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’m also interested to see people running the renesis with an efr 7670/8374/8474. I haven’t seen any at all. I’m on my way with a 7670 but I’m in baby stages getting a motor built but have the turbo. Backwards I know but such is life
I’m also interested to see people running the renesis with an efr 7670/8374/8474. I haven’t seen any at all. I’m on my way with a 7670 but I’m in baby stages getting a motor built but have the turbo. Backwards I know but such is life
I know of at least two 8374 installs going on at the moment but it seems to take forever. Turblown was doing one of them.
I initially thought the 7670 would be on the small side , but I've changed my mind on that. It's probably the best possible turbo for the Renesis ...... look forward to see how you get on with it . I presume it will be top mount . Custom manifold or ?
Interesting design diference between these two turbine housings : the larger 1.06 has a much smaller nozzle size where it directs air onto the turbine .The smaller 1.01 directs air to the entire width of the inducer diameter where as the 1.06 only to about half that width. My thought was it could be something to do with getting the air to enter all around the circumference.
1.06 hosing 1.01 housing
Good news is ...it is looking like I can make the 1.06 fit with some minor modifications. Here is the flow chart. It will be operating in the 2.0-2.25 area of this chart which is showing a significant difference vs higher in the PR range.
I know of at least two 8374 installs going on at the moment but it seems to take forever. Turblown was doing one of them.
I initially thought the 7670 would be on the small side , but I've changed my mind on that. It's probably the best possible turbo for the Renesis ...... look forward to see how you get on with it . I presume it will be top mount . Custom manifold or ?
Sorry to threadjack but looking to be custom. I don’t have many options but there the turblown top Mount, mazdazoomzoomstore claims they can sell me a mount but I don’t have any pics or info on it (their kit was testing or has been testing; good pricing tho), last option is to buy the build2apex exhaust flange and a t4 flange and find someone to make a manifold. I’ve reached out to gleaseman, but he doesn’t have a mock up car, zerek fab I emailed him today, I can’t seem to find anyone willing to make a mani. Maybe the zoom zoom store will pull through
Results of 1.06 housing - again very difficult for accurate comparison as logs on 1.01 were done at higher ambient temp (21C vs 14C)
*Turbine backpressure down slightly to 21psi at 13.5psi boost
*Lost about 250rpm of spoolup 14psi in 3rd now at 4150
*Low down torque about the same despite loss of spoolup
*Midrange torque is very impressive now at this boost cracking 300lbft
*Peak maf rpm didn't change at all (sits at around 7300rpm)
*Can now hold 6psi all the way to 8000rpm on 6psi WG spring. Previously it would jump to over 9 from about 7000rpm
Most of my logs have the same dip . It's just the apv opening . Virtual dyno smooths it out so it looks like it's happening before the valve actually opens.
Took a decent drive on some twisty roads yesterday . The changes have worked really well . IATs are well under control now. Didn't see anymore than 11 degrees above ambient on the logs after 20 mins of hard driving under boost. Response feels just as good as it was with the 1.01 , midrange is def. improved . Top end .... maybe a few hp but nothing exciting.
Not content to leave well enough alone , I fitted larger injectors and converted to E66 which I have calculated is the most ethanol I can run with current injectors/pump to support 450whp ish. Initial test show some minor gain from doing this.
Going to try out my dump pipe later as well.
Most of my logs have the same dip . It's just the apv opening . Virtual dyno smooths it out so it looks like it's happening before the valve actually opens.
Curious, do you see any ignition timing pulled in that dip? I also see that dip in my logs at times and it seems to correlate with timing getting pulled...
Tried out the screamer pipe . Looks like it makes same power at 14psi as without at 15 so a step in the right direction. Well into 400s now. Sound is ridiculous though so it def. wont be permanent.
Also dropped ethanol content back to E60 to give a bit of headroom on the injectors .
We spoke about it a couple of days ago didn't we, but like you said not a detrimental difference to justify the obnoxious exhaust noise associated with it.
I like where you're heading with this. So here's a question, is the performance increase because:
1. the WG sees less back pressure?
2. the down pipe sees less back pressure because there's no WG exhaust in the exhaust pipe to contend with?
If it's 1, then a bigger waste gate to reduce the pressure drop from manifold into dump pipe.
Starting to wish I'd persisted with getting my greddy manifold working properly with the eWG welded on. I didn't spend the time getting the manifold to seal correctly so didn't see the potential benefits of the t25 housing with and without the eWG. Could have been some good performance improvement.
I would normally say 2 ....... but I didn't notice any decrease in turbine backpressure . What I did see was more air flow for the same boost pressure though so somewhere in the system there has to be a backpressure improvement.
This is at a tad over 14psi ... dmp pipe def. makes a difference! See 15psi log above . Low down is less torque but big improvement up top . Same mass flow numbers .
Strange thing is .....with all the noise from the dump pipe .....it feels slower ! Something about that damn awful noise dulls the other sensations .
Haven't been able to get motivated to do it yet .
The dynamics of my manifold design work in mysterious ways and it took me a long time to understand it . When I tried the smaller AR the minimal effect on spoolup was offset by lower torque , so I got less power per psi at both low rpm and high rpm.
With the larger AR I'm hoping for a small reduction in spoolup (14psi by 4000rpm vs current 3800) without a corresponding drop in torque. Up top I'm hoping to see the maf peak rpm go up 200-300 rpm which should give me an extra 20-30whp. All the other 'upgrades' I've done have had the effect of putting more air through the wastegate and moving the maf peak rpm down (producing the same whp but at a lower rpm) . Getting more air through the turbine SHOULD have the opposite effect . Fingers crossed.
As to why that happens ..... my theory is that the path through the manifold tubes that feed the turbine is way less restrictive/turbulent than that through the wastegate , so more air through the turbine is always going to be more efficient and make more power than more through the wastegate.
So going back to an older post you made, to me, seeing this data it seems like your hypothesis was correct. You said the MAF numbers were the same, but did the peak shift at all?
So going back to an older post you made, to me, seeing this data it seems like your hypothesis was correct. You said the MAF numbers were the same, but did the peak shift at all?
No , the peak maf rpm didn't change at all. It seems like I'm playing a balancing game ....dancing around the point where the engine can take no more. Hence the reason why I'm dumping boost shortly after peak maf rpm.
