When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Eagerly awaiting dyno numbers when you make that switch!
Gas stations here in Hong Kong run 98 (I forget if it's exactly comparable, but it sounds about right) -- can anyone guesstimate the difference in boost/power that could be had on 98 vs. 93?
You are most likely using fuel that's calculated in RON. We used that when I was stationed in the UK and it seems that (like the metric system) many countries run a different rating from the US.
Your power goals are in the region of the 7670. This kit will make that power around 10-14 psi( 325-350rwhp).
His fuel system is maxed out on the E85 ( needpartsnow).
Adey you will always want to run the primary injector ports + secondaries. So I would just run 4 x 1050X injectors( 2 primary/2 secondary). No real reason you need the Excessive LIM BTW, unless you just want a " cleaner " look.
Any particular reason why it's 4*1050 rather than 2 different injector sizes (as per OEM)?
(or, is there a better thread that someone can direct me to which explains injector sizing between primary/secondary -- ideally taking into account the different LIMs available too!)
Keep in mind a CAT will affect high rpm power output a lot more on an IWG setup vs EWG, as all of the exhaust flow is going through a cat on an IWG car. This is part of the reason why on the 8374+ size turbos that a 3.5" exhaust over 3" makes such a large power difference( above 19 psi).
RoboticsRacer are you on an OEM ignition system( or at least OEM plugs). The car is misfiring heavily it appears, turn that smoothing down to zero and I bet you can see it starting around 6700rpms.
That is fantastic power on the 7670... always makes the choice hard between the 8374 and the 7670! I've been back and forth so much with @Turblown about which of their kits to ultimately buy later!
This is my last dyno. setup is 7670, e85,Stock motor, 3in turbo back exhaust/ 4-ID 1700s/2- ID1300s. ets front mount. some other mods but this gives you the idea. you can look at my build page for a better idea
Nice torque numbers at 5k rpm on stock motor. Still retaining the stock tension bolts?
Nothing special here.
My intention was comparing efr 8374 to 362sxe.
the dyno was done about a month ago on DynoDynamic as is my only option.
we encounter issues with the tuners computers.. yes, he tried 2 and didnt work, so he tuned with the commander what we could to make it drivable.
set up info,.
Big street port
Big manifold runners
Efr 8374 with 1.05 rear.
Dual 38mm ewg
3.5" down pipe with a stupid 2.5 id down below(Now removed) and 3" exhaust.
15-16 psi with boost juice.
Keep in mind all this will affect spool and torque at low rpm, but i can tell it starts spooling at about 3k rpm.
My set up is going through some changes and will be going back to the dyno to finally tune it for good.
my goal is/was 400whp and 300ft-lb as my 362sxe.
The car feels more powerfull at 13 psi than 16psi, maybe cause I might be dumping to much water/meth at 16 psi.
the acceleration is insane at 13 psi. I have light weight fly wheel and rx8 eccentric shaft.
I love to red line the hell out of it though so the power its about right for me. Can't beat that torque line...
Next time i will tune it at 18-20 psi to see how it does.
you can NOT go wrong with 7670 or 8374 for street. It comes down what is your driving style and power priority.
just read through the entire post. i was also on the fence between the two turbo. mostly going to be a street car and maybe occasional track days in the future. engine is street port with adaptronic ecu and i do plan to which to flex fuel down the road. i have easy access to e85, but don't want to get stranded somewhere not being able to fill up with e85. looks like i'm leaning towards 8374. HP goals is 400 ish, maybe more down the road after i get bored with 400.
I can't believe I'm just now seeing this post. I've used both turbos, starting with the 7670 in early 2012 and the 8374 around late 2015. Monkman is spot on with this assessment.
At times I miss the 7670, mainly the brutality down low, but it did plateau around 7-7500, and having ridiculous response and power as low as it did (started spooling around 2k and full boost around 3k at the latest), it was wasted power. Still cool to meter it with your foot though, ALWAYS in boost. For autox, I wish I still had the 7670. And if I remember right I made close to 400 on that turbo, if not over.
The 8374 really is better suited for our engines. It doesn't spool quite as fast as the 7670, but it's still very quick (starts spooling around 2500 with full boost around 3300-3500), and it pulls all the way to about 8-8200. Nice, very smooth powerband. This one is better suited for a full track. I raced a street bike yesterday for the first time and was pretty well neck and neck with him. Unfortunately I couldn't tell what it was exactly, so I'm still not sure how excited I should be lol. I'm making 430 at 18psi on a very conservative tune.
Both of these setups have been on stock ports with water injection working occasionally lol, but only as a safety net. The 7670 was external wastegate and the 8374 is internal. Other than that, I changed from a 3" DP to 3.5", but the rest of the exhaust remained the same.
One thing about the 7670 is the harmonic ringing sound between coasting and throttle input. I had it, my old roommate has it on his FC, and I've heard others have it too. I have no idea what it is or why, but it's very annoying lol.
Overall, I say go with the 8374. I'm so happy with the power that it makes and how it's delivered. It's such a blast to drive. I think the only turbo I'd go with other than an EFR is a hybrid turbo.
Originally Posted by Monkman33
This is just an opinion from compiling others results:
Autocross and street (less highway more city): 7670
Peak power may be more around 350-375 with water injection, but your broad low and mid range power will be great. With it falling off a bit in the higher rpm range.
Larger open tracks, and street (more highway less city), and drag racing: 8374
Being better on temps for higher rpm operation while still spooling quickly. (Not as quick as the 7670, but not slow either) Won't fall off towards redline.
If anyone disagrees based on their experience with both turbos, I will not argue. This is just my composite opinion from other's results.
Just saw someone refreshed this thread so I figured I would add my two cents.
I know not many people see independent results, but this is what I have pieced together and the results I came up with.
Mods:
EFR 8374 with 1.05 hot side
Home made long runner manifold similar to the Full Race manifold with 2 inch, schedule 40 piping
Twin Tial 44mm gates sprung at around 5psi
3 inch straight through exhaust
Greddy V mount kit
4.6L Mustang K&N ducted just to the passenger side of the intercooler
AEM W/M kit with 500cc jet and -20 windshield washer fluid
Haltech Elte 1500
Stock ports
IGN-1A coils
R7420-10 Plugs all around
This was all done on a Dynojet so everything is measured at the wheels all logged with a third gear pull. The very same dyno I made 290whp at 12psi on the stock twins.
Here are my personal results with the red line being at 20psi with full WM activated and the orange line being 10psi on pump gas premixed at 1oz per gallon
390whp/340ftlbs of torque only revving out to 7k because much more after that is just heat and heat is no good. This was an average AFR of around 10.8-11 with EGT peaking at 1600F at the end of the pull.
I did have the boost coming in a little lazy and have adjusted more duty cycle down low to make it better which would help bring up the left side of the graph a bit. This turbo is a seriously quick spooler and it loves the top end. For a street/occasional track/hillclimb car, I wouldn't want anything else. If autocross is your game, I would recommend less power and a 7670 if and only if that was your only use.
unfortunately it’s below 5250 rpm, good for a street car, not so much a competition car.
.
Originally Posted by Brianawd
Its perfect a autocross car where you drop down below 3000rpms often. Most people that pick the 7670 want response over max HP.
my FD makes right at 400hp/400tq on the 7670. That on a stock port motor.
To many times people get hung up on the max #s.
I agree on the max number comment, but like most other people you’re maybe missing the point wrt a competition car
low end torque is great for pulling stumps and big boats or load-load throttle response on the street, but it’s not all that effective on a competition engine with high rpm capability (rule allowances permitting). Sure, you think it “feels” good because that added TQ does translate to more HP down there, but below 5250 rpm the amount of HP made is substantially disproportionate to the amount of TQ generated.
I would suggest that shifting that same 4000 rpm powerband up to be from 5000 - 9000 rpm with a lower rear gear, that even with the same peak HP value it can make a lot more HP under the curve (i.e. work accomplished) if configured properly. Fair warning though, it might require looking at in a whole new way.
the issue in general is that most people don’t recognize certain things sometimes because it’s not the way it’s always been done, which is more street car based than competition based, coupled with the advancement of technology not being considered or employed for the same reason
most people aren’t thinking about that and how to make it happen, they’re too busy reading and following the horse and buggy recipe book.
.
point #2 was valid except you still can’t see the forest being stuck in the how it’s always been done mode
it might be faster based on having a lesser skill level, but for those with the skill and setup, more work area under the curve properly applied is going to be fruitful.
The arguement that skill and or technology (antilag and traction control) will make the higher HP car faster is valid; its not that I dont inderstand your point.
However, Im talking about us and the cars we drive/race.
So am I, but my comment started in response to another comment wrt to autox competition, and perhaps you aren’t taking in the full width and breadth of the words I’ve stated.
the issue is most of us aren’t fully thinking through how we might optimize what we have.
you have 400 whp of traction, how to you maximize it?
how much torque does it take to make 400 whp below 5250 rpm?
how much torque does it take to make 400 whp above 5250 rpm?
you have an engine with high rpm capability. You’re not pulling a yacht or a trailer with a race car inside. You’r in a lightweight vehicle and already moving at speed. Why would you ever want to optimize it below 5250 rpm if it’s capable of making the same powerband width above that?
Why have a powerband that makes well below the traction limit and peaks at it, rather than optimize work area under the curve by having that traction limit across the full powerband width, or some similar variation thereof for a different form of competition?
now ask yourself, “what does it take to achieve this and is it possible?”
but I never was very smart most of my life; it comes not from me, but is from one who is much greater, higher, and mightier than me. I can assure you, it’s not him who’s doing it wrong.
ps: my mention of technology wasn’t referring to the known things of old. Again, what does it take to achieve something and is it achievable is the basic principle behind the words.
I agree on the max number comment, but like most other people you’re maybe missing the point wrt a competition car
low end torque is great for pulling stumps and big boats or load-load throttle response on the street, but it’s not all that effective on a competition engine with high rpm capability (rule allowances permitting). Sure, you think it “feels” good because that added TQ does translate to more HP down there, but below 5250 rpm the amount of HP made is substantially disproportionate to the amount of TQ generated.
I would suggest that shifting that same 4000 rpm powerband up to be from 5000 - 9000 rpm with a lower rear gear, that even with the same peak HP value it can make a lot more HP under the curve (i.e. work accomplished) if configured properly. Fair warning though, it might require looking at in a whole new way.
the issue in general is that most people don’t recognize certain things sometimes because it’s not the way it’s always been done, which is more street car based than competition based, coupled with the advancement of technology not being considered or employed for the same reason
most people aren’t thinking about that and how to make it happen, they’re too busy reading and following the horse and buggy recipe book.
.
When Rick Shaw raced Targa Tasmania with the 7670 he won early modern and came 6th overall beating R35 GTRs etc. He used the 8374 for the Bathurst 12 hr but is a big believer in the 7670 in the right circumstances, this is competition btw, not pulling tree stumps.That's also using pump fuel.
I agree on the max number comment, but like most other people you’re maybe missing the point wrt a competition car
low end torque is great for pulling stumps and big boats or load-load throttle response on the street, but it’s not all that effective on a competition engine with high rpm capability (rule allowances permitting). Sure, you think it “feels” good because that added TQ does translate to more HP down there, but below 5250 rpm the amount of HP made is substantially disproportionate to the amount of TQ generated.
I would suggest that shifting that same 4000 rpm powerband up to be from 5000 - 9000 rpm with a lower rear gear, that even with the same peak HP value it can make a lot more HP under the curve (i.e. work accomplished) if configured properly. Fair warning though, it might require looking at in a whole new way.
the issue in general is that most people don’t recognize certain things sometimes because it’s not the way it’s always been done, which is more street car based than competition based, coupled with the advancement of technology not being considered or employed for the same reason
most people aren’t thinking about that and how to make it happen, they’re too busy reading and following the horse and buggy recipe book.
.
no shifting the power band to the right is not going to help in an autocross setting where you can some times dip down below 2k rpms. That time spent waiting for the turbo to spool is lost time that you will not make. I have autocross with larger turbos that shifted the power to the right. It’s always slower.
Yeah, someone out there might have the skill to drive a 400+ftlbs rotary in 1st gear with a tall diff revving 6-10,000rpm- but it isnt me thats forsure.
That would be some incredible torque @ the wheels though.
no shifting the power band to the right is not going to help in an autocross setting where you can some times dip down below 2k rpms. That time spent waiting for the turbo to spool is lost time that you will not make. I have autocross with larger turbos that shifted the power to the right. It’s always slower.
If you're operating below 2k then I'm the least of your issues.
.
09-10-20, 12:36 PM
Nothing special
