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.
It's going to undoubtedly make more power. The question is where the heck is EMAP and EGT in relation to a nicely setup 8374, 9174, 9180, and 9280.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that a 2 rotor making nearly 600rwhp at only 26psi ( which isn't even 80lbs of air ) being that it's the popular 8374 medium sized EFR is pretty damn hard to believe. It could all be in the correction factor? Who knows. Howard made the same power with his 9180 at the same boost.
The car with the 8474 that's been spinning the tires on the Dyno this thread has been largely based on is running virtually the same amount of boost and has so far hit 530.
BP FC with the 8474 EWG spun its clutch, and now Adam's car's fuel pumps died. So we will have to continue to wait.
A local 8474 IWG stock port( flex fuel) but not high boost is ready for me to tune also.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that a 2 rotor making nearly 600rwhp at only 26psi ( which isn't even 80lbs of air ) being that it's the popular 8374 medium sized EFR is pretty damn hard to believe. It could all be in the correction factor? Who knows. Howard made the same power with his 9180 at the same boost.
The car with the 8474 that's been spinning the tires on the Dyno this thread has been largely based on is running virtually the same amount of boost and has so far hit 530.
Who made 600 on 26psi with an 8374?
There is some serious correction factor going on there lol.
On a roller dyno that isn't possible without correction. Simple.
You could make 600 on an 8374 on a hub dyno since we don't have to factor tyre losses and even then it would need 30psi to do it.
The reason why that dyno shows so high is the SAE J607 (STD) correction factor of 0% Humidity and 60F, at 29.92 inHg = 0 ft Altitude. It will undeniably show the highest of the standards in a system and is one of the oldest used. I modified the uncorrected values to get what they showed as their result (573.5 HP on SAE J607). I'm still unsure of their 1.55 Factor on the SAE J607, but here's a rough breakdown. The car still did great for 26-29psi, which, I'm having a feeling it crept a bit more up top as based on the AFR getting leaner (inversely proportional).
Sooooo, let's break that down so we don't continue to have mixed results here.
Their Conditions:
18.8*C = 65.84F Reasonable for the Area (Regents Park, Australia)
1016 mBar = 150F Altitude (It's Coastal, Super Reasonable)
51% Humidity, Again, Coastal, So that's Reasonable.
Here's an online calculator to match up their dyno figures:
Last edited by RGHTBrainDesign; 09-15-19 at 01:29 AM.
I've also done 557rwhp/475rwtq on a local dynodynamics. Same IWG kit as above( our 8374 IWG shorty), 4" exhaust, E85, fully built half bridge; 24 psi. I will have to dig for the dyno chart.
The above customer Potter said he went to another dyno and it was within 6 HP FYI. Boost pressure at peak rwhp is 29 psi, its on the chart.
Adam's 8474 fuel pumps have failed, so its going to be a couple more days...
You seem really interested in my graph. If you really would like to understand the graph in more detail why dont you call Andrew from billtech. You seem to know more then me so give billtech a call and i would love to hear your feedback from the conversation.
Here is the phone number 02 9738 5955, if you are not that interested then really no point calling right.
I have actual data on both my cars and my ZX-14's that proves how much mph goes up (let's use 1/8th mile) for example. On my 14, we changed gears from what we run at TX2k to +6 on the rear sprocket.
Same length on swingarm.
60' 1.62
1/8 6.03
Mph 119
Re gearing, no other changes
60' 1.42
1/8 5.68
Mph 125
The 1/4 mile will reflect the same gain in mph.
We changed gearing for roll on street racing alot, so this isn't some fluke.
You put a turbo on a 2 step and leave on the correct boost, WOT sooner equates to more mph and quicker ET's.
5 mph more on a car set up the same and leaving the same will equate to 75hp, we know that. But we also know that there have been a few guys on here run nearly 130mph (128 to be exact) on just 400rwhp (stock twins). It's set up that pulls better ET and mph.
Come race your 500hp dyno gueen against a car with 100hp less but set up right, you WILL get your *** drug ET and MPH.
Do you have the same data but using the same gearing? +6 on a rear sprocket is a HUGE change in gearing.
You seem really interested in my graph. If you really would like to understand the graph in more detail why dont you call Andrew from billtech. You seem to know more then me so give billtech a call and i would love to hear your feedback from the conversation.
Here is the phone number 02 9738 5955, if you are not that interested then really no point calling right.
No, I'm actually saying your car did really well and making sure there's no doubt in the power figures. I translated it to different SAE standards to confirm the fact that it's a ripper. You're on point for a great 26-29psi setup.
I think we have seen a few cars make around 700 rwhp on a 9180. So if this turbo at 29 psi is at 546 rwhp, and the EFR8474 and EFR9180 are both rated to 95 lb/min, are we to assume that the back end of this turbo is too small (especially with a 0.92 AR) to make a ton of power???
Is this confirmation that the 9180 is a superior turbo on a rotary???
I think we have seen a few cars make around 700 rwhp on a 9180. So if this turbo at 29 psi is at 546 rwhp, and the EFR8474 and EFR9180 are both rated to 95 lb/min, are we to assume that the back end of this turbo is too small (especially with a 0.92 AR) to make a ton of power???
Is this confirmation that the 9180 is a superior turbo on a rotary???
Until there are quite a few more high boost dynos on varying dynos its hard to cross link exact power outputs. I've already asked Adam to take the car on another local dyno to show the variances. The fact does remain that Adam's old 7670 only made 400rwhp shows this dyno reads low, as I've got 50+ 7670 dynos making more power, at a low less boost from all types of dynos( mostly stateside).
The 9180/9280 obviously will outshine the 74mm based turbine turbos at high boost, then again so will an S400SXE over a 9180/9280. Its really about trying to maximize how wide your powerband is for the target peak power levels( porting has a large play in this too).
i just have to wonder what a moded 2.7 ltr EcoBoost would do @ these boost levels @ 8000 RPM....
Not EFRs, but this thing only goes a couple of seconds quicker than a well driven endurance spec 2.7 naturally aspirated...probably still quicker than the Rx7s competing at WTAC this year though.
Nice results. I can see why he made the upgrade. The 7670 EWG with welded manifold was making boost conspicuously late, particularly for a car running on E85 and 4th gear loaded up dyno run. I would have expected the IWG version on E85 and 3.5" dump to making 20+ psi by 3000rpm, not 4500! It really is a massive discrepancy from typical results with this turbo.
What we can take from this graph is not the 8474 spools provides anywhere near the response of a 7670 - it clearly doesn't as the 7670 "control" sample on this setup is not typical. Either the effect of the EWG and manifold design inhibits response far more than we previously thought, or something was up with the wastegate, boost control or exhaust that was seriously limiting its ability to produce boost.I really think that should be clarified when commenting on this chart. Either way, problem solved and the new turbo setup looks to be far more responsive.
It also reaffirms to me that the 7670 still has its place - for a sub-400rwhp street car where you want instant throttle response. You can definitely get this with the shorty cast manifold and IWG version. But this dyno suggests it defeats the purpose of a 7670 altogether if you're going to use an EWG setup to try and get maximum power out of it at higher engine rpm, in which case you may as well step up to the bigger frames EFRs.
If you mean using external wg and big downpipe to get max power on efr 7670 as in horsepower- I would agree, 7670 is limited by compressor to 400-450rwhp depending on dyno. No need to tey to make more horsepower than the turbo can provide air for unless you are trying to do it with N2O, or higher air density through E85 charge cooling.
But if you mean "max power" to be torque, the external wastegates and big downpipe help the efr 7670 quite a bit.
Mine had 300ftlb by 3,000rpm, 350ftlb by 3,500rpm and 400ftlb before 4,000rpm on the fixed inertia of a dynojet on gas (not a loading dyno on e85). Dual 45mm wg and 3.5" exhaust.
One should choose the efr 7670 for response, as you say- and/or for torque.
The 7670 run I did with WGs shut the boost did spike up higher, but the torque nosed off very rapidly since the engine couldnt breathe.
I think we have seen a few cars make around 700 rwhp on a 9180. So if this turbo at 29 psi is at 546 rwhp, and the EFR8474 and EFR9180 are both rated to 95 lb/min, are we to assume that the back end of this turbo is too small (especially with a 0.92 AR) to make a ton of power???
Is this confirmation that the 9180 is a superior turbo on a rotary???
ROFL. So your comparing Dynojet numbers to Dyno dyamics? And drawing a conclusion on a turbo based on data from different places. lol
There isn't any 9180's making 700 on a dyno dynamics dyno that's for sure.
ROFL. So your comparing Dynojet numbers to Dyno dyamics? And drawing a conclusion on a turbo based on data from different places. lol
There isn't any 9180's making 700 on a dyno dynamics dyno that's for sure.
The only 700rwhp REW I know of with a 9180 (it has rerouted external gates back into the exhaust) was on E85 at I believe 40psi, which is absolute max for the 9180 and i bet it exceeded 95lbs of air too, just over 700hp and I'm not sure it was a Dynojet but it was stateside. I bet they ran it up that high just to hit the number.
If you mean using external wg and big downpipe to get max power on efr 7670 as in horsepower- I would agree, 7670 is limited by compressor to 400-450rwhp depending on dyno. No need to tey to make more horsepower than the turbo can provide air for unless you are trying to do it with N2O, or higher air density through E85 charge cooling.
But if you mean "max power" to be torque, the external wastegates and big downpipe help the efr 7670 quite a bit.
Mine had 300ftlb by 3,000rpm, 350ftlb by 3,500rpm and 400ftlb before 4,000rpm on the fixed inertia of a dynojet on gas (not a loading dyno on e85). Dual 45mm wg and 3.5" exhaust.
One should choose the efr 7670 for response, as you say- and/or for torque.
The 7670 run I did with WGs shut the boost did spike up higher, but the torque nosed off very rapidly since the engine couldnt breathe.
Yes I understand and can see your point. With the EWG, you also get a turbine housing A/R increase from 0.92 for the IWG to 1.05 for the EWG which is in itself makes a difference, but as you correctly point out, whichever way you set up the 7670, it will eventually hit a horsepower ceiling as the compressor will eventually run out of puff on a 13B.
The only 700rwhp REW I know of with a 9180 (it has rerouted external gates back into the exhaust) was on E85 at I believe 40psi, which is absolute max for the 9180 and i bet it exceeded 95lbs of air too, just over 700hp and I'm not sure it was a Dynojet but it was stateside. I bet they ran it up that high just to hit the number.
After watching the entire video link, I'm pretty sure this is the most complete effort on cooling I've ran across on this forum. From the oil to the intercooler /radiator and ducting to the electric water pump that can be flow controlled. I'd be willing to bet this set up at 500rwhp would live longer in virtually an driving/racing condition over the best semi- stock example and knowledgeable owner's attempts to refine it. So much one off custom parts and initiative on that car, and apparently, they aren't even a rotary specialist in priority. Though I'm sure they had some help.
ROFL. So your comparing Dynojet numbers to Dyno dyamics? And drawing a conclusion on a turbo based on data from different places. lol
There isn't any 9180's making 700 on a dyno dynamics dyno that's for sure.
Where would I get that idea?
Originally Posted by rx72c
Nobody is arguing that a rotary loves a solid turbine wheel. Back pressure hurts both power and engines.
Based on what I am seeing so far I am not convinced the 8474 offers much over the 8374 in terms of power just yet and it definitely doesn't make what the 9180 makes.
09-12-19 | 05:26 PM
.