BorgWarner EFR 8374 IWG Dyno Results
#303
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
Actually, those are very good numbers.
Mainline dyno is the #1 heartbreaker dyno which typically reads 15-18% lower than Dynapac/Dynojet. Not adjustable to fluff the numbers up like DynoDynamics dyno.
That 346rwhp Mainline is easy 400rwhp Dynojet which is great for what 14.5psi boost in my opinion.
Mainline dyno is the #1 heartbreaker dyno which typically reads 15-18% lower than Dynapac/Dynojet. Not adjustable to fluff the numbers up like DynoDynamics dyno.
That 346rwhp Mainline is easy 400rwhp Dynojet which is great for what 14.5psi boost in my opinion.
#304
Full Member
My Renesis did better at same boost on that very same dyno (396NM and 405hp at 14.5psi) - yours seems low to me .
Last edited by Brettus; 08-31-18 at 11:37 PM.
#307
B O R I C U A
iTrader: (14)
Actually, those are very good numbers.
Mainline dyno is the #1 heartbreaker dyno which typically reads 15-18% lower than Dynapac/Dynojet. Not adjustable to fluff the numbers up like DynoDynamics dyno.
That 346rwhp Mainline is easy 400rwhp Dynojet which is great for what 14.5psi boost in my opinion.
Mainline dyno is the #1 heartbreaker dyno which typically reads 15-18% lower than Dynapac/Dynojet. Not adjustable to fluff the numbers up like DynoDynamics dyno.
That 346rwhp Mainline is easy 400rwhp Dynojet which is great for what 14.5psi boost in my opinion.
Was not expecting to see HP drop off at 6.3k rpm on a 8374 - *** (oops, was reading the TQ instead of HP), my bad!***
Last edited by KNONFS; 09-04-18 at 10:02 AM.
The following users liked this post:
KNONFS (09-07-18)
#309
Full Member
iTrader: (4)
15 psi @ 3400 rpm 339 hp / 285 ft lbs on Mustang Dyno. Initial tune on the new setup 93 octane without meth and a bit rich. Plenty of room to go. Self tuned. Very happy with the results so far, thanks Elliot and Shawn!
This is a large street port block, Turblown's Shorty IWG manifold, BW EFR8374 w/ turbosmart 10 lb gate and dual port BOV, 3" exhaust with RB single tip, Elite Rotary V Mount kit and a twin power running with 9's all round.
This is a large street port block, Turblown's Shorty IWG manifold, BW EFR8374 w/ turbosmart 10 lb gate and dual port BOV, 3" exhaust with RB single tip, Elite Rotary V Mount kit and a twin power running with 9's all round.
#311
Full Member
iTrader: (4)
Using Adaptronic open loop boost control right now. I swapped out the Turbosmart wastegate to a 10 psi spring and run 4 port MAC solenoid. Boost control is spot on right now across the rev range, just took a few pulls to dial it in.
With no boost control, boost comes on and settles at 10.5 psi. At around 4500 rpm it begins to creep to 14 psi by ~6500 rpm. This is most likely the reason the Turbosmart included spring is 14 psi.
With no boost control, boost comes on and settles at 10.5 psi. At around 4500 rpm it begins to creep to 14 psi by ~6500 rpm. This is most likely the reason the Turbosmart included spring is 14 psi.
#315
Rocket Appliances
iTrader: (11)
Skeese
#316
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
To me the fact that the powerband is choked to 5000-6600 at which point the turbo falls off in a car that is supposed to run 6500-8000 rpms through the shifts at WOT as a STOCK PORT makes it a poor choice for the platform as a whole. You find someone with a turbo that holds through that range, you'll be getting your *** handed to you no matter how quick your spool is or how much you make before the plunge.
Skeese
Skeese
3" Exhaust + Short Manifold + IWG + 0.92 A/R Turbine Housing = EMAP through the roof. Very restrictive on all fronts.
I'd think with a larger and longer manifold + 4" downpipe/exhaust + EWG + 1.45 A/R Turbine Housing that 6600RPM choke point would at least extend another 1250 RPM with maybe a 300 RPM loss on the bottom end. Widen the powerband... 200hp at 4000 RPM, I'm not okay with that.
Last edited by RGHTBrainDesign; 10-09-18 at 11:49 PM.
#317
Built Not Bought
iTrader: (14)
I always thought the 8374 was the optimal for the ~400whp range.
Would it still fall off early if boost was increased?
Will the IWG version be even worse than this?
Is there something else holding this back? That chart seems much lower than how people generally talk about the 8374. Seems more like was people say about the 7670
And shouldn't power be greater than torque?
Would it still fall off early if boost was increased?
Will the IWG version be even worse than this?
Is there something else holding this back? That chart seems much lower than how people generally talk about the 8374. Seems more like was people say about the 7670
And shouldn't power be greater than torque?
Last edited by TwinCharged RX7; 10-10-18 at 12:59 AM.
#318
www.AusRotary.com
Couldn't agree with you more. Peak power should be at least the redline RPM of a stockport...
3" Exhaust + Short Manifold + IWG + 0.92 A/R Turbine Housing = EMAP through the roof. Very restrictive on all fronts.
I'd think with a larger and longer manifold + 4" downpipe/exhaust + EWG + 1.45 A/R Turbine Housing that 6600RPM choke point would at least extend another 1250 RPM with maybe a 300 RPM loss on the bottom end. Widen the powerband... 200hp at 4000 RPM, I'm not okay with that.
3" Exhaust + Short Manifold + IWG + 0.92 A/R Turbine Housing = EMAP through the roof. Very restrictive on all fronts.
I'd think with a larger and longer manifold + 4" downpipe/exhaust + EWG + 1.45 A/R Turbine Housing that 6600RPM choke point would at least extend another 1250 RPM with maybe a 300 RPM loss on the bottom end. Widen the powerband... 200hp at 4000 RPM, I'm not okay with that.
I suspect exhaust blockage further down the system (eg collapsed cat, restrictive 3" muffler?), ignition breakup or something tune related. Could even be an intake restriction.
I always thought the 8374 was the optimal for the ~400whp range.
Would it still fall off early if boost was increased?
Will the IWG version be even worse than this?
Is there something else holding this back? That chart seems much lower than how people generally talk about the 8374. Seems more like was people say about the 7670
And shouldn't power be greater than torque?
Would it still fall off early if boost was increased?
Will the IWG version be even worse than this?
Is there something else holding this back? That chart seems much lower than how people generally talk about the 8374. Seems more like was people say about the 7670
And shouldn't power be greater than torque?
It's different from what you see on the 7670 charts. The issue with the 7670 isn't the hot side. The dyno charts drop off at high rpm because the 7670 compressor runs out of flow on a 13B.
#320
Full Member
#321
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
The reason torque falls off so early on the EFR turbos is because torque comes on so early.
If torque didn't drop off then the horsepower would keep going up and up.
Yeah, we would love that, but an 82mm compressor can only move so much air- so... you know, physics.
Does EFR 8374 make less peak power than GT3582R? Does it make less power than T04Z?
No, it just makes the same power earlier in the engine rpms.
If torque didn't drop off then the horsepower would keep going up and up.
Yeah, we would love that, but an 82mm compressor can only move so much air- so... you know, physics.
Does EFR 8374 make less peak power than GT3582R? Does it make less power than T04Z?
No, it just makes the same power earlier in the engine rpms.
#323
Full Member
iTrader: (8)
The reason torque falls off so early on the EFR turbos is because torque comes on so early.
If torque didn't drop off then the horsepower would keep going up and up.
Yeah, we would love that, but an 82mm compressor can only move so much air- so... you know, physics.
Does EFR 8374 make less peak power than GT3582R? Does it make less power than T04Z?
No, it just makes the same power earlier in the engine rpms.
If torque didn't drop off then the horsepower would keep going up and up.
Yeah, we would love that, but an 82mm compressor can only move so much air- so... you know, physics.
Does EFR 8374 make less peak power than GT3582R? Does it make less power than T04Z?
No, it just makes the same power earlier in the engine rpms.
I would add to this that i feel the torque wouldnt drop off so early if the boost was allowed to increase above 14psi. It falls off fast as the boost is kept (in my opinion) low-med around 14psi +/-. If the boost was allowed to increase above 14psi as the rpm climbed the amount of air into the engine would be greater and the to power would stay up aswell.
why so many insist on running low boost especially as the main tune is beyond me. Even on pump 91-93 with 50/50 spray you should be able to run 20-25psi so why not use the turbo for what it can do? Why not run low boost/high boost settings? All these turbos can run what 40psi? And yet we limit them to 7-14... I don't see the logic in that. All these newer cars are running 20-30 psi albeit direct injection on pump fuel alone and here we are fussing over going above 15psi on pump.
Use 91-93 with 50/50spray and turn that boost up then you'll see real numbers.
#324
Agreed.
I would add to this that i feel the torque wouldnt drop off so early if the boost was allowed to increase above 14psi. It falls off fast as the boost is kept (in my opinion) low-med around 14psi +/-. If the boost was allowed to increase above 14psi as the rpm climbed the amount of air into the engine would be greater and the to power would stay up aswell.
why so many insist on running low boost especially as the main tune is beyond me. Even on pump 91-93 with 50/50 spray you should be able to run 20-25psi so why not use the turbo for what it can do? Why not run low boost/high boost settings? All these turbos can run what 40psi? And yet we limit them to 7-14... I don't see the logic in that. All these newer cars are running 20-30 psi albeit direct injection on pump fuel alone and here we are fussing over going above 15psi on pump.
Use 91-93 with 50/50spray and turn that boost up then you'll see real numbers.
I would add to this that i feel the torque wouldnt drop off so early if the boost was allowed to increase above 14psi. It falls off fast as the boost is kept (in my opinion) low-med around 14psi +/-. If the boost was allowed to increase above 14psi as the rpm climbed the amount of air into the engine would be greater and the to power would stay up aswell.
why so many insist on running low boost especially as the main tune is beyond me. Even on pump 91-93 with 50/50 spray you should be able to run 20-25psi so why not use the turbo for what it can do? Why not run low boost/high boost settings? All these turbos can run what 40psi? And yet we limit them to 7-14... I don't see the logic in that. All these newer cars are running 20-30 psi albeit direct injection on pump fuel alone and here we are fussing over going above 15psi on pump.
Use 91-93 with 50/50spray and turn that boost up then you'll see real numbers.
503rwhp @ 17.5 psi Cast EFR IWG 8374 FC turbo system. Medium street-port S5, E55 Flex fuel. 11.1 AFR; 13 degrees advance. 3" exhaust with RB dual catback. 98 degree day, (496rwhp SAE setting)
. 14.5 psi from 3400 rpms to 7000rpms, 17.5 psi from 7-8k rpms; 4th gear dynojet. Everything was done in house, except the motor from Pineapple racing.
The following users liked this post:
Monkman33 (09-07-21)