Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So, a long long time since I posted on SAU, and my eyes glazed over a long long way back in this thread.

 

Here is the bones of it, I have had my track car off track for nearly three years for a full wiring and electronics refresh (Wiring, PDM, dash, ECU) and as usual time and money had their way. Long story short I hope to have the car running again in the next month or so.

 

The car has a GT2860RS (.64 exhaust housing) on a redtop RB20DET making 208RWKW on 98 RON at 18PSI while being nice and snappy for the usual uses of the car, short tracks with slow corners and hillclimbs. The turbo is on one of those horrid little T3 to T25 adapters on the standard manifold and I would love to get rid of it. 

I know the RB20 in any guise is getting long in the tooth but have people had much success with the EFR turbos on these? The only advice I have had is "Go a size bigger than you think'. What I would love is if the newer design would give me the same kind of small turbo responsiveness without choking it as much at higher revs. 

My biggest wants on a conversion would be marginal to no loss of lower rev range performance, T3 bolt on (Unless the T3 to T4 adapters are a better thing than the two part T3 to T25 ones) and after that a bit of an extension of higher RPM capability. Am I dreaming?

My other thought was to build an adapter to take it to a V band turbine and fit the .72 A/R housing and an external gate.

Hey Blue,

I've got an EFR7163 on an SR20DET, so not too dissimilar setup. I am running e85, and have had a couple of issues with back pressure with a T4 TS mani and internal gate.

I can certainly attest to the response with a 'big' 7163 on a 2 litre. I'm running 307rwkw currently and making 250rwkw at 4000rpm. I have VCT, fairly small cams and as I said e85 so all that will help a little with response.

There's no T3 options in the EFR range (that I've seen). So you're on t25, vband or T4. I would think a 7163 in vband (the largest rear, which is a good thing for these) and external gate would be the way to go. Hard to say without knowing exactly how responsive your current turbo is. I would think 98 and ext gate would net you near 280rwkw and only lose a 'little' in response (compared to mine). FYI I'm not super familiar with RB20 setups.

For anyone else who had any interest in my setup / results I have some weirdness with my Nistune ECU and the HPX AFM. VCT is also rattling a little and getting tired. And can't really hold boost with internal gate. I'll probably switch to Haltech ECU for boost control, MAP sensor, OBD gauges, engine protection based on turbo speed rpm and a few other things. Hopefully that'll iron out some of the current bugs. Otherwise I'll just say f**k it and grab 2 x 38mm gates and go external setup which SHOULD get around the boost holding issue.

Dec2017-PostEngineRebuild-307rwkw-boost.jpg

Dec2017-PostEngineRebuild-307rwkw-power-torque.jpg

  • Like 1

Also Blue, the devil's advocate in me wants to also maybe suggest one of the new G25-550 Garret turbos. They come in a T25 with 0.49" rear which by the looks of their specs would get you a very responsive ~250rwkw on 98.
I'm certainly keeping a close eye out for results on the new Garret series.

(But I promise I still love my EFR guys, don't hate me) :)

Without digging too deep the 7064 can be had with a T3 flange, I would just need to dig in to maps to see how it compares with the potato. All this is a little by the by anyway as I doubt the money will be there to throw a new snail at it this year, but you never know. I can see up to about $5K between it and back on track as it is so it is not really very likely to be changed this year, but I tend to plan these tings a long way ahead.

The RS is snappy enough on it that I gave up on closed loop control with the previous ECU (Old E11 Haltech) as it was impossible to dial out big boost spikes at high RPM. The new ECU just about has more tables for closed loop than the E11 did for everything it had.

https://gcg.com.au/petrol-performance/performance-4/turbochargers-borg-warner/borg-warner-efr7064-turbocharger-t3-v-band-detail

 

Edit: Whatever ends up on it next what I would really like to do though is get rid of the split adapter. Aside from anything else I have had constant issues with the tiny T25 nuts and studs undoing in use. At least it was easy to get a lock tab for the T3 setup.

Edited by Blue
1 minute ago, Blue said:

Without digging too deep the 7064 can be had with a T3 flange, I would just need to dig in to maps to see how it compares with the potato. All this is a little by the by anyway as I doubt the money will be there to throw a new snail at it this year, but you never know. I can see up to about $5K between it and back on track as it is so it is not really very likely to be changed this year, but I tend to plan these tings a long way ahead.

The RS is snappy enough on it that I gave up on closed loop control with the previous ECU (Old E11 Haltech) as it was impossible to dial out big boost spikes at high RPM. The new ECU just about has more tables for closed loop than the E11 did for everything it had.

https://gcg.com.au/petrol-performance/performance-4/turbochargers-borg-warner/borg-warner-efr7064-turbocharger-t3-v-band-detail

3

Ah yep, I tend to forget about the 7064 for some reason. TBH wish I'd gone that direction at times to lose a little response for a better flowing rear (comes in 0.92 in T4 TS, instead of the 0.80 the 7163 comes in).

Again, hard to compare when I'm not sure just 'how' responsive your current setup is. What's the curve look like? When are you hitting max boost or torque?

3 minutes ago, MaximuSmurf said:

Ah yep, I tend to forget about the 7064 for some reason. TBH wish I'd gone that direction at times to lose a little response for a better flowing rear (comes in 0.92 in T4 TS, instead of the 0.80 the 7163 comes in).

Again, hard to compare when I'm not sure just 'how' responsive your current setup is. What's the curve look like? When are you hitting max boost or torque?

The 0.80a/r EFR7163 hot side flows the same as the .83a/r T3 EFR7064 hotside, and the .85a/r EFR7163 flows the same as the .92 EFR7064.  That dirty old mixed-flow turbine isn't a terrible thing.

Wouldn't a 6758 be closer to a 2860 in terms of performance? Bear in mind RB20 not 25 with vct and the trimmings.

 

Edit: T25 though so not ideal.

 

Still you have a 56lb/min turbo like the 7064 or 60lb/min in 7163 trim, or a 35lb/min turbo in the 2860rs, bit of a difference. Not sure either of those two would quite match the low end of the 2860, though transient may be better?

I can live with dropping a little lower RPM performance, so long as I can also live with the potential extra maintenance cost of anti lag!

One issue I face no matter what is the range of housings with a T3 flange is pretty limited.

Dyno sheets from when the car was tuned, I would not want to loose too much at the low end or midrange. Bearing in mind that the car could easily make more at the same boost, given the total lack of engine protection on the old E11 I asked for and received a nice safe tune. Before and after on these sheets is a proper tune at 18PSI versus a very rough track tune at 13.

R31 dyno sheet 1.jpg

R31 dyno sheet 2.jpg

R31 dyno sheet 3.jpg

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

    • @Haggerty this is your red flag. In MAP based ECU's the Manifold pressure X RPM calculation is how the engine knows it is actually...running/going through ANY load. You are confusing the term 'base map' with your base VE/Fuel table. When most people say 'base map' they mean the stock entire tune shipped with the ECU, hopefully aimed at a specific car/setup to use as a base for beginning to tune your specific car. Haltech has a lot of documentation (or at least they used to, I expect it to be better now). Read it voraciously.
    • I saw you mention this earlier and it raised a red flag, but I couldn't believe it was real. Yes, the vacuum signal should vary. It is the one and only load signal from the engine to the ECU, and it MUST vary. It is either not connected or is badly f**ked up in some way.
    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
×
×
  • Create New...