New BW EFR Turbo Thread
Jul 9, 2015, 01:46 PM
#3151
Evolving Member
Yeah, they do that for Hondas, or did, I haven't kept up with it. But when I was looking at that stuff a few years ago it felt like being in some alternate universe!
Jul 9, 2015, 02:18 PM
#3152
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (1)
They do still have the Honda B18 and B20 blocks. They're a cool $2,750 from summit. Aluminum with a steel liner..
Jul 9, 2015, 07:54 PM
#3153
Evolving Member
I don't know about you guys, but I started using 4G63 parts in my other builds. My 944 has a set of Eagle rods from a 6 bolt engine! I always thought that every car could use a little Mitsubishi in it.
Jul 10, 2015, 07:23 AM
#3154
quick pic of our EFR EVO 8/9 kit on the 7163- the wastegate (38mm watercooled MVS-AR) isnt bolted on in this pic (we can use either 38 or 44)-
We can also put a GTX Tial housing turbo on the same exact bits and pieces-
This kit is bolted to a stock turbo location Injen intake for fitment testing!
We can also put a GTX Tial housing turbo on the same exact bits and pieces-
This kit is bolted to a stock turbo location Injen intake for fitment testing!
Jul 10, 2015, 10:34 AM
#3155
quick pic of our EFR EVO 8/9 kit on the 7163- the wastegate (38mm watercooled MVS-AR) isnt bolted on in this pic (we can use either 38 or 44)-
We can also put a GTX Tial housing turbo on the same exact bits and pieces-
This kit is bolted to a stock turbo location Injen intake for fitment testing!
We can also put a GTX Tial housing turbo on the same exact bits and pieces-
This kit is bolted to a stock turbo location Injen intake for fitment testing!
Disclaimer - Stock location for all intents and purposes is a win in my book.
Last edited by dr_latino999; Jul 10, 2015 at 10:38 AM.
Jul 10, 2015, 12:09 PM
#3156
I understand the C comp cover is larger, but what stops this kit from accepting the larger turbos (8374+) versus the full-race kit which appears to support all; is it the stock turbo location location in the bay that CBRD supports.
Disclaimer - Stock location for all intents and purposes is a win in my book.
Disclaimer - Stock location for all intents and purposes is a win in my book.
this is a compact kit- well capable of 400-650+whp depending on which turbo we attached to it-
Totally different purposes- again-
If you are building a free flowing high hp engine- a stock housing turbo tends to be much more restrictive than an open scroll non stock housing- we LOVED our stock housing offerings for quick spooling 375-450whp builds on street cars, occasional track cars etc- however for free flowing setups- on the 8/9 we typically put everyone into an open scroll setup
but again- to each their own- just sharing whats going on
ill have some more EFR numbers shortly-cb
Jul 10, 2015, 12:23 PM
#3157
The 7163 & GT30/35 are very similar in frame size versus the 8374 ETC-
this is a compact kit- well capable of 400-650+whp depending on which turbo we attached to it-
Totally different purposes- again-
If you are building a free flowing high hp engine- a stock housing turbo tends to be much more restrictive than an open scroll non stock housing- we LOVED our stock housing offerings for quick spooling 375-450whp builds on street cars, occasional track cars etc- however for free flowing setups- on the 8/9 we typically put everyone into an open scroll setup
this is a compact kit- well capable of 400-650+whp depending on which turbo we attached to it-
Totally different purposes- again-
If you are building a free flowing high hp engine- a stock housing turbo tends to be much more restrictive than an open scroll non stock housing- we LOVED our stock housing offerings for quick spooling 375-450whp builds on street cars, occasional track cars etc- however for free flowing setups- on the 8/9 we typically put everyone into an open scroll setup
Last edited by dr_latino999; Jul 10, 2015 at 12:52 PM.
Jul 10, 2015, 04:56 PM
#3158
quick pic of our EFR EVO 8/9 kit on the 7163- the wastegate (38mm watercooled MVS-AR) isnt bolted on in this pic (we can use either 38 or 44)-
We can also put a GTX Tial housing turbo on the same exact bits and pieces-
This kit is bolted to a stock turbo location Injen intake for fitment testing!
We can also put a GTX Tial housing turbo on the same exact bits and pieces-
This kit is bolted to a stock turbo location Injen intake for fitment testing!
Jul 13, 2015, 12:00 PM
#3161
On most engines, once EMAP:MAP ratios exceed 1:1, they stop making power on pump gas, and get into knock. E85 or octane can sort of cheat above that ratio, but it is with diminishing returns. If you are not monitoring EMAP on the dyno or in car( assume you aren't if you are playing with a .64 6758), I'd recommend it. It will tell the complete story and make you wish for a way to get more A/R once up on boost and extend the powerband further with more timing. Aka more power. 
I disagree. You say that the .80ar is a TRUE .80ar but it doesnt seem to flow like one to me. I, not so secretly, am in the camp that it is choking out the 63 turbine. I think the .72ar is actually a bit larger in volume when produced in the same frame. It def is a step down from the .85ar. I have no reservations about using the twin scroll housing but bolts/studs and gaskets for the long haul on an alloy housing can be problematic...
Now consider the open scroll and you'll notice I said "don't have (much) more then 1 pulse trying to go through the turbo at a given time." When you size an openscroll housing, you are sizing so that when you do get overlap between pulses, you have enough flow area to not choke out the pulse. Essentially, you have more flow area then you really need if those pulses were coming in with zero overlap.
So....basic suggestions from SAE peer reviewed technical papers: A TS A/R housing will spool about like an OS housing that is 60% of it's size. Thus, that 0.80A/R TS is about the same for spool as a 0.48 A/R OS.
Power wise however, on a 4 cylinder with proper phasing, the TS performs at roughly 90% of the A/R so that same 0.80 A/R TS is roughly the same as a 0.72A/R OS housing, PROVIDED you are not getting pulse overlap. Basically, at the RPM range where the cam and exhaust manifold are working together, you can get away with a fairly small A/R housing and match the peak torque of an OS housing of nearly the same size. Above that RPM point though, you get pulse stack up and it starts to choke the motor.
This is where that 60% spool figure come into play, take an OS housing that meets your spool needs and multiply it by 1/60%. If 0.72 A/R OS scroll is your ideal, then you need a 1.2 A/R TS housing to match the spool of the OS. OK...so now you have a huge *** housing and response suffers?
Not really...each pair of cylinders at low RPM (where there is no pulse overlap) is seeing only half that housing. The setup will have the transient response of ~0.60 A/R housing...
So...1.2 A/R TS spools like 0.72 A/R and has the transient response of a 0.6 A/R housing all while having the power potential of a 1.08 A/R OS housing. Now...I fully admit, there are boundary effects to take into account as well as thermal transients that definitely skew this. Also how the bigger A/R housing interacts with the wheel is different and typically, you see lower peak turbine efficiency with a larger A/R housing. Typically though, that 1.08A/R power potentially is really larger than what you need as it takes the turbo beyond the VE capabilities of the engine. So you drop down to something like 1.05 A/R, get the power of a 0.95 A/R OS, the spool of a 0.63 A/R and the transient response of a 0.52 A/R housing.
Also...there is something people seem to be ignoring. A/R is a ratio. Two housings can have the same A/R but be VERY different on flow area. This was the point of T3 and T4 as originally, the T4 had a bigger "R" then T3 so the same A/R meant it had a bigger area then the T3 housing. This has kind of gone out the window in the last few years though. The new Garrett T3 TS housings for example use a larger "R" then the "International T3" divided housings used in the past. It appears Garrett basically stuffed the biggest flow area possible that matched up to the T3 divided inlet size. As such, despite having the T3 name, they flow considerably better than older T3 divided housings. Not quiet T4 size...but definitely bigger.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Jul 13, 2015 at 12:08 PM.
Jul 13, 2015, 03:03 PM
#3162
Evolving Member
This has kind of gone out the window in the last few years though. The new Garrett T3 TS housings for example use a larger "R" then the "International T3" divided housings used in the past. It appears Garrett basically stuffed the biggest flow area possible that matched up to the T3 divided inlet size. As such, despite having the T3 name, they flow considerably better than older T3 divided housings. Not quiet T4 size...but definitely bigger.
Jul 14, 2015, 05:49 AM
#3164
There are a couple SAE papers on this topic but I'll summarize. Consider firstly that you are talking pulse flow. On a 4 cylinder engine, you really don't have (much) more then 1 pulse trying to go through the turbo at a given time. By going TS with the same A/R, you effectively cut your flow area in half for each pulse. Your 0.80A/R TS effectively has the same flow area as a 0.40 A/R openscroll with regards to that single pulse.
Now consider the open scroll and you'll notice I said "don't have (much) more then 1 pulse trying to go through the turbo at a given time." When you size an openscroll housing, you are sizing so that when you do get overlap between pulses, you have enough flow area to not choke out the pulse. Essentially, you have more flow area then you really need if those pulses were coming in with zero overlap.
So....basic suggestions from SAE peer reviewed technical papers: A TS A/R housing will spool about like an OS housing that is 60% of it's size. Thus, that 0.80A/R TS is about the same for spool as a 0.48 A/R OS.
Power wise however, on a 4 cylinder with proper phasing, the TS performs at roughly 90% of the A/R so that same 0.80 A/R TS is roughly the same as a 0.72A/R OS housing, PROVIDED you are not getting pulse overlap. Basically, at the RPM range where the cam and exhaust manifold are working together, you can get away with a fairly small A/R housing and match the peak torque of an OS housing of nearly the same size. Above that RPM point though, you get pulse stack up and it starts to choke the motor.
This is where that 60% spool figure come into play, take an OS housing that meets your spool needs and multiply it by 1/60%. If 0.72 A/R OS scroll is your ideal, then you need a 1.2 A/R TS housing to match the spool of the OS. OK...so now you have a huge *** housing and response suffers?
Not really...each pair of cylinders at low RPM (where there is no pulse overlap) is seeing only half that housing. The setup will have the transient response of ~0.60 A/R housing...
So...1.2 A/R TS spools like 0.72 A/R and has the transient response of a 0.6 A/R housing all while having the power potential of a 1.08 A/R OS housing. Now...I fully admit, there are boundary effects to take into account as well as thermal transients that definitely skew this. Also how the bigger A/R housing interacts with the wheel is different and typically, you see lower peak turbine efficiency with a larger A/R housing. Typically though, that 1.08A/R power potentially is really larger than what you need as it takes the turbo beyond the VE capabilities of the engine. So you drop down to something like 1.05 A/R, get the power of a 0.95 A/R OS, the spool of a 0.63 A/R and the transient response of a 0.52 A/R housing.
Also...there is something people seem to be ignoring. A/R is a ratio. Two housings can have the same A/R but be VERY different on flow area. This was the point of T3 and T4 as originally, the T4 had a bigger "R" then T3 so the same A/R meant it had a bigger area then the T3 housing. This has kind of gone out the window in the last few years though. The new Garrett T3 TS housings for example use a larger "R" then the "International T3" divided housings used in the past. It appears Garrett basically stuffed the biggest flow area possible that matched up to the T3 divided inlet size. As such, despite having the T3 name, they flow considerably better than older T3 divided housings. Not quiet T4 size...but definitely bigger.
Now consider the open scroll and you'll notice I said "don't have (much) more then 1 pulse trying to go through the turbo at a given time." When you size an openscroll housing, you are sizing so that when you do get overlap between pulses, you have enough flow area to not choke out the pulse. Essentially, you have more flow area then you really need if those pulses were coming in with zero overlap.
So....basic suggestions from SAE peer reviewed technical papers: A TS A/R housing will spool about like an OS housing that is 60% of it's size. Thus, that 0.80A/R TS is about the same for spool as a 0.48 A/R OS.
Power wise however, on a 4 cylinder with proper phasing, the TS performs at roughly 90% of the A/R so that same 0.80 A/R TS is roughly the same as a 0.72A/R OS housing, PROVIDED you are not getting pulse overlap. Basically, at the RPM range where the cam and exhaust manifold are working together, you can get away with a fairly small A/R housing and match the peak torque of an OS housing of nearly the same size. Above that RPM point though, you get pulse stack up and it starts to choke the motor.
This is where that 60% spool figure come into play, take an OS housing that meets your spool needs and multiply it by 1/60%. If 0.72 A/R OS scroll is your ideal, then you need a 1.2 A/R TS housing to match the spool of the OS. OK...so now you have a huge *** housing and response suffers?
Not really...each pair of cylinders at low RPM (where there is no pulse overlap) is seeing only half that housing. The setup will have the transient response of ~0.60 A/R housing...
So...1.2 A/R TS spools like 0.72 A/R and has the transient response of a 0.6 A/R housing all while having the power potential of a 1.08 A/R OS housing. Now...I fully admit, there are boundary effects to take into account as well as thermal transients that definitely skew this. Also how the bigger A/R housing interacts with the wheel is different and typically, you see lower peak turbine efficiency with a larger A/R housing. Typically though, that 1.08A/R power potentially is really larger than what you need as it takes the turbo beyond the VE capabilities of the engine. So you drop down to something like 1.05 A/R, get the power of a 0.95 A/R OS, the spool of a 0.63 A/R and the transient response of a 0.52 A/R housing.
Also...there is something people seem to be ignoring. A/R is a ratio. Two housings can have the same A/R but be VERY different on flow area. This was the point of T3 and T4 as originally, the T4 had a bigger "R" then T3 so the same A/R meant it had a bigger area then the T3 housing. This has kind of gone out the window in the last few years though. The new Garrett T3 TS housings for example use a larger "R" then the "International T3" divided housings used in the past. It appears Garrett basically stuffed the biggest flow area possible that matched up to the T3 divided inlet size. As such, despite having the T3 name, they flow considerably better than older T3 divided housings. Not quiet T4 size...but definitely bigger.
Yes, turbine efficiency becomes a problem when you size your housing too high or too low. You want the radius to match your turbine size. Too small and you have problems energizing the wheel and too large you're overwhelming it...
If i'm looking at this correctly, if the .80ar does indeed spool like a .48ar, surely, he would be getting way faster spool then 22psi@3.8k on the 7163 on E85/2.2.L? He would also be outspooling my 6758/.64ar project on a 2.0L/93oct?
Last edited by altrix99; Jul 14, 2015 at 06:38 AM.
Jul 14, 2015, 11:19 AM
#3165
Absolutely there is additional boundary wall effects. That's largely why the recommendation in the SAE papers is 60% and not 50% for spool and 90% not 100% for power. That is the empirical data results shown in a real world testing. That is the impact of the divider.
As for the chart, I can't comment as I have no idea what either of you have and different cars/motors/setups/tunes will behave very differently.
As for the chart, I can't comment as I have no idea what either of you have and different cars/motors/setups/tunes will behave very differently.