Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[SimonR32]

8 hours ago, R32 TT said:

Well I have been massively held up by suppliers - mine should have been ready 6 months ago - but its gone around in circles and frankly hasn't been a good experience.    No point dwelling on that though.

That said - things are FINALLY coming together and so I hope to have mine going sometime in early/mid Feb.  There is still a bit to do.

It will be 3.2L Nitto, 8474 / 1.05,  Kelford 272 10.8mm/Beehives/Ti Retainers , Light head work with 1mm oversize valves,  Dry Sump.

(the old motor was 3.0L, 8374 / 1.05 (previously 0.92 IWG), HKS 264 10mm, 9L Wet sump with various breathing mods etc.)

Don't expect more than 530-550kW at hubs at 25psi - but hoping for strong delivery from 3500 through to 7500rpm.   May need a cam change to help - we will see.     And I guess we are going to see what eMAP we get.  I'm hopeful it will remain under 1.5:1 and I'll be happy with that.

Please, could you all take moment to close your eyes and think happy thoughts for my Syncro PPG gearset.

 

Firstly why don't you spend a bit more coin you rich mother f**ker ?

Secondly, start talking about the real race car not the silly GTR 

[Full-Race Geoff]

13 hours ago, Lithium said:

One of the chaps I know went from a 1.05a/r 9180 to a 1.45a/r 9280, in all honesty I was slightly underwhelmed by the results but it actually seems like the tune was not fully aggressive etc - its on a drift car and the main aim was to bring EMAP and turbine speed down while running the same kind of power as the 9180 was so it was never run on kill.

I was hanging with Scott Kuhner (EMtron) last weekend, he did a back to back of 9180 vs 9280.  saw identical spool and a solid 50+kw across the board... he loves the turbo.  I will ask him to post the comparison now, but its rare that he shares customer setups.  If any of you guys know Scott, buy him a beer for me ?

On 11/9/2019 at 5:14 AM, Timmaz300 said:

I'm currently having a rb26/30 built. I have an EFR 9274 1.05 ar right now, but I'm wondering if I should step up to the 1.45 housing? Its primarily a street car that i take to the circuit track occassionally. 

10:1 comp ratio cp pistons 

3L displacement, 10:1 compression and a decent set of cams on E85... yes your setup is a candidate for 1.45 a/r.  But as a street car then it isnt likely to operate at high boost and high rpm like a track car.  If you can spend some time with the matchbot webpage it may help you to determine where you are operating and what the actual implications will be

On 11/4/2019 at 8:41 PM, Shoota_77 said:

1.45 arse end would definitely be the right size for mine but I honestly don't want/need 600+kW. 500-550 will be insane and require way more skill than I have to control it!  I love how you (or whoever filmed the dyno run) was giggling like a little school girl!  I'll be the same no doubt!

? i enjoyed the "little school girl giggles" too

[Piggaz]

16 minutes ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

I was hanging with Scott Kuhner (EMtron) last weekend, he did a back to back of 9180 vs 9280.  saw identical spool and a solid 50+kw across the board... he loves the turbo.  I will ask him to post the comparison now, but its rare that he shares customer setups.  If any of you guys know Scott, buy him a beer for me ?

 

Any idea if he has done an 8474 yet?

[Lithium]

5 hours ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

I was hanging with Scott Kuhner (EMtron) last weekend, he did a back to back of 9180 vs 9280.  saw identical spool and a solid 50+kw across the board... he loves the turbo.  I will ask him to post the comparison now, but its rare that he shares customer setups.  If any of you guys know Scott, buy him a beer for me ?

 

Yeah, it's hard to know how much the lag was from going from the 1.05 to the 1.45 housing - but realistically a setup which previously was OK with the 1.05 housing on the 9180 would need the 1.45 if it was going to be leaned on, so in that kind of setup it is a factor worth counting in I suspect.

50kw or so is beileveable, that's more or less what happened in the case I mentioned as well - except when you are talking 10-20lb/min more flow you'd realistically be hoping for the potential for a lot more than 50kw.     It's still a really good improvement in it's own right, and the guy I am talking about is happy with the results - it is a monster now....  but so far for the most part the power increases don't seem to be matching the advertised flow increases.  Perhaps hot side?  Or perhaps people just not winding them up?

Edited December 17, 2019 by Lithium

[Full-Race Geoff]

i would bet both are a factor... hotside and not winding it up.  

fyi - Scott said it was 50kw at 110krpm shaft speed. more on the table.  He said he was also dubious at first but "holy f**k, that f**king thing is the shit" was his exact words haha

[R32 TT]

19 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

Firstly why don't you spend a bit more coin you rich mother f**ker ?

Secondly, start talking about the real race car not the silly GTR 

Lol -  the 'real race car' scares me.   

And you can talk anyway....!

[RB335]

A small update on my car is now still at the shop getting things running with the EFR9180, the EFR8474 has arrived.  

There appears to be some wastegate issues.  We are making around 500hp'ish region on 20 PSI on 98 from the info the tuner has given.  The car now has big flowing exhaust and cooler so we put it on the Dyno and those are the results so far.

Driving it on the street, all I will say the 9180 with Vcam enabled does not feel laggy like a classic all or nothing big turbo, it's surprisingly smooth and the car moves.

There is twin TIAL MV-S 38mm units both controlled through the BW EFR solenoid.  We are trying to command over 20 PSI but it simply does not want to make more than 20 PSI, the boost tries to go above and comes down.  The BOV is blocked off with a Turbosmart plate.  At this moment I am unsure if there is a fault with the gates or whether the solenoid isn't able to bleed off enough air from all the vac line plumbing fast enough to keep them gates shut until higher boost is achieved.  We will investigate further and once rectified I will report back.  

This is the first time I have run twin gates and not a lot of people around where I am do so, so any advice or your own experiences if you have similar setups are appreciated.  

For now here are some pictures of the 8474, it still looks like quite a big turbo but everything is a step smaller except the front wheel inducer.

Edited December 25, 2019 by RB335

[RB335]

The big issue here that needs to be explored is, many tuners who've put out a lot of high HP cars have noted they feel the EFR turbos simply don't make the power they are supposed to do or have to be pushed too hard compared to similar sized turbos from other brands when they reach their upper limits

Peter from PMC race engines did mention that the RB won't respond well to an EFR9280 simply as the rear side is too small to let the engine breathe for the flow it can make, too much pressure in the manifold.

I don't know if the above is fact, kinda fact but not too much of an issue or not too much of an issue

This further begs the question with the EFR8474, being such a high flowing front end, coupled to a small rear end, can it go as hard a as a 9180.  We will find out once I'm done with my 9180 and more boost

Edited December 25, 2019 by RB335

[Shoota_77]

If that's the case with them being too restricted in the arse end then the 1.45 rear housing might prove to be essential to get the best out of them (if you're chasing top end). 

Mine is just standard ex housing and to be honest if the smaller arse means more response earlier on then I'll just leave it. For now... 

Would be super interesting to do an immediate dyno comparison on the same day with the two different housings just to see how much difference it makes across the whole curve. 

Can you do please ?! 

[R32 TT]

I guess it all comes down to what you want out of it.   I went from 0.92 IWG to 1.05 EWG on a 8374 - no other changes and while I gained a bit up top - I definitely noticed I lost some 'punch' out of slow corners.   For Tarmac Rally Sprints and so on, this does hurt me a bit out of slow corners (of which there are many)  - but I'm sure it would be a bit quicker at the drags.    So great, quicker car on paper - slower time at the Sprints....

Everyone seems to get hung up on this and goes for the larger housing because "its less restrictive and makes more power"..  and then in the same breath talk about area under the curve.   

I will say this though - if you're running a sequential - some of that thinking goes out the door since you can pretty much always guarantee the turbo will be in its sweet spot.   But at that point you may as well look at a bigger turbo altogether too!   Why bother with an 8474 when you can have a 9280 and just drop a cog?

[R32 TT]

PS  Merry Christmas.   

 

[Full-Race Geoff]

On 12/25/2019 at 9:13 PM, R32 TT said:

I guess it all comes down to what you want out of it.   I went from 0.92 IWG to 1.05 EWG on a 8374 - no other changes and while I gained a bit up top - I definitely noticed I lost some 'punch' out of slow corners.   For Tarmac Rally Sprints and so on, this does hurt me a bit out of slow corners (of which there are many)  - but I'm sure it would be a bit quicker at the drags.    So great, quicker car on paper - slower time at the Sprints....

Everyone seems to get hung up on this and goes for the larger housing because "its less restrictive and makes more power"..  and then in the same breath talk about area under the curve.   

+1

On 12/25/2019 at 1:54 AM, RB335 said:

There appears to be some wastegate issues.  We are making around 500hp'ish region on 20 PSI on 98 from the info the tuner has given.  There is twin TIAL MV-S 38mm units both controlled through the BW EFR solenoid.  We are trying to command over 20 PSI but it simply does not want to make more than 20 PSI, the boost tries to go above and comes down.  

This is the first time I have run twin gates and not a lot of people around where I am do so, so any advice or your own experiences if you have similar setups are appreciated.  
 

what is your specific setup (engine displacement, max RPM, head/cam/manifolds, altitude)  Do you have any more specific data that your tuner can share?  Maybe turbo speed sensor?  Do you have the ability to monitor backpressure?  Has a thorough boost leak test been performed?

Twin gates can be connected identically to single gates.  if your tuner is fancy (like Peter) then you can run twin solenoids, but thats unlikely to be the issue here.  

On 12/25/2019 at 8:36 PM, Shoota_77 said:

Would be super interesting to do an immediate dyno comparison on the same day with the two different housings just to see how much difference it makes across the whole curve. 

done this a number of times on different applications.  The results are typically what you would expect, bigger AR makes more power, appears to spool identically (on the dyno).  on the street it loses response

On 12/25/2019 at 1:38 PM, RB335 said:

many tuners who've put out a lot of high HP cars have noted they feel the EFR turbos simply don't make the power they are supposed to do or have to be pushed too hard compared to similar sized turbos from other brands when they reach their upper limits

Peter from PMC race engines did mention that the RB won't respond well to an EFR9280 simply as the rear side is too small to let the engine breathe for the flow it can make, too much pressure in the manifold... This further begs the question with the EFR8474, being such a high flowing front end, coupled to a small rear end, can it go as hard a as a 9180.  We will find out once I'm done with my 9180 and more boost

Some tuners who claim this do not have enough data to work from, or a lack of understanding (or both).  Backpressure and shaft speed + EGT are critical links in understanding the system.  If they are disappointed in the max power result then its probably an issue with the setup or the turbo is too small.

The larger inducer EFR 9280 certainly does move more air.  and Peter may be pleasantly surprised with the 9280.  I felt the same in many instances, but so far it appears to be delivering 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Full-Race Geoff

[burn4005]

Hi @Full-Race Geoff

have you managed to get any 8474 results you are able to share (upgrades from 8374 extra useful).

Alex

Edited January 8, 2020 by burn4005

[Full-Race Geoff]

the best 8474 comparative result came from Steph Papadakis.  Fred Aasbo's drift car has a fairly evolved engine program.  He uses 8374, 8474 and 9174 still in competition, switching between turbos per track.  Many years of data, cliffnotes are:

-8374 for small tracks, rarely needs nitrous.  the perfect "small turbo" for their needs

-9174 was their choice for the bigger tracks, with nitrous.  This has been replaced with 8474 and there is very little difference in tune or overall airflow.  The net difference is 8474 spools a little earlier than 9174.  but a little later than 8374

-this is a 4cyl engine and they still prefer to use 0.92 a/r

next year on the new supra it will be 8474 vs 9274 vs 9280.  unsure what turbine housing will be used. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Full-Race Geoff

[R32 TT]

Matchbot now has the latest EFR range up (finally!) for anyone that is interested.

 

[burn4005]

not appearing for me

Edited January 10, 2020 by burn4005

[R32 TT]

I agree - and on their "premiere" line of turbos, you'd think it would have been done almost on the day they were released..  Still - good to double check what I've gone and done...      

 

[Full-Race Geoff]

The latest maps were online for a while now: https://www.borgwarner.com/matchbot/

Burn4005 - there is an old BW site that no longer gets updates, do not use the turbos.bwauto.com site for matchbot

[burn4005]

Ah that's my mistake. Cheers. 

[R32 TT]

On 1/10/2020 at 11:27 PM, Full-Race Geoff said:

The latest maps were online for a while now: https://www.borgwarner.com/matchbot/

Burn4005 - there is an old BW site that no longer gets updates, do not use the turbos.bwauto.com site for matchbot

Good grief...   you're right.  Problem is that if you google "Matchbot" using Chrome in Australia, the first link takes you to this 'old' one.  BW need to take that down..   would take 2 mins to do.

I even have a response on  FB messenger from them apologizing but they don't know when the new turbos would be up on matchbot (that was 12/12/19, so only 4 weeks ago.. )    If their own people don't know its up...........      : /