Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My 6258 got pulled off the other day. Still in excellent condition after its first 17psi track outing. :)

Should have everything back together soon, then back on the dyno without an air leak... Hopefully.

IMG_9106.jpg

Still looking good. :)

Turbine housing and exhaust manifold have both been ceramic coated, flange surfaces on the inlet manifold have been machined (3 of 4 were out of tolerance apparently), oil drain will be rectified next time I have a day off. Then I'll slap it back together, and it get back on the dyno, hopefully, with the mystery air leak sorted out.

Tha coating looks great. I'll do that on mine for sure.

I'm just REALLY frustrated about which one to get. "over-revving" these turbos seems to be a big no-no which sux because a 6258 looks ideal for awesome response on a 2.15L SR20 but even though I'm happy to run it down to 60% efficiency up near rev limiter, it's going beyond the "recommended" RPM. Not interested in th 6758 at all. It's compressor map looks horrible and the 7064's inducer is smaller anyway.

I just wish turbos were more customisable. I think the 70mm compressor model should also be offered with a 61mm turbine for smaller engines and a T3 divided .82 housing as well to fill the gap between the T25 .64 and the T4 divided .92/T3 .82 (both spool about the same).

Tha coating looks great. I'll do that on mine for sure.

I'm just REALLY frustrated about which one to get. "over-revving" these turbos seems to be a big no-no which sux because a 6258 looks ideal for awesome response on a 2.15L SR20 but even though I'm happy to run it down to 60% efficiency up near rev limiter, it's going beyond the "recommended" RPM. Not interested in th 6758 at all. It's compressor map looks horrible and the 7064's inducer is smaller anyway.

I just wish turbos were more customisable. I think the 70mm compressor model should also be offered with a 61mm turbine for smaller engines and a T3 divided .82 housing as well to fill the gap between the T25 .64 and the T4 divided .92/T3 .82 (both spool about the same).

What are the RPM limits on the EFR's?

IMG_9106.jpg

Still looking good. :)

Turbine housing and exhaust manifold have both been ceramic coated, flange surfaces on the inlet manifold have been machined (3 of 4 were out of tolerance apparently), oil drain will be rectified next time I have a day off. Then I'll slap it back together, and it get back on the dyno, hopefully, with the mystery air leak sorted out.

That looks real clean. Who did the coating and what did it cost for the housing?

I just wish turbos were more customisable. I think the 70mm compressor model should also be offered with a 61mm turbine for smaller engines and a T3 divided .82 housing as well to fill the gap between the T25 .64 and the T4 divided .92/T3 .82 (both spool about the same).

So get a 3071?

Anyway, i was at a track day recently and another s13 was out there with a .64 6758.

Basic built red top, 260/12mm camtechs, greddy intake manifold maybe and a high mount manifold. The thing was making a touch over 300rwkw at 21psi all in by 3500. Cheating with E85 but still very impressive.

I certainly wouldn't discount them.

So get a 3071?

Anyway, i was at a track day recently and another s13 was out there with a .64 6758.

Basic built red top, 260/12mm camtechs, greddy intake manifold maybe and a high mount manifold. The thing was making a touch over 300rwkw at 21psi all in by 3500. Cheating with E85 but still very impressive.

I certainly wouldn't discount them.

3071R is bigger that a 7064. I want smaller. I'd use a 7064 over a 6758, even if I lost 150rpm of spool (which is all the dirrefence would be) in exchange for 10psi less exhaust manifold pressure and and extra 30kw up top. Makes for a way safer setup. It just annoys me that one must choose between a T25 .64 turbine housing and the next thing up is a T3 .82 with nothing in between. A T3 .82 divided housing for the 6258 through to 7670 would be just SO WINNING!

  • 3 weeks later...

E&H Motors in NZ have just released results of their testing with a twin scroll GTX3076R versus a twin scroll EFR7670 on their 2litre STI track car - worth noting that these results are not "all in", they have a stronger motor which will be used for that in future. From what the owner/tuner says it seems the EFR is much nicer to drive, and it sounds a bit like the EFR was seeming more eager to keep making more power.

Dyno plots:

CarlSubie415kw32psi.jpg

carlsubieEFR142428psi.jpg

EFRvrsGTXPower.jpg

I think it was just that they were aiming for an EFR7670 from the start, and ended up getting a GTX3076R to get going because of the huge waits for getting an EFR - or something to that effect. The test wasn't to because they were doing a shoot out, more just a result of having both turbos.

I know they've had a twin scroll GT3582R as well, I might see if they ever tried that on the Subaru....

Seems the EFR turbos don't need E85 to make good numbers - another Kiwi lad had his RB30DET R32 GTR tuned running a .92a/r twin scroll EFR8374 today on BP Ultimate, 462kw @ hubs on 20psi... full boost by 3300rpm.

Not too shabby!

Nice!

If only using one of these turbos was realistic. Waiting forever and having a questionable lifespan is very off putting.

Not that Id be at all interested anymore, owning a T3 6boost now -_-

Very nice! For the SR20? What trubro is going on it?

The life span of them don't seem to be a problem since the foundry change, I actually know of a few people using them - a 550whp STI I know has been using a 7670 lately with no issue, an EVO track car over here has also been using an EFR8374 and it has been performing excellently

Yeap for my SR. My DET block is down at the machinist right now, im waiting for a call to tell me what size slugs to order.

Having done as much reading as possible into readily available options I couldnt go past a simple TD06. The FP 73HTA wheel apparently needs a bit of energy to be turned and isnt likely to be as responsive as the old 20g item (more or less making it useless for me as I want 270-300kw). I also found a number of resources from people saying they had owned 3071 and TD06 SR's and found the TD06 to be a lot better matched.

So yeah, logical deduction lead me back to a simple kando TD06. $560 later and its crackin.

Sorry peeps, back to BW EFR :)

I wouldn't have (don't think I did) ever suggest the 73HTA for yours anyway - I reckon a 68HTA would have been great. I also lean towards TD06-20G vs GT3071R as well. Shame BW aren't doing EFR6758s in T3 though, I reckon one of those on an SR20 would be mental.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
×
×
  • Create New...