RICE RACING

Without divulging too much I can share that the maximum acceleration of the turbo is around 60,000rpm per second (single 9180 install with 1.05AR), so looking to improve on this. With a more suitable engine type I have recorded nearly 90,000rpm per second (still on the 9180 turbo). This issue is really exposed on cars with short gearing where you are pulling through lower gears in 1 second or 1.5 seconds, so you just don't reach the boost targets, nice problem to have :) Loading the turbo by having more appropriate gearing is one solution, but always an improvement via big reductions of inertia is first step, and we need more power capacity so potentially can win in all area's and more happy turbo too, lets see.....

The inertia is allot less on 2 x 7163 v's 1 x 9180, thus Geoff's comments, so everything will improve, especially on transients irrespective of engine rpm/per second (acceleration rate), but the higher this number the more advantage will be on the twin set up. The reason why Honda went from nugget to dominant, only change was turbo specification, there is enough space to do it and you don't need 'horse cock' exhaust manifolds either, far from it, I always found these to be stupid in a turbo engine, even on more sensitive engines types. Less typing, more testing lets see, first have to break the 9180, but am surprised how much over speed it has taken so far, well off speed and compressor charts! Only real issue with it apart from not enough air flow is not enough transient response, thus the whole idea of twins before going to max homo route and un drivable shit box larger single turbo.

The issue here is spinning the turbo, not the engine, its all relative, 2.2lt 11k or 3.2lt 7.5k, same thing at end of the day There is no issue on the inlet side (japs or aftermarket in general is full of crack pot ideas/theory), the problem is totally in the exhaust phasing/scavenge which is negated with split pulse twin gate, but what is lost is stupid levels of internal volume and cross talk getting rid of any of the benefits of split pulse. So it all goes back full circle to lowering the K value of the rotating mass, and that is why twins is superior and always will be honestly. Only thing left is to do a direct comparison of 7163 x 2 V's a single 9180, we will get to that eventually and if owner is happy will share here.

It's already out there, Indy car, every type of V6 (sans regulated current F1 with MGUH). I don't know of any serious race engine (6cyl or greater) since the mid 1980's that runs a single turbo where low gear high rpm per second 'acceleration' response is as important as top/high speed power production. Will use the Indy car 7163 set up, similar to this but in IWG for simplicity and cause we have zero issues running maximum boost at all rpm with advanced phase and anti phase capsule control in Life Racing based ECU. While I don't have the polar moment of inertia specs I am sure based off the Indycar experience (Honda using 1 x 9180 then going to 2 x 7163's) that its much less than half, and given half the motor drives each turbine/compressor/shaft/seals drag etc its a net big win on response..... If people are interested I can put up the issue I highlighted where you just do not get this on the current single turbo install despite running a true twin gated 'split pulse' exhaust manifold, the 6 cyl engine just does not harness this well at all in my experience, and its shown up on a 1-2-3-4-5 gear run at full throttle

Hey Geoff, >23 minutes on load and >68,000 engine cycles proves its no one hit wonder, only 19 and 1/2 hours to go Car is getting fitted up with Alcon 6 pot brake upgrade and the fat heap of shit just wont stop when doing repeated tests (the Datsun is no Mazda!), as we don't use parachutes hahaha. Customer is happy though which is main thing > http://www.riceracing.com.au/rides.htm Then its time for the final solution, the twin EFR kit. I am however quite impressed with the level of over engineering in the EFR9180, it can take some abuse! biggest issue with it though is not really compatible with a 6cyl engine (or any single turbo for that matter at this power/performance level) in a true street car application, as we discussed at length There is some merit for not only dog engagement but more importantly more correct gear ratio's, I always said a turbo engine especially does not ever need narrow spaced NA power challenged rpm drops 1:1 5th for example, and there are many proven examples where a 5 speed with 1:1 4th is a superior set up, but that is an argument for another thread I guess? With the 1.05A/R and this power level even given the 'EFR' attributes it still is lacking in single turbo form, so that is why I will steer him towards the twin's, more power, with more transient response.

Top work Orlando Water is the key here, as you know there is way too much ignorance around this. 100% Methanol detonates in spectacular fashion in drag applications as does Ethanol. The Aquamist systems I have found to be great, we focus heavily on fueling quality and qty, as well as cylinder combustion stability in all operating conditions. Keep it up mate.

He will be fine ?

True, I guess we are taking it one step further? and there is massive gains to be had when then looking at the housing option and other parts I mentioned above (forgetting sequential trans for a second, though they also suffer from same effects looking at the ~80ms on average power cut) its amplified in something with short gearing like the R34 6 speed. We are talking on an incremental of 100kph to 200kph with just one gear shift of around 1 second, which is significant.... So you go full circle without sounding like a know it all on the internet :) this 'advice' of map/tip of 1.000 on full power is a joke honestly I'd hate to drive it, would be good at 300kph though :P

One of the biggest things for lack of performance with these types of engines (6cyl) is the way the spool up an engine (not well) and this is shown up when you are changing gears. This is why least on this combination of engine and turbo I did not want to use a larger turbine housing personally, I advised strongly against it. You can see in this interim test below you are looking at a point where there is inclusive of lifting off accelerator and going back to 100% that the turbocharger takes about 1.5 seconds to go back to the target pressure. The end effects on vehicle performance is significant indeed. I get around this by using essentially anti lag effect (demonstrated below), there is no transient delays, remember this is a 1.05AR turbine housing set up on a larger than normal engine, FYI we tested this on the standard RB26 and this turbo was just too large, nice power but shit performance in real world. You can get amazing performance on the OEM 6 speed syncro box, just have to use all the tools in the ECU but its tricky cause if you don't have all of the strategies (turbo speed control for example) its easy to break the turbine, we are still on the original one :) 2nd to 3rd gear (keep in mine with this level of performance) it pulls through say third in under 1.5 seconds, so when you look at transients on gear shift starting mid 6k to high 8.4k rpm then everything is amplified when you are considering response, what works on a dyno or in 4th gear on road will not work when accelerating 1st,2nd,3rd on the street.... This is why some 'really powerful cars' are nuggets in the real world. It's all about the average power, not just in a dyno sheet loaded in one gear but actually when accelerating through the gears, I think lots of people miss this basic point. Normal Gas turbine effect (no transient losses)

In this cars case (and all of them I run) we use advanced phase and anti phase capsule control on the wastegate/s. I think this is a big part to it as even in the rotary engines I do lots of others report the same symptom of power drop off, common problem it seems on EFR turbo's? Here is the engine power and torque derived (take it for what you will) but in reality it does 100kph to 200kph in ~4.951 seconds using 3rd and 4th gear and long G equivalent @ 200kph of Dave's VQ35 R32 GTR on twin EFR's Power and torque (shapes)

We have done over 50,000+ engine cycles at on-load which is on average 85% or greater of the peak power, so its indicative of a proper durability test, to date over 18 minutes on load. Once some more proper testing is done I'll see if owner wants to unleash some of the findings here, first steps though are to prove the durability, not into drags (seconds) or one lap wonders (a few minutes), rather we are talking hours

Testing EFR9180 to its 'limits' while still keeping response as a priority, lots of other incidental items like anti lag on gear shifting using OEM gearbox too.

map/tip relationship to air flow power loss EGT pumping losses acceleartion various map levels 1700mB to 2900mB knock Also tested and still testing long term durability turbine speed limits This is done on OS315 RB Tomei built engine in R34GTR What I have found is 'interesting' and not normally shared on internet (not that I looked that hard) or found easily, I think anyone serious does not post these bits especially if they are pushing limits as we are but I can let Geoff answer further. Regardless to say you will see some items are not as they are claimed to be which is not unusual given the types of people in the after market world and the equipment they are using, not meant to be a put down its just a fact of life. :)

Some of us have already done all the comparisons :P map/tip is the way you should be looking at it as pressure differential across the engine, and its not a text book relationship either, talking 3.15lt engine here on 9180 turbo. Acceleration data in real world is your best indicator if you are running say 1700mB map with optimized ignition and fuel and then on 2850mB map you have double the acceleration, then all the 'theory' of excessive pumping losses on exhaust stroke or egr effects counts for little except maybe on arsebook or some other useless vlogs :) I agree with Geoff, a 1.05 on the 9180 makes for the best compromise.

If you want to use WM50 at the level I guess most here want? (to exceed E85 performance) a more realistic usage rate is say on 1% on load in 650km road driving you will use 15lt of fluid. The pictured motor and link I provided we have done this in one month of durability testing, extrapolate that out to 200lt a year so 100lt of Methanol if mixing by volume. Its more fair to express the usage rate in terms of ratio to main fuel supply, everyone's going to vary obviously depending on time on load and ultimately how much the car is driven, so you can not put a nominal figure on it based on these variables. You could be mixing WM50 every week for example.

Here is how I get around your concerns and the only real way to do this on an inline 6cyl engine. To save a pissing match or others getting upset its not an advertisement nor me selling anything. Just interested to help if they are keen to know some more feel free to ask. Performance specs listed here > http://www.aquamist.co.uk/forum2/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1590&page=42 Control aspect is fully integrated on the ECU control side, engine can be run with, without, partial, or otherwise on the water injection system. I have found this is the best way to do it, its basically automated and say if something is 'wrong' on any one part of the system the knock control (to give an example) will act as a final trip to eliminate any engine damage from ever happening to an expensive engine such as pictured below.

Not meant to come across that way

Apply that standard at the start to the clowns who called me a troll or were saying I am selling something mate, and happy to stay and educate the masses. Otherwise its looking just like every other forum that is biased towards inept commentary and one sided treatment and attacks applied to people who are not part of your inner circle. Irony of that is you wont learn from experienced people like myself who come in here when time allows to share 'relevant' industry experience, compared to drinking the cool aid self worship introspective love fest of narrow mindedness I have witnessed so far. Not one person has address any of the proven shortfalls I listed of their beloved Ethanol not a single one. But many have jumped on the bandwagon to react in a poor fashion then try to deride other alternatives and products, that sir is poor form and shows only the lack of intellect and respect on display so far. Lest see if they all can improve otherwise you will be stuck living in a narrow world view that is not much more than fake news or self validation at its finest

When my wood heater needs repairs I'll send you a PM if you can fit me into your busy schedule mate

Thanks I know its hard for lots to accept that WI is superior to the ethanol time bomb chosen mistakenly by some here.

bi

HALALtech user maybe? Wow kents you all exceeded my expectations of full retard, good luck with gagtube wikkipedo and goolag serches for knowledge, fark yeah aids 2018 in full swing here from generation zero LOL.

^ Why only run 19psi on E85 when you can run 27psi on 98 oct with a non gameboy nintendo ECU mate? FAKE NEWS KENT LOL 'gay stories' hahaha

touche