Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

New BW EFR Turbo Thread

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 21, 2015 | 08:47 AM
  #3196  
CBRD's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (60)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,363
Likes: 8
From: york, pa 17402
I'll get some charts up- but one of our RB-X test cars did as follows:

2006 EVO IX

Mods:

Stock Cams, CBRD FMIC, Injen Intake, CBRD LICP (comes with kit), CBRD UICP with stock battery, PTE1000cc w/255lph, High Flow Cat, Catback

26 psi netted 401whp/332wtq- on the 7163- in 90 degree heat and high humidity- the same car was around 329whp at 25.5 psi on the stock turbo-

changes were RBX kit only (manifold/turbo/downpipe)- peak torque in 3rd gear is right at 4000rpm- so about 685rpm slower than the stock turbo- however the transient response is very impressive-

Ill get some plots up! Cant wait to test on a built motor or some other fuel-

cb
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2015 | 09:09 AM
  #3197  
LetsGetThisDone's Avatar
EvoM Guru
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 15,973
Likes: 1,629
From: Las Vegas
Just adding cams to the stock short block would be interesting.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2015 | 09:49 AM
  #3198  
CBRD's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (60)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,363
Likes: 8
From: york, pa 17402
Originally Posted by letsgetthisdone
Just adding cams to the stock short block would be interesting.
Id like to:

add S2's with springs

remove the cat- retune lol

probably 30whp in that-

cb
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2015 | 01:04 PM
  #3199  
altrix99's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by mrfred
i think the qsv will be a bit of a challenge to safely implement. the first time it sticks in the quick spool position will probably be doom for the turbo and perhaps the motor unless there is a turbo speed sensor failsafe.

i still love the idea though.
The idea would be for the actuator to be in the pull position to close so if something goes south, theoretically, it would relax and the default position would be open. Would make sense to do it this way. But unlike the IWG flapper, this flapper valve is anchored at two points so if there is any movement in the alloy (which is a distinct possibility with alloys as heat expansion and distortion is much greater then ductile iron) it can get stuck in a certain position as alignment becomes lost on thin walled castings.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2015 | 01:27 PM
  #3200  
Talonboost's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 491
Likes: 1
From: Redmond Washington
Originally Posted by altrix99
The idea would be for the actuator to be in the pull position to close so if something goes south, theoretically, it would relax and the default position would be open. Would make sense to do it this way.
Uh-Oh, If the design is cooked up by the Germans (Kirchheimbolanden or wherever) it will probably fail closed. Just like their friggin cooling system thermostats!
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2015 | 02:13 PM
  #3201  
Dave W.'s Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 143
Likes: 1
From: SF Bay Area
Originally Posted by CBRD
I'll get some charts up- but one of our RB-X test cars did as follows:

2006 EVO IX

Mods:

Stock Cams, CBRD FMIC, Injen Intake, CBRD LICP (comes with kit), CBRD UICP with stock battery, PTE1000cc w/255lph, High Flow Cat, Catback

26 psi netted 401whp/332wtq- on the 7163- in 90 degree heat and high humidity- the same car was around 329whp at 25.5 psi on the stock turbo-

changes were RBX kit only (manifold/turbo/downpipe)- peak torque in 3rd gear is right at 4000rpm- so about 685rpm slower than the stock turbo- however the transient response is very impressive-

Ill get some plots up! Cant wait to test on a built motor or some other fuel-

cb
Which fuel was used in this test?
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2015 | 11:34 PM
  #3202  
alpinaturbo's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 795
Likes: 54
From: California
Pretty sure 93 octane, Dave.
I think your Mustang Ecoboost EFR7163 was Single Scroll T3 frame?
Seems that they both are pulling the same #s on essentially same fuel- you mixed to get 94 octane.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2015 | 02:11 PM
  #3203  
CBRD's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (60)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,363
Likes: 8
From: york, pa 17402
Our testing (almost 90% of the time on everything) was on 93 octane!

cb
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2015 | 02:42 PM
  #3204  
Dave W.'s Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 143
Likes: 1
From: SF Bay Area
Originally Posted by alpinaturbo
Pretty sure 93 octane, Dave.
I think your Mustang Ecoboost EFR7163 was Single Scroll T3 frame?
Seems that they both are pulling the same #s on essentially same fuel- you mixed to get 94 octane.
The Mustang EcoBoost had a twin scroll 7163. IIRC boost was 25 tapering to 24psi, so yes the numbers are very similar.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2015 | 04:52 PM
  #3205  
MisterRegato's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 480
Likes: 4
From: PA
Originally Posted by CBRD
Our testing (almost 90% of the time on everything) was on 93 octane!

cb
do you have any charts for e85 testing on the 7163 in an X?
Reply
Old Jul 23, 2015 | 02:11 PM
  #3206  
CBRD's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (60)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,363
Likes: 8
From: york, pa 17402
Originally Posted by MisterRegato
do you have any charts for e85 testing on the 7163 in an X?

I have a car that was on :

Stock airbox, stock piping, stock cams, stock intercooler, stock catback- with RBX on 93- and also E85

made 440whp on E85 with none of that other stuff touched-

cb
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2015 | 12:58 PM
  #3207  
03whitegsr's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 17
From: Utah
Wha?

I picked up 80WHP at 12psi with dumping the stock catback (with cat) and adding cams and a tubular manifold.

430 on those ****ty stock parts seems damn near impossible.
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2015 | 03:12 PM
  #3208  
Erik@MIL.SPEC's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (94)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,695
Likes: 24
From: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by CBRD
I'll get some charts up- but one of our RB-X test cars did as follows:

2006 EVO IX

Mods:

Stock Cams, CBRD FMIC, Injen Intake, CBRD LICP (comes with kit), CBRD UICP with stock battery, PTE1000cc w/255lph, High Flow Cat, Catback

26 psi netted 401whp/332wtq- on the 7163- in 90 degree heat and high humidity- the same car was around 329whp at 25.5 psi on the stock turbo-

changes were RBX kit only (manifold/turbo/downpipe)- peak torque in 3rd gear is right at 4000rpm- so about 685rpm slower than the stock turbo- however the transient response is very impressive-

Ill get some plots up! Cant wait to test on a built motor or some other fuel-

cb

Hi Chad,

Just as a comparo, what would a BB Red or BBK-B do around similar boost pressures on your dyno on the same fuel. Just curious.
Reply
Old Jul 29, 2015 | 07:06 AM
  #3209  
efrevo's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 71
Likes: 2
From: Monmouth County, New Jersey
Originally Posted by mrfred
i think the qsv will be a bit of a challenge to safely implement. the first time it sticks in the quick spool position will probably be doom for the turbo and perhaps the motor unless there is a turbo speed sensor failsafe
it will work fine, same as small A/R 0.48. restrictive.
Reply
Old Jul 29, 2015 | 08:44 AM
  #3210  
mrfred's Avatar
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
Originally Posted by efrevo
it will work fine, same as small A/R 0.48. restrictive.
i hope so.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:31 AM.