New BW EFR Turbo Thread
Geoff the Sierra Sierra Evo had a 0.83 A/R T3 singlescroll right?
if so how much difference would impact spool on 0.92 A/R T4 twinscroll ?
also i have a fp black right now.. say i wanted something about equiv in its response peak tq wise (4500-5000rpm) what one would i want?
and for example i make 600/500~ now at 31-32psi .. what about would it be based on your best estimate with a turbo like the 8374 at the same boost level?
if so how much difference would impact spool on 0.92 A/R T4 twinscroll ?
also i have a fp black right now.. say i wanted something about equiv in its response peak tq wise (4500-5000rpm) what one would i want?
and for example i make 600/500~ now at 31-32psi .. what about would it be based on your best estimate with a turbo like the 8374 at the same boost level?
Evolving Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 201
Likes: 9
From: NorCal
100mm stroke
156mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
This is the same compression height as 2.3L strokers in 4G63's.
Typical compression height is 28.7mm or 1.130".
Way up into the second ring land... not good.
Your best bet for a 2.2L would be the following:
94mm stroke
159mm rods
Pistons with a comp height of 28.7mm will yield you 0.3mm or .012" deck clearance which is typical of a 2.3L stroker.
4G64 Deck Height - 235mm
Rotating Assembly Height - (1/2 stroke + rod length + compression height)
So for your build:
(94/2 + 159 + 28.7) = 234.7 with 0.3mm to spare as deck height.
^^^ set-up yields a rod/stroke ratio of 1.69 and the wrist pin is only up in the oil ring which is typical of 2.3L strokers.
4G64 has a 235mm deck height.
100mm stroke
156mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
Yes
This is the same compression height as 2.3L strokers in 4G63's.
Typical compression height is 28.7mm or 1.130".
94mm stroke crankshaft + 162mm rods will will push the wrist pin up 9mm.
Way up into the second ring land... not good.
Your best bet for a 2.2L would be the following:
94mm stroke
159mm rods
Pistons with a comp height of 28.7mm will yield you 0.3mm or .012" deck clearance which is typical of a 2.3L stroker.
4G64 Deck Height - 235mm
Rotating Assembly Height - (1/2 stroke + rod length + compression height)
So for your build:
(94/2 + 159 + 28.7) = 234.7 with 0.3mm to spare as deck height.
^^^ set-up yields a rod/stroke ratio of 1.69 and the wrist pin is only up in the oil ring which is typical of 2.3L strokers.
100mm stroke
156mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
Yes
This is the same compression height as 2.3L strokers in 4G63's.
Typical compression height is 28.7mm or 1.130".
94mm stroke crankshaft + 162mm rods will will push the wrist pin up 9mm.
Way up into the second ring land... not good.
Your best bet for a 2.2L would be the following:
94mm stroke
159mm rods
Pistons with a comp height of 28.7mm will yield you 0.3mm or .012" deck clearance which is typical of a 2.3L stroker.
4G64 Deck Height - 235mm
Rotating Assembly Height - (1/2 stroke + rod length + compression height)
So for your build:
(94/2 + 159 + 28.7) = 234.7 with 0.3mm to spare as deck height.
^^^ set-up yields a rod/stroke ratio of 1.69 and the wrist pin is only up in the oil ring which is typical of 2.3L strokers.
Geoff the Sierra Sierra Evo had a 0.83 A/R T3 singlescroll right?
if so how much difference would impact spool on 0.92 A/R T4 twinscroll ?
also i have a fp black right now.. say i wanted something about equiv in its response peak tq wise (4500-5000rpm) what one would i want?
and for example i make 600/500~ now at 31-32psi .. what about would it be based on your best estimate with a turbo like the 8374 at the same boost level?
if so how much difference would impact spool on 0.92 A/R T4 twinscroll ?
also i have a fp black right now.. say i wanted something about equiv in its response peak tq wise (4500-5000rpm) what one would i want?
and for example i make 600/500~ now at 31-32psi .. what about would it be based on your best estimate with a turbo like the 8374 at the same boost level?
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
4G64 has a 235mm deck height.
100mm stroke
156mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
100mm stroke
156mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
88mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
thanks for posting that up, i think i fixed 2 type-o's you made
edit: smurfzilla and runthat-- those motors with 10.5:1 compression will be sick!
Last edited by Geoff Raicer; Jan 27, 2011 at 07:53 PM.
this powerband is what the 7670 turbo was designed to do (and why Im using it on my personal evo project). In fact, the standard S200SX reaches your targets on only a 2.0L, so with your 2.2L the EFR should perform even better
The 7670's compressor map shows maximum airflow rate is 64lb/min (just before choke flow). This is close to the same as a standard garrett gt35R - so whatever your engine setup does with a gt35R for peak power will be similar to the 7670 peak power (a tiny bit less). The big difference of course would be the response, spoolup and area-under-the-curve powerband - with similar top end
The 7670's compressor map shows maximum airflow rate is 64lb/min (just before choke flow). This is close to the same as a standard garrett gt35R - so whatever your engine setup does with a gt35R for peak power will be similar to the 7670 peak power (a tiny bit less). The big difference of course would be the response, spoolup and area-under-the-curve powerband - with similar top end
Doing calculations on the 7670 map along the outermost line of the map, I'm coming up with a combination of 6250 RPMs at 44 PSI, 7750 RPMs at 35PSI, and 30 PSI at 8750 RPMs. Of those, only the 6250 combination is in the (very corner) of the .65 efficiency island, at about 60lbs/minute. The other two combinations which are closer to the 64lb/min area of the curve, are well outside the .65 efficiency island lower and outside. If you want to stay within the (least efficient of the efficiency islands), the highest output combination would be in the range of 60 lbs/min at the 35 PSI level.
Am I reading the compressor map right?
Evolving Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 201
Likes: 9
From: NorCal
4G64 has a 235mm deck height.
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
88mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
thanks for posting that up, i think i fixed 2 type-o's you made
edit: smurfzilla and runthat-- those motors with 10.5:1 compression will be sick!
100mm stroke
150mm rod length
LR2.4L uses the 100mm crank and 156mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
4G63 has a 229mm deck height.
88mm stroke
150mm rod length
2.3L stroker uses the 100mm crank and 150mm rods with pistons that have a compression height of 28.7mm leaving 0.3mm deck clearance.
thanks for posting that up, i think i fixed 2 type-o's you made
edit: smurfzilla and runthat-- those motors with 10.5:1 compression will be sick!
Manley makes off the shelf LR2.4L pistons for use with 156mm rods.
Manley's 156mm Turbo Tuff Rods are heavy at 694 grams each.
I have a set of Pauter 156mm rods that weigh in at 623 grams each.
TedB has a set of Oliver 156mm rods that weigh < 600 grams IIRC.
Manley also has off the shelf pistons for use with E85 and have a static compression ratio of 10.5:1 when used with an Evo Head that has 43cc combustion chambers.
DSM's have a 47cc combustion chamber, so a 0.5 pt loss in static compression ratio due to the larger combustion chamber.
Have a look at their catalog.
http://www.manleyperformance.com/sc/..._pistons.shtml
617015C-4 Is 86.5mm diameter Long Rod 2.4L piston w/10.5:1 compression ratio for use with E85 in the 4G64 block with the 100mm stroke crankshaft and 156mm rods.
617020C-4 Is 87mm or .020" over.
My LR2.0L consists of the Manley 88mm crankshaft, 156mm Pauter Rods and Manley 8.5:1 pistons w/1.130" or 28.7mm compression height for use in a 4G63 on 91 octane/meth injection.
Last edited by Strm Trpr; Jan 27, 2011 at 08:08 PM.
strm trpr -- sick info!! thanks for posting up
This is the "give and take" of turbos - do you need more than 60lbs/min? If so you have two options
1) you can have efficiency & cool flow at 64lb/min (8374 or 9180) or
2) you can get a turbo that spools faster but is just stretched at that airflow point (7670)
The answer depends on the application and setup. if you are concerned with needing over 60lbs/min airflow, go with the 8374. FYI - All the forum dynos that talk about breaking hp records for a stock frame this or an hta that - are operating well beyond any efficiency points on the map (you have just never seen the map)
that setup will be a monster
The other two combinations which are closer to the 64lb/min area of the curve, are well outside the .65 efficiency island lower and outside. If you want to stay within the (least efficient of the efficiency islands), the highest output combination would be in the range of 60 lbs/min at the 35 PSI level
1) you can have efficiency & cool flow at 64lb/min (8374 or 9180) or
2) you can get a turbo that spools faster but is just stretched at that airflow point (7670)
The answer depends on the application and setup. if you are concerned with needing over 60lbs/min airflow, go with the 8374. FYI - All the forum dynos that talk about breaking hp records for a stock frame this or an hta that - are operating well beyond any efficiency points on the map (you have just never seen the map)
that setup will be a monster
strm trpr -- sick info!! thanks for posting up
This is the "give and take" of turbos - do you need more than 60lbs/min? If so you have two options
1) you can have efficiency & cool flow at 64lb/min (8374 or 9180) or
2) you can get a turbo that spools faster but is just stretched at that airflow point (7670)
The answer depends on the application and setup. if you are concerned with needing over 60lbs/min airflow, go with the 8374. FYI - All the forum dynos that talk about breaking hp records for a stock frame this or an hta that - are operating well beyond any efficiency points on the map (you have just never seen the map)
This is the "give and take" of turbos - do you need more than 60lbs/min? If so you have two options
1) you can have efficiency & cool flow at 64lb/min (8374 or 9180) or
2) you can get a turbo that spools faster but is just stretched at that airflow point (7670)
The answer depends on the application and setup. if you are concerned with needing over 60lbs/min airflow, go with the 8374. FYI - All the forum dynos that talk about breaking hp records for a stock frame this or an hta that - are operating well beyond any efficiency points on the map (you have just never seen the map)
Thanks for the explanation. If the 7670 is run outside the efficiency islands on the map, but using E85 and a large, efficient intercooler, what would you expect the upper limit of lbs/min it would flow will be? Is that the 64 lbs/min that BW uses in their literature? Where is the choke point for the 7670?
Thanks for your input.
Thanks for the reply Geoff.
Giving it some further thought I honestly feel a 7670 will be plenty for me and my car. I feel the 8374 would be a real handful - I'd sooner drive the 7670 flat out than attempting to tame the 8734 (power is nothing without control and all that).
Emp deffo has bigger ***** than me and I can well understand why he gets out shaking!
I might not strecth the powerband to 9.5K but I can live with that and I feel it would benificial to come on boost earlier for many of the tight circuits we have here in the UK. The 7670 is the one for me - it should be more than enough in a Time Attack specced E5 RS.
Re headwork - I've opted for standard sized valves on a fully ported cnc head. This will be going on a fully built motor that should take what I can throw at it
Giving it some further thought I honestly feel a 7670 will be plenty for me and my car. I feel the 8374 would be a real handful - I'd sooner drive the 7670 flat out than attempting to tame the 8734 (power is nothing without control and all that).
Emp deffo has bigger ***** than me and I can well understand why he gets out shaking!
I might not strecth the powerband to 9.5K but I can live with that and I feel it would benificial to come on boost earlier for many of the tight circuits we have here in the UK. The 7670 is the one for me - it should be more than enough in a Time Attack specced E5 RS.
Re headwork - I've opted for standard sized valves on a fully ported cnc head. This will be going on a fully built motor that should take what I can throw at it
Hi Karl, 62-73lb/min is the turbo size most people build their evos to utilize. A GT35R is in that area, fp black of course, some hta turbos, precision 62, etc most all of them are in that range. The EFR 7670 is basically designed to give the same top end power as a gt35R but with much more bottom end... so yes I agree the 7670 would be a great starting point for a track evo build. The S200SX 7570 is actually the precursor to the EFR 7670 and they share almost identical turbine wheel geometry, so its also an option worth considering.
i realize VE is a grey area, but one important thing to realize is that VE is not static and changes with RPM. For example, if you had a built 2.0 and intake mani/mildly ported head with good valvejob and some 272s, your expected VE curve might be something like this:
idle 80
2000rpm 83
2500rpm 87
3000rpm 92
3500rpm 95
4000rpm 100
4500rpm 103
5028rpm 106
6000rpm 107
7000rpm 107
7500rpm 105
8000rpm 103
8300rpm 101
the 8374 is definitely a high power turbo - making 700ftlbs tq at 5000rpm is unreal, according to Eric Hsu of Cosworth, the emp says this is one of the scariest fastest cars he's driven, and hes been seen shaking when he gets out of it
that powerband from 3500 to 8500 will be very very broad... you should definitely be able to reach those goals
i realize VE is a grey area, but one important thing to realize is that VE is not static and changes with RPM. For example, if you had a built 2.0 and intake mani/mildly ported head with good valvejob and some 272s, your expected VE curve might be something like this:
idle 80
2000rpm 83
2500rpm 87
3000rpm 92
3500rpm 95
4000rpm 100
4500rpm 103
5028rpm 106
6000rpm 107
7000rpm 107
7500rpm 105
8000rpm 103
8300rpm 101
the 8374 is definitely a high power turbo - making 700ftlbs tq at 5000rpm is unreal, according to Eric Hsu of Cosworth, the emp says this is one of the scariest fastest cars he's driven, and hes been seen shaking when he gets out of it
that powerband from 3500 to 8500 will be very very broad... you should definitely be able to reach those goals
Last edited by Kins; Jan 28, 2011 at 04:10 AM.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
My car sees only E85.....only time it had pump gas is when I drove it from GA to FL to take my kids to Disneyland.
I can't wait to start.
This turbo is EXTREMELY interesting to me. Very ambitious. I like the whole "you can have your cake and eat it too" type of deal.
I'll be looking to buy a turbo/kit in April so hopefully by then we'll have some results closer to what I'm looking for. It seems like it'll hit hard for sure up top but the area to the left is what I'm interested in the most.
If it can spool like an FP Black and hit hard(er) then a HTA86/6262.........I'm completely sold.
Last edited by SmurfZilla; Jan 28, 2011 at 07:30 AM.
Geoff,
When is the turbos becoming availible?
I was told first week in Feb... some here say mid to end march...
When is the turbos becoming availible?
I was told first week in Feb... some here say mid to end march...
strm trpr -- sick info!! thanks for posting up
This is the "give and take" of turbos - do you need more than 60lbs/min? If so you have two options
1) you can have efficiency & cool flow at 64lb/min (8374 or 9180) or
2) you can get a turbo that spools faster but is just stretched at that airflow point (7670)
The answer depends on the application and setup. if you are concerned with needing over 60lbs/min airflow, go with the 8374. FYI - All the forum dynos that talk about breaking hp records for a stock frame this or an hta that - are operating well beyond any efficiency points on the map (you have just never seen the map)
that setup will be a monster
This is the "give and take" of turbos - do you need more than 60lbs/min? If so you have two options
1) you can have efficiency & cool flow at 64lb/min (8374 or 9180) or
2) you can get a turbo that spools faster but is just stretched at that airflow point (7670)
The answer depends on the application and setup. if you are concerned with needing over 60lbs/min airflow, go with the 8374. FYI - All the forum dynos that talk about breaking hp records for a stock frame this or an hta that - are operating well beyond any efficiency points on the map (you have just never seen the map)
that setup will be a monster