Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dievos said:

I also have real results of an EFR7670 on an RB26, it was within my power goals and I felt like giving it a go seeing as the resaleability of EFR turbos is good and later going with an 8374 with the same rear housing would make it a straight fit.

From what I found we really had to restrict how quickly it came on due to knock, results were inconclusive as I saw power loss in the exact same RPM area as my R32 Nismo turbos. I am wanting to see how far I can go with this before jumping ship and going to a larger compressor.

0.92 IWG?

We are currently using a TS 9180 on a stock-block 1JZ with 264 cams. Made 640WHP on 26psi with a few teething issues and a faulty EBC. Power comes on very nicely for a large turbo and sure holds on well up top.

I certainly expect with some development we will reach 700WHP at the same 26psi though that is certainly dangerous territory on an old long block.

IMG_3227.JPG

  • Like 4
On 2/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, Full-Race Geoff said:

if anyone needs turbos or speed sensors, we have both in stock and happy to match any prices online.  also we have a new Turbo Speed Gauge that is pre-programmed for EFR turbos:

turbo-speed-gauge.jpg

:)

 

Got the 1.45 A/R turbine housing on the 8374 this week. Compressor surge was getting quite bad in the cold weather even trying to “hold the turbo back”. It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too.

Will will see by how much exhaust pressure drops too. 

God it’s big! Borg Warner and their housings the size of small planets! Gonna have to have a look at the exhaust cam cover and see what I can do with it and get the turbine beanie on. Needs a longer water line which will be done on Monday. 

Dump pipe had to be trimmed 8 mm.

B95B2A8C-B6B9-4B2C-A275-74E38762B5F0.jpeg

D409F3EB-F642-40B0-B54A-BC6612EB2CC7.jpeg

4B9E7720-C1D0-48B7-9BB3-26C9ABCF2C22.jpeg

  • Like 4
3 hours ago, Piggaz said:

Got the 1.45 A/R turbine housing on the 8374 this week. Compressor surge was getting quite bad in the cold weather even trying to “hold the turbo back”. It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too.

Will will see by how much exhaust pressure drops too. 

God it’s big! Borg Warner and their housings the size of small planets! Gonna have to have a look at the exhaust cam cover and see what I can do with it and get the turbine beanie on. Needs a longer water line which will be done on Monday. 

Dump pipe had to be trimmed 8 mm.

 

What do mean by having to pull boost out? the cost of EMAP outweighing the benefit of greater MAP?

or EGTs getting too high?

 

PS thats friggin' massive. the 3" outlet looks hilariously small

Edited by burn4005
On 6/9/2018 at 2:56 PM, burn4005 said:

What do mean by having to pull boost out? the cost of EMAP outweighing the benefit of greater MAP?

or EGTs getting too high?

 

PS thats friggin' massive. the 3" outlet looks hilariously small

EGT’s weren’t getting high... we had 360 kpa exhaust pressure. 

However, coming on (sub 4000 rpm) it was compressor surging. So if we are “holding it back” early on, why not give it a bigger ass and let it sing up top. Can’t have it either way. 

God knows how the 0.92 guys are going. If I had a 0.92 on my engine it would have been a total waste of time.

I'm not following.. why did you have to pull boost out up top previously?

 

You said:

 

"It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too"

 

Can't imagine it's surge related (low mass flow issue), or turbo speed related (compressor hasn't changed)

 

 

20 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

I'm not following.. why did you have to pull boost out up top previously?

 

You said:

 

"It will also mean we don’t have to pull boost out in the top end too"

 

Can't imagine it's surge related (low mass flow issue), or turbo speed related (compressor hasn't changed)

 

 

It was E MAP related. Hitting 360 kpa. Hoping to drop that somewhat. 

However, don’t need a pressure sensor to tell how much better the engine breathes compared to the twins. The engine note tells you that!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
On 6/10/2018 at 7:30 AM, Piggaz said:

It was E MAP related. Hitting 360 kpa. Hoping to drop that somewhat. 

However, don’t need a pressure sensor to tell how much better the engine breathes compared to the twins. The engine note tells you that!

I am interested to see your impressions with the bigger housing.  It does lose a bit of response, I personally prefer the 1.05 for most RB engines due to the balance of response and turbine efficiency. 

To your second point, however, the twin EFR is another level of breathing compared to the single EFR.  when youre at the point of this volume of airflow, I believe the big twins really are the call

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:30 PM, Piggaz said:

It was E MAP related. Hitting 360 kpa. Hoping to drop that somewhat. 

However, don’t need a pressure sensor to tell how much better the engine breathes compared to the twins. The engine note tells you that!

Hoping you could throw up a data graph trace showing IMAP vs EMAP?

Might help people visualise how that relationship affects the scavenge and overall engine efficiency.

Guessing the engine has become a bit more vocal with the bigger housing.

12 minutes ago, Dale FZ1 said:

Hoping you could throw up a data graph trace showing IMAP vs EMAP?

Might help people visualise how that relationship affects the scavenge and overall engine efficiency.

Guessing the engine has become a bit more vocal with the bigger housing.

 I’ll see what I can dig up.

29 minutes ago, Dale FZ1 said:

Hoping you could throw up a data graph trace showing IMAP vs EMAP?

Might help people visualise how that relationship affects the scavenge and overall engine efficiency.

Guessing the engine has become a bit more vocal with the bigger housing.


Haha yes, I'm very very interested in this as well.    The data geek in my is a little sad that there wasn't at attempt to run it up to max rpm with the 1.05 to get a flat out comparison of EMAP, IMAP and power along with spool between the 1.05 and 1.45 but I understand the position of being a tuner and also owner of a car and having your comfort levels etc. 

While 360kpa:260kpa  EMAP:IMAP (1.38:1 EMAP:IMAP) is starting to build up a bit I didn't personally think it was over the top, especially when so close to the suggested max compressor speed - but who am I to question when someone is willing to try the big housing out on an engine which is as likely as any to justify the large one?      ESPECIALLY with all the data @Piggaz has set up to be able to record.  

How the new housing affects spool, cylinder filling, surge, compressor speed, power etc etc is all very relevant to my interests.  So much science!

Looking forward to seeing how this comes out :)

Edited by Lithium
4 hours ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

I am interested to see your impressions with the bigger housing.  It does lose a bit of response, I personally prefer the 1.05 for most RB engines due to the balance of response and turbine efficiency. 

To your second point, however, the twin EFR is another level of breathing compared to the single EFR.  when youre at the point of this volume of airflow, I believe the big twins really are the call

I keep hearing about these twin EFR results on but yet to see any that really stand out. Have you got some results of RB or 2J 6258/6758/7163 twin setups handy that you can throw up?

Twin 6258’s or 6758’s are still quite a lot of airflow and the 67’s outflow a 9180 (Atleast according to the compressor maps). 

Some of us have already done all the comparisons :P

map/tip is the way you should be looking at it as pressure differential across the engine, and its not a text book relationship either, talking 3.15lt engine here on 9180 turbo. Acceleration data in real world is your best indicator if you are running say 1700mB map with optimized ignition and fuel and then on 2850mB map you have double the acceleration, then all the 'theory' of excessive pumping losses on exhaust stroke or egr effects counts for little except maybe on arsebook or some other useless vlogs :)

I agree with Geoff, a 1.05 on the 9180 makes for the best compromise.

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

    • I'm looking for some real world experiences/feed back from anyone who has personally ran a EFR7670 with a 1.05 exhaust housing or a .83 I'm leaning towards the .83 because its a street car used mostly for spirited driving in the canyons roads. I"m not looking for big numbers on paper. I want a responsive powerband that will be very linear to 8000 rpm. I dont mind if power remains somewhat flat but dont want power to drop off on top. The turbo I've purchased is a 1.05, although the mounting flange T3 vs T4 and internal vs external waste gates are different on both housings, I not concern about swapping parts or making fabrication mods to get what I want. Based on some of the research I've done with chat gpt, the 1.05 housing seems to be the way to go with slightly more lag and future proofing for more mods but recommends .83 for best response/street car setup. AI doesn't have the same emotions as real people driving a GTR so I think you guys will be able to give me better feed back 😀   
    • Surely somebody has one in VIC. Have you asked at any shops?  Is this the yearly inspection or did you get a canary?
    • This is where I share pain with you, @Duncan. The move to change so many cooling system pieces to plastic is a killer! Plastic end tanks and a few plastic hose flanges on my car's fail after so little time.  Curious about the need for a bigger rad, is that just for long sessions in the summer or because the car generally needs more cooling?
    • So, that is it! It is a pretty expensive process with the ATF costing 50-100 per 5 litres, and a mechanic will probably charge plenty because they don't want to do it. Still, considering how dirty my fluid was at 120,000klm I think it would be worth doing more like every 80,000 to keep the trans happy, they are very expensive to replace. The job is not that hard if you have the specialist tools so you can save a bit of money and do it yourself!
    • OK, onto filling. So I don't really have any pics, but will describe the process as best I can. The USDM workshop manual also covers it from TM-285 onwards. First, make sure the drain plug (17mm) is snug. Not too tight yet because it is coming off again. Note it does have a copper washer that you could replace or anneal (heat up with a blow torch) to seal nicely. Remove the fill plug, which has an inhex (I think it was 6mm but didn't check). Then, screw in the fill fitting, making sure it has a suitable o-ring (mine came without but I think it is meant to be supplied). It is important that you only screw it in hand tight. I didn't get a good pic of it, but the fill plug leads to a tube about 70mm long inside the transmission. This sets the factory level for fluid in the trans (above the join line for the pan!) and will take about 3l to fill. You then need to connect your fluid pump to the fitting via a hose, and pump in whatever amount of fluid you removed (maybe 3 litres, in my case 7 litres). If you put in more than 3l, it will spill out when you remove the fitting, so do quickly and with a drain pan underneath. Once you have pumped in the required amount of clean ATF, you start the engine and run it for 3 minutes to let the fluid circulate. Don't run it longer and if possible check the fluid temp is under 40oC (Ecutek shows Auto Trans Fluid temp now, or you could use an infrared temp gun on the bottom of the pan). The manual stresses the bit about fluid temperature because it expands when hot an might result in an underfil. So from here, the factory manual says to do the "spill and fill" again, and I did. That is, put an oil pan under the drain plug and undo it with a 17mm spanner, then watch your expensive fluid fall back out again, you should get about 3 litres.  Then, put the drain plug back in, pump 3 litres back in through the fill plug with the fitting and pump, disconnect the fill fitting and replace the fill plug, start the car and run for another 3 minutes (making sure the temp is still under 40oC). The manual then asks for a 3rd "spill and fill" just like above. I also did that and so had put 13l in by now.  This time they want you to keep the engine running and run the transmission through R and D (I hope the wheels are still off the ground!) for a while, and allow the trans temp to get to 40oC, then engine off. Finally, back under the car and undo the fill plug to let the overfill drain out; it will stop running when fluid is at the top of the levelling tube. According to the factory, that is job done! Post that, I reconnected the fill fitting and pumped in an extra 0.5l. AMS says 1.5l overfill is safe, but I started with less to see how it goes, I will add another 1.0 litres later if I'm still not happy with the hot shifts.
×
×
  • Create New...