New BW EFR Turbo Thread
Jul 17, 2017, 04:02 AM
#4426
Newbie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dallas, Georgia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did your timing curve look like? I have an almost identical set up on my 8 and made 418 at 22 psi on a mustang dyno in ATL, GA.... my phone is garbage but it looks like you were running 26 I would think that would be good for 450+ too..
Last edited by 03Ev0luti0n; Jul 17, 2017 at 04:09 AM.
Jul 17, 2017, 07:52 AM
#4427
What manifold are you running and what's your a/r?
Jul 17, 2017, 08:02 AM
#4428
DJDino
I suggest just traditional 3" exhaust, stock intake manifold, keep it simple.
There is a lot of "mystery" about intake manifolds, Magnus V5, AMS F1, and HKS, do work- but mostly on cars with lots of power on bigger laggier turbos (3582, 3586, 9180).
And nobody has shown a simple back to back independent dyno test on typical 400-500whp Evo with ported vs unported intake manifold, and shown gains. It's a lot of claims, some dyno's by vendors, no independent data.
I suggest just traditional 3" exhaust, stock intake manifold, keep it simple.
There is a lot of "mystery" about intake manifolds, Magnus V5, AMS F1, and HKS, do work- but mostly on cars with lots of power on bigger laggier turbos (3582, 3586, 9180).
And nobody has shown a simple back to back independent dyno test on typical 400-500whp Evo with ported vs unported intake manifold, and shown gains. It's a lot of claims, some dyno's by vendors, no independent data.
The following users liked this post:
djdino (Jul 17, 2017)
Jul 17, 2017, 09:50 AM
#4429
Newbie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dallas, Georgia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.05 A/R.
i was on Sunoco 93 pump. My timing Map is pretty conservative on stock bottom end and head. It comes on smooth at about 4* advanced and ramps up to 10* by redline
Jul 17, 2017, 01:46 PM
#4430
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (1)
I would be seriously inclined to believe the BW chra would last longer. Stock chra turbos seem to have a weak spot after having 3, to serious abuse and in one case no perceived abuse. While we aren't moving to borg warner , I think the gains are what you anticipate or see on the dyno, but the benefits are far reaching.
Jul 17, 2017, 05:02 PM
#4431
DJDino
I suggest just traditional 3" exhaust, stock intake manifold, keep it simple.
There is a lot of "mystery" about intake manifolds, Magnus V5, AMS F1, and HKS, do work- but mostly on cars with lots of power on bigger laggier turbos (3582, 3586, 9180).
And nobody has shown a simple back to back independent dyno test on typical 400-500whp Evo with ported vs unported intake manifold, and shown gains. It's a lot of claims, some dyno's by vendors, no independent data.
I suggest just traditional 3" exhaust, stock intake manifold, keep it simple.
There is a lot of "mystery" about intake manifolds, Magnus V5, AMS F1, and HKS, do work- but mostly on cars with lots of power on bigger laggier turbos (3582, 3586, 9180).
And nobody has shown a simple back to back independent dyno test on typical 400-500whp Evo with ported vs unported intake manifold, and shown gains. It's a lot of claims, some dyno's by vendors, no independent data.
Jul 18, 2017, 07:47 AM
#4432
I think that 7163 might be better choice, given your experience and purpose, provided your tracks are tight and its a sprint race, as you pointed out.
If you even scroll around this forum, you'll find 7163 twin scroll on stock-block E9 making full boost by 3600rpm-while being tuned respectfully on pump fuel.
If you run E85 and have 2.2 liter, I cannot see why 7163 will not make full boost say by 3200-3300rpm, and make meaningful boost lower down.
However, if your tracks are not so tight...if they are more like Laguna Seca and Sonoma Raceway in California, than 7670 all the way for 2.2 liter.
In USA, Laguna Seca and Sonoma are considered medium speed tracks..tight race-tracks, because you have VIR for example (Virginia International Raceway) and new Austin F1 track COTA, which are much higher speed.
7670 on 2.2 liter is very sweet in all aspects, especially track application.
7163 is tremendous for more mid range and lower speeds, especially on say 2.0 liter which cannot spool as effectively a 7670 in lower rpm ranges.
If you even scroll around this forum, you'll find 7163 twin scroll on stock-block E9 making full boost by 3600rpm-while being tuned respectfully on pump fuel.
If you run E85 and have 2.2 liter, I cannot see why 7163 will not make full boost say by 3200-3300rpm, and make meaningful boost lower down.
However, if your tracks are not so tight...if they are more like Laguna Seca and Sonoma Raceway in California, than 7670 all the way for 2.2 liter.
In USA, Laguna Seca and Sonoma are considered medium speed tracks..tight race-tracks, because you have VIR for example (Virginia International Raceway) and new Austin F1 track COTA, which are much higher speed.
7670 on 2.2 liter is very sweet in all aspects, especially track application.
7163 is tremendous for more mid range and lower speeds, especially on say 2.0 liter which cannot spool as effectively a 7670 in lower rpm ranges.
Oct 28, 2018, 06:08 PM
#4434
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: gold coast
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grave digging this thread as Borg are about to announce their new 8474,9274 and 9280 EFR turbos at Sema this year. first saw a glimpse two years ago but looks like its happening. I was initially dissapointed with the efficiency of the concept versions so it'll be interesting to see if they've tweaked them.
https://www.borgwarner.com/newsroom/...2018-sema-show
https://www.borgwarner.com/newsroom/...2018-sema-show
Oct 29, 2018, 11:32 AM
#4435
Evolving Member
Grave digging this thread as Borg are about to announce their new 8474,9274 and 9280 EFR turbos at Sema this year. first saw a glimpse two years ago but looks like its happening. I was initially dissapointed with the efficiency of the concept versions so it'll be interesting to see if they've tweaked them.
https://www.borgwarner.com/newsroom/...2018-sema-show
https://www.borgwarner.com/newsroom/...2018-sema-show
Very cool, and good to see! Thanks for the heads up.
Jan 24, 2019, 11:59 AM
#4437
I have been thinking to swap my EFR 8374 T3 IWG (680 hp @ the hubs, Dynapack) to a 9180 T3 IWG trying to achive 800 whp. I have seen there is a 8474 coming with way more compressor flow, but it still seems it is using the same hotside. I want to keep the T3 IWG, will the 8474 be capable of 800 whp with the T3 IWG, or do I have switch to the 9180 to get the bigger hotside?
Thanks
Thanks
Feb 13, 2019, 12:32 PM
#4439
I rarely post here, but have been lurking since 2002 (Yiiikkeeesss!) but struggling to find much info
Anyone have any experience, or better yet, seen this particular (be is 2.5 or 3.5 housing or the 0.63 or 0.84, whatever. Just the T3 setup) EFR 7163??
Anyone have any experience, or better yet, seen this particular (be is 2.5 or 3.5 housing or the 0.63 or 0.84, whatever. Just the T3 setup) EFR 7163??
Feb 13, 2019, 04:19 PM
#4440
The T3 .64 A/R housing looks to be aftermarket, not a BW part. The turbocharger's part number correponds to the supercore (no turbine housing), so someone just slapped one on and is selling them. Since BW sells theirs at $500 or so, there is a lot of room for the aftermarket to make a cheaper one and sell a bunch of EFRs. I've personally never seen it used.