When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I feel like you still don't fully get the AR vs turbine design vs engine requirement relationship
it's not just a 1.05, it's a T4 1.05, which is not the same as a T3 1.05. I can't see a 500+hp 2-rotor engine having sufficient wastegate control through the restricted siamese center port, but maybe I'm wrong..
I do get it .... and i still stick to my comment above . The differences are too significant to be attributed solely to AR . (the 0.92 has the same T4 flange size as the 1.05 BTW ... did you forget that ?)
RE 500+............... yes It's a big ask . I am getting ahead of myself there . It's going to be a stretch to make over 400 .
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
As you eluded to earlier, a T3 1.06 with a GT3582R is a known quantity. You won't have any real issues and should hit your goal fine *assuming* the 3rd-port wastegate deal works. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been improved on with a different compressor wheel and turbine housing. You are already risking on the manifold setup so it was reasonable to play it safe otherwise.
Mine is actually a 1.01 T3 . I know I said 1.06 initially . Have corrected my first post.
The selection I made was more to do with finding something that actually fitted yet had the potential to make 400 rather than what was the best turbo.
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
as for an EFR 7670, more than a few highly experienced turbo gurus think it's perfectly acceptable for up to 400 rwhp 2-rotor application. Their reasoning is that for a street/autox application the low rpm boost response is superior to the 8374 and they aren't running continuous WOT for long periods of time. As always, the right configuration and tune matters.
.
Turblown actually said that he was considering not even offering the 7670 as the spectacular spoolup from the 8374 made the choice redundant .
Sorry im trying to get things straight in my head. Mark, Brett are we comparing a borgwarner EFR series turbos to any Garrett? They are not directly comparable in turbine and compressor size alone. the EFR is much longer and its vanes extend much further out, making the comparison in diameter terms of little consequence.
Sorry im trying to get things straight in my head. Mark, Brett are we comparing a borgwarner EFR series turbos to any Garrett? They are not directly comparable in turbine and compressor size alone. the EFR is much longer and its vanes extend much further out, making the comparison in diameter terms of little consequence.
no we weren't doing that . I've almost forgotten what we were discussing .... I think we went off on a tangent and lost the plot !
Than i guess i don't understand the comparison. I know many turbos such as anything with a tial housing/billet compressor or elongated EFR wheel type turbine/compressor will skew the results. I keep seeing direct comparison measurements of actual size, when in the real world they are not the same, all are a give and take. truthfully a more axial EFR type turbine paired with a slightly more efficient larger compressor would be ideal but that simply does not exist in the real world.
Than i guess i don't understand the comparison. I know many turbos such as anything with a tial housing/billet compressor or elongated EFR wheel type turbine/compressor will skew the results. I keep seeing direct comparison measurements of actual size, when in the real world they are not the same, all are a give and take. truthfully a more axial EFR type turbine paired with a slightly more efficient larger compressor would be ideal but that simply does not exist in the real world.
FWIW
We were comparing EFR 8374 with 0.92IWG twin scroll housing with same turbo and 1.05EWG twin scroll .
See his July 5 post on Facebook, latest Turblown/Adaptronic EFR7670 FD3 dyno
Goal was for more power than twins, without sacrificing response. 265rwkw @ 16psi with 415nm~ of torque, 98 Pump Fuel - super responsive, very, very fun to drive. Borgwarner EFR 7670 1.05 - twin external gates on a custom manifold by Turblown Engineering. Thanks to all the sponsors and people involved.
Turblown Engineering<br/>BorgWarner Turbo Systems EFR 7670 IWG FD. Stock port, pump gas, 1.1 bar 3" exhaust, OEM coils, medium BW actuator
I understand the 8374 .92 is a T4. It works because it's .92. My earlier comparison was WRT the well known GT3582R T3 1.06 combination. Because a T3 1.06 maintains a higher velocity it works. The T4 1.06 has a place, but below 550-600 hp is not it on a 2-rotor. The EFR8374 0.92 is already getting near 600 hp on ethanol (btw the earlier 8374 dyno I posted as comparison was on E98, they are shooting for 40 psi eventually). Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Turblown promotes the EFR 7670 regularly, just depends on the goal. It's not just Turblown either, but since you specifically used them
I understand the 8374 .92 is a T4. It works because it's .92. My earlier comparison was WRT the well known GT3582R T3 1.06 combination. Because a T3 1.06 maintains a higher velocity it works. The T4 1.06 has a place, but below 550-600 hp is not it on a 2-rotor. The EFR8374 0.92 is already getting near 600 hp on ethanol (btw the earlier 8374 dyno I posted as comparison was on E98, they are shooting for 40 psi eventually). Sorry if I wasn't clear.
.
You are going to make me find the quote aren't you ! ?
Don't know the timing of it , but I thought it was soon after he had the info for both turbos.
I don't 100% agree with you on your flange size assessment . It's as much to do with the manifold design before the flange as anything . T4 necessitates larger pipes and collector volume than T3 , which has more of a negative impact than the flange size istelf .
The T4 0.92 IWG example you gave almost certainly had a better more compact collector/manifold design than the T4EWG 1.05 example . Thereby giving a double whammy from both a bigger AR and larger manifold.
While looking for that quote ... I found this :
Originally Posted by wangracing
Am running the 8374 with 1.05 hot side fully divided short manifold and twin external gates on my mildly ported 13BREW. Is running E85 fuel. Was chasing area under the curve and response as opposed to peak number as it is a tarmac rally car. Car is running 20psi, is hitting that at approx 3200 rpm and making 442 ATW. Am very happy with the results. Great initial spool up and power, epic midrange and top end and great transient response on and off the throttle. Spool is just always there. The minute you breathe on the throttle its making boost.
I would have considered the IWG for simplicity but they were an unknown quantity as to whether the internal gate could cope with rotary flow when we were at that stage of the build so we erred on the side of caution with the ext gate setup.
I'm well aware if that one and it's a big ho-hum. He only made 422 rwhp and ridiculously low tq numbers, imo that setup/dyno is fubar, go compare against area under the tq/hp curve that I posted for the 7670 that you don't have to rev to the moon = fail. Plus you're making assumptions without seeing the actual engine rpm. Dyno graphs that show mph instead of rpm = stupid.
I'm just going by what he said in the quote above : "20psi by 3200rpm". And the other remarks that give you the idea that this setup is super responsive and not laggy in the slightest.
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
go compare against area under the tq/hp curve that I posted for the 7670 that you don't have to rev to the moon = fail.
How can I? As you so eloquently stated ..... there is no rpm scale.
You are the one making assumptions here.
Finally found the quote . It does date back to 2014 so maybe he has changed his mind since :
Originally Posted by Turblown
I am starting to wonder if we will continue to even sell the 7670. The 8374 delivers amazing response with much better midrange and topend compared to the 7670. I do not see a reason to have any better response by moving down to the 7670. Also lower egts and backpressure of bigger turbine section on 8374 is a big plus as mentioned.
Went in to discuss layout ... he at least thinks it's possible to fit it all in the way I want it . Still looks very tight and there may need to be some compromises . He seems against the idea of hammering the firewall out of the way so that makes it harder to fit .
Went in to discuss layout ... he at least thinks it's possible to fit it all in the way I want it . Still looks very tight and there may need to be some compromises . He seems against the idea of hammering the firewall out of the way so that makes it harder to fit .
All of the locals have clearanced their firewall when running anything other than the stock greddy turbo. It helps a ton.
We just give Hoss-05 some booze and a BFH and let him go at it. I used to melt carpet and shoes, now with it banged out and the heat shielding she is good to go, it has has held up just fine.
Hey Hoss where did you get that blocking plate for the air pump on the downpipe? Fab it yourself? I tried ordering one from somewhere a year or two ago and it showed up and didn't even have the same profile as the port, so basically I still have a disconnected, seized up air pump sitting in my engine bay for show that I wouldn't mind getting rid of. Also I over tightened one of the bolts on my down pipe where it connects resulting in the bolt head shearing off.... probably minor but it is most likely resulting in a small exhaust leak.
Also I over tightened one of the bolts on my down pipe where it connects resulting in the bolt head shearing off.... probably minor but it is most likely resulting in a small exhaust leak.
Only used studs on mine . Which one is it ? easy to get to or ?
In other news . Saw some progress yesterday . Turbo has ended up lower and it clears the firewall without any pounding.
Wastegate is in position.
Routing of pipes to turbo sorted .
Engine mount sounds like it's going to look like a spaghetti meal gone wrong ..... Fabricator said it was "doing his head in" . But he likes a challenge so I think he is a good man for the job.
07-09-2015, 03:14 PM
