, instead of letting it plummet like the twins do then you potentially have some degree of having your cake and eating it too. Well maybe a 6466 is a bit more snappy/laggy transient wise than the EFRs/G-series that I've played with but you'll get the gist of the what I'm saying? I've done this kind of thing with numerous FWD/RWD/even 4WD race cars when creeping up in power levels where the owners have decided to try the suggestion as an "in between" while working up with a bigger setup and then ended up finding that it actually at least in those cases made the car easier to drive faster and is generally less hard on the car on the driver and been relatively happy leaving it there. It may seem counter intuitive when we work so hard on finding ways to improve torque, but really in a lot of cases the "how hard is it to get to the torque I'm looking for" is a lot more important than "how much torque can I make?" when you're trying to go fast.

What are your power goals? A mate has an RB30 with the 9180 and a 1.05 hotside, it's nice and responsive but the down side to the 9180 is that it does its best at higher boost levels (compressor wise) while a 3.2 with a decent head will find it easy to run off the map. The 3litre works very nicely but a 3.2 would arguably be pushing it, the bigger 1.45a/r exhaust housing being a bandaid which doesn't fix the actual cause. An EFR8474 compressor is actually more efficient in the 20psi range than the 9180, and the turbine wheel is surprisingly up to the task at that level. I'd consider going 1.45a/r if you have a big head and want to make the most if you consider the 8474 but if you are mainly looking for a super responsive solid power level the 1.05 is likely to work better than many may expect. Tl;Dr both are solid options - if you want significantly more than a 8474 can do then the EFR9280 is a more tangible improvement than the 9180 is, but the 9280 definitely comes at a cost in boost threshold. On a 3.2 with a 1.05 you won't see solid solid boost until in the 4000rpm range but they can support a fair bit of power... But you DO need the 1.45 hotside to make the most of a 9280 and they start becoming a pretty laggy setup, I feel like other brands offer better options for that territory.

That's pretty cool to read! Good on them for making improvements and not making a song and dance about it or offering it as an upgrade, instead just improving the existing thing.

Faster to take off and put on, slower to spool. Pick your preference - though I get the impression cost and spool not being a top priority came into this which makes sense.

I'm really keen to see more results of G40s, so far I've been far from impressed with them but would like them to be a good thing. On paper they always seem QUITE laggy, though the owners sound happy with what they've ended up with... whether it's a transient response thing or they just don't mind a lazy turbo is hard to know due to subjectivity. I do know that G42s can ggf from everything I've seen regarding them, they do the numbers but their EMAP seem high for the lag and general flow you end up with for a "modern" turbo.... so if anything this post makes it sound like GTX3584RS are absolute nuggets of turbos. Yeah the G40 *seems* like it should be a good thing, if you have any real world results or anything I'd be super keen because I've been more than disappointed with what I've seen so far - I'm not hating, as obviously "disappointment" suggests I was expecting more from them.... I just like keeping abreast of what works and what different units strong and weak points are The G35 900 result is *really* surprising for me, was there any other changes involved on that setup? A 6466 is not a lazy turbo and a G35 900 is not a super early boost threshold turbo normally - like not bad, but this is unexpected. We have a G35 900 for a 2JZGTE drag car (900kg car....) so quite interested to see first hand how it performs.

Wasn't 100% sure so the answer wasn't fully directed at you, but generally "in case anyone see or read it that way". That general view makes sense for most, but felt should point out that it's not just wank - well at least unless someone is buying an M1 and using it like a G4+ Plugin haha.

The wording @iruvyouskyrinewas responding to was clearly implying that Motec M1 was just about the cool thing as opposed to the fact that there are definitely advantages to it if you have the money and need. Link/Haltech/Adaptonic need not apply when you are talking "firmware unlocks" in this context, these are packages which means you can load all new functionality specific to what you are doing with your car. You don't have the features ready to go because they don't have the features, and may never get said features with those options. If someone invented (just as a random idea) an electric motor setup that could integrate with an RB gearbox to create a torque fill system to make up to turbo lag then you may (probably won't) NEVER get a release from Haltech, Link or Adaptronic, but with an M1 then it could be a few weeks of development by Powertune's M1 guy to add it to the torque management system and then download the new firmware, update to suit and profit. Those ECUs, and to a greater extent the Emtron are absolutely brilliant for 99% of people, so no hate at all for them... they very much have their place (same place I and MOST of my friends exist) but M1 also has it's place, but it ain't cheap. Doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning when discussing features that the others don't have.

That's actually awesome. The turbo should definitely be capable of plenty of power if everything else is working well, as per the other posts people have made solid numbers with them. If you can live with the spool, then the power should be able to come

True, but compare it with the uncorrected G35 900 2JZ you posted above... the dyno plot I shared was SAEJ1349 corrected which brings dynapack numbers into alignment with Mainline hub etc, basically it's "not so generous" mode. I did that to make sure I wasn't giving an overly inflated number. This is the same pull in SAE, which depending on conditions is likely to be more in alignment with the G35 900 result you shared. Basically 870hp @ hubs with full boost a good part of 1000rpm earlier. Another mate has one on his RB26 and it's over 20psi before 4500. Someone else I know has one on his 26 which isn't running yet, but that will be run full send on E85 - I can post the result here if I don't get piss people off too much by sharing EFR results lol

This is a dyno plot for the 2JZGTE/ 8474 I mentioned, pushed to the point it's working reasonably hard but not ridiculous - 111,000rpm turbine speed and 39psi EMAP for 25psi of boost. It's a nice working solid setup but nothing wildly exotic. Unported VVTi head with drop in cams.

Never considered Precision turbos especially aesthetic lol. The EFRs are definitely an eye sore as default but imho if you don't use the BCS, BOV (using a blank plate), internal gate and powder coat the compressor housing or something like that then they actually are one of the better looking housings but that's all additional cost on top of an already spendy turbo. It is definitely a better unit for your needs otherwise but yeah, should have lead with the fact you are happy to compromise some performance for personal aesthetic tastes - the short answer is that until a few years ago the 6466 was the absolute best option for what you want from it now, and it's still up there... So absolutely worth it if there are other factors which make it appealing to you. No one is going to see it as a silly choice!

Don't think anyone has (or anyone in their right mind would) suggest going twins for this kind of situation. The exhaust housing will very much depend on what turbo it is, not all 1.06 exhaust housings are equal - there can be a HUGE range of what they will support depending on the wheel sitting in the housing and the cross section of the volute. In regards to the turbos being mentioned here the 1.00a/r hotside would probably be ideal for the 6466, or the 1.05 for the 8474. Btw here is a dyno plot for a 1.05a/r EFR8474 on an RB26 with big cams and a ported head on BP98, 14psi and 21psi boost levels shown.