Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Piggaz said:

Apparently 480 AWKW was the most power out of a 8374 awkw (out of an Evo) Scott has seen on his dyno.

Nick (3.0/8374) went 461, 24 psi

Pete (3.2/vcam/8374) went 457awkw, 25 psi tapering back to 21 psi (120,000 turbine speed).

I don't know. It's all dictated by that magic 127,000 RPM turbine speed. What will be more interesting will be the boost level that it'll need to get there. Going off the -5 setup, it went 441 at 19 psi. Realistically, I should have just left it there.  Boost level I'm gonna peg at no more then 25 psi, tapering back down. 

How does that power compare with Garrets and Precision etc on same dyno? Sounds lower than I would expect but apples with apples

39 minutes ago, SimonR32 said:

How does that power compare with Garrets and Precision etc on same dyno? Sounds lower than I would expect but apples with apples

I'd have to ask Scott, Simon. Haven't really asked to be honest. Pete did a back to back between a 6266/0.84 to a 8374/1.05 but the car was pretty ill when it arrived. Having driven that car in both setups, the 8374 belts it for the stuff you can't see on the dyno. Your assume the 6266 with its 0.84 ass end would be stronger down low, that is most definately not the case, let alone the transient stuff. 

If his car was anything to go off, the PTE needed 28 psi to make 460 kw and the EFR needed 21 psi to make 457. *Different dynos though.

A 9180 blows about 550 kw on that dyno for example before it taps out due to speed.

A Gen 2 3582R, PTE 6266 and a 8374 comparison would be awesome. But the fab work involved makes it a very expensive exercise.

2 hours ago, Piggaz said:

I'd have to ask Scott, Simon. Haven't really asked to be honest. Pete did a back to back between a 6266/0.84 to a 8374/1.05 but the car was pretty ill when it arrived. Having driven that car in both setups, the 8374 belts it for the stuff you can't see on the dyno. Your assume the 6266 with its 0.84 ass end would be stronger down low, that is most definately not the case, let alone the transient stuff. 

If his car was anything to go off, the PTE needed 28 psi to make 460 kw and the EFR needed 21 psi to make 457. *Different dynos though.

A 9180 blows about 550 kw on that dyno for example before it taps out due to speed.

A Gen 2 3582R, PTE 6266 and a 8374 comparison would be awesome. But the fab work involved makes it a very expensive exercise.

Honestly I'd have given a EFR8374 a go if it wasn't for all the fab... Instead I seem to be stuck with the 6262 (not being a bad thing) but now I'm up to 5 sets of cams that have been in the car haha

Latest better be awesome considering I've gone backwards 4 times in some way shape or form

3 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

Honestly I'd have given a EFR8374 a go if it wasn't for all the fab... Instead I seem to be stuck with the 6262 (not being a bad thing) but now I'm up to 5 sets of cams that have been in the car haha

Latest better be awesome considering I've gone backwards 4 times in some way shape or form

5 sets of cam setups? What are you chasing to warrant 5 different setups? You could have had a EFR setup with change.

9 hours ago, Piggaz said:

I'd have to ask Scott, Simon. Haven't really asked to be honest. Pete did a back to back between a 6266/0.84 to a 8374/1.05 but the car was pretty ill when it arrived. Having driven that car in both setups, the 8374 belts it for the stuff you can't see on the dyno. Your assume the 6266 with its 0.84 ass end would be stronger down low, that is most definately not the case, let alone the transient stuff. 

If his car was anything to go off, the PTE needed 28 psi to make 460 kw and the EFR needed 21 psi to make 457. *Different dynos though.

A 9180 blows about 550 kw on that dyno for example before it taps out due to speed.

A Gen 2 3582R, PTE 6266 and a 8374 comparison would be awesome. But the fab work involved makes it a very expensive exercise.

I really hope mine spins more than 550, be a fair bit off where I want to be. 

 

That speed "cap" is a pain. 

Owell only one way to find out ?

7 minutes ago, fatz said:

What happens when you pop a ic pipe at 25psi and over speed them? 

 

Boom? 

I doubt the boom is that inevitable, I'm fairly sure a mate had that exact thing happen on his EFR8374 drift car after he first went to one and he just lost power and his heart sunk because of the stories about overspeeding - but then realised what happened, got it sorted and carried on.  Car is still going strong.

Worth avoiding, obviously - but not necessarily immediate death.  Much the same as how you have people running around with boost leaks all over the place with stock ceramic turbo Nissans who never realised it.  I guess not having the full load on the turbo MAY take some of the edge off?

 

Edited by Lithium
2 minutes ago, Lithium said:

Lol!  

How is your car going?

Slowly. Motor is almost there I am told then its off for fab work before wiring and then tune.

Maybe July...

1 minute ago, Lithium said:

You staying with the EFR party?

I've gone a 6870 1.15 rear for now as I wanted over 600awkw. It looks like the 9280 will do the power I want when it is released so I plan on swapping back at that point.

I just wanna go fast

  • Like 3
1 hour ago, fatz said:

What happens when you pop a ic pipe at 25psi and over speed them? 

 

Boom? 

I spose sensor back to ecu, if it falls out of "x" parameters then have some sort of protection in place... whatever that may be.

What am I missing with these EFRs? 

I thought you just took a look at the comp map, aimed for a decent efficiency island for your power goal, as you do with any turbo choice, and that was that?

Can't think of when I've seen people talking about turbine speed so intently with other brands. Are the EFRs particularly sensitive to overspeeding? 

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...