Jump to content
SAU Community
  • Welcome to SAU Community

    Welcome to SAU Community, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of SAU Community by signing in or creating an account.

    • Start new topics and reply to others
    • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
    • Get your own profile page, build reputation and make new friends
    • Send personal messages to other members.
    • See fewer ads!

    Consider joining our newsletter for the latest content updates

    Click here to register


Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0


Piggaz

Recommended Posts

In Bulgaria, where i lives, two times the customs held my parts for two months before they even give me a chance to pay the charges for them. The whole system here is  f*cked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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



×
×
  • Create New...