Single turbo upgrade - sizing options for a mild 2.6

[shodan]

On 1/10/2019 at 11:39 PM, HarrisRacing said:

I think it's pointless to go with anything smaller to be honest because you really don't spool any faster...only reduce topend. 

I'd love to see some data, bit thin on the ground

I've seen the results you got with your IWG .92, looks solid. Unsure about 1.05 rear of the EWG

[Taha]

On 1/11/2019 at 2:58 PM, shodan said:

Re the Precisions- .84 or 1.05 a/r ?

.84

[Mick_o]

On 1/10/2019 at 7:52 PM, Taha said:

6466   if your  going to build a stroker later  6266 if your staying 2.6 or a gtx382 or 84

TOO LAGGY! Driven a 6266 on a 3.2L with V cam and it was junk... 

[Taha]

6266 would choke  up top on a  3.2 but each to there own  changing setups can get expensive  so if you plan to build a stroker   get the right turbo   for you and what you plan to do with the car  I see   full boost under 5k  pulls to 9 with 270 cams on a 2.6  shit on my old twin set up  

[Taha]

If it helps my mate had a 6266 same set up  he was 100 rpm more responsive but  he went 136 137mph I went 140 141mph at wsid

 

 

[Mick_o]

6266 .84 Was a laggy heap of shit IMO Still took 4-4200 to really wake up. Same car with the EFR 1.05 8374 combo was on by 3500. Its a Much better turbo. Car drove way better from the basement to the top end of town. 

[Lithium]

8 hours ago, Mick_o said:

6266 .84 Was a laggy heap of shit IMO Still took 4-4200 to really wake up. Same car with the EFR 1.05 8374 combo was on by 3500. Its a Much better turbo. Car drove way better from the basement to the top end of town. 

To be fair there were a heap of other things which probably had more to do with that lag than the turbo, I would have been interested to see how the 6266 behaved with those sorted - the EFR was always going to be better, but

[Mick_o]

8 minutes ago, Lithium said:

To be fair there were a heap of other things which probably had more to do with that lag than the turbo, I would have been interested to see how the 6266 behaved with those sorted - the EFR was always going to be better, but

True but that woulda been 200-300rpm at best? Still would never have been in the same realm as the 8374. 

[Lithium]

On 1/14/2019 at 9:42 AM, Mick_o said:

True but that woulda been 200-300rpm at best? Still would never have been in the same realm as the 8374. 

At least when I drove it the thing wouldn't even rev off idle properly, there was something quite wrong with how that engine was running so I don't really feel too inclined to judge how the turbo performed off how the car itself performed in that case - I don't really recall the full history, but I have a feeling the 6266 never got tested after the tune/engine issues were fixed?  The 8374 went on and everything else was changed all in one shot?

[HarrisRacing]

8474 next month on the shelves. You can just stop this comversation now.

[Dale FZ1]

10 hours ago, HarrisRacing said:

8474 next month on the shelves.

Is that like free beer tomorrow?

The options being talked about aren't exactly dogs of things, and I agree with Lithium's comment re: having all things fitted and operating properly before turning the torch on turbo A vs. turbo B.

[Mick_o]

12 hours ago, HarrisRacing said:

8474 next month on the shelves. You can just stop this comversation now.

Haha dont bank on that with Borg Warner!?

[Mick_o]

23 hours ago, Lithium said:

At least when I drove it the thing wouldn't even rev off idle properly, there was something quite wrong with how that engine was running so I don't really feel too inclined to judge how the turbo performed off how the car itself performed in that case - I don't really recall the full history, but I have a feeling the 6266 never got tested after the tune/engine issues were fixed?  The 8374 went on and everything else was changed all in one shot?

While you are right that the car was running like a turd. I highly doubt the tune touch ups required would have miraculously turned that turbos behaviour around that much.

It still had 3.2L worth of donk blowing gas up its ass. 

Nothing else mechanical was changed between the turbo swap. 

[Lithium]

50 minutes ago, Mick_o said:

Haha dont bank on that with Borg Warner!?

Truth

27 minutes ago, Mick_o said:

While you are right that the car was running like a turd. I highly doubt the tune touch ups required would have miraculously turned that turbos behaviour around that much.

It still had 3.2L worth of donk blowing gas up its ass. 

Nothing else mechanical was changed between the turbo swap. 

For what it's worth, that car is the only car I've actually been in running a Precision turbo and I completely disregard it as an experience to draw anything from because it may as well have been any other car with an intake cam out by a tooth due to VCam basically not working properly, and how obvious an effect it was having even when the car was in neutral.

As much as I'm a huge EFR fan, and wanted to see one on that car - my vote at the time was he sort out the issues as the way it was behaving was definitely beyond anything that a turbo could be responsible for... meaning either the owner would be buying a turbo he didn't need to in order to make a lot of improvement, and also that if the only change was the turbo then the EFR would also end up looking like a bit of a nugget as it wasn't going to be able to fix the biggest issue.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Lithium

[HarrisRacing]

Oh and to add. There is some merit in comparing the 8374 compressor map to 8474. In my case (full build 2.75L stroker w/ ported head and all the stuff) I could actually use the extra compressor map. BUT, the 8374 is actually more efficient by a few percent especially at the lower (pumpgas) boost levels. so...in your application I would still lean towards 8374 IWG .92.

[shodan]

On 1/17/2019 at 8:05 AM, HarrisRacing said:

Oh and to add. There is some merit in comparing the 8374 compressor map to 8474. In my case (full build 2.75L stroker w/ ported head and all the stuff) I could actually use the extra compressor map. BUT, the 8374 is actually more efficient by a few percent especially at the lower (pumpgas) boost levels. so...in your application I would still lean towards 8374 IWG .92.

Yeah they do look pretty good for what they are, but I'd rather avoid all the boost control issues with IWG.

If I'm going through this whole 'upgrade from low mount twins' exercise (ecu/balancer/crank trigger/manifold/turbo/lines/downpipe/etc) it seems wasteful to not do EWG, gates and the piping fabrication at the same time, rather than have to do it all again when I go stroker in the future.

[shodan]

Thanks to everyone who took some time to respond.

I'm currently leaning towards an 8374 .92 with it's gate welded shut and a downpipe solution that will allow me to change to a 1.05 by adding a small extender later. I'll report back when it all goes down. Cheers

[Mick_o]

15 minutes ago, shodan said:

Thanks to everyone who took some time to respond.

I'm currently leaning towards an 8374 .92 with it's gate welded shut and a downpipe solution that will allow me to change to a 1.05 by adding a small extender later. I'll report back when it all goes down. Cheers

Well you have done a big 180 on the road to a total f**k upville! ? Do it once do it right!

Why pay for 2 housings and 2 tunes and manifold modifications etc? 

Just throw the 1.05 on and save yourself the money and heart ache of doing things over and over again & pulling your car off the road again? 

[shodan]

4 hours ago, Mick_o said:

Why

.92s seem to get better response on a 2.6L, so I don't know if the 1.05 is doing it right tbh Mick

[Mick_o]

1 hour ago, shodan said:

.92s seem to get better response on a 2.6L, so I don't know if the 1.05 is doing it right tbh Mick

Trust me when i say the 1.05 wont be laggy.

I have an EFR 7670 1.05 on my Stock motor 4G63 Evo 9 and i make 500nm by 4000rpm & make 250kw by 4500rpm. I know its not the same turbo but it is 600cc & 2 cylinders smaller so on a "scale of things" is very relative i think. 

As i said save yourself money in the long run by "living with extra lag" its honestly a far better proposition than the abortion you are talking about doing mate!

Essentially you are destroying a turbine housing making it not worthy of buying welding up the gate. You will also need to modify your dump pipe as the IWG housing is way longer than the EWG

Next question is. How are you planning on controlling boost if you are going to weld the gate shut?