Street/Track capable Turbo??
Oct 12, 2011, 10:11 AM
#31
You talking to me Balrok? The information on the car Robi did is in DSport, as for my statement him and I talk on a regular basis and he told me that in a conversation.
OK, I just contacted my BW guy again, seems the availability sucks for the turbos. I was going to get one coming and actually run it. The turbine wheels were built in Japan and the Tsunami has that operation on hold. I was also told there have been some turbine wheel failures from excessive heat......last I was told they have gone through multiple foundries for the turbine housings as they are having problems finding someone to cast them without porosity in them. Same thing happened last time I thought I wanted to try one but now there is more information out about failures, which I didn't expect.
If I can ever get my hands on some I'd like to test it.
OK, I just contacted my BW guy again, seems the availability sucks for the turbos. I was going to get one coming and actually run it. The turbine wheels were built in Japan and the Tsunami has that operation on hold. I was also told there have been some turbine wheel failures from excessive heat......last I was told they have gone through multiple foundries for the turbine housings as they are having problems finding someone to cast them without porosity in them. Same thing happened last time I thought I wanted to try one but now there is more information out about failures, which I didn't expect.
If I can ever get my hands on some I'd like to test it.
Oct 12, 2011, 11:11 AM
#34
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...yno-graph.html
I know Mike W. has something to say about how that dyno reads....
In Robi's quoted words...
Garrett's reliability is generally not questioned, but it would seem Sierra Sierra has managed to fail Garrett DBB CHRA's time and time again...and the BW EFR just keeps on ticking.
I pickedup 72 whp @ 8k RPMS with my Magnus v5 over the stock intake manifold with an FPRed... There are certainly gains to be had with a real intake manifold on the car.
I know Mike W. has something to say about how that dyno reads....
OK, seems like more perspective is desired.
Here is Ben’s clean pull compared to a stock longblock FP Red E-85
Compared to a perfectly setup BBX Full on a stock longblock 2.0 (91/E85)
Cosworth 2.2 EVO 9 Full Race Twin Scroll GT35 E85 (presented for spool comparison, boost set on “tickle fight” and not “kill”)
Same car, Cosworth 2.2 EVO 9 but with a Full Race Twin Scroll GT40 (high boost/low boost) E-85
2.5 EVO 8 with a FP3052 on E-85
Compared to a stock 2.0 with an AMS single scroll PTE 6262 E-85
Built 2.0 with a single scroll HTA86
AMS’s drag car @ MOD in ‘09
3KGT on upgraded turbos and 91/ Meth:
Compared to a supercharged 2011 5.0 Mustang
Z06 ‘Vette with an exhaust and filter:
Compared to a 2011 Fiat 500
Does he still need to run it on another dyno?
Mike W
Here is Ben’s clean pull compared to a stock longblock FP Red E-85
Compared to a perfectly setup BBX Full on a stock longblock 2.0 (91/E85)
Cosworth 2.2 EVO 9 Full Race Twin Scroll GT35 E85 (presented for spool comparison, boost set on “tickle fight” and not “kill”)
Same car, Cosworth 2.2 EVO 9 but with a Full Race Twin Scroll GT40 (high boost/low boost) E-85
2.5 EVO 8 with a FP3052 on E-85
Compared to a stock 2.0 with an AMS single scroll PTE 6262 E-85
Built 2.0 with a single scroll HTA86
AMS’s drag car @ MOD in ‘09
3KGT on upgraded turbos and 91/ Meth:
Compared to a supercharged 2011 5.0 Mustang
Z06 ‘Vette with an exhaust and filter:
Compared to a 2011 Fiat 500
Does he still need to run it on another dyno?
Mike W
In Robi's quoted words...
Originally Posted by robi
because RRE doesn't play the smoke and mirrors dyno game. They use the same parameters so cars and runs are comparable.
I pickedup 72 whp @ 8k RPMS with my Magnus v5 over the stock intake manifold with an FPRed... There are certainly gains to be had with a real intake manifold on the car.
Last edited by R/TErnie; Oct 12, 2011 at 11:22 AM.
Oct 12, 2011, 11:41 AM
#37
So as cool as it is, its out.
David, so your recommendation is to go back to stock cast manifold and a FPred then? As you may have seen on the first page of this thread there is a lot of concern over the FP ability to hold up to sustained temperatures of roadracing. My current setup sees EGT's in the 1550F-1600F range for 6+ hours on track at full tilt. What are your thoughts on sustained high temperature/load reliability of a FP turbo?
Oct 12, 2011, 12:02 PM
#38
Oh what the hell R/T, what do you say we just try to carry on a civil conversation over this.
I would personally like to test the turbos, they aren't available, so I can't.
The 2.3RPM engine/stock intake manifold and our head work incredibly well together, I have the same set up in my own car you are using to show how well the EFR works in these examples. I can not be more impressed with my own car and would not consider going back to anything else. In all my testing on 2.0's, 2.0LR and 2.1's our Fab'd intake manifold made more power every single time on those engines. It doesn't work the same on this 2.3RPM engine though and I lost low/mid range (a lot of it) and had small gains up top. So I have the stock ported intake on my car just like this EFR equipped turbo Robi did.
The quote you put up from Robert is legit but not what I was referring to about a Dynapak, a Dynapak has shown to constantly spit out numbers AT LEAST as high as a Dynojet, that is all I meant by my statement AND what Robi meant too when him and I were discussing it. It can't even be debated as it's been proven over and over. Nothing wrong with the dyno, nothing wrong with Mike W. or anything else. The dyno just reads what it reads and that is higher than most others, that was my only point.
So given that, let's just put it on an equal playing field with a Dynojet and figure it's 13% higher than mine.
My car with a single scroll T3 header and Tial .82 turbine housing using an HTA86 turbo at 32 psi of boost makes 725 whp and doesn't fall off like the EFR does in the graphs you posted. This is on the same engine/head/intake that is on the EFR car. My car also makes 518 ft lbs by 4400 rpm climbs to 581 ft lbs and then still has 518 ft lbs at 7500 rpm. Taking 13% away from the posted EFR chart gives us much smaller numbers, the peak torque of 573 on the Dynapak drops to 498 at 3998 rpm, the peak power of 611 drops to 531 at 6519 and by 8000 rpm the peak power of 550 drops o 478.
I do agree it spools fast as hell, very impressive and is why I'd like to get my hands on one at some point. 20 psi on the EFR seems to come in at 3850 rpm, while my car on the 3586 comes in at 4300 rpm, that's pretty substantial.
I see the same trend here, we are comparing a turbo that has outstanding low end (the EFR) but it falls off terribly up top. Given both cars have the same engine/head/intake the next largest difference in the turbo and my car will stomp a hole in the *** of that car after 4400 rpm and only give up a little up to that point.
OK, I just dug up a current dyno sheet from my old car, Project White. Kevin owns it now and will not allow me to lean on it at all. It is running a stock ECU, STOCK MAF, 32 psi of boost peak. One of our standard 2.3 with less compression that the 2.3RPM engines have, same head as the 2.3RPM's have and ported stock intake. That car makes 481 ft lbs at about 4300 rpm, has 370 ft lbs at 7200 rpm and the power is still flat at 506 at 7200 rpm. When I owned it the car made a peak of 525 whp and 500 ft lbs but this is a more recent chart with Kevin whispering in my ear "don't break it buddy" haha. Using his numbers the EFR wins but we also have to consider the things that make the two cars not equal. Another chart I have in front of me has an FP Red still making 562 whp at 7500 rpm and it started making that at 5700 rpm. Peak torque was 536 at 4900 rpm, late for a Red but that was on a 2 liter with 5R cams.
The only way to do a true comparison of this turbo is like all comparisons, same day, same dyno blah blah. If I can ever get one I'd like to try it. I'm not blind but I don't get sold on something new easily either.
I would personally like to test the turbos, they aren't available, so I can't.
The 2.3RPM engine/stock intake manifold and our head work incredibly well together, I have the same set up in my own car you are using to show how well the EFR works in these examples. I can not be more impressed with my own car and would not consider going back to anything else. In all my testing on 2.0's, 2.0LR and 2.1's our Fab'd intake manifold made more power every single time on those engines. It doesn't work the same on this 2.3RPM engine though and I lost low/mid range (a lot of it) and had small gains up top. So I have the stock ported intake on my car just like this EFR equipped turbo Robi did.
The quote you put up from Robert is legit but not what I was referring to about a Dynapak, a Dynapak has shown to constantly spit out numbers AT LEAST as high as a Dynojet, that is all I meant by my statement AND what Robi meant too when him and I were discussing it. It can't even be debated as it's been proven over and over. Nothing wrong with the dyno, nothing wrong with Mike W. or anything else. The dyno just reads what it reads and that is higher than most others, that was my only point.
So given that, let's just put it on an equal playing field with a Dynojet and figure it's 13% higher than mine.
My car with a single scroll T3 header and Tial .82 turbine housing using an HTA86 turbo at 32 psi of boost makes 725 whp and doesn't fall off like the EFR does in the graphs you posted. This is on the same engine/head/intake that is on the EFR car. My car also makes 518 ft lbs by 4400 rpm climbs to 581 ft lbs and then still has 518 ft lbs at 7500 rpm. Taking 13% away from the posted EFR chart gives us much smaller numbers, the peak torque of 573 on the Dynapak drops to 498 at 3998 rpm, the peak power of 611 drops to 531 at 6519 and by 8000 rpm the peak power of 550 drops o 478.
I do agree it spools fast as hell, very impressive and is why I'd like to get my hands on one at some point. 20 psi on the EFR seems to come in at 3850 rpm, while my car on the 3586 comes in at 4300 rpm, that's pretty substantial.
I see the same trend here, we are comparing a turbo that has outstanding low end (the EFR) but it falls off terribly up top. Given both cars have the same engine/head/intake the next largest difference in the turbo and my car will stomp a hole in the *** of that car after 4400 rpm and only give up a little up to that point.
OK, I just dug up a current dyno sheet from my old car, Project White. Kevin owns it now and will not allow me to lean on it at all. It is running a stock ECU, STOCK MAF, 32 psi of boost peak. One of our standard 2.3 with less compression that the 2.3RPM engines have, same head as the 2.3RPM's have and ported stock intake. That car makes 481 ft lbs at about 4300 rpm, has 370 ft lbs at 7200 rpm and the power is still flat at 506 at 7200 rpm. When I owned it the car made a peak of 525 whp and 500 ft lbs but this is a more recent chart with Kevin whispering in my ear "don't break it buddy" haha. Using his numbers the EFR wins but we also have to consider the things that make the two cars not equal. Another chart I have in front of me has an FP Red still making 562 whp at 7500 rpm and it started making that at 5700 rpm. Peak torque was 536 at 4900 rpm, late for a Red but that was on a 2 liter with 5R cams.
The only way to do a true comparison of this turbo is like all comparisons, same day, same dyno blah blah. If I can ever get one I'd like to try it. I'm not blind but I don't get sold on something new easily either.
Oct 12, 2011, 12:05 PM
#39
Looking at R/T's charts and the information I just posted about Kevin's car..........I don't think the Red is enough for you. Most guys aren't going to make what Kevin's car does and he isn't even on kill.
Honestly, after taking 13% off the Dynapak numbers and comparing my car to it, I'd say use the HTA86, you have a T3 manifold already. The EFR isn't available so it's kind of a moot point anyway. Today is the 2nd time I got interested in testing one only to find out the same thing I did last time, not available. The EFR's have been not available for nearly 10 months from what I am told, add to that what they just told you and it seems like a poor turbo to promote.
Also, about your question of road racing the car for long periods. There are a ton of guys running extremely fast road racing on stock turbos and stock appearing turbos every weekend with no problems.
Honestly, after taking 13% off the Dynapak numbers and comparing my car to it, I'd say use the HTA86, you have a T3 manifold already. The EFR isn't available so it's kind of a moot point anyway. Today is the 2nd time I got interested in testing one only to find out the same thing I did last time, not available. The EFR's have been not available for nearly 10 months from what I am told, add to that what they just told you and it seems like a poor turbo to promote.
Also, about your question of road racing the car for long periods. There are a ton of guys running extremely fast road racing on stock turbos and stock appearing turbos every weekend with no problems.
Last edited by David Buschur; Oct 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM.
Oct 12, 2011, 12:13 PM
#40
Also R/T, based on what Mike W. wrote on the last dyno sheet there is no telling what you said to him so I called him to make sure he is clear on the only thing myself or Robi were saying in our conversation which was a DYNAPAK READS HIGHER THAN A MUSTANG DYNO.
Here is Mike M's quote for reference: "Does he still need to run it on another dyno? Mike W"
Here is Mike M's quote for reference: "Does he still need to run it on another dyno? Mike W"
Oct 12, 2011, 12:17 PM
#41
Hmm, all these power numbers 600-750+awhp on mustang dyno are way above what my engine was ever specd to hold. Keeping in mind I only rev out to 7000rpm (not a drag car) and have eagle rods, and run only pump 93 what is the best available option then for me i think 400-450awhp on a mustang or under 500whp on dynojet is plenty. I'll make the sacrifice on top end for the quicker spool and fat torque band. 
Oct 12, 2011, 03:04 PM
#42
Originally Posted by David Buschur
The quote you put up from Robert is legit but not what I was referring to about a Dynapak, a Dynapak has shown to constantly spit out numbers AT LEAST as high as a Dynojet, that is all I meant by my statement AND what Robi meant too when him and I were discussing it. It can't even be debated as it's been proven over and over. Nothing wrong with the dyno, nothing wrong with Mike W. or anything else. The dyno just reads what it reads and that is higher than most others, that was my only point.
So given that, let's just put it on an equal playing field with a Dynojet and figure it's 13% higher than mine.
So given that, let's just put it on an equal playing field with a Dynojet and figure it's 13% higher than mine.
Originally Posted by Mike W
If you don’t know my dyno, don’t talk about what or who reads higher or lower
_This_ AWD Dynapack 6000 consistently reads 9% higher than the Mustangs @ GST, Reese and GReddy. I can’t speak for other Mustang dynos. On two cars it read 2% lower than the TT AWD Dynojet. There is one AWD Dynapack in So Cal that reads a good 6-7% higher than mine. The other Dynapack is an older 2000+4000 so maybe that has something to do with the difference and myth.
Charts:
Running the car at different boost levels. Robi was looking for something in the 500 whp range to keep the car driveable on a road course. Scot (tuner) could not get the car to run below 18 psi so 524 is the lowest hp there can be.
Up around 30 psi and with E-85, there was a little ignition breakup. This car has a Sparktech COP setup which is one of the only COP kits we see that is trouble free. But whit this WHP and E-85 it could use an ignition amplifier box. The red pull at 28 psi peak and ~600 whp is the highest clean pull. The green pull is the most that the ignition could take.
The numbers in the green and yellow boxes are the boost, torque or hp wherever the markers are set at. On this set of runs they are set on the highest and lowest peaks.
Full chart showing the weather station info. This is the red clean run. We are in a bit of a heat wave here in So Cal (101 daytime at the shop), it was still pretty warm in the dyno room. :
Looks like the SAE correction hit 5.6%
Same charts as above with weather correction set @ NONE:
For the guys that know how to use a DYnapack, here is the F11 setup. No crazy settle time, 11 second run.
I don’t know all the details of his old setup other than it didn’t suck. It only looks sad when compared to this turbo/motor combo. Red and green this Borg Warner turbo, orange and teal color runs his old setup.:
For a currency conversion to your favorite dyno… his clean 600whp run compared to dead stock untooned 2011 X MR (red and blue) and a 2010 X GSR (red and green)
Dyno War all you want. This turbo/manifold/motor setup rocks :-P I have a 2.4 with a 30R on E-85 on my own track EVO 8 and a 2.5 with a 30R customer car and they can _almost_ match the spool of this setup. But they need to run way more boost and have nowhere near the top end of this kit.
High res images:
http://roadraceengineering.com/dynap...rgWarner-Dyno/
Mike W
_This_ AWD Dynapack 6000 consistently reads 9% higher than the Mustangs @ GST, Reese and GReddy. I can’t speak for other Mustang dynos. On two cars it read 2% lower than the TT AWD Dynojet. There is one AWD Dynapack in So Cal that reads a good 6-7% higher than mine. The other Dynapack is an older 2000+4000 so maybe that has something to do with the difference and myth.
Charts:
Running the car at different boost levels. Robi was looking for something in the 500 whp range to keep the car driveable on a road course. Scot (tuner) could not get the car to run below 18 psi so 524 is the lowest hp there can be.
Up around 30 psi and with E-85, there was a little ignition breakup. This car has a Sparktech COP setup which is one of the only COP kits we see that is trouble free. But whit this WHP and E-85 it could use an ignition amplifier box. The red pull at 28 psi peak and ~600 whp is the highest clean pull. The green pull is the most that the ignition could take.
The numbers in the green and yellow boxes are the boost, torque or hp wherever the markers are set at. On this set of runs they are set on the highest and lowest peaks.
Full chart showing the weather station info. This is the red clean run. We are in a bit of a heat wave here in So Cal (101 daytime at the shop), it was still pretty warm in the dyno room. :
Looks like the SAE correction hit 5.6%
Same charts as above with weather correction set @ NONE:
For the guys that know how to use a DYnapack, here is the F11 setup. No crazy settle time, 11 second run.
I don’t know all the details of his old setup other than it didn’t suck. It only looks sad when compared to this turbo/motor combo. Red and green this Borg Warner turbo, orange and teal color runs his old setup.:
For a currency conversion to your favorite dyno… his clean 600whp run compared to dead stock untooned 2011 X MR (red and blue) and a 2010 X GSR (red and green)
Dyno War all you want. This turbo/manifold/motor setup rocks :-P I have a 2.4 with a 30R on E-85 on my own track EVO 8 and a 2.5 with a 30R customer car and they can _almost_ match the spool of this setup. But they need to run way more boost and have nowhere near the top end of this kit.
High res images:
http://roadraceengineering.com/dynap...rgWarner-Dyno/
Mike W
Originally Posted by David Buschur
I was also told there have been some turbine wheel failures from excessive heat.....
Maybe the issue you're confusing is people overspeeding turbochargers until the turbine fails... very common with older 14b's and Evo 8/9 turbos if you overspeed the crap out of them. Lucas English and Aaron are very familiar with this type of failure mode.
Originally Posted by David Buschur
My car with a single scroll T3 header and Tial .82 turbine housing using an HTA86 turbo at 32 psi of boost makes 725 whp and doesn't fall off like the EFR does in the graphs you posted. This is on the same engine/head/intake that is on the EFR car. My car also makes 518 ft lbs by 4400 rpm climbs to 581 ft lbs and then still has 518 ft lbs at 7500 rpm. Taking 13% away from the posted EFR chart gives us much smaller numbers, the peak torque of 573 on the Dynapak drops to 498 at 3998 rpm, the peak power of 611 drops to 531 at 6519 and by 8000 rpm the peak power of 550 drops o 478.
I do agree it spools fast as hell, very impressive and is why I'd like to get my hands on one at some point. 20 psi on the EFR seems to come in at 3850 rpm, while my car on the 3586 comes in at 4300 rpm, that's pretty substantial.
I see the same trend here, we are comparing a turbo that has outstanding low end (the EFR) but it falls off terribly up top. Given both cars have the same engine/head/intake the next largest difference in the turbo and my car will stomp a hole in the *** of that car after 4400 rpm and only give up a little up to that point.
I do agree it spools fast as hell, very impressive and is why I'd like to get my hands on one at some point. 20 psi on the EFR seems to come in at 3850 rpm, while my car on the 3586 comes in at 4300 rpm, that's pretty substantial.
I see the same trend here, we are comparing a turbo that has outstanding low end (the EFR) but it falls off terribly up top. Given both cars have the same engine/head/intake the next largest difference in the turbo and my car will stomp a hole in the *** of that car after 4400 rpm and only give up a little up to that point.
I'm suggesting a 7064 for the OP's requirements. I gave the 7670 as a great example of response versus potential power output. So if you look at Mike's Dyno reading 9% higher than your dyno the numbers skew the EFR is a more favorable light than you have cast....even though you're comparing a 76mm turbo to an 86mm turbo....
Originally Posted by David Buschur
Using his numbers the EFR wins but we also have to consider the things that make the two cars not equal.
Originally Posted by David Buschur
The only way to do a true comparison of this turbo is like all comparisons, same day, same dyno blah blah. If I can ever get one I'd like to try it. I'm not blind but I don't get sold on something new easily either.
But, I digress; Borg Warner is a major OE manufacturer with thousands of employees and has been manufacturing turbochargers since the beginning.
FP: modifier of garrett and MHI turbochargers. Employs less than 10 people. Has been modifying turbos or a hand ful of years
Experience goes to Borg Warner. Technical capabilities goes to Borg Warner. Engineering capabilties goes to Borg Warner. Testing facilties... goes to Borg Warner. You can't really compete against these guys... less you account for availability lol.
If you look at the compressor maps, design of the CHRA, dynamic seals, gamma ti turbine wheel, super low MOI rotating assemblies, FORGED milled compressor wheels, industry leading aero, and the complete package it's fundamentally (in every way) a better turbo than what Garrett, FP, PTE, Blouch, etc has to offer. The current examples of people running these turbo's and the numbers they're producing further supports the physics of why these turbo's are outperforming everyone else.
I don't have to test what 20 pounds of weight reduction will do to my lap times to know that I'll accelerate in every direction at a higher rate. I know this because of a fundamental understanding of physics. I also don't have to run a TiAL turbine wheel to understand the MOI reduction results in a few desirable characteristics. So although I agree that maybe you as a vendor cannot promote a product you have not tested yourself, you can easily see the performance advantages of the EFR over everything out there.
OT did you see the gas stand that BW uses to test the turbo's? I wonder what FP uses.
The old FP Reds had serious oil starvation issues with road racing conditions due to people starving the pickup. The new BB chra should help that issue.
Oct 12, 2011, 03:16 PM
#43
Before I try to respond to any of R/T's huge post, to the OP, I was just in the shower and thinking about turbo's. I don't know why I didn't think of it before but the HTA82 would be the ticket to do better than this BW and the Red. I always forget about the 86's little brother. It makes about 40 whp less peak but spools up about 400 rpm sooner. That would still give better top end than the BW turbo and put it right about the same place in spool up, put a .63 turbine housing on it instead of the .82 I am running and it would be the ticket.
As for the HP goals you have because of the engine build, the HP is adjustable don't forget. All you have to do is turn the boost up or down and a larger turbo will create less heat in the intake and have less back pressure in the engine.
So I now say, get the HTA82 and put it on your current manifold, use the .63 A/R on it, you will be very happy.
I have to remember to suggest that turbo more often.....
As for the HP goals you have because of the engine build, the HP is adjustable don't forget. All you have to do is turn the boost up or down and a larger turbo will create less heat in the intake and have less back pressure in the engine.
So I now say, get the HTA82 and put it on your current manifold, use the .63 A/R on it, you will be very happy.
I have to remember to suggest that turbo more often.....
Oct 12, 2011, 03:30 PM
#44
I don't know what thread you are talking about or what you are telling Mike, he wasn't in when I called him today. He is suppose to call me tomorrow so I can explain I'm not trying to start trouble with him, which is what I am assuming is getting stirred up......
Some of what I have nothing to comment on I have cut out of your quotes below so it's easier for me to sort through.
I am not confused about anything. I spoke with the BW rep I have today who told me there are cases of the turbine wheel in the new EFR turbo failing DUE TO HEAT. I'm not confused.
I do not have the specs on the EFR turbo on the Robispec build. I don't think it matters that I am comparing it to my HTA86, you supplied like 20 dyno sheets from Mike comparing it to all kinds of stuff, some of it not even EVO's. I am providing the best comparison of all the comparisons. Both are EVO8's with the same engine/head and intake manifold on them. I realize the spool difference, I was trying to show you though that the HTA86 makes more power everywhere except for 400-500 rpm down low. I mean if you look at the big difference in size of the turbos you have to admit, that little spool difference is just that, little and the area after that the turbo gets spanked. I'd have to assume the larger EFR you are referencing would be laggier than this EFR we are talking about which would then make the spool up a non-issue as it would probably be laggier than my HTA86.
You are right, I can't promote a product I haven't tested, it's against my nature, this product you can't even get. I read all the same stuff you did about how great BW is, their time in the market, their this and their that. Reading a description doesn't sell me on a performance advantage though. NONE of that matters to me. By your description of why they should be great that would say that Robert at FP should have never been able to make a better compressor wheel than Garrett had in their own turbos and that surely is not the case. My money goes on the guy who works the hardest and tries the most, not the place with the most complete resume.
The Red still makes good power at 40 psi, the HTA86 on my car makes freaking crazy power at 40 psi. I was trying to keep the dyno discussion close to 30 psi based on this EFR turbo that is being talked about in all the dyno charts you posted.
Some of what I have nothing to comment on I have cut out of your quotes below so it's easier for me to sort through.
I am not confused about anything. I spoke with the BW rep I have today who told me there are cases of the turbine wheel in the new EFR turbo failing DUE TO HEAT. I'm not confused.
I do not have the specs on the EFR turbo on the Robispec build. I don't think it matters that I am comparing it to my HTA86, you supplied like 20 dyno sheets from Mike comparing it to all kinds of stuff, some of it not even EVO's. I am providing the best comparison of all the comparisons. Both are EVO8's with the same engine/head and intake manifold on them. I realize the spool difference, I was trying to show you though that the HTA86 makes more power everywhere except for 400-500 rpm down low. I mean if you look at the big difference in size of the turbos you have to admit, that little spool difference is just that, little and the area after that the turbo gets spanked. I'd have to assume the larger EFR you are referencing would be laggier than this EFR we are talking about which would then make the spool up a non-issue as it would probably be laggier than my HTA86.
You are right, I can't promote a product I haven't tested, it's against my nature, this product you can't even get. I read all the same stuff you did about how great BW is, their time in the market, their this and their that. Reading a description doesn't sell me on a performance advantage though. NONE of that matters to me. By your description of why they should be great that would say that Robert at FP should have never been able to make a better compressor wheel than Garrett had in their own turbos and that surely is not the case. My money goes on the guy who works the hardest and tries the most, not the place with the most complete resume.
The Red still makes good power at 40 psi, the HTA86 on my car makes freaking crazy power at 40 psi. I was trying to keep the dyno discussion close to 30 psi based on this EFR turbo that is being talked about in all the dyno charts you posted.
Mike Speaks about his dyno in that thread too... Here's a quick copy and paste of what he had to say.
****************
The inherent quality of the Ti-Al is that it becomes stronger and stronger throughout every heat cycle, so as you use it, it becomes much stronger...
Maybe the issue you're confusing is people overspeeding turbochargers until the turbine fails... very common with older 14b's and Evo 8/9 turbos if you overspeed the crap out of them. Lucas English and Aaron are very familiar with this type of failure mode.
You're comparing a 76mm exducer turbo to an 86mm exducer turbo. The power numbers and spool differences are to be expected when comparing an apple to an orange. You're going to find that teh 8374 EFR is a more apt comparison for YOUR particular engine, but not for the OP.
I'm suggesting a 7064 for the OP's requirements. I gave the 7670 as a great example of response versus potential power output. So if you look at Mike's Dyno reading 9% higher than your dyno the numbers skew the EFR is a more favorable light than you have cast....even though you're comparing a 76mm turbo to an 86mm turbo....
And if you use the 9% compensation rather than the 13% as previously stated...it looks even better. AND if you run the EFR to 40psi (where the compressor map starts to shine) you're going to see a large improvement in air flow. (power)...where the Red dynocharts (including CBRE's) are running max compressor wheel speed already.
I agree that maybe you shouldn't be sold on something you cannot hold...
But, I digress; Borg Warner is a major OE manufacturer with thousands of employees and has been manufacturing turbochargers since the beginning.
FP: modifier of garrett and MHI turbochargers. Employs less than 10 people. Has been modifying turbos or a hand ful of years
Experience goes to Borg Warner. Technical capabilities goes to Borg Warner. Engineering capabilties goes to Borg Warner. Testing facilties... goes to Borg Warner. You can't really compete against these guys... less you account for availability lol.
If you look at the compressor maps, design of the CHRA, dynamic seals, gamma ti turbine wheel, super low MOI rotating assemblies, FORGED milled compressor wheels, industry leading aero, and the complete package it's fundamentally (in every way) a better turbo than what Garrett, FP, PTE, Blouch, etc has to offer. The current examples of people running these turbo's and the numbers they're producing further supports the physics of why these turbo's are outperforming everyone else.
I don't have to test what 20 pounds of weight reduction will do to my lap times to know that I'll accelerate in every direction at a higher rate. I know this because of a fundamental understanding of physics. I also don't have to run a TiAL turbine wheel to understand the MOI reduction results in a few desirable characteristics. So although I agree that maybe you as a vendor cannot promote a product you have not tested yourself, you can easily see the performance advantages of the EFR over everything out there.
OT did you see the gas stand that BW uses to test the turbo's? I wonder what FP uses.
The old FP Reds had serious oil starvation issues with road racing conditions due to people starving the pickup. The new BB chra should help that issue.
****************
The inherent quality of the Ti-Al is that it becomes stronger and stronger throughout every heat cycle, so as you use it, it becomes much stronger...
Maybe the issue you're confusing is people overspeeding turbochargers until the turbine fails... very common with older 14b's and Evo 8/9 turbos if you overspeed the crap out of them. Lucas English and Aaron are very familiar with this type of failure mode.
You're comparing a 76mm exducer turbo to an 86mm exducer turbo. The power numbers and spool differences are to be expected when comparing an apple to an orange. You're going to find that teh 8374 EFR is a more apt comparison for YOUR particular engine, but not for the OP.
I'm suggesting a 7064 for the OP's requirements. I gave the 7670 as a great example of response versus potential power output. So if you look at Mike's Dyno reading 9% higher than your dyno the numbers skew the EFR is a more favorable light than you have cast....even though you're comparing a 76mm turbo to an 86mm turbo....
And if you use the 9% compensation rather than the 13% as previously stated...it looks even better. AND if you run the EFR to 40psi (where the compressor map starts to shine) you're going to see a large improvement in air flow. (power)...where the Red dynocharts (including CBRE's) are running max compressor wheel speed already.
I agree that maybe you shouldn't be sold on something you cannot hold...
But, I digress; Borg Warner is a major OE manufacturer with thousands of employees and has been manufacturing turbochargers since the beginning.
FP: modifier of garrett and MHI turbochargers. Employs less than 10 people. Has been modifying turbos or a hand ful of years
Experience goes to Borg Warner. Technical capabilities goes to Borg Warner. Engineering capabilties goes to Borg Warner. Testing facilties... goes to Borg Warner. You can't really compete against these guys... less you account for availability lol.
If you look at the compressor maps, design of the CHRA, dynamic seals, gamma ti turbine wheel, super low MOI rotating assemblies, FORGED milled compressor wheels, industry leading aero, and the complete package it's fundamentally (in every way) a better turbo than what Garrett, FP, PTE, Blouch, etc has to offer. The current examples of people running these turbo's and the numbers they're producing further supports the physics of why these turbo's are outperforming everyone else.
I don't have to test what 20 pounds of weight reduction will do to my lap times to know that I'll accelerate in every direction at a higher rate. I know this because of a fundamental understanding of physics. I also don't have to run a TiAL turbine wheel to understand the MOI reduction results in a few desirable characteristics. So although I agree that maybe you as a vendor cannot promote a product you have not tested yourself, you can easily see the performance advantages of the EFR over everything out there.
OT did you see the gas stand that BW uses to test the turbo's? I wonder what FP uses.
The old FP Reds had serious oil starvation issues with road racing conditions due to people starving the pickup. The new BB chra should help that issue.
