Full-Race Geoff

that is great feedback! I absolutely love the G25 with 0.72. The 0.92 flows a ton (very impressive actually) but did have some response loss. I would love to see any boost logs you can share. and if you wanted to try G30-770 we have them in stock at full race

hi Lith, the 61.4mm SXE is an excellent turbo, no question. Two additional considerations are whether it makes sense to step up to the 63mm or 64.5mm SXE? These all share the same 76mm turbine wheel, therefore they all are drop in plug and play supercore swaps for the same turbine housing. Full-Race has these turbos in stock at all times if your customer would like a quote let me know and I can help

borgwarner requested that we make a note of this on our website. However i have used oil restrictors on subarus and other high oil pressure applications without issue. Turbosmart's OPR is a good product, i would have zero hesitation recommending it

wow, that is cool! Not many of these turbos, but glad to see you got one

Because you want more midrange than top end, 550kw / 750hp with EFR is doable in two ways here: twin EFR6258 or single EFR8474 both are options. The 9180 and 9174 you are asking about are good turbos. 9174 was our most popular turbo for professional drift competition for many years... the 9174 continues to work extremely well despite people who dont like the numerical rotor sizing. the 1.45 a/r does increase top end power in exchange for a slight midrange loss, but on a RB30/26 the 8474 or 9174 on 1.45 a/r makes sense for this power target twin gates typically provides slightly earlier spool and more midrange due to the fact that the pulses remain seperated, and more energy is imparted to the turbine

G30s are indeed coming - G3067 and G3071. both of these have awesome potential, especially on RB25, 1JZ or the like... however a bit small for RB26 applications. RB26 may want to wait for the bigger G35

funny, but true. We sell many turbos and very few turbo speed sensors. Most enthusiasts will not utilize the sensor and instead spend inordinate amounts of time to diagnose a boost leak or exhaust leak... or they are adamant "the turbo sucks". The reality is most heavily modified engines will have a boost leak somewhere. It could be at the intake manifold flange/gasket, intercooler, bov, throttle body, coupler, clamp... the speed sensor + smoke test saves a ton of time and massively improves the end result that will do it! agreed, Lith

fyi - all EFR turbos include the stiff BOV spring since mid-2018. this was a change i rallied for, you guys should not need to change it. the oem configuration vents from 360 degrees, so i prefer this design to the turbosmart which only vents through a slot. if youre going to change the EFR bov, i suggest to go to a traditional external rather than a plug and play

the OEM borgwarner EFR / pierburg solenoid is more desirable than 3 port mac. some tuners prefer twin pierburgs to a 4 port mac. Certain other turbo manufacturers even purchase these solenoids from Full Race, it definitely is a quality piece to come standard EFR 8474 on RB 2.8L revving to 8000rpm @20psi at sea level is likely in the 420-440m/s tip speed range depending on VE and other factors. You said you are seeing over 100krpm shaft speed... 450m/s tip speed on an 84mm compressor = 102k rpm. 450m/s at 20psi sounds like a leak, but im thousands of miles away and purely guessing here. What pressure are you boost leak testing to? Are you at altitude? Many variables at play, so I suggest to further inspect the TB shaft seals as well as the intake manifold sealing surface. good possibility there is a small leak in your system

ive got a couple of these laying around if anyone is interested. i was underwhelmed

#penismeasuringcontest totally agree. A illustration of this is seen working with world class top-level professional drivers. Guys who drive real racecars for a living, sit them in a turbo 4 or 6 cyl vehicle with a big EFR at full song, and everytime its the same shock-and-awe reaction of "that thing is so fast, i have to change my driving style to adapt". These are the best in the game, and its not easy for them to drive to the limit. especially considering how laggy these little RB engines really are - even with all the tricks. But my dyno chart number is bigger than yours !! ... said every forum jockey ever. (especially on the BMW forums) i love the guys at Tial,. however xona rotor = undivided singlescroll only. For some applications this may work well but Im pretty stuck on divided housings for I4's and I6's that turn (dragstrips singlescroll is fine). What further irks my inner engineer is there are no turbine or compressor maps nor speed sensor option to confidently know where you are operating... but thats never affected precision so it must be me. the market doesnt seem to care Very true. my idea of laggy has changed considerably over the last few years as i get more experience with better spool. Regardless if you can do a supercore swap on your setup, that would be convenient. all the hoses/fittings remain the same and you might be able to get away without removing the turbine housing from the vehicle

That isnt a terribly hard question to answer if you know what is max engine RPM? a 2.8L engine revving to 8500rpm @40psi boost, will produce 1000+hp at the limit of the compressor map. Speed sensor mandatory. The 80mm turbine in 1.45 a/r will see 11-13psi backpressure so its really a question of why do you need 1000hp and is this really the right way to get there?

8474 0.92 a/r just won pike's peak with a Honda K20 https://newatlas.com/2019-pikes-peak-results-robin-shute/60378/

fixed - thanks for the catch

It depends on where you are measuring exactly - The manifold side Turbine Inlet and downpipe side Turbine outlet are identically positioned between 0.80 and 0.92 a/r.. there is no difference in axial position. However the 7670 has a longer CHRA (axial length) and moves the comp housing out further forward. additionally the B2 frame is a larger bearing housing with fittings that stick out farther from the center. I dont know what engine or manifold youre looking at or what point you intend to measure - they are similar. although slightly different ill find some time and dig some up, we just had an evoX with good results and this week at pike's peak a friend of mine will be giving his k20 / 8474 0.92 the stick with an unlimited class Pikes Peak entry this year. thanks for the plug, SXE style comp covers are available for the legacy EFR turbos. Waiting on this for the newer 84 and 92 turbos

yes, its called EFR 9280

I recommend 8474. considering your stated goal of "I'm not looking for power numbers as I just want a responsive car that is fast." -- efr 8474 with 1.05 is pretty much ideal. Of course you could go to a 1.45 a/r or a larger compressor still but that goes away from what you are looking for. Also, the 4.111 final drive and 6speed R34 box is a fantastic combination for responsive street car. I really enjoy those ratios the 9180 with 1.05 a/r really should not be out of breath by 5000 rpm on a 3.2L engine. I suggest to perform a boost leak test, exhaust leak test and also take a good look at the wastegate setup for leakage and inspect the exhaust system for restrictions such as collapsed muffler or failed flex section. Very likely something is going on, A turbo speed sensor is a good idea also becuase it will make troubleshooting much easier. high turbo speed = boost leak. low turbo speed = exhaust or wg leak I would like to experiment with a function or table that will correlate shaft speed to wastegate position. it would be neat to drop the boost such that your riding the max turbo speed settings rather than a particular boost target .Shaft speed rises very quickly as you may know so a PID feedback loop seems appropriate to me. in the motec, I couldn't find a direct way to do this. I have a well known pikes peak customer I work with who run two tables - they map both boost target and wastegate position feed forward based on altitude so we are able to closely control the turbo rpm. We also have a turbo rpm limit which opens the wastegate if we over spin the turbo. There are a couple of parameters to adjust with that limit but it is not intended to control turbo rpm. We tried last year without success, so contacted motec who told us this is designed as a safety limit and isn't sophisticated enough as a control. Although this appears to be easy to make work with the syvecs / life racing system... so im intrigued

correct - as long as you mean block plate for the Bypass Valve. +1. some applications can benefit from the SXE housing in different ways. 2 examples: -The B1 frame 7163 can use the s200 sxe ported shroud compressor housing to prevent surge. -the B2 frame 7670/8374/9180 can fit an evo8/9 with AC better if the sxe compressor housing is used peak power is unchanged, these are all the same A/R size wow, this evo is nuts. I was talking to an evoX 8474 customer here in the USA about this setup. he is close to buying motec, but I recommended he speak with you re syvecs.

I typically would prefer to use the stiffest spring possible, to acheive your minimum boost level at 0% wgdc.

Hard to say what a 9280 1.45 will be capable of at full tilt? I dont know yet. I agree with burn4005 that twin 7163 would be the best way to acheive the 4-digit power levels. Garrett G25-660 is also a consideration. If you really wanted to stay single turbo, the G42-1450 may prove to be a good way to do that. still a bit early to know on that turbo as well edit - another evo on 8474 is ken thwaits from showtime motorsports in the usa. he switched to 8474 recently, and after the first event he said its insane, 4 wheel spin has required some changes to their setup and tune

For this type of setup, I expect twins to be highly advantageous. Weve got a few 3.0L and 3.4L 2jz-gte customers very happy with twin 6258, 6758 and 7163. You should be able to keep the twin 6758 setup as is and enjoy it, but i think the 0.85 a/r would be a good idea! if you wanted more power, swapping to EFR 7163 is a direct plug-and-play fitment, no changes to the setup and will flow considerably more the twins really do work beautifully on I6 engines, im eager for you to try. We would have used twins on 4cyl engines but the available aftermarket twin turbo options would be spooling in the surge region for 99% of 4cyls 6258 is too small for 3.2L+. 6758 is on the cusp and upgrading the turbine housing to 0.85 a/r may be worth trying.. 7163 would be my first choice but 6758 will work the smaller EFR's have a larger margin of safety. this is due to the diameter of the wheel and the nature of Titanium Aluminide. TiAL is not a metal, it's part metallic part ceramic aka "Interstitial Compound" and the smaller the size of the wheel the better the turbine would resist overspeed. altitude does complicate matters as the turbospeed will be higher at altitude all other factors being equal i think the key is people who monitor shaft rpm are probably more on top of their operating conditions and parameters than those who just "let 'er rip". Fortunately there are some good ways to work with the shaft speed data at this point in time! certainly much more than early 2010 when efr was first released

they are finally available now .. it took an eternity Agreed. The EFR9180s were designed for 2011 indycar (2.2L v6 at 12k rpm and low boost). But indycars use twin 7163 now... so guys like us were the only people using them and overspeed is a real issue on 3L engines at high boost. We have many customers who have way oversped the 9180's for years without failure at high altitude but neither Full Race nor BorgWarner can advertise that as its beyond the intended design and risking failure. Peter your syvecs are obviously some of the best setup ECUs around and obviously you do not damage the turbos. Regardless -the larger inducer 9280 will move much more air for a given shaft speed. An overlay of 9180 (black) vs 9280 (blue) comparison is shown here: thanks mate ? Papadakis Racing / Fredrik Aasbo had excellent results testing with the 8474 and 9274. They are vying for the FD championship and have asked not to share their dyno chart and boost log delta but i will once the season starts and he gives me the OK. agree on 9280. see above.. this is the turbo we should have had in the first place (no comment on dan b) always politically correct in your posts Peter ? please do not misunderstand what im saying; these are two different animals despite being quite similar on the compressor exducer. 9280 is ideal for a well balanced high power engine with reasonable exhaust manifold Turbine inlet pressure. If using a proper engine management system with shaft speed sensor and calibration up to par, then i think this is a fantastic turbocharger. and the technically correct solution 9274 is an example of 74mm turbine wheel pushed to the absolute limit. It will be more forgiving than the 9280 for applications with no shaft speed sensor and questionable calibration (which is sadly many of the evo and 2jz customers we come in contact with). It has a higher turbine inlet pressure at high boost and slightly lower turbine efficiency, but likely to handle severe overspeed abuse better than the higher stress/larger dia 80mm turbine wheel with all due respect, it is not nonsense. the 80mm turbine wheel is a larger diameter wheel and inherently higher stress blade. i agree with the 2nd part of your post however

in my opinion, the 8474 will make the 9174 obsolete. the 9280 looks to be the big boy that we always hoped the 9180 would be. It moves way more air, at lower shaft speeds via much larger compressor inducer. Keep in mind the 9180 was custom specced for indycar and once the teams switched to twin 7163... the 9180 became less relevant. especially considering how easy it was to overspeed the 9274 is still more resistant to overspeed than 9280, so 9274 + 1.45 a/r will continue to be my recommendation for people that will push their setup as hard as can be. it will have higher TIP than 9280 but everything is a compromise... you just need to figure out what works best for you and your goals

agreed. i had the 9180 on my 2.6L and it didnt work nearly as well as the 9180 on a 3.0L. 8474 is what i will use on my 2.6L this time around. RB26 stock stroke is not great at spooling big single turbos

8474, 9274, 9280 have not started shipping yet. I expect this will happen this week. if anyone has a turbo already its a pre production unit, they have not started shipping as of right now