Thank you very much, I appreciate that you took the time to answer my questions.

Regarding the plastic cover, as a potential customer, I'd be concerned that the cover could melt or degrade and just be unreliable. It's also ugly. :facepalm:

Thanks also for the authoritative answer regarding journal vs. ball bearing antilag resiliency.

They have so much R&D into these turbos that I don't think you have to worry about it melting, however, it is ugly as hell. I thought I saw a prototype EFR before they came out and it had a metal cover. It looked 10x better, but I am sure this was to save cost.

Fwiw I think full race is making a metal replacement plate

I think that is a block off plate so people can run external BOV of they want.

I for one am really excited about the new line coming out, with garret having gone Chinese, and BW starting to gain a significant market share for the non oem/aftermarket turbo market I think it just adds more to the pot.

I've used a few BW setups and can say i've been nothing but satisfied with their durability, and the results i've gotten out of them. The new EFR lineup should be awesome, they're adding a lot of features that the tuning community can really utilize and at the end of the day save US money on overall builds.

I personally am hoping for better chinachargers. Power to the peoples!

Updates on some dyno sheets this is a 6758 EFR (rated for 450 hp) on a Cobalt SS

http://sites.commercecreators.com/fo...z254sae508.jpg

http://sites.commercecreators.com/fo...z254std515.jpg

http://sites.commercecreators.com/fo...z254sae540.jpg

Pretty freaking impressive, and that they're making so much more power than what they're rated for makes me wonder...

Is that wheel or crank horsepower?

Wheel HP. Mustang = chassis dyno. These new Borg Warners look very promising.

That they do. It being a mustang dyno makes it all the more impressive, actually. Mustang dynos usually don't give the highest numbers. Edit: This was a response to Import Al's post, which originally stated "Wheel HP. But it's a Mustang dyno, which typically score bigger #'s then Dynojets" He took that out and replaced it with Mustang = chassis dyno... which is true, but I've seen dyno shops that print out graphs to 'corrected' flywheel horsepower, so that doesn't really satisfy me without knowing more.

And that turbo is rated to 49 lbs/min of flow.

That means it should make roughly ~490whp.

This is still a little over, but it's not a 450hp max turbo. Even the low figures on Full Race's website rate it at 500hp.

Keep in mind that Cobalt is running E85.

Still, looking promising.

35psi? in a cobalt? for realz?






at 4200 rpm?

From the thread I read it was wheel horsepower, however, I know we talk about this all the time on the chat Erin I know it's rated at 49 lbs/min isn't that 490 crank horsepower? It would seem that figure of 49 lbs/min x 10 wouldn't work for whp on all cars. 490 crank horsepower=roughly 450 whp.


EDIT: Even if it where rated at 490 whp it's still about 50 whp over the rating and it doesn't seem like the turbo is struggling.

What does that have to do with how the turbo is performing?

Are you serious? E85 provides a few hundred rpm better boost response vs gasoline, plus a whole lot more power. B-W's (and Garrett's) horsepower ratings for their turbos are based on gasoline, not E85.

I really think you're missing the point, you get horsepower ratings from the compressor map and how much air it can flow, IE lbs/min x 10 gets the horsepower rating. E85/Race Gas/Pump Gas who cares, the gas just allows for more/less timing and more/less boost. Doesn't change the rating on the turbo. Which is rated in the amount of air it can flow.

I have never seen a dyno sheet where E85 resulted in better response, however, I am sure you can advance timing more to result in better turbo response. Which is something that you can get away with, with E85.

A dyno sheet measures the total package power, not whats the turbo flows or achieves.

Using the 49 x 10 is a crude and non-precise way that exists to guesstimate potential power output of the car. Its cool if you want a quick way of finding out ball park potential power a certain turbo is capable of or limited to. But you can't just say "oh this turbo is a 49lb so the car will make 490hp"

e85 changes the game completely: spool is better, timing can be advanced through the roof, and boost can be skyrocketed. Can't say the result will be same as pump gas.

49x10 isn't to show total power output it is to show the turbo is rated for 490 hp, obviously in this case it made 50 whp more.

Cliffs:
turbo is rated at 490 hp

Car made 540 whp which is 50 hp over what the turbo is rated.

Non-precise or not that's how turbos are rated for power--how much air they can flow. Example, can you make 700 whp with a GT3076R? No, why because the turbo can not flow air at the level that is needed to achieve that power level.

LOL. Please, tell us more about how the turbo engineer is wrong.

e: He told you that an E85 dyno chart will give an inflated picture of the performance of a turbo (which is true - E85 adds ~10% power, improves spool, etc.). You then proceeded to tell him that the E85 didn't matter because it doesnt affect the turbo. He never said it affected the turbo - it affects the dyno chart. If anyone missed the point, it's you.

Well there's more to it, too, when it comes to maps. Brake specific air consumption (yes air) is better with E85 for the reasons stated. Generally the guideline of 10 hp per lb/min of comp flow assumes gasoline. For E85 this number rises. That's what Garrett uses anyway, and I assume B-W too.