I'm sure its capable of making a much safer 500-550whp on E85. I wouldn't take a 500whp 71hta car and hot lap it for 20 minutes.

 

Plenty of people seem to track the 71hta without issue. If/when is needs replacing, its only another $700.

Plus, if 20min track sessions is the intended use, then I would argue its better to go larger (7670 or 8374) to make the power with less boost and less back pressure.

 

Your concerned about back pressure with the 7163 at 500whp, but not the 71hta? FWIW, the track tune with my red is 23-22psi, and it made 392whp on a mustang dyno. I can turn the boost up another 2-3 psi if I need to, but so far it has been more than enough.

 

by the time you spec up the 71 hta propperly it is no 700 usd turbo anymore. Also, chances are your old hot side will be cracked and you will need a new one.. I know, I have been there and have a brand new 71hta, fully specced up, on my desk, as well as a 7163.

On the other hand, 7163 also needs an upgraded WG actuator, and the OE actuator bracket is designed wrong, it needs a different design.

 

the 7163 is an awesome turbo. its a shame its so difficult and expensive to get on an evo. I think more would be using it if they new how good it is. I am using the 6758 for my project. I did score a 7163 in case I get a little power hungry but I honestly think the 6758 is gonna be more than enough for what I am doing. the 7163 spools FAST in open scroll. cant imagine what it will be like is TS.
oh 71hta cant dream of this. its not on the same playing field. the 7163 tq curve will completely envelope the 71 curve.
this subi has stock heads, stock cams. 550whp at 30psi.

 

and the same guy when it was running 10.70. amazing part to note is how slow the shifting is. yet the power recovery is instantaneous.

 

That subie is impressive.

 

How does the 7163 compare to the 7064? Seems like fitting a 7064 to an Evo is much easier.

 

all efr's are a difficult fit... open scroll ones are somewhat easier fit due to shorter overall length

 

so, twin scroll T4 manifold V1.0 fit... this one will get exhaust pressure sensors and EGT sensor for turbo kit development... we will be using the new Fitronic SD kit which allows the stock ECU to log turbo speed and exhaust mnifold pressure...

I have to make some tweaks for manifold V2.0...










the WG actuator is mocked up in its new position... on monday I am getting the new turbosmart WG actuator (for B2 frame EFR, longer shaft) and we will build the bracket to fit properly... this will correct the wrong actuator angle on the original BW bracket..

 

As for longevity... if SS 321 in 2.6 mm wall thickness is too thin.. I can always do it in 3.2 but I like the runners on the larger side..

 

What would the ideal ID be for a 8374 or 9174? I have the smaller runner full race manifold and I think I am going to be switching setups for something with larger runners.

 

frankly speaking I have designed my manifold around the evo 9 head and it's cross section, which is very similar to the T4 flange runner area. So, basically, I keep the same, or very similar runner cross section troughout.. My first manifold is using 1.74 inch ID and the second one will be 48.3x2.6 mm which will give 1.69 inch ID.
I dont know what full race uses for their big runner manifolds but I think it is about the same...
Personally, I think there is no point in going for a small runner manifold, because the various cross section changes will be no good for flow..

 

You went a bit below schedule 10 which is 2.6mm. Personally, I don't think you'll have an issue. It's not like you went schedule 5 which would be far too thin. If you coat it, you should still be fine, but I don't know about prolonged road course sessions.

As for the other poster, it's all a trade off. 1 1/4th inch primaries will make 1000hp, but will start to flatline, and if you don't have a good transition between your headflange and the ID of the tubing diameter you're giving up power there too. The standard is 1 1/2 for mid and large frame turbos for a reason. Going schedule 10 over 40 gives you a couple % more ID but most importantly going from Schedule 40 304L to Schedule 10 321 saves you a LOT of weight and has significantly more strength.


Personally, I don't understand why manufacturers build manifolds from inferior 304 which WILL crack over time, especially after its coated when put up to the demands of what a turbo manifold has to go through. Sure, if joe blow on the street is doing a couple pulls and doesn't actually use it much, it might last, but any real use and that 304L manifold especially with a lot of material which moves and flexes will eventually crack. God forbid someone coat it to keep even more heat in the material. The cost of materials in terms of what a manifold costs isn't even really that much more and would ensure that these manifolds never crack, and for the money that these vendors charge it should be 321.


Here's a shot of my manifold made out of 321 Schedule 10 for a S2000 road race application:






It's using 1 1/2 Schedule 10 321 stainless bends and straights, and a headflange that is port matched to the ID of the runners made out of 1018 steel.

It's coated in 2000 degree Cerakote

 

that is a really nice setup.!