New Borg Warner EFR Turbochargers!!!

[Alpha]

Hello new technology, goodbye old headaches of EWGs and creepy, poorly designed IWGs!

BorgWarner EFR Turbos | Full-Race.com

These also have a built in EBC AND BPV for super responsive and efficient means. Please SOMEONE step up and built a kit around these so I don't have to go custom!

These will change everything for us, I can feel it. IWG simplicity across the board is priceless IMHO.

Let's dig in!

Props to SSinstaller for giving me the heads up!

[TRex]

sounds awsome...if i am reading it right we could eliminate need of a bpv on the IC piping...utilize the stock EBCS (but with the Borg solenoid) and leave it as an IWG...really all that leaves is lines and a manifold to fit it...

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by TRex sounds awsome...if i am reading it right we could eliminate need of a bpv on the IC piping...utilize the stock EBCS (but with the Borg solenoid) and leave it as an IWG...really all that leaves is lines and a manifold to fit it...

Exactly! REALLY cleans everything up and minimizes things. With Steedspeed and CP-E's upcoming manifolds and optional flanges, all we REALLY need is a DP and a custom intake!

Honestly, I don't think anyone really WANTS to run EWG, they've just been forced to do it to ensure boost control. This changes everything as that's no longer an issue! Plus the efficiency, quick spool, and overall design is simply unmatched in performance!

[TRex]

no not even a custom intake...look at the specs for the 6258 (which i think would be perfect) 2.5" intake...you can use any intake that fits the k04...or is the k04 2.25? i forget....regardless it wouldnt be too bad at all

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by TRex no not even a custom intake...look at the specs for the 6258 (which i think would be perfect) 2.5" intake...you can use any intake that fits the k04...or is the k04 2.25? i forget....regardless it wouldnt be too bad at all

Good call! Same with the 6758!

[labikesrcool]

geez these things are all in one packages. all they need is the port to mount the injector for the anti-lag haha.

[Alpha]

And techincally cheaper than the ATP's considering you don't need an EBC or BPV.

Someone use these in a kit or make us DPs!

[TRex]

shouldnt be hard to find a 3" v-band....lots of guys on here are running custom 3" v-bands

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by TRex shouldnt be hard to find a 3" v-band....lots of guys on here are running custom 3" v-bands

I'm just wondering about the T25 flange being too small? That thing would spool like stock, lightning quick!

They do have a twin scroll T4 flange available in the smaller line. Or a T3 once you hit the 7064 series.

[TRex]

i guess it would depend on your power goal...personally im liking the 6258....350+ with stock like spool...what could be better?

[Brian MP5T]

The T-25 Flange is used on turbos up to and including a GT3076 50/0.60

The GT3076 is rated up to 525WHP...

It would be fine unless you were trying to run a turbo that was larger than that..

[amoosenamedhank]

Seems like if you could get leen to make you a T25 manifold and grab yourself a V band DP you could get up and running fairly easy.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by amoosenamedhank Seems like if you could get leen to make you a T25 manifold and grab yourself a V band DP you could get up and running fairly easy.

Yeah man, I'm setting my sights on running a EFR 6758!!!

I don't think 340-360 AWHP would be hard to hit reliably with that!

[SSinstaller]

Their IWG is a work of art...

[TRex]

i would recommend comparing the compressor map of both the 6258 and 6758 alpha...i really think you will be running more efficiently with the 6258 under at that power level...

[amoosenamedhank]

Originally Posted by TRex i would recommend comparing the compressor map of both the 6258 and 6758 alpha...i really think you will be running more efficiently with the 6258 under at that power level...

I would like to see those next to each other... and then I would like for someone to explain to me what hell I'm looking at.... Stupid compressor maps and all their lines.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by TRex i would recommend comparing the compressor map of both the 6258 and 6758 alpha...i really think you will be running more efficiently with the 6258 under at that power level...

Yeah? I'm really trying to leave a little room for growth and potentially forged internals and 400 AWHP someday. Plus, with the quick spool characteristics, I think it'd be a pretty good happy median in the meantime. Keep in mind that the MS6 driveline eats A LOT of power before making AWHP.

[SSinstaller]

go here to find your turbo

BorgWarner MatchBot

Use the outputs to see where you'll be sitting on the compressor maps for the various turbos..

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller go here to find your turbo BorgWarner MatchBot

Damn! I'm such a newb. lol But that's why we have a board!

[TRex]

6258

6758

[Kydizzle]

im gonna save my pennys up for a build with these turbos. looks real nice

[SSinstaller]

you need at least .38 kg/sec for 20psi at 7K rpm --6258 and 6758 are too small..

7064 is good
7670 is great

8374 would be a bad ass high boost turbo..

[TRex]

^my man is right that calculator helps a lot...sry for jumping the gun with 6258 praise...ima have to play with this a bit

at 18 psi on the 6258 i wasnt even putting down 305 hp till 5500 rpm

this calculator is awsome

[m4tic]

how about the 7064
BorgWarner EFR 7064 Turbo - Full-Race.com

and its on sale... only +$200 from the 62xx

[Andy@Killshot]

Originally Posted by Alpha Yeah man, I'm setting my sights on running a EFR 6758!!! I don't think 340-360 AWHP would be hard to hit reliably with that!

Project I am building for a customers Miata using a 6758, these EFR's are the BOMB.
MX-5 EFR Turbo Build

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj how about the 7064 BorgWarner EFR 7064 Turbo - Full-Race.com and its on sale... only +$200 from the 62xx

I'd go with this one. It's only $100 more and has a little more headroom. right in the peak efficiency at 20psi, but still on the map up to 28psi at redline...

BorgWarner EFR 7670 Turbo - Full-Race.com

It'll spool slower, but that's not really a bad thing.. It should still hit 20psi around 3.5K rpm.. IMO it's a better turbo than my GT35R, I wish it was available when I did my build..

[TRex]

Hey ss what values would you use for the various inputs on th calculator? could you just put them in and post the link here (it retains the values)? i was playing arond and cant get a setup to work efficiently with the 7064....

im doing rpm points 3000-5500 in steps of 500

i cant quite get the first or last point to get to the 70 comp .83 a/r phi line...

nevermind i figured it out

but what exactly is wastegate choke? is it turbine choke? i.e. no more increase in mass flow? im guessing you want to try and avoid this ya?

ok read some more...i think creep begins to occur once the wastegate has become choked....right? since you cant flow any more (mass) past the choke point...

using the calculator at the top end i would require a 30 mm WG...there is no info on the Borg site stating their IWG size...anyone know the k04 IWG size?

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller you need at least .38 kg/sec for 20psi at 7K rpm --6258 and 6758 are too small.. 7064 is good 7670 is great 8374 would be a bad ass high boost turbo..

The 62 and 67 turbos have a 2.5" inlet. 70 and bigger 3.5" inlet.
if you go 70 or bigger you'll probably need a top turbo mount set up and FMIC. TMIC would not work.

The 6758 should be good for 17 to 18 psi at red line depending on AITs ( edit: at sea level) and you could use a regular low (?) mount manifold and a TMIC. I've taken a few measurements and I am not sure whether the 6758 will fit in the stock location. It is about 2" longer than the K04 and has 3.25" V band flange. I am not sure if it would clear the alternator once the V-band DP goes on. If tit does it would definitely be tight unless you get a manifold with a collector that extends more toward the drivers side.

Using the Matchbot calculation do not pay attention to the "wastegate choked yes/no" part. To get all points on the expansion ratio to give you a NO you would need a huge hot side/wastegate. The 36mm Internal wastegate should be plenty for our engines. There would be some boost creep but it would be minimal. Way less than even the 8 psi spring pressure which IIRC is the lowest spring pressure they offer out of 3 different ones.

The K04 wastegate is about 25mm.

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by TRex Hey ss what values would you use for the various inputs on th calculator? could you just put them in and post the link here (it retains the values)? i was playing arond and cant get a setup to work efficiently with the 7064.... im doing rpm points 3000-5500 in steps of 500 i cant quite get the first or last point to get to the 70 comp .83 a/r phi line... nevermind i figured it out but what exactly is wastegate choke? is it turbine choke? i.e. no more increase in mass flow? im guessing you want to try and avoid this ya? ok read some more...i think creep begins to occur once the wastegate has become choked....right? since you cant flow any more (mass) past the choke point... using the calculator at the top end i would require a 30 mm WG...there is no info on the Borg site stating their IWG size...anyone know the k04 IWG size?

IIRC the the internal wastegate on the EFR's >70 is ~42mm... It should be plenty big enough unless your trying to run less than stock boost levels..

[TRex]

got it..thanks tomas and ss....yea tomas i was looking at the sizing of the efr and it seems like it would be a bear....but top mount turbo may not be so bad....

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller I'd go with this one. It's only $100 more and has a little more headroom. right in the peak efficiency at 20psi, but still on the map up to 28psi at redline... BorgWarner EFR 7670 Turbo - Full-Race.com It'll spool slower, but that's not really a bad thing.. It should still hit 20psi around 3.5K rpm.. IMO it's a better turbo than my GT35R, I wish it was available when I did my build..

Which do you think would be best for a 350 - 380~ AWHP goal considering the AWD losses, the 7064 or the 7670?

I definitely want to go T4 twin scroll either way.

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by Alpha Which do you think would be best for a 350 - 380~ AWHP goal considering the AWD losses, the 7064 or the 7670? I definitely want to go T4 twin scroll either way.

Both will hit that number without too much trouble, but IMO the 7670 would be the better option on a stock block.. As long as you can keep the boost under control in the upper rpms, the slower boost onset should be easier on the OEM rods.

And if you do decide to build the motor down the road, you don't have to add the expense of swapping the turbo again...

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller Both will hit that number without too much trouble, but IMO the 7670 would be the better option on a stock block.. As long as you can keep the boost under control in the upper rpms, the slower boost onset should be easier on the OEM rods. And if you do decide to build the motor down the road, you don't have to add the expense of swapping the turbo again...

It sounds like going top mount would be mandatory with the 7 series EFRs? They're actually not as long as the 6 series in length. If I have a custom manifold made that'll shift the turbo closer to the drivers side, it should be pretty straightforward.

With twin scroll, the manifold would have to be designed diferently right?

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by Alpha It sounds like going top mount would be mandatory with the 7 series EFRs? They're actually not as long as the 6 series in length. If I have a custom manifold made that'll shift the turbo closer to the drivers side, it should be pretty straightforward. With twin scroll, the manifold would have to be designed diferently right?

There's no point using a twin scroll turbine housing, if your not going to design the manifold to take advantage. But, as long as the flanges are the same you can bolt a twin scroll turbo up to a standard manifold...

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller There's no point using a twin scroll turbine housing, if your not going to design the manifold to take advantage. But, as long as the flanges are the same you can bolt a twin scroll turbo up to a standard manifold...

Would making a twin scroll manifold be more difficult with these turbos? I found some info saying that those manifolds need exhaust pulses as far apart as possible.

"A twin scroll turbine housing uses dual side by side passages into the housing. When coupled with a pulse converter manifold that separates exhaust pulses as many crank degrees in the firing order as possible, a twin scroll or divided housing works to reduce lag, decrease exhaust manifold backpressure on the top end, reduce the potential for reversion, and increase fuel economy. The twin scroll is based off the same reasoning a tri-Y header uses: keep spent exhaust gases out of an adjacent cylinder drawing in fresh air. At high rpm on a turbo car, exhaust backpressure is usually significantly higher than atmospheric pressure, and often higher than intake manifold pressure as well. A divider between each of the two volutes allows the cylinders to expel the exhaust gases without it interfering with the fresh air for combustion. Since there are two openings, each a smaller overall volume than a single scroll design, the exhaust velocity of each pulse can be maintained. This also spins the impeller more easily because lag is a function of the scroll area. A single turbine housing opening isn't as efficient since cylinders on the exhaust stroke of the 4 stroke cycle contaminate the cylinders that are on overlap with exhaust gas. A conventional turbine housing is not as effective in using exhaust pulse energy to help spin the turbine up to speed as it does not exploit the energy contained in the pulses as well."

More info on the benefits of a twin scroll setup: http://www.full-race.com/modified-twinscroll/index.html

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by Alpha Would making a twin scroll manifold be more difficult with these turbos? I found some info saying that those manifolds need exhaust pulses as far apart as possible.

The only extra work comes from having to pair the cylinders properly(1-4,3-2), instead of just getting all four to the collector as easily/quickly as possible... The IWG saves you the headache of having to run two separate wastegates...

It shouldn't be a problem for any decent fabricator..

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller The only extra work comes from having to pair the cylinders properly(1-4,3-2), instead of just getting all four to the collector as easily/quickly as possible... The IWG saves you the headache of having to run two separate wastegates... It shouldn't be a problem for any decent fabricator..

Awesome! Thanks!

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller The only extra work comes from having to pair the cylinders properly(1-4,3-2), instead of just getting all four to the collector as easily/quickly as possible... The IWG saves you the headache of having to run two separate wastegates... It shouldn't be a problem for any decent fabricator..

Steedspeed makes a twin scroll top mount apparently.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Tomas Steedspeed makes a twin scroll top mount apparently.

I don't think it's twin scroll. Could be wrong though.

[MS6_Auburn_Fan]

Originally Posted by Alpha I don't think it's twin scroll. Could be wrong though.

It is a true twin scroll top mount.