lOOkatme

iTrader: (19)

Look at the physical size of the turbo's, look at the inlet options and the outlet options. They are all pretty comparable in terms of power and flow.

I would think if you could get a 3.5" outlet from the turbine and run 3.5" all the way back that would be ideal with a 4" inlet to the compressor. Also think about how you want to route your intake pipe, what lines need to fit into the intake pipe, how you want to run intercooler piping, and how large of a filter you are going to need.

I would run a V-mount intercooler with short piping, use piping that is the same size as the turbine compressor outlet. run that into a properly sized intercooler for your application. Most people throw on HUGE intercoolers and you don't need that. A smaller intercooler will cool just fine and help with spool of the turbo.

Fit on the intake piping which should run between your radiator and intercooler to grab fresh cold air. run it right by the intercooler. Place on the intake piping a large filter which will not strain the turbo at all. run the biggest you can fit in the space. Look into ducting everything so all air is either forced through the radiator/intercooler/air filter. If you are going to run a oil catch can, now is the time to start thinking about where you want to put it in the engine bay. Also think about heat shielding the UIM runners and anything else that needs to be shielded from the turbo.

Enigmatic

Definitely agree, was going to go with a nice tidy V-Mount all ducted up and run a nice CAI and keep it all looking clean!

This A-Spec manifold is beautiful!

lOOkatme

iTrader: (19)

I have the A-spec manifold on my car. I run a .84 A/R hotside GT3574R. I run a 44MM single wastegate.

Full-Race Geoff

I agree 1.0 a/r is a good starting point, however the turbos youre considering are fairly different sizes. the EFR7670 is a great choice but comparable to the precision 58. the other 61R and 6266 are much larger and laggier, if you wanted something of that size check out the EFR8374 (62mm)

the EFR 7670 is actually a bit smaller in Outer Diameter than many of the other bigger turbos, i expect it would fit. the 8374 and 9180 would be the bigger ones, more difficult to package down there

3.5" inlet EFR7670 compressor housing:


4.0" inlet EFR8374/9180 compressor housing:

^this is about the same OD as t04z or gt4088R

exactly correct - the 3.5" inlet on the 7670 is a much more compact compressor cover and easier to package

we have 3" -> 3.5" transition vbands for the EFRs, but unless you're targetting over 600+whp, 3" is the way to go for the downpipe. 3.5" presents no restriction on the intake side for up to 700+whp, the reason most turbo inlets are 4" is due to the ported shroud "anti surge" feature

agree 100%

assuming your 0.84a/r is divided - you may want to check out the 1.00 a/r or 1.06a/r.. ive found them to spool *earlier* than 0.84 a/r on the GT35 turbine wheel. same with the gt40R, that thing can sometimes spool the fastest on the 1.19 a/r

KNONFS

iTrader: (14)

So bigger (larger diameter) is not better? Thought larger diameter would yield better spool, and less back pressure. I guess the real question is, are there any disadvantages to running a larger diameter downpipe?

Turblown

iTrader: (12)

Geoff thanks for the photos. I didn't know the 7670 was that much smaller. The 8374 will definitely not fit on a shorty manifold. I've been bugging Eric to get his 7670 dynoed...

eliminster

He is seriously thinking about it just remember he will run lower hp numbers than those at sealevle since we are between 6000-7000 ft elevation here in the springs.

Turblown

iTrader: (12)

Are you the guy tuning his Adaptronic?

Enigmatic

All very interesting, thanks for the info. What sort of power would the EFR 7670 be making on a street port, any rough ideas? What PSI would you want to run through it to make it's potential?

I dont mind a bit of lag if I reach my power goals, but would prefer the power band on the low to mid side seeing as it's a daily driver, though ideally I'm shooting for the 300rwkw (400hp) mark as well if possible.

My mechanic Ric Shaw runs the 8374 on his race car, not sure what manifold, maybe HKS Cast?
This is a t04z size turbo on a RHD car with an HKS Cast manifold, not sure how the frame size of the classic t04z compares to the EFR 8374:

eliminster

Don't know exactly what power it will make we are thinking between 400-450 on speed junkies setup running 24 psi on pump and aux injection but not sure since it will be at altitude also so thinner air.

Full-Race Geoff

you have a point - larger can mean lower backpressure, and reduced backpressure is good for faster spool .. BUT if bp is already low it can become a case of diminishing returns.. In my experience for a street car 400-500hp engine, 3" is perfect and has some advantages: it's a lot easier to fit, with more room away from things you dont want hot. 3" gives off less heat than 3.5" or 4" because there is much less surface area - 0.5" doesnt sound like much but its a pretty big difference! when talking about an 80mm turbine for 550-650+hp setup then I agree 3.5" is the call - if i were building a road race or drift car it would be 3.5". Conversely 4" is the way to go for a drag car or anything over >83mm turbine wheel

I really feel like the 8374 is the magic turbo for a properly built 13b, it can make your power target without breaking a sweat and it is just operating on peak efficiency islands all the time.. No question he 7670 is a great turbo too, just a little on the small side for the 13B if youre going to run anything but pump gas and lower boost levels. heres a response i just got from an Australian customer with the 8374:

"Last weekend was an event called “Powercruise” here. Since we rolled off dyno and had not been able to spend time on the boost control strategy it immediately overboosted to 2bar.. which was great for about a split second.. So in a quick fix we simply took all the duty cycle out of the Motec and effectively ran it on canister only. Logs showing it making about 1.2-1.3bar. Well. All I can say is, if that’s how it goes on 1.3bar – people better stand back when it get e85 and 1.8bar. Everyone who rode in the car with me commented on how strong it felt throughout the rev-range. And it didn’t appear to nose over at all. I also noted full boost recovery between 2nd-3rd gear shifts of 0.4-0.5sec. This was near twice as fast at the previous setup on essentially the same motor. Very impressed with the available torque range, Also more or less kept with a known fast R35 that has done late 10’s – only really giving away during gear changes. So all on all I am very happy so far

thanks i heard about ric before, tons of experience behind the wheel. Im excited to see what he does at WTAC next week.

no problem - if you need any tech info or have any customers interested in your turblown kits with the EFR turbos im happy to try and help

that is a good point, turbochargers must spin at higher RPM for high altitude to acheive the same boost level compared to sea level. I would believe a 7670 may enter overspeed condition on a 13B, so 8374 might be a better fit. overspeed is not only bad for the turbo but it also means the compressor map is well out of it's efficiency range.

borgwarner's matchbot is a very good tool to use for this, i highly recommend it! just change displacement, and boost, then drop down on the compressor map to see your calculate airflow requirements:

BorgWarner MatchBot

Enigmatic

I appreciate the EFR's capabilities, It's unfortunate that only the 1.05 is externally gated, the 8374 with a smaller divided housing could be great for me. I'm wondering though, is it worth it? The 6266 with a .84 T4 Divided housing in air cooled ball bearing format is about 6-700 bucks cheaper than the EFR. I'm seeing lots of good stuff about the 6266 on street applications!

I just want to say thanks though, lots of great advice here, and through emails with various people. You can understand my desire to get this right, but without ever experiencing each set up, it's just looking at graphs and listening to opinions so I'm trying to field a wide range of options.

Full-Race Geoff

I respectfully disagree - I consider the giant 42mm IWG on the 0.92 a/r to be one of the coolest features! This is not the typical IWG, it works incredibly well - performance is on par with an external gate recirc'd but none of the headache. The 0.92 a/r setup is SO simple and easy to work on, no need for external gates/dumps/flanges/clamps/vbands. My wife likes the fact my car is no longer screaming bloody murder when the WG's open. Im running the 8374 0.92 iwg on my daily driver and at 26psi, it spools identical to a gt3076R 0.63 but makes more power. We are running this setup on 2012 WTAC champion (and we expect will be the 2013 World Time attack champion in 3 days) Nemo-Racing.com - they love it said they do not plan to go back to EWG

look at the cost of 2x external WG's (600-700+), a bov (250-280), dumptubes (200-400) and time required to configure all of that for a traditional turbo -- its not nothing

reading forum posts or web pages about the EFR turbos can not "sink in" how well they work or why it's "better". this weekend at WTAC where many top cars are running the EFR and precision turbos - compare the results. EFR turbine housings are stainless steel, precision are cast iron. Precision uses turbonetics' designed china mfg'd inconel wheels, whereas BW uses bw designed and japanese mfg'd titanium aluminide - (reducing the rotating mass by half is huge for a device that spins >100k rpm is a significant trait not seen on a dyno). On the dyno looking at brief WOT runs, yes precision and EFR turbos appear comparable. On the street or road course or from a materials/engineering/design perspective - the EFR is a different animal altogether

Kman Art

iTrader: (1)

Geoff, I have had the privilege of knowing you for several years and doing business with you.

This quiet turbo chat crap has to stop! It's blasphemy!

Now that's out of the way... How difficult is it to run a 3" downpipe with two dump tubes on the FD? All the photos I have seen doesn't show this area. The thought of cutting the hood for 3 pipes has spiked an interest, but I doubt it would help with autocross or daily driving especially with the amount of noise it would produce.

Enigmatic

I see your point Geoff, part of me wants that audible experience! The other concern was fitment, I really want to keep it low, does the internal wg cause fitment issues? However it is a very sensible choice, it would be much more legal!
Also 26 psi seems like a lot for my purpose, my engine isn't doweled just ported; am I going to run into issues? I'm not clear on that technicality!

I will be at WTAC both days, I'm going to check this **** out.

Full-Race Geoff

the IWG does make fitment more difficult, but the answer to your question will depend on which manifold and which Turbo you choose. attached is a photo of a FR manifold with the IWG efr, for reference

hey art the 3" downpipe is not difficult, very straight forwards. anytime you have to plumb dual wg's dumptubes it takes some work (especially on RHD applications). Dumping them out through the hood is the easiest and fastest, but of course the loudest and most dramatic. i have photos of the different setups i can share if youd like to see


too funny now that im 33, married, child and my hair keeps falling out and my eardrums barely work... EFR's iwg and bov are some of my all time favorite innovations (right up there with vbands and thickwall mainfolds!)

Enigmatic

By all accounts the 6266 seems to be performing amazingly on the 13B, but I just don't know about an air cooled turbo (or Precision) on our hot engines. That's why I'm leaning toward the TDX61r with their new 6 blade billet wheel. It's a similar size, should perform similarly? The guys running a 6266 .84 are putting down about 400rwhp at 15psi and it comes on fast and strong. Is .84 on the TDX @15-18psi with a street port going to be too restrictive?

Zero R

iTrader: (1)

Can't believe people still argue over long runner, versus short runner it's been beat to death for at least as long as the single section has been around, they both perform well and with little difference at all for what is being discussed here. The main reason to choose one over the other is simple. Fitment. Does it work well with your desired setup. It's the single most important reason I went back to short runners over long runners, they work well with SMIC and VMIC. People will sit here and internet race all day about wheel sizes and area's and wheel ratios, and materials and A/r's you name it. Truth is you're splitting hairs with most of it and once you factor in who's port work, with who's tune, boost level Y versus X and every other factor you rarely get a apples to apples comparison. Spool can "feel" different just from blade count on the compressor wheel as a simple example and blade count can effect flow at different levels as well. A 11 blade GTX wheel will certainly do good up to a point where then the blades become the restriction. I've seen turbo's with poor wheel ratio's perform exceptionally well and better than some with excellent wheel ratios it never ends. You can go on and on about all of it but again 15-20psi range on a 13B on a street driven car shooting for 400whp is going to fall into X category and nine times out of ten if you sat in two identical cars with either one of the turbo choices you will be happy with the results and likely couldn't tell the difference everything else being equal. A perfect example would be this...

The TDX61 uses a old P-trim wheel, that wheel is dated and the newer 66mm wheels are performing much better along with better overall potential. The 6266 has the better turbine wheel so why bother... but wait the TDX61 comes water cooled and the Precision doesn't so why bother with the Precision unit... but wait the EFR's come with superduper special light weight materials and all the pressure regulating devices built in... but wait the EFR wont fit where the non integrally gated Garrett or Precision units would... and on and on it goes with no end. Almost forgot this one, Garrett uses steel BB's and that is much better than Precision's choice of ceramic material. Wait... What? BW uses ceramic BB's too? Guess BW uses inferior bearings and we're back to Garrett since ceramic BB's are no good.

Comparing what X race car does with X product to Y street car is pointless. I have a 6266 here that just dyno'd 783whp on a 1.8ltr at 30psi, and it has nothing to do with a street driven 13b. How many EFR's got eaten on the track? How many Precision? I bet the answer is less EFR's than Precision, not my answer just a guess that's what will be said, no bias involved at all. Personally, I've ran all three turbo's all three have done well. I'll offer and sell the customer what best fits and point out what's and why's of X turbo or Y turbo. I tend to lean to the Precision or Garrett over the BW but mainly for personal reasons than product reasons. I don't like some of the stuff being marketed over the years by BW sales people.(too aggressive) Prime example is openly trashing competitors being one, let the product do the talking, or whatever happened to the whole "there is no need for BB CHRA's from Garrett, our better designed wheels and A/r's when run with just the right amount of oil supply will spool better and have better response than a BB Garrett?" EFR's are now BB yes?

I'm not attacking no one in this thread and don't care to argue back and forth but I can see why enigmatic is confused. If he wants to buy a good solid proven manifold, I'll sell him one, he don't need to look far to see they perform. If he wants to buy Elliot's manifold guess what? It will perform too. Odd how that works. I'm guessing similar results will be had with the turbo choice as well. It will simply come down to fitment is my guess and how enigmatic wants his car set up.


~S~

Double_J

iTrader: (28)

Now you done it. You woke him up!