Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

and i forgot to give a Shout out to Geoff at Full-Race for answering any of the questions i had and reply back to quickly :D

hello sir!! Very nice to see your thread, looks like things are working well for you. When we first spoke, your requirement was 400KW with fast spool, so I specced the Borg Warner 83-75 w/ flat tip turbine wheel and .91 a/r. This is an excellent match to your requirement - but as you found when you went to turn the boost up it did not make more power. This is (duh) becuase you will need a larger compressor wheel and/or higher flowing turbine side (cupped tip and/or larger AR housing would be a good starting point).

If you wish make more power I am more than happy to help. You can either change your turbos' housings or change to a different supercore (turbo less turbine housing) which would allow you to use the existing turbine housing and plumbing, just changing the rotors.. There are many solutions, but I do not think the preicision will be the end all solution. up to you guys of course!

Thanks for the reply Geoff, as you stated when we first spoke I was just looking to make the 400rwkw and as shown, the turbo you recommended did the job with the kind of response I was looking for..

But you know how it is, always power hungry :D

Ideally I would love to have a turbo just as responsive but able to take some more boost and not flatten out up the top like mine currently does. Like you said I could achieve more power by upgrading either the housings or core..

What new bits of gear does BW have that will allow me to make an easy change over while making more top and and keeping the response if possible..

Btw I love the sound of the BW and would like to keep that unique sound as well :D

i will have results in a month or some for the borgwarner s362 fmw which will be interested shuld get a little more up top with same response, car is currently get a respray then just needs a tune :) will be on a 3L tho

Edited by t04z

Good stuff Jack, should be intersting to see the results, too bad its on a 3L though.. will make a response comparsion hard to gauge haha

what sort of power are you expecting from it?

when we first spoke I was just looking to make the 400rwkw and as shown, the turbo you recommended did the job with the kind of response I was looking for..But you know how it is, always power hungry :D Ideally I would love to have a turbo just as responsive but able to take some more boost and not flatten out up the top like mine currently does. Like you said I could achieve more power by upgrading either the housings or core.. What new bits of gear does BW have that will allow me to make an easy change over while making more top and and keeping the response if possible.. Btw I love the sound of the BW and would like to keep that unique sound as well

There are 4 options of varying work to consider for your 60mm compressor / flat tip 75mm turbine / 0.91 ar housing:

a) turbine housing swap to 1.00 a/r - this will allow you make another 30-40kw at the top end, losing only 100rpm spool, very simple easy and fast to do

b) turbine wheel swap to cupped tip - on the .91 a/r this will allow you to make ~30-40kw more, losing only 100rpm spool in the midrange. I did a test on a friends supra not too long ago if youd like to see. Slightly more work than a housing swap but not much. FYI BW's airwerks turbos are "component" balanced, meaning the turbine wheel is balanced independantly of the compressor wheel. This allows service in the field : you can take the turbo apart, remove the turbine wheel and install the different turbine wheel - not necessary to balance.

c) the compressor wheel will probably be out of breath around ~450kw so if you want more than that it would be wise to step up to in compressor wheel size. The S300SX 9180 is a 66mm inducer thats VERY impressive - but will spool later. For an RB30 i think that is the S300SX of choice.

d) EFR 8374 1.05 is what i believe the perfect single turbo for an RB26. I ran all the S300 turbos on my RB26 for a while then when i switched to the EFR i got the spool of the smallest S300 with the powerband of the big one, not to mention the sound is intoxicating. This to me is my best setup ive run in the last 7 years. Obviously these turbos arent cheap and there is still a wait on the external WG versions (internal gate twinscroll 8374s are shipping regularly at the moment) but i do think that if you are looking for the fastest response and 500kw power target, this would do the job better than any other turbo Im aware of

i will have results in a month or some for the borgwarner s362 fmw which will be interested shuld get a little more up top with same response, car is currently get a respray then just needs a tune :) will be on a 3L tho

the FMW S300 is a great turbo - very similar to the EFR 8374 in terms of compressor flow. Which turbine wheel and housing did you go with? FYI the larger displacement 3L engine would typically benefit from more compressor if youre going to really push it so I typically recommend the larger S300SX 9180 with .91 a/r. of course if you want the response the FMW will do it

Edited by Full-Race Geoff

So if it was between option a) and b), option 1 would be the best option as its a bit less stuffing around and it would essentially yield the same result, that correct?

I would be very interested to see the supra result if you would like to post it up :D

Obviously the external gate EFR 83/74 would be the best option for my set up?

How much longer would it be until they are available?

Will it line up with my current set up ( mostly concerned about the dump pipe lining up)

How much to purchase and get it to Australia

Cheers

  • 2 months later...

There are 4 options of varying work to consider for your 60mm compressor / flat tip 75mm turbine / 0.91 ar housing:

a) turbine housing swap to 1.00 a/r - this will allow you make another 30-40kw at the top end, losing only 100rpm spool, very simple easy and fast to do

b) turbine wheel swap to cupped tip - on the .91 a/r this will allow you to make ~30-40kw more, losing only 100rpm spool in the midrange. I did a test on a friends supra not too long ago if youd like to see. Slightly more work than a housing swap but not much. FYI BW's airwerks turbos are "component" balanced, meaning the turbine wheel is balanced independantly of the compressor wheel. This allows service in the field : you can take the turbo apart, remove the turbine wheel and install the different turbine wheel - not necessary to balance.

c) the compressor wheel will probably be out of breath around ~450kw so if you want more than that it would be wise to step up to in compressor wheel size. The S300SX 9180 is a 66mm inducer thats VERY impressive - but will spool later. For an RB30 i think that is the S300SX of choice.

d) EFR 8374 1.05 is what i believe the perfect single turbo for an RB26. I ran all the S300 turbos on my RB26 for a while then when i switched to the EFR i got the spool of the smallest S300 with the powerband of the big one, not to mention the sound is intoxicating. This to me is my best setup ive run in the last 7 years. Obviously these turbos arent cheap and there is still a wait on the external WG versions (internal gate twinscroll 8374s are shipping regularly at the moment) but i do think that if you are looking for the fastest response and 500kw power target, this would do the job better than any other turbo Im aware of

the FMW S300 is a great turbo - very similar to the EFR 8374 in terms of compressor flow. Which turbine wheel and housing did you go with? FYI the larger displacement 3L engine would typically benefit from more compressor if youre going to really push it so I typically recommend the larger S300SX 9180 with .91 a/r. of course if you want the response the FMW will do it

Geoff,

Do you think with a 2.8 litre I would be able to get away with using a bigger rear housing and cupped tip on the S300SX FMW and have similar response to Joe's ?

Man I reckon you would have better response and make more power hey, as long as your running E85 and the rest of your setup is in check.

The 2.8 makes a big difference!

  • 6 months later...

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...