Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So the Jew in me wants a cheap good turbo.

Orginally was looking at the Kando Turbos, but they seem to change design/specs every other week, so its hard to know exactly what will be delivered when bought.

I never relised how cheap these BW Airworks turbos were (cheaper than the Kando stuff)

Im looking at the S362 ala 83-75 for my 1JZ with the aim of 400+rwkws and a mid 10 in a full weight fat kent Snoarer (eventually)

So who has used these buggers?

Specifically the S300 series on a 2.5L six.

Cheers

Andrew

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/378995-bw-airworks-turbos/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Pretty sure I have mentioned these before in regards to being an ideal affordable turbo when the Kandofandom was getting hysterical and it wasn't really heard. I unfortunately have no results to directly share but they are well documented on various international forums.. I would happily run one :) The only thing to bare in mind with the S300s is they are physically quite large.

haha yep....

So 88-75 is the S372?

I just realised im looking at the S360 not the 362

The S372 is a big bugger, I cbf checking but would guess the S366 to be 8875 equivalent.

The 83/75 should be Gt3582r like in performance, on an RB25 if you are looking at results typical of folks here I would look at the S256.

Why are there so many names for the damn things?

Do we need to bloody research and document every model just like we did the bloody MHI units?

S366... S300SX... What is what and what does it mean?

I remember looking at the S200SX and being fairly impressed.

The 91/79 is a huge turbo - that amount of lag isn't too surprising... considering I'd not be surprised if an 88/75 punched as hard as a T04Z.

GTScoTT - when I first became interested in these turbos they were known as Schwitzer S300s etc, it seems when they started being sold as BW turbos the name convention changed but some people (ie, Bullseye power) who sell them seem to have stuck with the old Schwitzer naming. The naming Borg Warner use is much more informative, and closer to the current Garrett convention (ie, exducer size).

Last weekend after indulging in a bit of rum we decided to pull out some of the turbos that were floating around the house (and a random Honda City turbo for styles sake), the result was a few size comparison pics which might be interesting in this thread.

The turbos in question are a Borg Warner S300SX 83/75 with .91a/r T4 twin scroll turbine housing, a Garrett GT3582R with an ATP 1.06a/r T4 twin scroll housing, and a stock Series2 R33 turbo :)

post-11136-0-55181000-1317681854_thumb.jpg

post-11136-0-22482100-1317681880_thumb.jpg

post-11136-0-14071100-1317681888_thumb.jpg

Pretty sure I have mentioned these before in regards to being an ideal affordable turbo when the Kandofandom was getting hysterical and it wasn't really heard. I unfortunately have no results to directly share but they are well documented on various international forums.. I would happily run one :) The only thing to bare in mind with the S300s is they are physically quite large.

The S372 is a big bugger, I cbf checking but would guess the S366 to be 8875 equivalent.

The 83/75 should be Gt3582r like in performance, on an RB25 if you are looking at results typical of folks here I would look at the S256.

Yeah I remember them being mentioned, just never realized they were so cheap.

The big ft Snoarer has a big fat engine bay, so physical size isnt an issue...and besideds, we all know huge big turbos are cool ;)

Was looking at results on the 83-75 on 2JZ's and was really impressed. so even taking in 500cc less engine in my case it should be resonable, and very much similar to GT35Rs on RB25's

Also having seen Anna's (T04Daves gf's) car in action at wakie when it had a modified T04Z on a 25 it was a missle.

I have had a look at the S256. But if I do end up rebuilding the engine it will be a stroker 2JZ bottom end. So im thinking towards the future (as we all do)

ok guys. just ran up annas car,

9179 .91 twin entry, 6boost twin 44's

rb25, greddy plenum q45 tb 252 pon cam, type a tomie springs.splitfire coils haltech e11v2

25lb on 98 made 360rwkw. needs a cdi. could not get a smooth run out of it, had to gap plugs to 0.5mm also ignition timing not relly done yet. 10 degrees advance up top. was making roughly 10kw every 2 lbs boost.

had some major surge ramping up till i turned the gain down on the boost controller. having the run start a 3k.

all on by 4500. then it melts the tyres off...

need to heat wrap dump pipe, teflon wastgate hoses needed, and need to make a power steering belt guide for the pump pulley. any limmiter it chucks the belt off. (ross tuffbond balancer)

if i had a choice now i would be getting the 8875. but compared to the t04z the 9179 has heaps more power coming onto boost. seems more torquey

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...