Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

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

Sorry, I re-read his post, makes sense... apologies Brad.

Just talked to Jon @ Full Race who also confirmed that BW have changed the manufacturing process on these to ramp up the production rate.

He did say that particular one in the bimmer forum thread above was the worst he has seen though.

Richard, are 6258s the largest twin you can fit in the engine? Im keen to try a set on my OS rb26/30 time attack r32. I don't mind whether it's internal or external gates but Im keeping with the twin for response.

front turbo is low and quite forward, rear turbo sits higher to allow it's intake to clear the front turbos dump.

pics just for you sweet heart.

img2149y.jpg

img2163g.jpg

Edited by 9krpm

Seeing as you guys are hanging for some results, not that it is overly relevant to you guys but will give you some idea. Were not leaning on it in any way shape or form, when my new motor is finished we will really see how it performs.

Stock Evo 5 Motor apart from

EFR7064 T4 1.05

HKS 274/278 Cams

Plazmaman Cooler

ID1000's

Aeromotive 340 Pump

Okada Projects Coils

Vipec ECU

Running on Caltex E-Flex

nathan_evo5.jpg

Nice! I'm hoping for boost earlier than that but I only really want/need 250rwkw so hopefully my smaller turbine housing, smaller cams, 160cc more capacity and higher comp engine will give me my target boost threshold of about 3000rpm. Fingers crossed.

I think for 250kw u have the wrong turbo, this thing will go 350 on my new motor. We could get boost on earlier as we havent touched the cams yet but ont he stock motor we dont want to put to much stress on it. New motor will be higher comp and mivec so will come on much sooner.

The problem is that the EFR 6758 is quite inefficient compared to the others, especially at low boost. Also the only turbine housing option is the T2 .64 which is too restrictive for my engine. I'm building a high compression, high flowing engine to run a big turbo at low boost. I could whack a 6258 on it and run 22psi but that's not the type of setup I want to run.

I plan to replace the 7064 with a 7163 with the divided 0.80 housing after a year or so.

Edited by bradsm87

fair enough, yea the 7163 looks the goods, I wonder if it could make it to 380.... I think I will be moving up to a 7670 on my new engine as I want to turn it to 9500 and I think the 7064 will struggle to hold 28-30psi at that kind of rpm, even the 7670 might struggle, maybe an 8374 will be on the cards haha.

Crikey.....I do prefer the look of my investment cast 8374 housing, however I am concidering going to a 1.06a/r rear in the future:(. Oh well, if it doesn't hurt performance, so be it.

I just got mine and mine is just as bad as the one in the pics including the far off-centre bolt holes. I've been waiting so long that I'm just going to fill in one side on the turbine entry to make it smaller and symmetrical because I'll be blocking the internal gate anyway so may as well block it using a couple of bits of stainless plate to better direct air into the housing.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • By popular demand.. it was a coil. Got my hands on 1 new OEM coil, replaced with the one that made the less noise difference when I unplugged it while the car was running and started the car up. No stutter and the engine light was gone. I guess I’ll buy the other 5 they have lol
    • No, code 21 is very straightforward. It can only be the things described in that diagnostic flow. In fact it has no way of knowing that the spark plug resistance is out of spec.
    • Hi, SteveL Thank you very much for your reply, you seem to be the only person on the net who has come up with a definitive answer for which I am grateful. The "Leak" was more by way of wet bubbles when the pedal was depressed hard by a buddy while trying to gey a decent pedal when bleeding the system having fitted the rebuilt BM50 back in the car, which now makes perfect sense. A bit of a shame having just rebuilt my BM50, I did not touch the proportioning valve side of things, the BM50 was leaking from the primary piston seal and fluid was running down the the Brake booster hence the need to rebuild, I had never noticed any fluid leaking from that hole previously it only started when I refitted it to the car. The brake lines in the photo are "Kunifer" which is a Copper/Nickel alloy brake pipe, but are only the ones I use to bench bleed Master cylinders, they are perfectly legal to use on vehicles here in the UK, however the lines on the car are PVF coated steel. Thanks again for clearing this up for me, a purchase of a new BMC appears to be on the cards, I have been looking at various options in case my BM50 was not repairable and have looked at the HFM BM57 which I understand is manufactured in Australia.  
    • Well the install is officially done. Filled with fluid and bled it today, but didn't get a chance to take it on a test drive. I'll throw some final pics of the lines and whatnot but you can definitely install a DMAX rack in an R33 with pretty minor mods. I think the only other thing I had to do that isn't documented here is grind a bit of the larger banjo fitting to get it to clear since the banjos are grouped much tighter on the DMAX rack. Also the dust boots from a R33 do not fit either fyi, so if you end up doing this install for whatever reason you'll need to grab those too. One caveat with buying the S15 dust boots however is that the clamps are too small to fit on the R33 inner tie rod since they're much thicker so keep the old clamps around. The boots also twist a bit when adjusting toe but it's not a big deal. No issues or leaks so far, steering feels good and it looks like there's a bit more lock now than I had before. Getting an alignment on Saturday so I'll see how it feels then but seems like it'll be good to go       
×
×
  • Create New...