Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Dyno result from an EVO on E85 with a single scroll internally gated EFR8374:

EPSON027.jpg

Apparently ~620whp on that particular dyno makes a late model EVO good for 9.8 @ 143mph, given they gave the thing a sh1ttonne of boost to make that power I'm not so blown away by the power (which is still well respectable) but the power delivery I think is pretty impressive.

Not that the video is the most imformative, you can tell it starts pulling quite hard quite early within its relative powerband:

42psi with 9.0 comp ratio! That's insanity. And nice to see an evo engine holds torque like that. All previous dyno printouts were showing pretty steep fall of the torque curve in the upper rpm range. Or is it a 4B11 on this dyno sheet?

With that mentioned, I would not say the result is all that impressive. 42 psi is what, 3.85 pressue ratio? As per comp map, BW 83mm compressor flows ~74lb of air max, that should give roughly 700-720hp on petrol and some more on E85. So either evo loses ridiculous amount of power through the tranny, or something is wrong. Or compressor map is a bit too optimistic...

They had actually gone from a GT4088R to the EFR8374, and changed from 280deg cams to 272deg - which is probably on the small side for an EVO making that kind of power... they were trying to spread the torque out a bit, which looks like it has worked. Apparently that particular dyno reads really low, I'm not 100% sure what you'd expect from 630whp/470wkw though I'd have thought 143mph doesn't suggest a harsh dyno.

Its definitely a 4G63, I've seen plenty of 4Gs rev that hard or harder - its how early it starts as well which is quite impressive. I'd not call that power really any more impressive than what a GT3582R would do given everything its got.

So was it a 4B11 or 4G63? They certainly made torque curve hold with those cams.

Compared to this:

borgwarner-efr-8374-turbo-content-12.jpg

BTW, I'm honestly not into 1/4 mile, is 143mph high or low for a 4wd 470kw car?

Edit: Sorry man, didn't see the second part of your post there. 4G, hmm.. I would have thought it was a 4B11 head and port geometry that resulted in that kind of torque.

Edited by Legionnaire

They had actually gone from a GT4088R to the EFR8374, and changed from 280deg cams to 272deg - which is probably on the small side for an EVO making that kind of power... they were trying to spread the torque out a bit, which looks like it has worked. Apparently that particular dyno reads really low, I'm not 100% sure what you'd expect from 630whp/470wkw though I'd have thought 143mph doesn't suggest a harsh dyno.

Its definitely a 4G63, I've seen plenty of 4Gs rev that hard or harder - its how early it starts as well which is quite impressive. I'd not call that power really any more impressive than what a GT3582R would do given everything its got.

Low for a US dyno, inline with local results for us though as it's a Mustang and not dynojet.

For the uninformed, dynojets will typically give a higher peak power with a later peak torque when compared to a mustang or dyno dynamics read out.

They are claiming it reads low even for a Mustang, hence me using the trap speeds to get an indicator of real world power. How much power would you expect a full weight EVO to need to go 143mph in the 1/4?

Edit: Sorry man, didn't see the second part of your post there. 4G, hmm.. I would have thought it was a 4B11 head and port geometry that resulted in that kind of torque.

Have you looked at many 4G63 results? That particular dyno plot for the SSE is pretty average looking power delivery, for some reason.

BTW, speaking of EVOs and EFR turbos - finally a twin scroll EFR7670 result, 2.3litre stroker EVO running 30psi on E85:

Robi_Denkers_Red_RS.jpg

I LIKE!!!

Have you looked at many 4G63 results? That particular dyno plot for the SSE is pretty average looking power delivery, for some reason.

It does look average.

I haven't seen a whole lot of them, but many of those I've seen had steep torque drop after ~5000 rpm. IDK why is that so, maybe cams are not hot enough, or something else is amiss, but lots of 4G63's do it.

Even on the graph you've posted. Torque goes down by 200lb/ft after 5000 rpm.

But not a bad result overall. 640hp (it's a flywheel figure i should think?) on E85, and all in by 4000. With 98RON we can expect slightly better response and 80-100hp less power. Would make a potent turbo for an RB25. GT30 response with almost GT35 power - nice!

Edited by Legionnaire

It does look average.

I haven't seen a whole lot of them, but many of those I've seen had steep torque drop after ~5000 rpm. IDK why is that so, maybe cams are not hot enough, or something else is amiss, but lots of 4G63's do it.

Even on the graph you've posted. Torque goes down by 200lb/ft after 5000 rpm.

But not a bad result overall. 640hp (it's a flywheel figure i should think?) on E85, and all in by 4000. With 98RON we can expect slightly better response and 80-100hp less power. Would make a potent turbo for an RB25. GT30 response with almost GT35 power - nice!

Nah power at the hubs, TCF field is used if flywheel power is going to be estimated... that value is 1.00 is this instance so subject to transmission losses. This car it's comfortably making over 700hp at the crank going by that dyno plot, it would be respectable power for a 35R on E85 on a hub dyno... it's a really good result imho

Well, looks like I know nothing about dynapack dynos. If it's power at HUBS, it's better than really good. It's excellent. Awesome. I wouldn't expect so much power at only 30 psi from 76mm compressor, even on E85.

But now things start looking odd. 640 hub hp with 7670 at 30 psi, but only 620whp from 8374 at 42psi? Something is wrong here...

Oh, and do EVOs really have 6.4 final drive ratio?

Whatever gear they ran it in it's obviously not 1:1, not sure if or how much it would effect the reading. The 8374 result is likely to be closer to 700hub hp or so

Have you looked at many 4G63 results? That particular dyno plot for the SSE is pretty average looking power delivery, for some reason.

BTW, speaking of EVOs and EFR turbos - finally a twin scroll EFR7670 result, 2.3litre stroker EVO running 30psi on E85:

Robi_Denkers_Red_RS.jpg

I LIKE!!!

Now we are talking... That looks very impressive :)

700- hub hp is a pretty long way from 620 whp, I'm not sure if that much power is lost in tyres, usually it's closer to 30-40hp?

But we're also not forgetting the fact that 8374 was it its smallest housing, whereas 7670 was in larger TS hsg.

By the way, was that TS housing in 7670 IG or EG?

Its EG, and I have seen differences of over ten pc between some hub and roller dynos but it's all speculation. I am not sure whats up with the 8374 result but I think one way or another it's low. This result however is intense, if it's accurate it's 335kw by 4000rpm which is outright brutal. Need more results to flow through to start finding a trend

Yes, 7670 result is outstanding. As for the comparison of the two, we're talking the same thing as 1.06 GT(X)30 vs. .63 GT(X)35 - largest available housing for smaller and smallest for bigger turbo, it may contribute to less than impressive result of the 8374. But I agree, we need to wait for some more results to draw any useful conclusion.

Particularly interested in their TS IWG results. Do you happen to know if BW resolved issues with manufacturing of those?

I think it was all ts, not just the ig ones - the fact this result had emerged has to be a good sign

They must be getting them out now then.....I still haven't heard anything yet :domokun:

The tuner of the car with the EFR7670 posted above has taken the time to share thoughts and also address people's "Dyno generosity" related posts which naturally come up with this kind of result, so here go the facts:

_This_ AWD Dynapack 6000 consistently reads 9% higher than the Mustangs @ GST' date=' Reese and GReddy. I can’t speak for other Mustang dynos. On two cars it read 2% lower than the TT AWD Dynojet. There is one AWD Dynapack in So Cal that reads a good 6-7% higher than mine. The other Dynapack is an older 2000+4000 so maybe that has something to do with the difference and myth.

Charts:

Running the car at different boost levels. Robi was looking for something in the 500 whp range to keep the car driveable on a road course. Scot (tuner) could not get the car to run below 18 psi so 524 is the lowest hp there can be.

[img']http://roadraceengineering.com/dynapack/dynos/DenkersEVO_BorgWarner-Dyno/800/Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS.jpg[/img]

Up around 30 psi and with E-85, there was a little ignition breakup. This car has a Sparktech COP setup which is one of the only COP kits we see that is trouble free. But whit this WHP and E-85 it could use an ignition amplifier box. The red pull at 28 psi peak and ~600 whp is the highest clean pull. The green pull is the most that the ignition could take.

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-boost.jpg

The numbers in the green and yellow boxes are the boost, torque or hp wherever the markers are set at. On this set of runs they are set on the highest and lowest peaks.

Full chart showing the weather station info. This is the red clean run. We are in a bit of a heat wave here in So Cal (101 daytime at the shop), it was still pretty warm in the dyno room. :

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-chart.jpg

Looks like the SAE correction hit 5.6%

Same charts as above with weather correction set @ NONE:

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-nocorrection.jpg

For the guys that know how to use a DYnapack, here is the F11 setup. No crazy settle time, 11 second run.

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-f11.jpg

I don’t know all the details of his old setup other than it didn’t suck. It only looks sad when compared to this turbo/motor combo. Red and green this Borg Warner turbo, orange and teal color runs his old setup.:

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-vs%20oldsetup.jpg

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-vs%20oldsetup-boost.jpg

For a currency conversion to your favorite dyno… his clean 600whp run compared to dead stock untooned 2011 X MR (red and blue) and a 2010 X GSR (red and green)

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-compare_stock_Xs.jpg

Robi%20Denkers%20Red%20RS-compare_stock_Xs-boost.jpg

Dyno War all you want. This turbo/manifold/motor setup rocks :-P I have a 2.4 with a 30R on E-85 on my own track EVO 8 and a 2.5 with a 30R customer car and they can _almost_ match the spool of this setup. But they need to run way more boost and have nowhere near the top end of this kit.

High res images:

http://roadraceengineering.com/dynapack/dynos/DenkersEVO_BorgWarner-Dyno/

Mike W

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, that is it! It is a pretty expensive process with the ATF costing 50-100 per 5 litres, and a mechanic will probably charge plenty because they don't want to do it. Still, considering how dirty my fluid was at 120,000klm I think it would be worth doing more like every 80,000 to keep the trans happy, they are very expensive to replace. The job is not that hard if you have the specialist tools so you can save a bit of money and do it yourself!
    • OK, onto filling. So I don't really have any pics, but will describe the process as best I can. The USDM workshop manual also covers it from TM-285 onwards. First, make sure the drain plug (17mm) is snug. Not too tight yet because it is coming off again. Note it does have a copper washer that you could replace or anneal (heat up with a blow torch) to seal nicely. Remove the fill plug, which has an inhex (I think it was 6mm but didn't check). Then, screw in the fill fitting, making sure it has a suitable o-ring (mine came without but I think it is meant to be supplied). It is important that you only screw it in hand tight. I didn't get a good pic of it, but the fill plug leads to a tube about 70mm long inside the transmission. This sets the factory level for fluid in the trans (above the join line for the pan!) and will take about 3l to fill. You then need to connect your fluid pump to the fitting via a hose, and pump in whatever amount of fluid you removed (maybe 3 litres, in my case 7 litres). If you put in more than 3l, it will spill out when you remove the fitting, so do quickly and with a drain pan underneath. Once you have pumped in the required amount of clean ATF, you start the engine and run it for 3 minutes to let the fluid circulate. Don't run it longer and if possible check the fluid temp is under 40oC (Ecutek shows Auto Trans Fluid temp now, or you could use an infrared temp gun on the bottom of the pan). The manual stresses the bit about fluid temperature because it expands when hot an might result in an underfil. So from here, the factory manual says to do the "spill and fill" again, and I did. That is, put an oil pan under the drain plug and undo it with a 17mm spanner, then watch your expensive fluid fall back out again, you should get about 3 litres.  Then, put the drain plug back in, pump 3 litres back in through the fill plug with the fitting and pump, disconnect the fill fitting and replace the fill plug, start the car and run for another 3 minutes (making sure the temp is still under 40oC). The manual then asks for a 3rd "spill and fill" just like above. I also did that and so had put 13l in by now.  This time they want you to keep the engine running and run the transmission through R and D (I hope the wheels are still off the ground!) for a while, and allow the trans temp to get to 40oC, then engine off. Finally, back under the car and undo the fill plug to let the overfill drain out; it will stop running when fluid is at the top of the levelling tube. According to the factory, that is job done! Post that, I reconnected the fill fitting and pumped in an extra 0.5l. AMS says 1.5l overfill is safe, but I started with less to see how it goes, I will add another 1.0 litres later if I'm still not happy with the hot shifts.
    • OK, so regardless of whether you did Step 1 - Spill Step 2 - Trans pan removal Step 3 - TCM removal we are on to the clean and refill. First, have a good look at the oil pan. While you might see dirty oil and some carbony build up (I did), what you don't want to see is any metal particles on the magnets, or sparkles in the oil (thankfully not). Give it all a good clean, particularly the magnets, and put the new gasket on if you have one (or, just cross your fingers) Replacement of the Valve body (if you removed it) is the "reverse of assembly". Thread the electrical socket back up through the trans case, hold the valve body up and put in the bolts you removed, with the correct lengths in the correct locations Torque for the bolts in 8Nm only so I hope you have that torque wrench handy (it feels really loose). Plug the output speed sensor back in and clip the wiring into the 2 clips, replace the spring clip on the TCM socket and plug it back into the car loom. For the pan, the workshop manual states the following order: Again, the torque is 8Nm only.
    • One other thing to mention from my car before we reassemble and refill. Per that earlier diagram,   There should be 2x B length (40mm) and 6x C length (54mm). So I had incorrectly removed one extra bolt, which I assume was 40mm, but even so I have 4x B and 5x C.  Either, the factory made an assembly error (very unlikely), or someone had been in there before me. I vote for the latter because the TCM part number doesn't match my build date, I suspect the TCM was changed under warranty. This indeed led to much unbolting, rebolting, checking, measuring and swearing under the car.... In the end I left out 1x B bolt and put in a 54mm M6 bolt I already had to make sure it was all correct
    • A couple of notes about the TCM. Firstly, it is integrated into the valve body. If you need to replace the TCM for any reason you are following the procedure above The seppos say these fail all the time. I haven't seen or heard of one on here or locally, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Finally, Ecutek are now offering tuning for the 7 speed TCM. It is basically like ECU tuning in that you have to buy a license for the computer, and then known parameters can be reset. This is all very new and at the moment they are focussing on more aggressive gear holding in sports or sports+ mode, 2 gear launches for drag racing etc. It doesn't seem to affect shift speed like you can on some transmissions. Importantly for me, by having controllable shift points you can now raise the shift point as well as the ECU rev limit, together allowing it to rev a little higher when that is useful. In manual mode, my car shifts up automatically regardless of what I do which is good (because I don't have to worry about it) but bad (because I can't choose to rev a little higher when convenient).  TCMs can only be tuned from late 2016 onwards, and mine is apparently not one of those although the car build date was August 2016 (presumably a batch of ADM cars were done together, so this will probably be the situation for most ADM cars). No idea about JDM cars, and I'm looking into importing a later model valve body I can swap in. This is the top of my TCM A couple of numbers but no part number. Amayama can't find my specific car but it does say the following for Asia-RHD (interestingly, all out of stock....): So it looks like programable TCM are probably post September 2018 for "Asia RHD". When I read my part number out from Ecutek it was 31705-75X6D which did not match Amayama for my build date (Aug-2016)
×
×
  • Create New...