Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

good to hear things are working for you john, eager for you to get some seat time and finally experience the turbos at full song. btw did you guys get the ets-pro going

Car survived run in on the dyno today. It made 375kw at 6000rpm off wastegate (16psi), timing at 18degrees and .9lambda so still heaps more to come at final tune. Cams not touched and boost all in below 4000rpm.

Looking very promising.....

ETS Pro all installed but yet to be tested. Will definately let you know how it goes.

Hopefully with the availability issues gone, we can start to see a lot more results and discussion again.

The Boost Lab received one EFR 7064 .92 last week and I snavelled it up straight away. I should get it in about 2 weeks which is roughly when I should get my block back with the Darton sleeves fitted. If I get the turbo before the block, I'll fit a spare rooted SR20 into the car so I can make an exhaust manifold ASAP. I seriously am sooooo keen to get this thing going. 2.2L, 9.6:1 comp, W2A intercooler across the front of the engine, Poncams, E33 fuel mix and EFR 7064 .92 twin scroll should be a shitload of fun for a street car, even on only 15psi through midrange (will taper boost upwards as RPM increases to hold the torque curve dead flat to at least 6000).

That is really off putting hey..

Seems to me like the delays may have been surrounding the turbine housing production and may have even been the cause of those turbine wheel failures. This new 'ugly duckling' housing might be from a more reliable source but at the cost of glamour.

Thats just me guessing though, my 2c worth anyway.

Clearly something dodge going on there.

TS housings were only available in very low numbers, but open scroll were freely available in most sizes...

I reckon someone got there hands on a TS housing and sent it into the chinese photocopier to fill a hole ion the market!

Either that or it was a genuine housing that wasn't supposed to be sold, at least at full retail (ie development version or QA fail etc)

Chris over in NZ got his 8374 TS 6 months ago (new manufacturer batch) and the quality was perfect as expected...

turb3.jpg

That last pic is a 1.05 which is a different housing that's going to be a lot easier to cast.If BorgWarner come out and state that the manky housings are the only way they can reliably make the shape of the .92, I'd be happy enough with it and just tidy up the inside with a Dremel. Deep down inside, I'm really hoping mine doesn't arrive like that though.

That last pic is a 1.05 which is a different housing that's going to be a lot easier to cast.If BorgWarner come out and state that the manky housings are the only way they can reliably make the shape of the .92, I'd be happy enough with it and just tidy up the inside with a Dremel. Deep down inside, I'm really hoping mine doesn't arrive like that though.

100% an EFR8374 TS .92

His build here: http://www.gtr.co.uk...r-then-now.html

No EWGs here...

TurboFit1.jpg

read the link i posted. the customer purchased from a bw-recommended vendor. then, he phoned bw:

"I just spoke with Brian Rhinehart of Borg Warner manufacturing directly. Unfortunately, the photos I have posted are of a genuine Borg Warner EFR 7670 twin scroll turbo."

look at the bolt holes. waaay off center. terrible.

Edited by black bnr32
The complexity of the twin scroll, twin waste-gated design had a rejection rate of over 60% at the foundry with investment casting. Borg Warner tried three different suppliers for the investment cast components, all with the same results. As a result, they switched to green-sand casting around May of this year.

I just spoke with Brian Rhinehart of Borg Warner manufacturing directly. Unfortunately, the photos I have posted are of a genuine Borg Warner EFR 7670 twin scroll turbo. This is how all new EFR units will be manufactured until they can significantly improve the rejection rate of the investment cast units. I asked for a timeframe of when they expect to have units available with investment cast turbine housings, but at the moment, they have no idea. If you or someone you know received an early EFR with the investment cast turbine housing, consider yourself/them lucky.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Brian informed me that Borg Warner conducted extensive flow testing of the green-sand cast units and, while they are not as pretty to look at, the results were all well within the margin of error (less than 1%). In other words, the ugly units perform just as well as the pretty, investment cast units.

That being said, I'm still not 100% satisfied with the inside passages of my specific turbine housing. I may return it for an identical unit if they are still in stock, provided I can get some indication that the replacement will have a better finish.

Edited by SimonR32

Bugger. I guess my 7064 is going to look much like that. As soon as I can get my hands on the EFR 7163 with the new 0.80 divided housing, I'll be switching to that anyway. I only chose the .92 because there were no smaller divided options.

It's very frustrating waiting 2 years for a turbo then it arrives and there is another turbo that's pretty much better in every way already announced.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Wow, selective quoting by first quoter - but still, very very very very VERY disappointed in what BW are doing there. Just when I started warming to the EFR range they are blatantly being crooks, that is disgusting. Understand that they are doing these housings to fill orders, but they REALLY should be telling people (and charging as such) that the product is NOT the investment cast housing version (that is one of the justifications of the pricing and the wait) instead of just supplying them with a nasty surprise.

Here I was working backwards from page 43 in that build thread. That photo was posted in January. What makes you think it's current revision?

It is still current mate, stop spinning rubbish.

WHOA..

Where did that info come from Simon?

That beemer forum that was linked last page

It is still current mate, stop spinning rubbish.

Looks like they have changed the casting process now so he is actually right and the current ones are all going to have these new manky housings

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • After using a protractor for an actually accurate assessment of what is required,  and by NOT using my uncalibrated eyeball I worked out I need a 25° silicone bend from the TB ro the MAF, but, my choice was either a 30° or a 23° (23° is a weird spec), so I grabbed the 23° one from Raceworks I also grabbed 1mtr of 3" straight from Just Jap, I needed 350mm, but they only had 300mm, or 1mtr lengths....meh Also ordered a 1/2" hose bulkhead fitting from fleabay, this has a smoothish mushroom looking head (they are designed for below the water line of boats) that will fit inside the bend, the hose bit and threaded bit looks to long, but nothing that a hacksaw cannot fix if required, the hose will then just get jamed on the threaded bit up to the retaining nut Fingers crossed and the unsightly amount of hose clamps will be reduced down to 4 once all the parts arrive 
    • Oil change does not trigger code 21. Code 21 is for coilpacks primary side connection. You can try to clear the code with a battery disconnect, hold down the brake pedal to drain capacitors through the brake lights with the ignition on for 10-15 seconds before you reconnect the battery. I have seen R35 coil conversion permanently cause this code with no ill effects so it might be the resistance it wants to see isn't quite right on one or more coilpacks. Could be inside the ECU, could be the harness, could be a coil. You can test it all if you want or just ignore until the car actually starts misfiring.
    • I forgot you have a Nistune ECU. Use Nistune to do all the tests I mentioned instead of faffing with 30+ year old electrical connectors. You can read MAF volts off that too, there are reference values in the service manual to tell you roughly what it should be in different conditions.
    • No. I think it might be the AFM. Hence the use of the terms "swaptronics", which implies the use of swapping out electronics for the purpose of diagnosis. It's about the only way to prove that a small/niggling/whatever problem with an AFM or a CAS or similar is actually caused by that AFM/CAS/whatever. A known good item swapped in that still gives the same problem is likely to be caused somewhere else. They're all the same. Spraying AFMs with cleaner is an each way bet between cleaning it and f**king it.
    • Oh wow! This might actually work amazingly. Do you know the ratio of the diff? I was told the only thing you need to make sure of is if the front & rear diff ratios are the same. Ours is a 4.083 Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...