Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Its seem silly to buy from Australia in any case.  They are made in US.  Why pay for freght to Australia, and then freight back to you.    I would get straight from US.

Try Geoff at Fullrace.com  he has been very helpful to me and should be able to get you one.  It may even get through customs a little more easily if he has sent to Bulgaria before and they've already gone through the steps.  

 

 

On 09/03/2021 at 3:38 AM, R32 TT said:

That said, I ran mine happily for some years at sub 120krpm making 650-700hp at hubs and spinning to 7000-7500rpm on both 3.0 and now Nitto 3.2.  Intake temps were ok - but it didn't want to make any more power.  It has finally let go just two weekends ago.    We had recently added launch control which may or may not have contributed (or at least shortened its life).

Turbine wheel broke I suppose?

 

On 3/8/2021 at 9:38 PM, R32 TT said:

Matchbot will tell you there is no way an 8374 should be on a 3.0L RB... 8474 makes about 50hp at the hubs more on same boost (750hp at 23-26psi) , temps post turbo (pre intercooler) are only 10 degree cooler. And post cooler can't see a difference.  Definitely when in the mid-range revs and up you feel the extra legs it has... for me, on a 3.0-3.2L  I'd be going 8474 and altering gearing to suit what you're doing,  and keep it a bit further up the rev range.    

all good advice.  the other benefit of the 8474 is it won't overspeed as willingly on a large displacement RB

On 3/12/2021 at 10:17 AM, gixer said:

What about 9174 1.05? I cant get my hands on 8474 and now i am wondering about this one.

we have 9174 in stock.  it behaves similarly to 8474.  (note: 8474 is on backorder until april)

On 3/14/2021 at 5:52 AM, R32 TT said:

Try Geoff at Fullrace.com  he has been very helpful to me and should be able to get you one.  It may even get through customs a little more easily if he has sent to Bulgaria before and they've already gone through the steps.  

thanks for the vote, we ship to south eastern europe without issue.  most of our customers are not in the US

19 hours ago, gixer said:

How much laggier the 9174 is from 8474?

There's a smaller difference than expected.  one reference point - Fred Aasbo (papadakis racing drift team) ran 8474 vs 9174 back to back on the same track and could not tell any difference.  Their data shows 50-150rpm later spool but the tune did not change and he still uses 8374 for the smaller track Formula Drift competition 

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/17/2021 at 7:26 AM, gixer said:

How much laggier the 9174 is from 8474?

I went from a 7163 to 8374 to 8474 to 9174 and I am glad I did, it's an incredible turbo with amazing spool.

My car is not a Skyline sorry, it's an EVO X with sleeved and built 2.16cc engine (plazmaman IC, direct port meth injection, S2 cams, sequential 6 speed etc)

8474 was twinscroll  IWG and only 0.8 A/R rear

9174 was twinscroll EWG with 1.45 A/R rear

The 8474 came onto boost way too hard and made it undrivable (like between 3.5k to 4.5k was vertical on the dyno).

The 9174 we all thought being so much bigger rear housing would be lag city but surprisingly it was about the same as the 8474 (we only changed the turbo and nothing else). I see 1.5bar (22psi) by 4,300rpm. I am not done yet, I'm increasing the downpipe and going to S3 cams (Time attack car).

Rob

 

 

  • Like 2

thats a super interesting comparison.. 0.8 to 1.45 is a pretty dramatic turbine difference to not see any transient difference.

Im guessing you had the boost response tuned to be quite soft for the 8474 that wasn't nessasary with the 9174?

On 3/18/2021 at 4:30 AM, Full-Race Geoff said:

There's a smaller difference than expected.  one reference point - Fred Aasbo (papadakis racing drift team) ran 8474 vs 9174 back to back on the same track and could not tell any difference.  Their data shows 50-150rpm later spool but the tune did not change and he still uses 8374 for the smaller track Formula Drift competition 

interesting. which turbo do they reach for these days? the 84 or the 91 or are there tracks that they'd go one over the other?

15 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

thats a super interesting comparison.. 0.8 to 1.45 is a pretty dramatic turbine difference to not see any transient difference.

Im guessing you had the boost response tuned to be quite soft for the 8474 that wasn't nessasary with the 9174?

I just looked up the dyno graph comparison, it was about 100rpm of lag difference (9174 had more lag). Both setups are always tuned the same way as in boost is as aggressive as possible. Power curve was almost identical until 5,000rpm where the 9174 started making more power all the way to redline (70whp more on a mainline). I am still running a 3" downpipe though (with exhaust cut out) and will be upgrading to 4" downpipe with cut out plus S3 cams soon.

I found a fellow in the US with same car who also went from 8474 to 9174 (small Ar to large Ar) and he told me he barely lost spool and made more power up top (this isthe reason I made the change - it's true), I guess the 1.45 A/R is a very well engineered housing.

15 hours ago, Robo said:

I went from a 7163 to 8374 to 8474 to 9174 and I am glad I did, it's an incredible turbo with amazing spool.

I'm glad to hear you like the decade old 9174.  it remains a relevant turbo and due to a price discrepancy (that was never resolved) 9174 is the lowest cost EFR in the lineup.  a bargain compared to almost anything else in the same price range

13 hours ago, Robo said:

I guess the 1.45 A/R is a very well engineered housing.

1.45 a/r is a monster.  It was originally designed for Honda's Indycar 2.2L V6 engine (12k rpm rev limit).  As long as the housing is divided and there is a lot of boost at high engine speed >8500rpm then the 1.45 will work great. 

*edit: Transient response will suffer, so it doesnt make sense for drift cars

Edited by Full-Race Geoff
On 01/04/2021 at 1:19 PM, Robo said:

I went from a 7163 to 8374 to 8474 to 9174 and I am glad I did, it's an incredible turbo with amazing spool.

My car is not a Skyline sorry, it's an EVO X with sleeved and built 2.16cc engine (plazmaman IC, direct port meth injection, S2 cams, sequential 6 speed etc)

8474 was twinscroll  IWG and only 0.8 A/R rear

9174 was twinscroll EWG with 1.45 A/R rear

The 8474 came onto boost way too hard and made it undrivable (like between 3.5k to 4.5k was vertical on the dyno).

The 9174 we all thought being so much bigger rear housing would be lag city but surprisingly it was about the same as the 8474 (we only changed the turbo and nothing else). I see 1.5bar (22psi) by 4,300rpm. I am not done yet, I'm increasing the downpipe and going to S3 cams (Time attack car).

Rob

 

 

Recall difference going from 8374 to 8474, same turbine size?

2 hours ago, R.3.2.G.T.R said:

Recall difference going from 8374 to 8474, same turbine size?

Yes, same rear housing and both were IWG at the time. To be honest, I may have had too much back pressure which was apparent when moving to the 8474. But I will never know (I don't log back pressure).

I will say I expected more from the 9174 with such a large rear housing and twin EWG. We shall see what happens after the next round.

8474 didn't deliver anything special in my application, 2.8L high comp RB26 2.8l.  WIth a 1.05 rear, compared to the 9180 it behaved very similar.  It was quite more eager to come onto power faster on full throttle in 1st and 2nd gear, but it felt so restricted as soon as you got it moving.  The 9180 didn't feel like it was choking the engine as much, overall felt much more healthy and a better match  

The 9274 was the next turbo I was going to try, but it looked like it would just be an extension of the drawbacks I had with the 8474.  74mm wheel simply too restrictive to swallow all the flow the larger compressor can give.  Wasn't impressed with the 9280 from very limited testing I done

Edited by RB335
4 hours ago, RB335 said:

8474 didn't deliver anything special in my application, 2.8L high comp RB26 2.8l.  WIth a 1.05 rear, compared to the 9180 it behaved very similar.  It was quite more eager to come onto power faster on full throttle in 1st and 2nd gear, but it felt so restricted as soon as you got it moving.  The 9180 didn't feel like it was choking the engine as much, overall felt much more healthy and a better match  

The 9274 was the next turbo I was going to try, but it looked like it would just be an extension of the drawbacks I had with the 8474.  74mm wheel simply too restrictive to swallow all the flow the larger compressor can give.  Wasn't impressed with the 9280 from very limited testing I done

Have you fixed your exhaust that’s way too small yet? 

  • Haha 1
12 minutes ago, burn4005 said:

or run a screamer. venting ~25% mass flow out a short screamer reduces your full exhaust requirements in a big way.

this is where the significantly more efficient 84 or 91mm compressors would be better over the 83mm at high mass flows. the 91mm is about 10% more efficient above 70lb/min, which corresponds to about 7% extra mass flow that can be bled out the gate due to the reduced shaft power requirement.

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

    • See if you can thermal epoxy a heatsink or two onto it?
    • The other problem was one of those "oh shit we are going to die moments". Basically the high spec Q50s have a full electric steering rack, and the povo ones had a regular hydraulic rack with an electric pump.  So couple of laps into session 5 as I came into turn 2 (big run off now, happily), the dash turned into a christmas tree and the steering became super heavy and I went well off. I assumed it was a tyre failure so limped to the pits, but everything was OK. But....the master warning light was still on so I checked the DTCs and saw – C13E6 “Heat Protection”. Yes, that bloody steering rack computer sitting where the oil cooler should be has its own sensors and error logic, and decided I was using the steering wheel too much. I really appreciated the helpful information in the manual (my bold) POSSIBLE CAUSE • Continuing the overloading steering (Sports driving in the circuit etc,) “DATA MONITOR” >> “C/M TEMPERATURE”. The rise of steering force motor internal temperature caused the protection function to operate. This is not a system malfunction. INSPECTION END So, basically the electric motor in the steering rack got to 150c, and it decided to shut down without warning for my safety. Didn't feel safe. Short term I'll see if I can duct some air to that motor (the engine bay is sealed pretty tight). Long term, depending on how often this happens, I'll look into swapping the povo spec electric/hydraulic rack in. While the rack should be fine the power supply to the pump will be a pain and might be best to deal with it when I add a PDM.
    • And finally, 2 problems I really need to sort.  Firstly as Matt said the auto trans is not happy as it gets hot - I couldn't log the temps but the gauge showed 90o. On the first day I took it out back in Feb, because the coolant was getting hot I never got to any auto trans issues; but on this day by late session 3 and then really clearly in 4 and 5 as it got hotter it just would not shift up. You can hear the issue really clearly at 12:55 and 16:20 on the vid. So the good news is, literally this week Ecutek finally released tuning for the jatco 7 speed. I'll have a chat to Racebox and see what they can do electrically to keep it cooler and to get the gears, if anything. That will likely take some R&D and can only really happen on track as it never gets even warm with road use. I've also picked up some eye wateringly expensive Redline D6 ATF to try, it had the highest viscosity I could find at 100o so we will see if that helps (just waiting for some oil pan gaskets so I can change it properly). If neither of those work I need to remove the coolant/trans interwarmer and the radiator cooler and go to an external cooler....somewhere.....(goodbye washer reservoir?), and if that fails give up on this mad idea and wait for Nissan to release the manual 400R
    • So, what else.... Power. I don't know what it is making because I haven't done a post tune dyno run yet; I will when I get a chance. It was 240rwkw dead stock. Conclusion from the day....it does not need a single kw more until I sort some other stuff. It comes on so hard that I could hear the twin N1 turbos on the R32 crying, and I just can't use what it has around a tight track with the current setup. Brakes. They are perfect. Hit them hard all day and they never felt like having an issue; you can see in the video we were making ground on much lighter cars on better tyres under brakes. They are standard (red sport) calipers, standard size discs in DBA5000 2 piece, Winmax pads and Motul RBF600 fluid, all from Matty at Racebrakes Sydney. Keeping in mind the car is more powerful than my R32 and weighs 1780, he clearly knows his shit. Suspension. This is one of the first areas I need to change. It has electronically controlled dampers from factory, but everything is just way too soft for track work even on the hardest setting (it is nice when hustling on country roads though). In particular it rolls into oversteer mid corner and pitches too much under hard braking so it becomes unstable eg in the turn 1 kink I need to brake early, turn through the kink then brake again so I don't pirouette like an AE86. I need to get some decent shocks with matched springs and sway bars ASAP, even if it is just a v1 setup until I work out a proper race/rally setup later. Tyres. I am running Yoko A052 in 235/45/18 all round, because that was what I could get in approximately the right height on wheels I had in the shed (Rays/Nismo 18x8 off the old Leaf actually!). As track tyres they are pretty poor; I note GTSBoy recently posted a porker comparo video including them where they were about the same as AD09.....that is nothing like a top line track tyre. I'll start getting that sorted but realistically I should get proper sized wheels first (likely 9.5 +38 front and 11 +55 at the rear, so a custom order, and I can't rotate them like the R32), then work out what the best tyre option is. BTW on that, Targa Tas had gone to road tyres instead of semi slicks now so that is a whole other world of choices to sort. Diff. This is the other thing that urgently needs to be addressed. It left massive 1s out of the fish hook all day, even when I was trying not too (you can also hear it reving on the video, and see the RPM rising too fast compared to speed in the data). It has an open diff that Infiniti optimistically called a B-LSD for "Brake Limited Slip Diff". It does good straight line standing start 11s but it is woeful on the track. Nismo seem to make a 2 way for it.
    • Also, I logged some data from the ECU for each session (mostly oil pressures and various temps, but also speed, revs etc, can't believe I forgot accelerator position). The Ecutek data loads nicely to datazap, I got good data from sessions 2, 3 and 4: https://datazap.me/u/duncanhandleyhgeconsultingcomau/250813-wakefield-session-2?log=0&data=7 https://datazap.me/u/duncanhandleyhgeconsultingcomau/250813-wakefield-session-3?log=0&data=6 https://datazap.me/u/duncanhandleyhgeconsultingcomau/250813-wakefield-session-4?log=0&data=6 Each session is cut into 3 files but loaded together, you can change between them in the top left. As the test sessions are mostly about the car, not me, I basically start by checking the oil pressure (good, or at least consistent all day). These have an electrically controlled oil pump which targets 25psi(!) at low load and 50 at high. I'm running a much thicker oil than recommended by nissan (they said 0w20, I'm running 10w40) so its a little higher. The main thing is that it doesn't drop too far, eg in the long left hand fish hook, or under brakes so I know I'm not getting oil surge. Good start. Then Oil and Coolant temp, plus intercooler and intake temps, like this: Keeping in mind ambient was about 5o at session 2, I'd say the oil temp is good. The coolant temp as OK but a big worry for hot days (it was getting to 110 back in Feb when it was 35o) so I need to keep addressing that. The water to air intercooler is working totally backwards where we get 5o air in the intake, squish/warm it in the turbos (unknown temp) then run it through the intercoolers which are say 65o max in this case, then the result is 20o air into the engine......the day was too atypical to draw a conclusion on that I think, in the united states of freedom they do a lot of upsizing the intercooler and heat exchanger cores to get those temps down but they were OK this time. The other interesting (but not concerning) part for me was the turbo speed vs boost graph: I circled an example from the main straight. With the tune boost peaks at around 18psi but it deliberately drops to about 14psi at redline because the turbos are tiny - they choke at high revs and just create more heat than power if you run them hard all the way. But you can also see the turbo speed at the same time; it raises from about 180,000rpm to 210,000rpm which the boost falls....imagine the turbine speed if they held 18psi to redline. The wastegates are electrically controlled so there is a heap of logic about boost target, actual boost, delta etc etc but it all seems to work well
×
×
  • Create New...