Lithium

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.

If I were you and were sticking with stock displacement, while wanting it to be nice and responsive while also being able to do near 500kw on pump, and 600kw area on E85 then I'd go a Sinco T4 divided manifold, 1.05a/r EFR8474 and if you're doing headwork then go the Kelford 182B (260deg, 10mm lift) cams - make sure the headwork suits high lift cams, including clearancing. My assumptions here are that you're likely to be tuned on a Dynapack (virtually everyone here use hub dynos) and RBs and EFR8474s are a match made in heaven. 500kw on pump is a bit of a stretch, and the slightly shorter duration cams I've suggested won't make that any easier - but in all honesty that setup will still work very well... whichever fuel you run you'll also have the option of ramping the boost up in the higher rpm when natural torque drops off if you want it to carry power a bit better at the higher end. I know someone with 520kw @ hubs with an EFR8474 on BP98 and various people who have gone over 600kw @ hubs also with 1.05a/r EFR8474s, and they drive insanely well - basically significantly more responsive under foot than a 6266, while making more power. In terms of wastegate that comes down to what the minimum boost you need to run is, twin 40mm obviously is proven if you go separate wastegates - otherwise something in the 50mm area is probably a good idea. The smaller the gate, the harder it is going to be to hold a lower boost level.

All good. I'm not super super familiar with those tbh, I'm not going to bring up other turbos in a thread about Precisions but my opinion is that the Precision turbos really start starting to come into their own from the 64mm+ sizes - usually when you're looking at 75lb/min or less flowing turbos the aim is typically something that is geared towards being more snappy underfoot and the Precisions aren't necessarily famous for their transient response, at least compared to newer releases some other brands. I do know those 3 have been out for a few years now already, and I have at least heard the 6062 is a solid performer in it's own right - makes good power for a 60mm turbo and not particularly laggy. Suggesting that I feel there are better options in no means I think they're nuggets

The general Precision turbo range? If so, there are a couple of pretty epic releases which I've not noticed mentioned in here - the NextGen 7685 and 8085, though they are as much about sneakiness as outright innovation. I know someone who tested the NextGen 7685 versus the Gen2 7685 and the results were absolutely mental, picked up hundreds of hp (literally) and compressor speed as well as EMAP/IMAP was improved even to achieve a much higher power level despite the turbos only being an upgrade on the compressor side. There's been an ongoing trend, basically the 7685 NextGen punching as good or harder than an 8385 and the 8085 being like an 8685... that kind of thing. Those two things are absolute beasts in their own rights, and I'd call them game changers if you are in a 76mm or 80mm inducer class - but just for bigger picture info, in terms of "How are they getting 20% more flow out of the same size inducer when the old one was already insanely good?". They're basically using a loophole in terms of how "inducer" is defined, and the compressor wheels have a stepped inducer so you have the "main" inducer area, then a cut back where the inducer section extends out to the anti-surge port area. For all intents and purposes that antisurge slots have become part of the inlet into the inducer, but that area of the inducer isn't officially counted as "inducer". Sneaky sneaky.

Haven't tried a G30 yet but the G25 are super whistley, though one I played with turned out that the turbo speed sensor port wasn't sealed - bunged it off properly (make sure the plastic plug is tightly attached etc) and it generally behaved quite a bit better but did get a bit less whistly. I've wondered in the past when I see surprisingly laggy/low power results for G series if they also have a similar kind of leak

Here's a link to an article which shows some quotes from someone who tested a 1.21a/r G35 1050 on his 2JZ. 48psi EMAP with 31psi of boost is getting a bit ugly. https://www.garrettmotion.com/fr/news/newsroom/article/dylan-hughes-builds-946-horsepower-e46-bmw-with-3-0-l-2jz-g42-1200-garrett-turbo/

There are a couple of solid G35 1050 results already posted in here suggesting they definitely have a noticeable ceiling above the G35 900 but a couple of things are potentially big factors with the G35 1050 not making the numbers you'd expect. 1/ they are great at high pressure ratios and I also feel that people often package them like a typical 70lb/min turbo and when you're looking for 90+lb/min you need to ensure that the plumbing can support that volumetric flow even though it doesn't LOOK like a big turbo. 2/ The hotside has definitely been identified as being on the weak side for tbe higher power levels. This is one of the reasons the G40 ended up being pretty highly anticipated. For a mix of these reasons I think there are cars running G35 1050s with the intent to get 90lb/min of airflow from the turbo, and the turbo is capable of supporting that airflow in the right situation, but the combination is such that it's not really viable. A drag car I'm involved we had extensive yarns on what turbo to use, as you do, and it basically ended up with the G35 900 as being the choice because as you've kinda observed - potentially the G35 1050 becomes less of an optimal combination and you may as well go G40 if the G35 900 isn't enough for your tastes. Not to say the G35 1050 isn't a weapon, just it feels like a turbo you're going to be really beating on things if you want to max it out.

G35 1050 2JZ with 630kw @ hubs: https://www.facebook.com/groups/jzpowered/permalink/879655039397081/?sfnsn=mo&ref=share Thinking about it, with these results from different tuners, setups, dynos and factoring in that Hawkins got high 600kw with his G35 1050 on his RB I feel like there is some credible data around to show that with the setup working right there is definitely decent power to be had with the G35s

1.5JZ with 550+kw at hubs on G35 900 https://www.facebook.com/192234970820442/posts/pfbid02mAiMFLVhZvvi6aXURwunTmwGTAb6s14JsYW2qpzjZ4JAjbPxQNj7JDZNHDSshD5Ml/?sfnsn=mo

Sorry I guess I should have posted links when I said both data and results I've seen elsewhere suggest there is plenty more on top with a G35 900 even. Will see if I can cross over old tracks so you can see for yourself if you've not actually encountered other promising results yourself https://fb.watch/e0I3wVP5ZT/

Full boost at 4500 and peak power at 6000. That's horrible, and it's not VCams fault.

Ahh yes, this was another thing that irked me. Seriously, going "the 1.01 was really what we needed when we're running the G30 so we'll use that on the G35" when they are running an entirely different turbine wheel and have no intention of pushing the compressor... it's no better than people identifying turbo specs by saying "I've got an Ar70 turbo". The short of my rant is that I'd take much of this test with a big grain of salt.

Hard to know how much to take from those guys. They seem lovely, and do share a lot of information and mostly (aside from being Garrett drones - understand selling your soul is lucrative but it's been responsible for a heap of misinformation and starting to really frustrate me) sharing sensible data, but mannnn there is what I reckon or at least suspect is some super murky data. A few points I take from this video which I feel even though some of it is not hidden, is easily missed and makes the "data" not super useful at all: 1) The .61 G30-770 test. What a absolute waste of time, the fact that at the start they suspected that it'd be the dream and what was suggested to them indicates they have some poorly informed people advising them. While I've definitely seen an undersized turbine housing actually cost response, I strongly suspect they probably had a super bad boost leak in this test. You can see signs of the compressor hitting full choke pretty much at the point it's hit full boost, its a flat power curve that starts late and low, and they report it's running at max turbiine speed at under 400whp. Seriously. They SHOULD have questioned that and started investigating things before just going "this is what it is and what a fail". The .61 will be a nugget, but not THAT much of a nugget. 2) They straight up admitted that they are not optimising timing for various reasons. Awesome. 3) They also admitted they're not "sending" the G35 900. They did put timing in it, but not optimising it, and not running it up to as much boost as it potentially had up it's sleeve. You can't really take anything from this test other than what it spools like, and the fact that their tuner/data is not complete. There was something else as well but I can't recall it. I feel like they put a lot of time and effort into this, and by doing a bit half arsed job at times made the data not completely valid- but presenting it as though it's authoritative. Honestly, it makes me want to hook up with a mate that has an EFR8474 on his 2JZGTE and try and make a video addressing/tagging these Gseries combos which have been clearly at least partially bankrolled by Garrett as advertisement and provide all the map, turbo speed etc data transparently and show how full of shit some of these sponsored youtuber videos are. Especially when they claim they have "ultimate response 2JZ" which really is not. Sure, it's partly comparing an EFR8474 on a setup which is performing relatively optimally against people who are being Garrett puppets to show results which blow them completely out of the water and isn't necessarily a fully fair comparison. But these clowns are doing sometimes sub par jobs and STILL making people think it's the ultimate result and proven with "data" and it clearly triggers the shit out of me. You could throw a $1000 Holset on one of these engines on a $1000 exhaust manifold and show up these results on a 2JZ. And this isn't me hating on the G-series, as much as there are better (EFR) options out there.

Good point. So in the Falcon example it's running near PR 3.2 where the G35-1050 map runs out at 95lb/min, and we assume @Buttersis effectively running PR 2.7 then the map runs out at closer to 100lb/min, or ~5% more flow than in the case of the Falcon above. Going by that - in the ideal situation it'd be good for up to 1000hp @ hubs on E85 on kill, or 900whp on a roller. At the same point the G35-900 is capable of 80lb/min (I'm assuming you got mixed up and looked at the 900 instead of the 1050 compressor map) which as above shhould be good for 700whp/800hp @ hubs. Still comfortably north of OP. Even the lowly G30-770 should be good for 700hp @ hubs/ 625whp if the hotside is up to it going by that lot.

This is one of the better (but definitely not the only) 900+hp G35 1050 results I've seen. If we bare in mind the G35 hotside is not ideally matched to the compressor, generally considered a bit small for it - and that at PR 2.2 it flows about 95lb/min, then this is kinda a "really well working but not an impossibly perfect best case" indicator for what you might expect from Garrett G-series on a RWD platform running ethanol on a Mainline hub dyno. It fits with my general "1lb/min = 10hp @ hubs on E85" rule of thumb I use, or 9hp @ wheels on an Oz roller dyno. At the same rate you should expect a G35 900 should be able to support 700whp area on a roller dyno, or near 800hp on a hubber with everything working well. Funnily enough people already hit that territory with them, too.

Re: drivetrain loss, don't insult both of our intelligence by creating an argument about semantics. I feel like it should be pretty obvious that the point I was trying to make is that 80lb/min only being able to achieve 600whp is pretty unlikely. I purposefully try not to write a thesis breaking down my points when I am giving the audience the intelligence and general not-being-a-dickness credit that they won't misconstrue what I'm trying to say. In case you legitimately didn't get what I meant by my post, I'll try and make sure we're on the same page. A compressor map doesn't show BSAC (Brake specific air consumption, or literally how much power you end up able to make from a given air mass), it shows adiabatic efficiency. Sure, lower compressor efficiency can have a bit of an effect on BSAC if you've gone off the map and the gate has had to be shut to keep spinning the compressor causing EMAP to get high enough to have an effect on pumping efficiency, but realistically 80lb/min with lower compressor efficiency is still 80lb/min of air. The BSAC of your typical 4-valve, E85 snorting RB is such that you should be able to make WELL over 600whp through a manual on even the harshest of dynos with that kind of mass air flow.

That is super aggressive drivetrain loss estimation, paired with a harsh BSAC estimation considering this will be aboit E85 setups. There are people in Oz making 600whp with turbos which flow 10lb/min less than that. Hub dynos and roller dynos from some other countries will do around 10whp per lbmin of airflow

Something is definitely not right there. I know a good number of people who have used Pulsar G35s and others from their range, as well as the genuine Garretts and they seem more or less on par with each other when everything is working right. Do make sure your turbo speed sensor port is sealed etc. I've definitely come across people with big leaks out that port costing spool and power. Fwiw I've definitely seem numbers well north of those from both Garrett and Pulsar versions and to shake the inevitable Dyno debate, this is probably relevant (and gives you something/someone to look at). Andrew Hawkins also went north of 800hp with his

Sounds like a solid plan Its going to be a monster as is.

Yep this is 100% accurate, you'd not want to run E85 to and from work. The extra volume of fuel you need with ethanol goes up steadily as the blend increases, and that extra fuel usage impacts "just cruising" as well. You definitely need a big fuel system if you want to make 550+kw on E85, though really if you want 550kw+ then you're probably a bit in denial if you think you can cut costs at this stage. Block strength is potentially coming into question, OEM Nissan gearboxes are at the end of their line, the whole build has to be pretty serious at this stage. Going a big fuel system when planning for 700whp+ on a smaller RB is pretty incidental in the grand scheme. This still brings back the "but run flex fuel" thing, if you are aiming at commuting etc you probably don't want/shouldn't have methanol just sitting around in the car waiting for you to thrash it. There is the clear bonus that you don't use it when you're just driving it normally, but then also you don't want it to get contaminated over time or even lose track of the level. It's an extra thing you need to keep an eye on... the flex fuel idea again is one where you only put ethanol in if you want to get up to no good. By E30 you have really good gains and the impact on fuel economy isn't actually that nasty by that point, if you want to get real fancy for an event then you can try and get it up to E50+ but you don't need to measure or think about it. After that, keep putting normal pump gas in it and it'll gradually dilute itself down to E10 or less as you top up with pump gas and the tune will dial itself down to suit. If you have a build that is going to make 550+kw on E85 then it's not going to be gutless on a pump gas friendly tune, and with flex you don't need to keep topping up the WMI, you don't need to do anything special. Just drive the car and the tune will make sure everything is safe and well. That's the kind of reasoning we've used at least But yeah "for now" I'm sure if you can do the 550kw power level with pump and WMI and the 1000s then it's at least a good stepping stone.