Lithium

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.

It looks like you don't, as @BKsaid - you'll have practically all the advantage of an ethanol blend by E60 anyway, if the flex fuel tune has been done well then the "E75" max tune or even "E85" will really at most be a barely perceptible amount more pep. Big advantage of ethanol is that you're actually officially allowed it on the street and at events, with a WMI kit you potentially have to worry about who notices you are running methanol on your car. Not hating at all, full understand the other reasoning you have for it - just pointing out a couple of things you seem to have a mistaken understanding on or may not have considered about why people usually go ethanol over WMI. In terms of the power levels as well, with appropriate tuning you should also have control over how much power you get. You don't have to go full send on the dyno immediately, or you can go for the max power then but have to option of how much you ACTUALLY use with boost control etc so you can grow into the cars potential. Gotta love modern ECUs etc Anyway, quite interested to see how this build comes out - I have a soft spot for the path less trod, we can learn things from it and as much as going the proven path is usually the safest way to a good result.. it is rewarding having something a little different. Good luck and keep the updates flowing

Buying it at the drum has become erratic too. You can end up waiting for ages for it to become available, or people ceasing to provide it at no warning etc.

He is in NZ, it's likely to be easier and a more known target selling his 9180 and swapping to a 9280 than sending his core to Australia to get his 9180 modified with an undocumented aftermarket wheel and sent back here once freight and tax etc get involved.

Your bolt on mods you describe all sound fine so long as nothing is leaking or blocked. A relatively low shaft speed (as @Piggazsaid and I've alluded to above - I suspect it's higher than you think) isn't going to choke it. If anything the Borg turbos turbine aero is better suited to lower speed operation Blocking off the BOV or cleaning it could help rule out if anything is jamming it open and causing a leak. One way or another you aren't likely to have massive headroom with that turbo but ethanol may pick up quite a bit. As I had mentioned above, if you are kinda hoping for bigger numbers I suspect the likes of a Garrett (Or Pulsar copy of haha) G40 1150 would be a pretty interesting option. There's not anything that is going to beat the 9180 numbers without sacrificing response

G40-1150 (7170) seems like it's sitting it a pretty sweet middle ground, has twin scroll, has a good turbine and will make good power, and we're all curious

Jesus I didn't notice he'd set it to that, lol. https://www.borgwarner.com/go/960S5I Set air density to something more Aucklandy

That's what you're meant to do, line them up on the chart - you also need to fill the compressor efficiency cells out with the efficiency values that line up with the dots on the compressor map. What should essentially happen is you get a general thumbsuck of exhaust back pressure etc. Not super accurate but you can build a loose picture of things. Worth mentioning that you probably have bigger cams/better VE than the default numbers in matchbot, and it seems that you're revving it to at least 7500rpm so probably should update the rpm scale to suit the max rpm at least. I had a super fast rough fiddle with the settings, take with a grain of salt but I'd guess slightly closer to reality for your car currently: https://www.borgwarner.com/go/JMZZ59

I should have been more thorough with my response on the "EFR9280 doing 1000hp" I actually know someone who has cracked 1000hp @ hubs with an EFR9280 on an RB32. It was running a 1.45a/r hotside at the time and EMAP was STILL unacceptably high.... and that's a big step up in housing over the 1.05a/r - so imagine how bad that would be? I understand the next logical comment could be "Well why not run the 1.45a/r then?". The 1.45a/r on a EFR9280 adds significant amount of lag. Like 400rpm on top of maybe the extra 300ish you'd lose in spool going from a 9180 to a 9280. The 1.45a/r EFR9280 acts like a BIG turbo, does crack 1000hp but does it basically completely tapped out and big EMAP when run on an RB32 and you're likely to be looking at full boost getting up near 5000rpm... the combination just starts not really making sense imho. I realise the Rigoli 4G63 makes 1000hp @ hubs in time attack form but you gotta remember that it's on a 2.2litre engine that will run like 45psi to make that power, the 3litre is going to be running in the area of 15psi less boost to try and move the same amount of air on a compressor map that is happier at higher boost levels - basically the 3litre is likely to have similar or higher EMAP with significantly lower IMAP, which doesn't do great things for encouraging air to flow cleanly through an engine. I am a fan of the EFR range but the EFR9280 is one of my less favourite of them just because it isn't "quite" right - at least on RBs IMHO, though if you're "only" looking for 900hp range then going that with the 1.05a/r hotside should give a nice jump in power potential over the 9180 without pushing it too hard and losing too much response. If you're looking for 1000hp+ then it really is probably time to start looking at things which have turbines which are more enthusiastic at that kind of power level.

Another thought here. So I've spoken to people with "similar" engine specs to you who had or do have 9180s on them and you really shouldn't be running into that much of a tapped out situation still really. Like its going to be pushing the compressor a bit, but it sounds like you're potentially dangerously tapped out right now. They've been able to push boost levels beyond what you're seeing so even ignoring the power levels, anecdotally speaking they're probably getting at least as much air into their engines as you are - I'd definitely try and rule out this kind of thing before you spend serious money. One of the guys who I know who runs an EFR8474 had a sudden drop off in performance and pressure tested it all and it came up fine, however it turned out that the Turbosmart "internal BOV" got a bit of grit in it and was jammed open. The trick is it didn't show up in the boost leak test as it leaks straight back into the compressor cover.... so it won't really show up as a leak in a smoke test as it's not leaking to atmosphere, but it WILL actually be effectively a boost leak in use if something like that happens. The stock EFR recirculation valve is also known to just leak even when it's "working" at higher boost levels, so that could also be a possibility. If you haven't already, I'd try and make sure this kind of thing isn't a possibility.

The WGDC not having an effect on boost definitely suggests she's getting pretty tapped out. Bare in mind again that doesn't mean there's not more power if the engine is able to "do more" with the air its already moving, whether the tune is soft or whether you could get more on a better fuel. Your plans sound solid anyway, though I'd be pretty cautious about things with the turbo seemingly tapped - if it's being pushed that hard there IS the potential for significant overspeeding to be going on which isn't ideal at the best of times, the EFR turbine isn't the most tolerant. Re: The 9280, I don't know anyone running one "hard" as such. Jesse Greenslade is at around 890hp @ hubs on E85 at 26psi last I heard. I don't know if that's tapped out, I suspect it's not: I know of someone else with a RB34 running an EFR9280 as well, they hit 925hp @ hubs on E85 and it definitely had more in it. They were "only" after 650kw (870hp) max anyway, the swap to the bigger turbo was more about making the power easier while not losing response over the old turbo - as opposed to actually making max power. Based off what I know with that one all signs suggest it's got plenty up it's sleeve but I don't know how much. I suspect the 1.05a/r hotside will start struggling if you go for 1000hp @ hubs, and the 1.45 adds QUITE a bit of lag - anyone I know who has run it has swapped to the 1.05 on the 9280 so far. Imho if you have your heart set on making 1000+hp @ hubs without being ruthless I'd consider looking at the likes of a Garrett G40-1150.

He's got a solid sized Hypertune intercooler, would hope that's efficient. I did just realise that boost is tapering back to 22-23psi which drops the pressure ratio a bit, and also raises questions of if the tuner had a reason for it and also would partly explain the power rolling off harder.