I am building a TS 7163 on a 2.0 using my manifold with larger runners and different design than full race.. it will be interesting to compare the transient numbers to the hks 2.0 I built before..

for the record, I measure transient as boost response going from zero to 100% throttle quickly at various RPM...

 

I bet that as long as rpm is beyond the boost threshold, the transient response of the TS 7163 will be awesome. Large runners FTW.

 

"large" runner is used mainly because I want to keep the cross section of the exhaust runner constant. I see no point in going down rapidly right after the head, and then going larger again right before the T4 flange..

we'll see how it will work..

 

I'm very keen to hear your impressions and see some data. Is this a ways off or are you putting it together now?

 

No dyno chart, but above are the results (was posted a couple pages back in this thread)

 

building the manifold right now..

it is a bit slow altogether because I am developing 4 more things at the same time on the same car and am a bit short on cash..

I will however have full turbo speed and backpressure logging to see what is going on..

 

Maybe I missed it, what size runners were you using?

 

Those results sound good but lol, cbrd have said maybe 10+ times in this thread they had data, that they could/would overlay plots etc, and nothing much has been forthcoming. Odd marketing model I must say, if no one can see data for the platform of intended use, then it's hard to buy a product costing >4K on blind faith and some Audi 2.5L results That said I'm hopeful a TS 7163 would be suitable for a decent low end boost/torque (not decent for the US, decent rest for the of the world) on a 2L 4B11. We just need someone to show us what these smaller more street suitable turbos can do on an Evo. Not everyone wants to make 700-800+ whp

Sounds great

 

On the other forum, a member by the name of MASH tuned a t4 7163 and he found it spools 2-300 rpm later than the stock turbo with zero mivec mapping changes.

 

Now that sounds promising, got a link or forum name by chance?

 

44.5x2 mm tubing... 1.59 inch ID..

 

Basic concept appreciated. The few times that I had to model (Catia) inside surfaces for air ducts (ECS and bleed-air people at Boeing) the idea of keeping constant cross-section area through changing cross-section shapes was usually a requirement!

 

Yeah, so long as this keeps happening I'm getting more and more inclined to be dubious of this turbo. Most dyno plots I've seen for these have been good but not awe inspiring, which I guess is the risk of people selling them as being a whole different level of awesome.

I will have some results to share of a 2.3l/Kelford 264/divided EFR7163 setup on NZ 98octane (~USA 93-94) in the next 2 months probably, and I *will* post them. Will give a straight up evaluation of whatever it comes out as.

 

I too was considering a 7163 for my evo, but due to the lack of results on the 4G63 I passed. 4K+ is a lot of money for 400whp. Especially when you can get a 71HTA new for $500.

 

Like others said its not about what the dynochart says. Spool on a dyno plot and peak power on the graph is great to impress friends and forum members with, but driving it is a different story. Even the power delivery IRL as you drive around town won't be the same. If you don't want to spend a ton of money, thats fine. Its a good reason to go with stock location. But the performance difference is real. Yes it looks like it makes low 400s on pump gas while on dyno rollers....real life is not the dyno rollers though.

I've seen people reason their way into convincing themselves a pte6262 would be a great road course turbo on a 2.0L since it spools by 5000rpm (who goes below that on a road course anyways right?) and makes more power. But then they get dusted by stock turbo cars that can actually spool their turbos virtually anywhere on the track instead of just 1/4 way down every straight. And the car feels like a bag of donkey poo for the entire track day while everyone else is having fun.

Basically the spool threshold may not be much different and peak hp on the graph also may not be different on the dyno rollers, but its response when you're actually driving will definitely be different. And the efficiency of the turbo also means it will comfortably and reliably make that power even on gruelling track days. I don't think anyone that has actually driven a EFR turbo'd evo has complained about its subpar dynograph. Even just looking at the differences in the volutes and turbine exits between the two turbos, it won't be hard to guess which one will be putting your engine through higher EGTs and exhaust manifold pressures...

/soapbox