Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0

[Mick_o]

On 13/09/2022 at 11:58 AM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

In the process of building a nitto 3.2 mated to a PPG sequential. I went back/forth with my EFR turbo choice. I think I will go with the 9180 (twin scroll manifold w/ twin external gates). I feel like going with a 1.45 a/r since I'll be using a sequential.

Any newer takes with this turbo on with a 3.2 stroker?

 

Why 9180?

Why not 8474? 

[Lithium]

On 13/09/2022 at 1:58 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

In the process of building a nitto 3.2 mated to a PPG sequential. I went back/forth with my EFR turbo choice. I think I will go with the 9180 (twin scroll manifold w/ twin external gates). I feel like going with a 1.45 a/r since I'll be using a sequential.

Any newer takes with this turbo on with a 3.2 stroker?

 

What are your power goals?

A mate has an RB30 with the 9180 and a 1.05 hotside, it's nice and responsive but the down side to the 9180 is that it does its best at higher boost levels (compressor wise) while a 3.2 with a decent head will find it easy to run off the map.  The 3litre works very nicely but a 3.2 would arguably be pushing it, the bigger 1.45a/r exhaust housing being a bandaid which doesn't fix the actual cause.

An EFR8474 compressor is actually more efficient in the 20psi range than the 9180, and the turbine wheel is surprisingly up to the task at that level.  I'd consider going 1.45a/r if you have a big head and want to make the most if you consider the 8474 but if you are mainly looking for a super responsive solid power level the 1.05 is likely to work better than many may expect.

Tl;Dr both are solid options - if you want significantly more than a 8474 can do then the EFR9280 is a more tangible improvement than the 9180 is, but the 9280 definitely comes at a cost in boost threshold.  On a 3.2 with a 1.05 you won't see solid solid boost until in the 4000rpm range but they can support a fair bit of power... But you DO need the 1.45 hotside to make the most of a 9280 and they start becoming a pretty laggy setup, I feel like other brands offer better options for that territory.

 

[The Mafia]

I personally would use the 9180. While the compressor will perform similar, The 8474 is too small in the rear. You want to keep that pressure ratio down and allow that exhaust to get out. The power will be more manageable too. 

I have a 2.8L, Vcam, and 8474 with a 1.06 rear. It's a weapon and I can see it getting to 750rwhp with ease. 

[Predator1]

On 13/09/2022 at 1:58 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

In the process of building a nitto 3.2 mated to a PPG sequential. I went back/forth with my EFR turbo choice. I think I will go with the 9180 (twin scroll manifold w/ twin external gates). I feel like going with a 1.45 a/r since I'll be using a sequential.

Any newer takes with this turbo on with a 3.2 stroker?

 

I happen to have the same combo but with an Albins that is getting swapped now. Have a look at my sig/profile. I went with the 1.05? housing too.

I think this turbo's spot on if you want response and decent top end.

[SLVRBAKSLPZ]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:47 PM, Mick_o said:

Why 9180?

Why not 8474? 

I thinking the 9180 for some overhead in boost. I def have been tossing the 8474 and the 9180 in my head. just not sure.

On 9/12/2022 at 11:02 PM, Lithium said:

What are your power goals?

A mate has an RB30 with the 9180 and a 1.05 hotside, it's nice and responsive but the down side to the 9180 is that it does its best at higher boost levels (compressor wise) while a 3.2 with a decent head will find it easy to run off the map.  The 3litre works very nicely but a 3.2 would arguably be pushing it, the bigger 1.45a/r exhaust housing being a bandaid which doesn't fix the actual cause.

An EFR8474 compressor is actually more efficient in the 20psi range than the 9180, and the turbine wheel is surprisingly up to the task at that level.  I'd consider going 1.45a/r if you have a big head and want to make the most if you consider the 8474 but if you are mainly looking for a super responsive solid power level the 1.05 is likely to work better than many may expect.

Tl;Dr both are solid options - if you want significantly more than a 8474 can do then the EFR9280 is a more tangible improvement than the 9180 is, but the 9280 definitely comes at a cost in boost threshold.  On a 3.2 with a 1.05 you won't see solid solid boost until in the 4000rpm range but they can support a fair bit of power... But you DO need the 1.45 hotside to make the most of a 9280 and they start becoming a pretty laggy setup, I feel like other brands offer better options for that territory.

 

Looking at 850whp tops. May be a stretch with a 8474. Either way in not hard set on 850, its just a bs goal.

I want it to be responsive w/o falling over too much at high RPM

So i assume the 1.05 a/r is a better option then?

My head is getting CNC ported, 1+ valves, dual springs, kelford 182-SE cams

overall not looking to push the motor to the limit. wanna set diff boost levels with that 850 being max. street drag use. Keeping that car for life so I want something fun. Slowly building it all up

On 9/12/2022 at 11:03 PM, The Mafia said:

I personally would use the 9180. While the compressor will perform similar, The 8474 is too small in the rear. You want to keep that pressure ratio down and allow that exhaust to get out. The power will be more manageable too. 

I have a 2.8L, Vcam, and 8474 with a 1.06 rear. It's a weapon and I can see it getting to 750rwhp with ease. 

Thx for the comment. I'm think the 9180 is the best option.

On 9/13/2022 at 12:07 AM, Predator1 said:

I happen to have the same combo but with an Albins that is getting swapped now. Have a look at my sig/profile. I went with the 1.05? housing too.

I think this turbo's spot on if you want response and decent top end.

I'll give it a look. thx

[Predator1]

On 13/09/2022 at 10:45 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

My head is getting CNC ported, 1+ valves, dual springs, kelford 182-SE cams

overall not looking to push the motor to the limit. wanna set diff boost levels with that 850 being max. street drag use. Keeping that car for life so I want something fun. Slowly building it all up

 

For 850whp, and If you have extensive headwork, then the 9180 probably wont cut it, or it might be borderline. Remember the 9180 is rated to 900hp only. I'm on around 750whp on around 25psi only, mind you, the tune isnt dialled in as it was a 'tidy up' tune only, however I was having IAT issues, so suspect turbo is being choked. I have a wheel speed sensor and EMAP going in along with other bits and pieces so be interesting to see how fast its spinning and how much headroom left.

[Lithium]

On 14/09/2022 at 3:12 PM, Predator1 said:

For 850whp, and If you have extensive headwork, then the 9180 probably wont cut it, or it might be borderline. Remember the 9180 is rated to 900hp only. I'm on around 750whp on around 25psi only, mind you, the tune isnt dialled in as it was a 'tidy up' tune only, however I was having IAT issues, so suspect turbo is being choked. I have a wheel speed sensor and EMAP going in along with other bits and pieces so be interesting to see how fast its spinning and how much headroom left.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at above.  Realistically BOTH turbos will be on their upper end of capability at this power level, but if OP is happy with "getting over 800whp" then I actually am going to go against the grain and say I still think the 8474 is the better option.

The trick with the "pre-black edition" Borg Warner turbos is the 8374 and 9180 compressors let the side down and made it seem like the turbines were more restrictive than they are.  The turbine from the EFR8374 had heaps up it's sleeve but people would often see high EMAP because of the compressor going inefficient and the boost control setup effectively going into "send" conditions.   Same goes for the EFR9180, they are better suited to higher boost/lower flow.   

This is somewhat speculative because I don't have direct experience with the combo, buuuut if I were a betting man I'd back an EFR8474 with a 1.45a/r hotside to be the "best" for if you're looking for a "being able to nudge over 800hp @ hub with epic response" on a build like this.    I wouldn't aim for 850hp, but you may be able to get it as a hero tune type thing.. it'd definitely be getting more on the sendy side though.

To put the compressor efficiency into perspective, I've plotted where the 64% compressor efficiency (ie, the point where it's still happy as but where things usually start getting sad quickly afterwards) for 20psi, 22psi, 24psi, 26psi, 28psi and 30psi on an EFR8474 on the EFR9180 compressor map.   Basically, the EFR8474 is still operating in the happy zone where a 9180 is getting quite into "shut the wastegate and cook the intake air" territory.

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Lithium

[The Mafia]

Very well put Lithium. 

Just to add to this - on my RB28, 272 JUN cams, fully ported head, the 8374 and 1.06 pretty much fell off the cliff at 650rwhp (front shaft out). Vcam made it VERY responsive on the 2.8L when added later. To put it into perspective, I had to ask my mate because mine has been cut, but he said from about 3k onwards he could feel his foreskin peeling back coming onto boost.

I thought it would have more but nope, 650rwhp on a proper reading dyno at 32psi and she was cooked. 

The 8474 though on a 2.8L and Vcam, noticably more mid range with just the tiniest bit of extra lag. 100-200rpm. But the transient is so much better. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by The Mafia

[Predator1]

On 15/09/2022 at 11:16 AM, Lithium said:

Yeah, this is what I was getting at above.  Realistically BOTH turbos will be on their upper end of capability at this power level, but if OP is happy with "getting over 800whp" then I actually am going to go against the grain and say I still think the 8474 is the better option.

The trick with the "pre-black edition" Borg Warner turbos is the 8374 and 9180 compressors let the side down and made it seem like the turbines were more restrictive than they are.  The turbine from the EFR8374 had heaps up it's sleeve but people would often see high EMAP because of the compressor going inefficient and the boost control setup effectively going into "send" conditions.   Same goes for the EFR9180, they are better suited to higher boost/lower flow.   

This is somewhat speculative because I don't have direct experience with the combo, buuuut if I were a betting man I'd back an EFR8474 with a 1.45a/r hotside to be the "best" for if you're looking for a "being able to nudge over 800hp @ hub with epic response" on a build like this.    I wouldn't aim for 850hp, but you may be able to get it as a hero tune type thing.. it'd definitely be getting more on the sendy side though.

To put the compressor efficiency into perspective, I've plotted where the 64% compressor efficiency (ie, the point where it's still happy as but where things usually start getting sad quickly afterwards) for 20psi, 22psi, 24psi, 26psi, 28psi and 30psi on an EFR8474 on the EFR9180 compressor map.   Basically, the EFR8474 is still operating in the happy zone where a 9180 is getting quite into "shut the wastegate and cook the intake air" territory.

 

Agreed 100%. I am thinking of the 9280, but in the meantime I'll see if I can crack 900w on e85.. I seriously doubt it, but I'll find out very soon. I'm hoping the extra cubes and headwork will get me that magic number at the same or similar boost. I'd be happy if i could run higher boost as long as my IAT and EMAP's don't skyrocket.

[burn4005]

On 9/15/2022 at 9:23 AM, The Mafia said:

Very well put Lithium. 

Just to add to this - on my RB28, 272 JUN cams, fully ported head, the 8374 and 1.06 pretty much fell off the cliff at 650rwhp (front shaft out). Vcam made it VERY responsive on the 2.8L when added later. To put it into perspective, I had to ask my mate because mine has been cut, but he said from about 3k onwards he could feel his foreskin peeling back coming onto boost.

I thought it would have more but nope, 650rwhp on a proper reading dyno at 32psi and she was cooked. 

The 8474 though on a 2.8L and Vcam, noticably more mid range with just the tiniest bit of extra lag. 100-200rpm. But the transient is so much better. 

had same experience with the 8374/1.05 on an RB26. 665hp@rear wheels at 28psi was full speed (127k rpm). you would have been overspeeding it for sure at 32psi on an RB28. for me it just nosed over. 

"what does front shaft out" mean?

Edited September 15, 2022 by burn4005

[Lithium]

On 15/09/2022 at 1:37 PM, Predator1 said:

Agreed 100%. I am thinking of the 9280, but in the meantime I'll see if I can crack 900w on e85.. I seriously doubt it, but I'll find out very soon. I'm hoping the extra cubes and headwork will get me that magic number at the same or similar boost. I'd be happy if i could run higher boost as long as my IAT and EMAP's don't skyrocket.

Unfortunately as per the compressor efficiency stuff I was rambling about above, extra cubes and headwork with a 9180 are a liability - not an advantage.   The compressor doesn't really do it's best work until higher boost levels, boost levels that with a saucy 3.2 you need a lot more flow than the 9180 will provide.   At the boost levels that a well flowing 3.2 will be happiest moving "900hp" levels of airflow are not where a 9180 is really doing it's best work.  

A 9280 would definitely let a 3.2 "hang on" better in the higher rpm, but they are a little lazier and the 1.05 hotside is a bit of a restriction - but it definitely makes a bit more sense.   My general view on the EFR range is that if a 8474/9180 is too far short of someones target then it's time to consider going to something from Precision or Garrett.

[SLVRBAKSLPZ]

Great content!!!

as much as I want to stick with EFR turbos I may need a G-series for the 3.2

[Lithium]

On 15/09/2022 at 2:17 PM, SLVRBAKSLPZ said:

Great content!!!

as much as I want to stick with EFR turbos I may need a G-series for the 3.2

Again the 9180 and 8474 will both get you to the 800hp @ hubs area.  Going to Precision or Garrett will definitely be a step backwards in response, if you're wanting to go north of 850hp but not too much then the 9280 is OK with the 1.05 but I was partly addressing situations where you're more looking for a healthy 900+hp.

In the Garrett range you'll be needing to look at a .95a/r G40 1150 btw, which will be laggy than the EFRs - but will do the power quite happily.  

Edited September 15, 2022 by Lithium

[Lithium]

Actually.    Here's some data, this is from a 3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474.   Looks like I've not posted this before.  This is 830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

 

 

[Predator1]

7 hours ago, Lithium said:

Actually.    Here's some data, this is from a 3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474.   Looks like I've not posted this before.  This is 830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

 

 

Holy smokes. I'd hate to be the big end bearings on that! 800+Nm under 4k!

[Predator1]

Anyone know whether the 9180 and the 9280 have interchangeable exhaust housings?

[burn4005]

yep same turbine.

only compressor is different

[Full-Race Geoff]

On 9/14/2022 at 8:28 PM, Lithium said:

3litre 2JZ with a VVTi head running a 1.05a/r EFR8474.   830hp @ hubs at 25psi, 111,000rpm turbine speed, 39psi EMAP... so safe wheel speed but EMAP is getting up there, which is why I'd push for the 1.45a/r hotside:

thats a great result, especially considering the 1.05 a/r!  What fuel was this on? agree the 1.45 could be a beast on there but the lowend on this 2jz has to be a LOT of fun

[Butters]

On 9/15/2022 at 10:49 AM, Lithium said:

In the Garrett range you'll be needing to look at a .95a/r G40 1150 btw, which will be laggy than the EFRs - but will do the power quite happily.  

Don't think the g35-1050 will get there ?   

I am pretty close(720rear) on 26psi with scope for more boost and rpm.  

Very happy with the repsonse on a 2.6 with vcam, on a 3.2 it would be amazing. 

[Lithium]

On 20/09/2022 at 6:26 AM, Full-Race Geoff said:

thats a great result, especially considering the 1.05 a/r!  What fuel was this on? agree the 1.45 could be a beast on there but the lowend on this 2jz has to be a LOT of fun

This is on E85.  

I know I've said this before but I have more data to back it up now, I think the Borg Warner turbines have been given less credit than they are due in terms of how well they flow because of the previous generation(s) lacking a bit compared to their competition in terms of compressor flow, especially with how the compressor maps looked for some of the EFR range.  The fact that Borg Warner have now released an EFR8370 is evidence of this, in my head.

I had a 2.3litre Mitsi hillclimb beasty recently on the dyno with an S257SXE running the 1.15a/r divided hotside on the dyno recently which had EMAP logging and with 1.8bar of boost in it the thing it still hadn't reached 1:1 EMAP/IMAP at max rpm at 390awkw / 520whp.    It would only be where it starts running out of compressor where the EMAP goes seriously south.  I feel the typical EFR range usually ran into EMAP (and turbine failure) issues because of people trying to drag flow out of compressors which really weren't the best for their size.