Jump to content
SAU Community

Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0


Piggaz

Recommended Posts

Car arrives at shop with stock RB26 on stock turbos. Has installed a PNP Haltech and a rough, rich tune. 14 psi on top end...laggy for sure. I knew we were swapping them so I didn't try hard here.

3 weeks later:
Billet oil pump gears
Tomei Cam Gears (rolled in pretty well)
My old EFR 8374 .92 and 6 boost divided IWGmanifold
3" exhaust
Still on 93 octane and still on Haltech basemap timing (still tuning just ran out of time last night)
15-16 psi boost (same as his car when arrived).
 

This is a FANTASTIC turbo for an RB26!

image.png.c7129c6116b3ce3425aa6f0ba6db4e5f.png

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

Torque line is not boost line.

looking at a few dyno sheets (from some manufacturers) it appears on some they correlate directly, and on others torque lags MAP by a little bit. I'm guessing that is more to do with torque calculation/smoothing and retarder control than reality?

I can't think of any reason why torque and MAP wouldn't correlate directly. why would torque lag it?

Edited by burn4005
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, burn4005 said:

looking at a few dyno sheets (from some manufacturers) it appears on some they correlate directly, and on others torque lags MAP by a little bit. I'm guessing that is more to do with torque calculation/smoothing and retarder control than reality?

I can't think of any reason why torque and MAP wouldn't correlate directly. why would torque lag it?

Yuh, hence why I said what I said.  Without knowing whether it lines up on that car/dyno combo, you don't quite have enough info to assume.  FWIW, torque climbs from low to max in an NA....there is no boost to "set" the torque level.  That efficiency/breathing function is still present in a turbo engine too.  So if the boost comes up to max before the engine has reached its inherent torque plateau, then the torque should still lag the boost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got the SR22VET tuned today with the .92 IWG 7670. It was doing 300kw at 15psi. Ended with 408kw at 26psi tapering to 23psi (intentionally). 300kw at the wheel at 4.5k and revving to 8.5k is going to be fun. 

20180727_182531.jpg

20180727_205627.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

how much woosh does that size make mate, I need something for the rb30 stagea

600 kw at the treads, give or take. Do it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my 9180 makes 500kw atw on 26psi with a run in tune on my new engine. 

Be interesting to see what she makes when we turn it up. But they make 500 easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2018 at 5:36 PM, burn4005 said:

Full boost at 5k on stock turbos? That's a bit lethargic

I agree with you more for sure now. Below is the comparison on SAME dyno (only days apart) to my 1991 GTR.

Here is my stock RB26 GT2860-7 car. It has Greddy downpipe, HKS super Drager exhaust, Tomei cam gears rolled in about 6 deg, and now has hard inlet pipes that I built last week and a Haltech Platinum pnp (the rev2 is nice!!). I modified fuel rail for -6 inlet on rear and upgraded fuel pump with FIC 850cc drop-ins. 

On stock AFM's and just raising boost to 18psi it was 384 whp before cutting due to AFM overrun. It did ~ 300 whp at 9-10 psi boost.

New dyno on Haltech at 20.5 psi and 3 deg added to base haltech timing = 456 whp. I want you guys to note that while it "hangs" with the 8374 EFR IWG .92 on boost threshold on a non-load bearing dyno, when driving the two cars the single completely stomps the twins on response. You can spool sooner, run less boost, and make more power. The 8374 car on 14 psi makes the same power as the -7 car does on 19-20 psi...It is a no-brainer for anyone that thinks that -7 are acceptable boost threshold and lag turbos then the 8374 will beat the pants off of them everywhere.

image.thumb.png.22dddd5be5abe86d89d211d546afab97.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is 9180 on 13B street port engine (the video I put up of it on idle a page or so back). Turbo is max response set up with adequate power range (~700bhp engine), makes for a fast car in a RX7 weight/size.

Power band is good, but it can only do so much, 120k turbo speed on this one, we have run higher on other cars though. Its got a nice spread of power and will do 100 to 200kph in one gear in under 5 seconds. I also include data on phase + anti phase control, we can run a bit more boost if required, and no drop off to 9000rpm (beauty of an advanced ECU).

lSzF6Zn.jpg

Edited by RICE RACING
right pic
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
3 minutes ago, Predator1 said:

Anyone have any experience with a 9180 1.01 on a 3.2? Hoping it will make 500.

The 9180 1.05 can easily supply 500rwkw worth of airflow.  the rest of the setup will need to support this, fuel is the biggest factor (knock)

4 hours ago, RB335 said:

Does anyone have a 9180 for sale?

Full-Race has a few in stock, there will be a sale for the big holiday in the states this weekend

Edited by Full-Race Geoff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

The 9180 1.05 can easily supply 500rwkw worth of airflow.  the rest of the setup will need to support this, fuel is the biggest factor (knock)

Full-Race has a few in stock, there will be a sale for the big holiday in the states this weekend

Thanks Geoff. I am going to be using a built and ported head as well as flex fuel. The only thing that worries me is the turbo running out of puff on the top end.

Is there nothing in between a 1.01 and a 1.45? I really dont want to have to stick a 1.45 in there. I know a friend that runs one and is rather laggy, on a 3.2.

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Slimline sub on the rear parcel shelf is doable. Pioneer TS-WX140DA is only 70mm high.   
    • People like Johnny Dose Bro might be laughing at my post because I accidentally added 100mm to my numbers. 350-355 is indeed the lower limit. 450 is off-road Skyline spec.
    • What is the "compromise" that you think will happen? Are you thinking that something will get damaged? The only things you have to be concerned about with spherical jointed suspension arms are; Arguments with the constabulary wrt their legality (they are likely to be illegal for road use without an engineering certificatation, and that may not be possible to obtain). A lot more NVH transmitted through to the passengers (which is hardly a concern for those with a preference for good handling, anyway). Greatly increased inspection and maintenance requirements (see above points, both).   It is extremely necessary to ask what car you are talking about. Your discussion on strut tops, for example, would be completely wrong for an R chassis, but be correct for an S chassis. R32s have specific problems that R33/4 do not have. Etc. I have hardened rubber bushes on upper rear control arms and traction rods. Adjustable length so as to be able to set both camber and bump steer. You cannot contemplate doing just the control arms and not the traction arms. And whatever bushing you have in one you should have in the other so that they have similar characteristics. Otherwise you can get increased oddness of behaviour as one bushing flexes and the other doesn't, changing the alignment between them. I have stock lower rear arms with urethane bushes. I may make changes here, these are are driven by the R32's geometry problems, so I won't discuss them here unless it proves necessary. I have spherical joints in the front caster rods. I have experienced absolutely no negatives and only positives from doing so. They are massively better than any other option. I have sphericals in the FUCAs, but this is driven largely by the (again) R32 specific problems with the motion of those arms. I just have to deal with the increased maintenance required. Given how much better the front end behaves with the sphericals in there.....I'd probably be tempted to go away from my preference (which is not to have sphericals on a road car, for 2 of the 3 reasons in the bulleted list above), just to gain those improvements. And so my preference for not using sphericals (in general) on a road car should be obvious. I use them judiciously, though, as required to solve particular problems.
    • Easiest way to know is to break out the multimeter and measure it when cold, then measure all the resistances again once it gets hot enough to misfire. Both the original ignitor and the J Replace version. Factory service manual will have the spec for the terminal measurements.
    • Yes that sounds right. Cars currently in the shop for the engine work. Will need to remeasure .. but yes I think I must be targeting 45cm from fender. 
×
×
  • Create New...