I thought I would share the results from one of the EFR 9180s we supplied at Abel at FR performance.
The car has been run on both the 1.45 and 1.05, and its moving back to the 1.05. I am going to try and get a high boost back to back between the two housings. Abel claims the 1.45 only helps hold the power for a few more hundred rpms on the top end, but hurts the powerband considerable by adding more lag. The car is being filmed next week for street racing show. Videos, etc will be available then.

 

NO.

There's not enough fuel for that to be possible on a 13B-RE running e85. This is absolute bullshit. Not blaming you, but it's obvious there's misinformation here, so don't spread it.

 

I figure it's actually got enough fuel for around 876rwhp on pure e85. I'm not sure the exact concentration he's on, although I can look it up in the ECU logs when I get a moment.

 

That car is a rocket

 

How do you figure this?

Mind going through the calculations with me on here? This is news to me.

 

Not exactly sure where he says how much fuel it has to make that statement. There are 13Bs making that kinda power, but my biggest concern is that it'd take about 110 LB/HR of compressor flow to do it, and the 9180 is all out of breath at 95 LB/HR. That said, 841whp at 400kpa is only 210whp normalized power, considerably on the conservative side for a SemiPP RE motor, unless exhaust back pressure is bananas.

 

And what shaftspeed and turbine backpressure, may I ask? This is very interesting.

I have tons of data of the IWG 9180 running 32psi flat till 9k rpm on a mild streetport.

 

It's okay, this is a nitrous + meth/water injection dyno run. Not purely 4x ID2000s.

 

I assume shaft speed is through the roof( like getting ready to blow the turbine in half), and exhaust back pressure is also the same.

Thanks for the email early BTW!

 

So would that be 700ish whp on a DD or mainline chassis dyno?

can the adaptronic do target pressure and max shaft speed based wastegate control at the same time?

 

It's a Semi-P you're not surprised that it would have a custom LIM? Perhaps one with 4 injectors?
I guess 6xID2000 is impossible?

 

Can someone explain what's going on in this thread?

 

Quote that accompanied the photos on Facebook.

Looks like 2J dyno to me. I can't see a 13B lagging that bad on a little 9180.

 

😂 this thread is great. You guys want my go pro footage?

 

Who says "no" to videos?

 

Wasn't April Fools' day a while back? A 2JZ would make sense. No way in hell a rotary is making those numbers with 1 9180 and on boost alone.

 

That text wasn't on Abel's Facebook post, Elliot added that.




However, I did find this looking at the comments on the individual dyno sheet photo instead of the comments in the post of the two photos.

So, I don't know what Abel meant by "there are no Doritos here"

 

TLDR version: People on the Internet are questioning how the arguably most famous rotary drag racer in the world makes horsepower.

 

Bingo!!! 😂✔

 

What's there to argue?
A well-tuned rotary takes about 0.13 pounds per minute of compressor flow per wheel HP.
The number he’s claiming is WAY off the deep end of the compressor map. The 9180 can make a max of 95lb/hr.
The power he’s claiming to make would take 105lb/hr. He’s 100whp higher than the next highest claim for that turbo on a rotary.
I know he’s one of the best rotary tuners around, but he can’t make a turbo do more than it’s designed to do.
If this were a much more efficient piston engine, then it’d be much more reasonable. But there is no way that turbo made those number on a properly calibrated dyno.

 

as you can see the EFR9180 is in stall/max air at 95 pounds per minute. the wheel is doing 116,000 RPM which is BW's max suggested RPM.

since the line is vertical there is no more air.

power is about burning oxygen. once you have burned the O there is no more power available UNLESS you are adding additional O contained in the base fuel or are using something similar to NO2.

various types of engines produce different amounts of power from X amount of O.

generally, piston engines max out around a 10 to one ratio w the mass of air injested. a piston engine would max out around 950 rwhp from the 95 pounds of air.

a pretty good relationship for the typical rotary would be taking the piston output and dividing it by 1.3. 950 / 1.3 = 730 rw rotary hp

or CFM / 1.92

95 X 14.471 = 1375 (CFM) / 1.92 = 716 rw rotary hp.

based on the above the power looks around 14% high.

i am very comfortable on the above calculations for a non peripheral port motor but have no idea re a peripheral ported motor. when i raced in SCCA (NA) i ran J ported motors which are extreme bridgeports.

SCCA added a considerable penalty to peripheral ported motors.

my Roger Mandeville/Daryl Drummond motors made 259 flywheel hp (12A) whereas the 12A peripherals were just over 300.

i totally agree w the previous posts about the 9180 as to MAX air at 95 but the peripheral conversion may (probably is) larger so the power is certainly possible.

it would be nice if the dyno sheet was in SAE and was also a complete sheet w RPM etc. i realize that the OP just copied what was avail on the FB page.

the interesting takeaway here is that the peripheral port changes the relationship between airflow and power.

most of the time there is a large trade-off as to range of power and peak power. my J port motors made power only, and i mean only, between 7000 and 10,000. that may be the reason for the highly redacted dyno sheet.

that is also the reason i ran a Saenz adj ratio five speed.

 

There will be two effects which help the semi PP to potentially eclipse side port air efficiency slightly, which might, in combination with long injector to port volume/flash time improve air efficiency enough to be reasonable. I had previously figured this turbo was good for close to a max 700 DD whp on a side port which when converted using the figure turblown suggest for soft American horses could be reasonable.

So obvious his intercooling, exhaust and ignition tuning will be as good or better than anyone running a sideport motor. Also the large injector to chamber distance gives the very best post intercooled evaporative charge cooling, more density for less turbo pumping effort (remembering that neither the turbine or compressor are anywhere near 100% efficient so a small pumping gain is a big difference in EMP and exhaust stroke pumping loss). Potentially quiet a few % just there in total air efficiency in reduced pumping loss/lowered EMP from lower compressor required power to move the same air mass to the motor and slightly lower dump pressure with good exhaust requiring less EMP again for the required PR drop over turbine for that shaft power delivery.

Then you go to specifics of semi PP. The semi PP presents less intake flow resistance, but also depending on the engine speed represents less inefficient chamber compression due to LATE port close with intercooled charge air to the same final mass vs early port close higher compression ratio and pumping loss while achieving the same chamber charge mass and power stroke expansion ratio. I'm pretty sure this is why all the very late close big EP/BP/PP motors still make really good turbo power at lower rpm (but high boost) on turbos which arguably are "too small" for the NA peak power rpm of the motor and target boost would suggest. It is effectively running a modest miller cycle. Not as radical as you might do with a piston motor designed for fixed operating conditions but it would seem enough difference in air efficiency to show on the dyno. Given they actually run thier cars on the strip, mass and terminal speed would stop the bullshit so they have no reason to try and tweak dyno figures like guys who only "race the rollers"?

 

How high are you spinning the motor ? At what rpm do you see full boost? Just trying to get an idea on what to expect. I have a s369sxe with a 1.0 housing

 

"I have a s369sxe"

the EFR9180 is of course a killer turbo. it has features that perhaps make it worth the approx $2200 tag.

it is interesting to note while considering turbo options that the SXE 69, at around $1000 also offers interesting features. the SXE was designed after the EFR and does use the same compressor wheel..

BW found something in the compressor housing design that delivered significant improvements. the SXE compressor cover measures 8.375 diameter v the EFR at 8 inches.

looking at the compressor maps i see wider efficiency islands on the SXE 62 V the EFR8374 and the SXE69 V the EFR9180.

efficiency relates to how much slippage exists between the wheel and housing in relation to air transport. slippage creates heat. rub your hands together. the amount of oxygen, and therefore power, relates directly to temperature. i datalog IAT w a type K thermocouple (similar to what is used to measure EGTs). this sensor is accurate almost to the degree and perhaps more importantly to the mS. as such i have the real IAT data. i find it is not uncommon at 20 pis to see 300 F out of the turbo so having an efficiency advantage pays dividends by delivering more O into the motor.

specifically:

at 20 psi boost the 9180 74% efficiency island is 22 pounds wide V the SXE 69 at 26 pounds. 18% advantage SXE

at 20 psi boost the 9180 70% efficiency island is 34 pounds wide V the SXE 69 at 40.5 pounds. 19% advantage SXE

surge at 20 psi ends and delivery begins at 29 psi for the EFR9180 and 26.5 for the SXE. (smaller is better)

finally, max airflow at 60% efficiency is 94 pounds (708 SAE rotary rwhp) at 40 psi boost for the 9180 and 97 pounds (731) at 35 psi.

both excellent turbos, both worth the price. both built to OE specs.

 

Howard, but can the SXE 369 spool as fast and have the area under the curve that the 9180 has?