New BW EFR Turbo Thread
#3391
Evolved Member
Yeah I'm surprised they're this popular with such a a weak bottom end and still not putting down big numbers. Blacks spool faster and put down more than a single scroll 7163, while costing less to implement, don't know what the appeal of the EFR singles if stock frames can equal or best them. Really keen to see TS results, but Chad said they've been too busy to build any TS rbx kits. Hopefully some full race kits results are posted soon.
for the record, I measure transient as boost response going from zero to 100% throttle quickly at various RPM...
#3392
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
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...
for the record, I measure transient as boost response going from zero to 100% throttle quickly at various RPM...
#3393
Evolved Member
we'll see how it will work..
#3394
Evolved Member
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...
for the record, I measure transient as boost response going from zero to 100% throttle quickly at various RPM...
#3395
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
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
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
No dyno chart, but above are the results (was posted a couple pages back in this thread)
#3396
Evolved Member
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..
#3398
Evolved Member
Sounds great
Last edited by EvocentriK; Sep 24, 2015 at 09:14 AM.
#3399
Evolved Member
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.
#3400
Evolved Member
#3401
Evolved Member
#3402
Evolving Member
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!
Last edited by Talonboost; Sep 24, 2015 at 04:15 PM.
#3403
Evolved Member
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.
#3405
Evolved Member
iTrader: (34)
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
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
Last edited by deeman101; Sep 24, 2015 at 08:53 PM.
The following users liked this post:
kizzlecake (Oct 19, 2019)