Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

the press release says the 2019 turbo catalog has been published, but I can't find it anywhere.. still the 2018 one on the BW site.

 

https://www.borgwarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/2018/10/24/borgwarner-releases-new-high-performance-turbochargers-catalog

7 hours ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

keep in mind the 9274 has a considerably smaller compressor inducer trim, so it plots out really well!

I thought the new turbos had larger inducer diameters to increase flow (92 compressor is 73.7/91 instead of 67.8/91 for the 91.

wouldn't that increase the trim from 55 to 65 and push the map to the right? or is the 9274 a different compressor again? because otherwise that is going to be more likely to surge not less. will hold judgement until I see a final product catalog with the comp maps and specs on it.

I'm a bit disappointed with the 8474 to be honest. The loss of compressor efficiency to increase the flow potential at the same exducer size seems to be a poor trade-off. It'll be more responsive than the 9174 with a more forgiving surge margin but worse at everything else. I think I would have rather have seen an 87mm compressor sized between the 83 and 91 that was better optimised to fill the 850-900hp power target, but there is no denying the 8474 will have a pretty crazy to end its still pulling like a train when the 83 compressor has fallen o. It's face.. The switch over in efficiency vs the 8374 happens at about 60lb/min at 2bar. I guess we'll see when they start getting into the wild. 

Here is the link to the new catalog. 

https://cdn.borgwarner.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/bwts_performanceturbosgeneral_1892_2130.pdf?sfvrsn=3098b63c_2

 

  • Like 1
49 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

I'm a bit disappointed with the 8474 to be honest. The switch over in efficiency vs the 8374 happens at about 60lb/min at 2bar. I guess we'll see when they start getting into the wild. 

Here is the link to the new catalog. 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you are looking at tbh, I suspect one of us is missing something.   At ~PR2.6 (where most people start running to the top end of the EFR8374's efficiency on RBs) the EFR8474 is at 60% efficiency at nearly 90lb/min, which is more than the EFR9180 manages - let alone the EFR8374.   The testing done earlier in the piece (pretty sure it was posted in here) on a built Evo 9 showed not meaningful loss in spool between the EFR8374 and the EFR8474 and a good 100whp more power.

if you're only chasing 550awkw, on paper the 9174 looks to be a better fit, but you do buy a bit of surge margin with the 8474 over it. How the rotational inertia of the ligher compressor of the 8474 helps for transient response vs the 9174 we'll see i guess.

 

the new releases are really top-end power turbos but the midrange performance will suffer a bit.

Edited by burn4005
4 hours ago, Lithium said:

Updated my little compressor flow list with a bunch to include the "Black series" EFR additions

image.thumb.png.ad76c4763bce06b56642f88fc8b1a651.png

That's a cool table... O to be able to compare with that silly company that doesn't have compressor maps...

If that 8474 spools similar to a 8374 with that power potential it'd have to be a no brainer, I just can't see an extra 100-200hp coming for free?!?

14 hours ago, Lithium said:

Updated my little compressor flow list with a bunch to include the "Black series" EFR additions

image.thumb.png.ad76c4763bce06b56642f88fc8b1a651.png

What are the units, please? 

 

14 hours ago, Lithium said:

Updated my little compressor flow list with a bunch to include the "Black series

 

Edited by afb312
14 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

That's a cool table... O to be able to compare with that silly company that doesn't have compressor maps...

If that 8474 spools similar to a 8374 with that power potential it'd have to be a no brainer, I just can't see an extra 100-200hp coming for free?!?

They're not introducing more new tech with these combinations.  Nothing comes for nothing - of course they will behave differently to achieve the flow.

14 hours ago, burn4005 said:

as promised, here are the efficiency curves at pressure ratios of 3.0 (29psi)

bpf1CJU.png

That's quite a cool way of looking at it, it puts across a reasonable amount of what you were implying.   It also goes some way to show that "nothing is for free" - there usually is some compromise in the mission for getting better, or at least more targeted performance.   I do think your graph scale exaggerates the higher peak efficiency effect the old gen EFRs have versus the "Black series" - especially when you factor in when they occur.   The absolute maximum efficiency difference the EFR8374 offers over the EFR8474 is 10%, at 40lb/min.....  where inefficiencies are not going to be anywhere near as costly, imho.  It will be interesting to see if that few % in efficiency reduction at lower flow levels will really have any meaningful loss in response, I doubt it will be anywhere near enough to make up for the increase in MOI with the 91mm compressor.  

On the flipside, the EFR8474 is 10% more efficient than the EFR8374 at ~75lb/min and the difference keeps stretching up from there (as the EFR8374 is quickly reaching stonewall from here) and is flowing >90lb/min by the time it reaches the same compressor flow the EFR8374 was at when that 10% greater efficiency is hit.   There is a HUGE amount of improved flow area and efficiency, all things considered.  

PS, Is there a reason you missed out the EFR9280?  It's not got the same compressor map as the 9274.

honestly i think the most interesting comparision would be to the 9180, in terms of it having a smaller rear end and all of the various improvements you get from that (and disavantages in flow capacity)

5 hours ago, afb312 said:

What are the units, please? 

The units are lb/min, and I've selected the spots where compressor efficiency drops below 65% - which is where I tend to use as a line to draw to indicate where the lower compressor efficiency can start taking it's toll in terms of the intercooler and exhaust side having to work harder than you'd hope in order to keep the airflow increases coming.    

14 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

That's a cool table... O to be able to compare with that silly company that doesn't have compressor maps...

If that 8474 spools similar to a 8374 with that power potential it'd have to be a no brainer, I just can't see an extra 100-200hp coming for free?!?

There is very rarely something for free, and I don't doubt that this is no exception - however smart designs and making the compromises in the right places to target the best end result can make it seem like it's almost for free.  It remains to be seen with this, however I've long thought the compressor side on the EFR range is letting the side down a bit.

I'm not 100% sure if I'd have preferred them to do it how they have gone about it, I would have liked to have seen an option of an upgraded EFR8374 with a smaller trim for those ultimately happy with around the high 70/low 80lb/min flow and then the additional option of the full fledge EFR8474 we now see before us.  If Borg Warner used Precision naming then the EFR6264 would now be called an EFR6764, which probably tells more of the story.  

A few years ago Borg Warner did release the EFR7163 as a BIG trim wheel, like 57mm inducer with 71mm exducer and that also stretched the compressor efficiency down and across and I remember from those point being a bit concerned from the playing down of the size with their naming that it'd be a lot laggier than people expected - but in real life it actually spools better than the EFR7064 but pumps not far off 60lb/min of air, so there does seem to be a bit of method to their big trim madness.  Granted, they did the MF turbine with that turbo as well - but lb for lb I think it's arguably the best proven spooling/responding turbo for it's airflow.

Edited by Lithium
On 11/1/2018 at 7:55 AM, Lithium said:

 missed out the EFR9280?  It's not got the same compressor map as the 9274.

That's strange. The catelog quotes the same inducer/exducer measurements so I'd be very interested in why the map is different and off the wheel or housing is different. I had assume it was the same for 9274 and 9280 without checking. 

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

    • 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.
    • OK, so regardless of whether you did Step 1 - Spill Step 2 - Trans pan removal Step 3 - TCM removal we are on to the clean and refill. First, have a good look at the oil pan. While you might see dirty oil and some carbony build up (I did), what you don't want to see is any metal particles on the magnets, or sparkles in the oil (thankfully not). Give it all a good clean, particularly the magnets, and put the new gasket on if you have one (or, just cross your fingers) Replacement of the Valve body (if you removed it) is the "reverse of assembly". Thread the electrical socket back up through the trans case, hold the valve body up and put in the bolts you removed, with the correct lengths in the correct locations Torque for the bolts in 8Nm only so I hope you have that torque wrench handy (it feels really loose). Plug the output speed sensor back in and clip the wiring into the 2 clips, replace the spring clip on the TCM socket and plug it back into the car loom. For the pan, the workshop manual states the following order: Again, the torque is 8Nm only.
    • One other thing to mention from my car before we reassemble and refill. Per that earlier diagram,   There should be 2x B length (40mm) and 6x C length (54mm). So I had incorrectly removed one extra bolt, which I assume was 40mm, but even so I have 4x B and 5x C.  Either, the factory made an assembly error (very unlikely), or someone had been in there before me. I vote for the latter because the TCM part number doesn't match my build date, I suspect the TCM was changed under warranty. This indeed led to much unbolting, rebolting, checking, measuring and swearing under the car.... In the end I left out 1x B bolt and put in a 54mm M6 bolt I already had to make sure it was all correct
    • A couple of notes about the TCM. Firstly, it is integrated into the valve body. If you need to replace the TCM for any reason you are following the procedure above The seppos say these fail all the time. I haven't seen or heard of one on here or locally, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Finally, Ecutek are now offering tuning for the 7 speed TCM. It is basically like ECU tuning in that you have to buy a license for the computer, and then known parameters can be reset. This is all very new and at the moment they are focussing on more aggressive gear holding in sports or sports+ mode, 2 gear launches for drag racing etc. It doesn't seem to affect shift speed like you can on some transmissions. Importantly for me, by having controllable shift points you can now raise the shift point as well as the ECU rev limit, together allowing it to rev a little higher when that is useful. In manual mode, my car shifts up automatically regardless of what I do which is good (because I don't have to worry about it) but bad (because I can't choose to rev a little higher when convenient).  TCMs can only be tuned from late 2016 onwards, and mine is apparently not one of those although the car build date was August 2016 (presumably a batch of ADM cars were done together, so this will probably be the situation for most ADM cars). No idea about JDM cars, and I'm looking into importing a later model valve body I can swap in. This is the top of my TCM A couple of numbers but no part number. Amayama can't find my specific car but it does say the following for Asia-RHD (interestingly, all out of stock....): So it looks like programable TCM are probably post September 2018 for "Asia RHD". When I read my part number out from Ecutek it was 31705-75X6D which did not match Amayama for my build date (Aug-2016)
×
×
  • Create New...