Don't doubt it one bit, I've read about all the part failures and explosions it encountered during shakedowns and cringed at the thought of how much was budgeted...yikes!

 

I can see where you are coming from Dave. FP has been delivering the goods for several years now and they may well end up being my choice in the end if only due to availability.

As for the EFR, all of the signs point to it being a game changer, but only time will tell. From a pure physics standpoint it has advantages (like turbine wheel material) that are going to be hard to match for smaller shops so I am excited to see that product mature. When somebody pushes the boundaries of what existing tech is capable of, then we all win in the long run.

Technically speaking the Cyber Evo is not as sophisticated as the Sierra Sierra Evo but there are hidden factors that don't make the front page news. The Sierra Sierra team uses a full weight cage that meets all the current safety standards and the Cyber Evo does not. The two fastest JDM time attack Evos (Cyber Evo and HKS CT230R) have cages that are "optimized" for weight saving not necessarily driver safety (whatever that means ). The most recently published figures showed the Cyber Evo weighing in at under 2400lbs (1060kg? or so) and the Sierra Sierra Car weighing in at 2770lbs. That and not taking away from Emp who drives the Sierra car, but I've watched Tarzan Yamada break lap records in the rain. The man is an absolute loony behind the wheel.

 

About the run time mentioned in the post of yours before this Dave I addressed that in the other thread. The Dynojet runs for a 640whp car are between 11-12 seconds. So it depends upon how the dyno applies the load to the car. I don't think we're going to be able to bench dyno the differences by sitting behind a screen. Your back to back test will be required.

Most failure rates are done in percentages. If the FP Black and FP Red had numbers for the percentage of them that have failed in the field... you'd have a staggaring number. Not poking FP in the eye here... they know it's directly related to oil starvation which is due to the oiling system of the Evo and an inherent known issue with journal bearing CHRAs. Again... not FP's fault. They've decided to switch to a BB CHRA for these models to help with the reliability. This is pretty well known throughout Evom.

Except for the fact that their durability testing far exceeds what FP is capable of. Maybe that isn't given enough credit, or people simply don't understand the amount of money, resources, and effort goes into not just testing, but validation. You state that nobody is using the EFRs, that's just not true... they're already on contract be used in a major racing series this coming year! I'd say getting buy in from an entire racing sanction body shows if nothing else, people higher up in motorsports recognize the dependability of BW as a turbocharger supplier for their racing series. That says a lot in my book.

Am I promoting the EFR? Sure! I'm just an enthusiast that wants to spread the knowledge about this great new product, and to explain to people who don't understand physics or care to learn... why it's so impressive. I won't see any monetary benefit from the success of the EFR, but it's been something I've been seeking and hoping for. I approached all the stock frame Evo turbocharger companies asking for a TiAL turbine wheel, BB CHRA, and an anti-surge housing... I either got laughs, hang ups, or simply the company did not wish to invest the time into the technology. So props to BW for stepping up and trumping everythign else.

You spoke about the turbine wheels failing again OUT of context. Failing a part from misuse is far different from manufacturer's defect. If I send a spark plug into a turbine wheel at speed... it's a turbine wheel failure, but it's not the manufacturers fault. It's a failure due to misuse. A turbine wheel wasn't design to accelerate spark plugs into the downpipe. The wheels that failed were due to overspeeding the turbocharger -certainly a case of misuse. So Dave, why say misleading things?

Sure the Cyber Evo was faster than the SSE, but the SSE Evo was soo fast down the front straight that the Cyber team protesting claiming the SSE was using nitrous! The SSE Evo is certainly making power, but it's at a significant weight disadvantage. The FSAE kids learn that horsepower is not everythign when it comes to turning fast lap times. You'll see a 450cc single KILLING a 600cc 4 cylinder in auto-x and endurance racing. Power isn't everything on course. To make a comparison like that and claim it's the fault of the turbocharger is not only ignorant, but misleading.

 

My point was and I thought I made it clear, a turbo doesn't make a race car. sierra got beat again even with the budget, the driver and the turbo. I was not being ignorant or misleading as I clearly stated a turbo doesn't make an entire race car. The sierra EVO was so fast down the straights......yes, I read the story.....fast down the straight is NOT transient response I have nothing else to say on the EFR.

I don't personally know what is causing the turbine wheels to fail and stated that too but something is causing it as you have said, my sales guy said and now someone else on the forums who is suppose to be in the know PM'd me. All three are slightly different reasons, which one is right I have no clue.

 

Cool. Now the waiting game

 

Sorry for the attempted "hijack"
I did make a thread.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...my-evo-ix.html

But no one responded.

But thanks very much to David and Ernie and everyone else who has been contributing in this thread. Alot of information to swallow. But I'm slowly understanding the technical aspects.

 

My car is here on the dyno. Boost/afr's are all dialed in on the HTA86 and it's cooling off now. Waiting on UPS to bring the new turbo and then I'll get them swapped out.

 

Awesome!! I'm excited for results Dave. And you have a sweet job monday morning Evo on a chassis dyno sweet... I have an engine on a engien dyno pulling 1200ft lbs 15 ft from my ear but its somehow just not as cool as 700+whp evo

 

Nice. Looking forward to the results as well.

 

Way to Hustle. Look forward to lots of specs with this new turbocharger from Robert

 

OK, test is done.

Rather than not putting information out there, which isn't how I roll, I will put out what I gathered and go from there.

I will post a dyno sheet when the Dynojet graph is posted from the EFR, hopefully later this week.

For now the numbers.

Boost was 31 psi peak. The car, doing a 4th gear run hit 20 psi of boost at 3891 rpm. A fourth gear pull on our MD takes 10 seconds from 2500-8000 rpm with this turbo. The peak power was 581 whp and the peak torque was 517 ft lbs. The car has 580 whp from 6350 rpm all the way past 8,000 rpm, it's dead flat.

Now here is what I am seeing. If I take 13% off the EFR numbers this turbo will beat it on torque and HP by a little bit. I'd like to see more spool from this particular turbo. Oh, BTW, the turbo Robert sent me to try is a HTA3082. I am going to pull it off the car and send it back over to Robert and he is going to convert it to a HTA3076. He feels the turbo is going to come in faster and not be hurt up top.

I will post the actual dyno sheets after the Dynojet sheets have been posted from the EFR.

Also, for reference, I did a handful of pulls on my car this morning with the HTA86, in 4th gear it hits 20 psi at 4212 rpm. That turbo is just flat out freaking awesome. Robert and I were talking about the combinations of the wheels etc. and the HTA86 is just an optimal set up/balance.

 

Compare the compressor map of the HTA compressor wheel you're using and the BW and you'll find that the efficiency of the BW compressor wheel is much better at higher pressure ratio's than the Garrett wheels (GTX included)

When you max both turbos out (with similar sized compressor wheels) you'll find the EFR has better response and makes more power.

You should be measuring wheel speed not boost pressure to make accurate comparisons.





So before you take that turbocharger off your car... run it til it doesn't make anymore power. (choke flow)

 

Thanks for sharing.

So, this turbo, the 3082, was supposed to be the answer to the EFR which is regarded as the 'cats meow' right now, and Robert now feels like the HTA3076 will do just as well as the 3082 but with better response...... My question is, is that the same HTA3076 that has been around for years now?

I ran one of those HTA3076's with an AMS kit that had the cast flange and merge collector when it first came out. It was nice, but if you look at my testing here ( https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ve...iew-boltz.html ), you'd probably agree that the performance of the BBK full was much better in comparison, for my setup at least.

Just curious....

 

The turbo is already off. I'm not interested in testing the shaft speed or running the turbo to max boost. The EFR in question was dyno'd at 30'ish psi and that is what I am targeting just to see how close something else can get. We were going to swap turbine housings today for more top end, Robert felt the low end probably wouldn't suffer at all, the turbo didn't need more top end though, it need to hit harder down low.

Yes, this is the same HTA3076, I ran one a few years ago on the 2 liter that was in my car, I can't dig up the dyno sheets and the spool up is so drastically different with this stroker it doesn't matter anyway.

We also need a Dynojet sheet on the EFR.

 

Also as a side note, this turbo is Roberts HTA billet compressor, using a Garrett map isn't going to do any of us much good.