Notices
DIY Turbo Discussion greddy on a 1.8? homebrew kit?

BorgWarner EFR Turbos

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 02:32 PM
  #101  
Faeflora's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Originally Posted by jtothawhat
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 tha

Chat? Chat???

What is this chat you speak of? mt.net chat?
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 04:03 PM
  #102  
fooger03's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,149
Total Cats: 230
From: Columbus, OH
Default

um...question...

would 49lbs/min make the same power 8:1 as it does 10:1?

I've got this itch in the back of my skull that tells me it will make noticeably more power at 10:1...
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 04:07 PM
  #103  
Nagase's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,805
Total Cats: 2
Default

Originally Posted by jtothawhat
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.
Jason, we've been over this repeatedly. I'll just quote Geoff from Full Race in an email he sent me:

"Geoff Raicer to me
show details Mar 3

Yes we have run a few of these turbos to their limits, and the "rule of thumb" that you mentioned for lb/min flow rate X 10 for max whp on a built motor is a great one that i often go by. These turbos definitely follow that!"

This does assume gasoline and running as efficiently as possible. He's saying they'll flow at least the rule of thumb.

Running inefficiently will make less power with a certain amount of air.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 05:01 PM
  #104  
jtothawhat's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,376
Total Cats: 4
From: Chicagoland
Default

Originally Posted by Nagase
Jason, we've been over this repeatedly. I'll just quote Geoff from Full Race in an email he sent me:

"Geoff Raicer to me
show details Mar 3

Yes we have run a few of these turbos to their limits, and the "rule of thumb" that you mentioned for lb/min flow rate X 10 for max whp on a built motor is a great one that i often go by. These turbos definitely follow that!"

This does assume gasoline and running as efficiently as possible. He's saying they'll flow at least the rule of thumb.

Running inefficiently will make less power with a certain amount of air.

I'm agreeing with you Erin, 18psi however said it really is loose when it comes to using this conversion.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 05:02 PM
  #105  
jtothawhat's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,376
Total Cats: 4
From: Chicagoland
Default

Originally Posted by Savington
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.
When the hell did I ever say the turbo engineer is wrong? I just stated it made more power than what the turbos is rated for which is also listed on the Full-Race website and I talked to Geoff about it on another model. So wtf you talking about son?

E85 or not the performance of these turbos is awesome, they actually made close to 600 whp with this turbo on that forum the dyno sheets are still not posted however.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 05:12 PM
  #106  
Nagase's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,805
Total Cats: 2
Default

No, Jason. You keep claiming that the rule of thumb is for crank horsepower. I don't know where you got the idea, but this is the third time I've corrected it. :P
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 05:15 PM
  #107  
jtothawhat's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,376
Total Cats: 4
From: Chicagoland
Default

Originally Posted by Nagase
No, Jason. You keep claiming that the rule of thumb is for crank horsepower. I don't know where you got the idea, but this is the third time I've corrected it. :P
According to Precision they measure horsepower ratings of the turbo at the crank. I called and asked--they said and I qoute:

"there would be too many variables if we where to measure horsepower ratings of turbos to whp, such as fwd/awd/rwd applications and this would cause legal issues for us."

So? Uhm I don't know and really dont care lol eitherway I cannot wait to get my EFR
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 05:34 PM
  #108  
Nagase's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,805
Total Cats: 2
Default

Originally Posted by jtothawhat
According to Precision they measure horsepower ratings of the turbo at the crank. I called and asked--they said and I qoute:

"there would be too many variables if we where to measure horsepower ratings of turbos to whp, such as fwd/awd/rwd applications and this would cause legal issues for us."

So? Uhm I don't know and really dont care lol eitherway I cannot wait to get my EFR
Precision? Wtf? Show me a precision map and tell me the ratings for their turbos.

I know crap about precision. Nothing. That's not even what we're talking about here. As far as I know, they don't even release maps of their stuff. Useless.

lb/min x 10 = ~maximum whp for gasoline and a 2wd car is a /rule of thumb/. From everything from the turbo found on some old volvo in the junkyard to the new EFR's. It's not a law of nature.

Also, you're missing the context. Lbs/min is a measure of how much a turbo can flow.

You can compare one turbo to another directly by that rating.

How much power a car makes with that flow is an indication of the /engine/ not the /turbo./

It's called volumetric efficiency.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 06:41 PM
  #109  
Faeflora's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Man stop it you two.

I was looking more closely at the specs for the EFR turbos and I'm not certain this is quite the performance revolution.

I suggest comparing the actual wheel diameters of the EFR turbos to the GTX turbos, and then looking closely at the compressor maps. For reference, here is a link that has the EFR compressor maps. http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/v...rger-line.html

In short, when comparing similarly sized turbos like say a efr7670 with a GTX3076, when I plot out the map, things look fairly similar in terms of how the turbo would spool and ultimate power capability.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 08:32 PM
  #110  
18psi's Avatar
VladiTuned
iTrader: (76)
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 35,821
Total Cats: 3,482
Default

Back to back tests efr vs gtx:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2135597

Very close.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 08:38 PM
  #111  
Faeflora's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Originally Posted by 18psi
Back to back tests efr vs gtx:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2135597

Very close.

boner kill
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 09:08 PM
  #112  
jtothawhat's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,376
Total Cats: 4
From: Chicagoland
Default

Thanks for the link! But even if it is close as far as spool and power you have to think, cost...EFR has an awesome IWG set up being able to hold 35+ psi rock solid, integrated BOV as well. It might actually be cheaper to run a EFR IF you don't already have a GT series turbo now.


EDIT: Just skimming through the 25 pages, I have have missed something but comparing a GTX3076R to a 7670 is sort of like comparing a GT28 to a GT30 isn't it? I mean, the 7670 is bigger so how does that work?
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 09:59 PM
  #113  
Faeflora's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

It's only bigger on the turbine side.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 10:01 PM
  #114  
jtothawhat's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,376
Total Cats: 4
From: Chicagoland
Default

Originally Posted by Faeflora
It's only bigger on the turbine side.
I think in that forum they said 7670=GT35, 8376=GT40, 9180=GT42

I think a 7064 vs GTX3076R would be a much better comparison.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 10:35 PM
  #115  
d k's Avatar
d k
Junior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 285
Total Cats: 3
From: Portland
Default

I'm watching this with interest as this is one of the turbos I'm considering, the other GTX3071


Originally Posted by jtothawhat
I think in that forum they said 7670=GT35, 8376=GT40, 9180=GT42

I think a 7064 vs GTX3076R would be a much better comparison.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 10:37 PM
  #116  
d k's Avatar
d k
Junior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 285
Total Cats: 3
From: Portland
Default

49lbs/m would happen a lot 'sooner' on a 8:1 engine than a 10:1 engine.



Originally Posted by fooger03
um...question...

would 49lbs/min make the same power 8:1 as it does 10:1?

I've got this itch in the back of my skull that tells me it will make noticeably more power at 10:1...
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 11:39 PM
  #117  
wittyworks's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 983
Total Cats: 23
From: San Francisco
Default

Huh? What are you talking about douche king. Higher compression makes more power and spools faster...
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 11:40 PM
  #118  
Nagase's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,805
Total Cats: 2
Default

Don't mess with him. He's the DK.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 11:43 PM
  #119  
d k's Avatar
d k
Junior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 285
Total Cats: 3
From: Portland
Default

Originally Posted by wittyworks
Huh? What are you talking about douche king. Higher compression makes more power and spools faster...
Yes, only to a point. Then it falls off and the lower comp will keep climbing.
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 11:55 PM
  #120  
jtothawhat's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,376
Total Cats: 4
From: Chicagoland
Default

Erin,

After looking at this graph from BW it looks like they're rated at engine horsepower, see I knew I was right, which explains why that 7064 is making 540 whp which is about 500 crank horsepower--what they're rated at.


Holla at cha boi.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:08 AM.