Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[Lithium]

G42 definitely has the exhaust flow to back it up - but a significant amount more lag too.  Probably the way to go if you are looking for big power, but if you are looking for big power and response doing something a bit different a Xona Rotor 105-69S have the potential to be pretty epic when they get more available.

[Deano 1]

Its such a fine line. At the end of the day, everyones idea of laggy is different.

9280 would bolt straight up to my current setup as I've got a 9180..... that's why I'm looking down that route for this new engine. 

[R32 TT]

I haven't been on the forum much in a long time - but look what turned up in the post today...  courtesy Geoff Raicer (thanks again mate).   Just came by to see what the latest results were..

I'll be doing a direct one to one comparison of this vs my current 8374 when the time comes.

 

[Full-Race Geoff]

18 hours ago, burn4005 said:

People really like round numbers don't they.. My car did 495kw at absolute max turbo speed and everyone always asks why I didn't go one psi more to break the half ton.  If you need a round number in your life set the Dyno to metric and aim for 700kw instead of 1000hp.  People forget that tuners pull a degree or two of global out when they unstrap the car anyway.

#penismeasuringcontest

18 hours ago, Lithium said:

 If you get an EFR9280 on a strong RB28, and tune it until you hit around 117,000rpm shaft speed then who gives a crap what the dyno says - that is going to be a FAST car.   Pick a bunch of parts which work well together and build, tune until it's sent and go forth and enjoy... that is the way to get a happiest result. 

totally agree.  A illustration of this is seen working with world class top-level professional drivers.  Guys who drive real racecars for a living, sit them in a turbo 4 or 6 cyl vehicle with a big EFR at full song, and everytime its the same shock-and-awe reaction of "that thing is so fast, i have to change my driving style to adapt".  These are the best in the game, and its not easy for them to drive to the limit.  especially considering how laggy these little RB engines really are - even with all the tricks. 

12 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

HP, kW, Shaft speed are great numbers, but those numbers are completely useless if you can't back it up with solid time slips OR eye popping lap times.

But my dyno chart number is bigger than yours !! ... said every forum jockey ever. (especially on the BMW forums)

8 hours ago, Lithium said:

 if you are looking for big power and response doing something a bit different a Xona Rotor 105-69S have the potential to be pretty epic when they get more available.

i love the guys at Tial,.  however xona rotor = undivided singlescroll only.  For some applications this may work well but Im pretty stuck on divided housings for I4's and I6's that turn (dragstrips singlescroll is fine).  What further irks my inner engineer is there are no turbine or compressor maps nor speed sensor option to confidently know where you are operating... but thats never affected precision so it must be me.  the market doesnt seem to care

7 hours ago, Deano 1 said:

At the end of the day, everyones idea of laggy is different.

9280 would bolt straight up to my current setup as I've got a 9180..... that's why I'm looking down that route for this new engine. 

Very true.  my idea of laggy has changed considerably over the last few years as i get more experience with better spool.  Regardless if you can do a supercore swap on your setup, that would be convenient.  all the hoses/fittings remain the same and you might be able to get away without removing the turbine housing from the vehicle

3 hours ago, R32 TT said:

I haven't been on the forum much in a long time - but look what turned up in the post today...  courtesy Geoff Raicer (thanks again mate).   Just came by to see what the latest results were..

I'll be doing a direct one to one comparison of this vs my current 8374 when the time comes.

?

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Full-Race Geoff

[Lithium]

11 hours ago, Deano 1 said:

Its such a fine line. At the end of the day, everyones idea of laggy is different.

9280 would bolt straight up to my current setup as I've got a 9180..... that's why I'm looking down that route for this new engine. 

Ahh yep, gotcha.  Sounds like the 9280 is a couple hundred rpm or so laggier but the compressor map definitely paints a picture of a lot more flow.  I think the 9180 compressor left a bit to be desired, so in that sense it may be a good upgrade depending on how much more power you want, and how much more lag you can live with.

A shame results seem to take so long to filter through - most people who have run them so far have not shared anything, and the things shared so far fall well short of what the flow claims would suggest aside from the EFR8474 dyno result from a couple of years ago.  Hopefully this changes eventually!

8 hours ago, R32 TT said:

I haven't been on the forum much in a long time - but look what turned up in the post today...  courtesy Geoff Raicer (thanks again mate).   Just came by to see what the latest results were..

I'll be doing a direct one to one comparison of this vs my current 8374 when the time comes.

 

Yusss!

[RICE RACING]

On 7/2/2019 at 4:15 AM, Full-Race Geoff said:

8474 0.92 a/r just won pike's peak with a Honda K20

 

https://newatlas.com/2019-pikes-peak-results-robin-shute/60378/

With a Life Racing based ECU and correct set up that engine would have run properly LOL........

Regardless goes to show what a superior power train config can manage, we run a 2zz 1.8lt engine on EFR at same level of peak power but with far broader power range, similar vehicular constraints, and I can confirm it makes lesser packages look 'compromised' when you look at the performance potential.

Edited July 4, 2019 by RICE RACING

[burn4005]

I look forward to seeing you to winning pikes peak next year then Pete.

[sneakey pete]

I just want milk that tastes like real milk.

 

In other news, i'm getting boost spikes with the new tune unfortunately, seems to be more on rapid changes in revs, eg in second or if i lift off and the get back on it in 3rd/4th. This is using the 4 port with 14psi springs in an IWG 75. Will have to head back to the tuner I suppose.

that being said I do have the 1.05 rear housing chilling out in the shed still that i got with the replacement core...

[welshy_32ZILA]

9 hours ago, sneakey pete said:

I just want milk that tastes like real milk.

 

In other news, i'm getting boost spikes with the new tune unfortunately, seems to be more on rapid changes in revs, eg in second or if i lift off and the get back on it in 3rd/4th. This is using the 4 port with 14psi springs in an IWG 75. Will have to head back to the tuner I suppose.

that being said I do have the 1.05 rear housing chilling out in the shed still that i got with the replacement core...

Sneaky Pete, can I ask why you would run a 14psi spring with a 4port? my understanding the ability of the 4port allows you to run minimal spring (say 7psi) which in turn lowers your lowest boost pressure but the 4port gives ability to run boost to the top of the gate if u have a twin port iwg 75 that has that ability. This could help with the gate catching the spike. Maybe that your just too small on the rear but dropping the spring pressure imo would be my first thing to try. 

[Duncan]

Personal attacks, negative posts about businesses (including childish name calling) and off topic posts (this is a turbo, not ECU thread) removed. It's not that hard to keep a discussion civil.

Further such posts will lead to warnings and bannings

[burn4005]

Is your ecu doing the boost control? You could try backing off the proportional gain a bit as the proportional error seems to be too high. Alternatively you may need a bit more derivative to back it off if you think the prop gain is correct (output gain matches process gain)

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

Or decrease the delay timer, generally setting a high base duty with the default delay timer for the closed loop does what you're describing. 

[sneakey pete]

Will see what the tuner says then i guess.
Or turn the boost up to 30psi...

[Lithium]

On 06/07/2019 at 1:48 PM, sneakey pete said:

i'm getting boost spikes with the new tune unfortunately, seems to be more on rapid changes in revs, eg in second or if i lift off and the get back on it in 3rd/4th. This is using the 4 port with 14psi springs in an IWG 75. Will have to head back to the tuner I suppose.

that being said I do have the 1.05 rear housing chilling out in the shed still that i got with the replacement core...

 

On 06/07/2019 at 11:38 PM, welshy_32ZILA said:

Sneaky Pete, can I ask why you would run a 14psi spring with a 4port? my understanding the ability of the 4port allows you to run minimal spring (say 7psi) which in turn lowers your lowest boost pressure but the 4port gives ability to run boost to the top of the gate if u have a twin port iwg 75 that has that ability. This could help with the gate catching the spike. Maybe that your just too small on the rear but dropping the spring pressure imo would be my first thing to try. 

Hard to say without having had a look or go at it all and not knowing which ECU you are running etc, but it seems like there are a couple of things there which definitely are setting up to make it a bit of a challenge to make boost stable.... I'm not a huge fan of the internal wastegate EFRs personally, the 1.05a/r housing with external wastegate seems to be the way to go in most cases but as Welshy says, the 4-port actuator with a 1bar spring in it is definitely likely to make things trickier.   

You basically end up with much smaller duty cycle differences needed to have a solid impact on wastegate behaviour, and annoyingly a lot of ECUs with closed loop boost control don't factor in the dead time for the wastegate solenoid which means that closed loop corrections are counting the dead time as part of the effective pulse width... not usually an issue when you have a fairly wide duty cycle range for not a huge boost target range, but a bit more of an issue when the amount of the pulse needed to open the solenoid in itself could have a reasonable impact on boost if applied as part of the effective pulse width, if that makes sense?  It's likely to make closed loop control have fits unless the ECU is able to provide the closed loop logic with just the effective pulse width to work with.

We haven't actually tried it out yet, but one of the cars I work with that need a wide boost range we've plumbed up two 3-port solenoids and will use a PWM output on the Link ECU to regulate pressure to one side of the wastegate just using a table to effectively bump up the spring pressure based off boost target a bit, so we can use a .4 or .6 bar spring and be able to run sufficient boost to justify the setup with acceptable control.  

[burn4005]

I would run a much softer spring. you are clamping the lower effective control range of the boost control output as its just more preload for the boost control pressure to overcome for no reason.

 

I am using a 5psi spring in a progate 50 and it holds 28psi no problems, in saying that it has an excellent diaphram to valve area ratio (~2:1) so even a 1psi spring would work.

 

I also recommend the 12watt mac solenoid instead of the 5.4. its deadtime is significantly shorter giving you a broader effective control range.

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

@burn4005 noticed you don't have a build thread, however I recall you run a 76mm Pro Series cooler?

If so, are you able to give me some data on your IATs with a bit of load? I'm in the middle of tossing up between a 76mm or a 100mm cooler as I want the IAT as low as possible as I plan to mainly run 98RON with the occasional dilution of 98RON with ethanol.

I did a bit of logging and with my dim sum bok choy 76mm Hybrid cooler it's peaking at 59 degrees on a 15 degree day in 3rd with only a baby amount of boost (1.4bar).

[burn4005]

nah I've got a 100mm greddy unit.

dont really have much useful data as I havent got any track data for full boost as I'm getting the chassis happy first. and at 10psi from the last test day there is very little heat being added to the air, making around 300awkw.

 

but a 7 second dyno pull at 28psi went from 26 to 34 degrees C. but thats more heat sinking than cooler efficiency, Dyno fan not an accurate test.

 

 

[SimonR32]

On 7/3/2019 at 10:00 PM, R32 TT said:

I haven't been on the forum much in a long time - but look what turned up in the post today...  courtesy Geoff Raicer (thanks again mate).   Just came by to see what the latest results were..

I'll be doing a direct one to one comparison of this vs my current 8374 when the time comes.

 

You've kept this quiet...

Game on mole  

[Nismo 3.2ish]

7 minutes ago, SimonR32 said:

You've kept this quiet...

Game on mole  

looking forward to see the results ?

[R32 TT]

3 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

You've kept this quiet...

Game on mole  

I wanted to 'surprise you'..   and now because I couldn't keep my mouth shut..  I've gone and ruined everything.

.......................You know about the Samsonas though yeah?

PS..   I can't believe you called me a mole...