New BW EFR Turbo Thread
#1669
they always do this the turbo companies, I'm guessing it's in order to make sure you buy the V-band off of them making theme an extra buck
on topic I think this would be the best solution and yes get a grove cut into the flange that's a must for sealing
if you can't get the V-band flange off of BW then you could measure the one on the side of the compressor and get it cut easily on a mill.
I could do it myself and get a bunch of them CNC'd but I didn't get my turbo yet so I don't have the dimensions.
then all you need is the band and they can be found in a Varity of sizes.
#1671
quoted for v-band info.
#1673
Borg Warner doesn't make the v-band outlet flange, only the clamp. You would need to machine one up, preferably sealing it with an internal o-ring.
It's a shame that BW still can't deliver on these, I'm a patient person but over waiting, there are plenty of alternatives now
It's a shame that BW still can't deliver on these, I'm a patient person but over waiting, there are plenty of alternatives now
#1674
that's really not that exciting. The transient response should make it better, but until I experience it, I'm not as thrilled as I once was.
It would be interesting to see the PTE turbo or an FP turbo with a titanium wheel...
It would be interesting to see the PTE turbo or an FP turbo with a titanium wheel...
#1675
yeah, its not looking ground breaking. it look pretty decent though. a little earlier powerband at the expense of a little top end. im actually surprised the torque drop off isnt too different between the two. like i said before, if i hit over 750whp dynojet and spool like a std 3582r ill be happy. durability is my big thing though, i wouldnt run a precision on a bet. the 8374 "should" be bulletproof and if its competitive in performance to the top tier turbos in its class that would be great.
#1676
I've ran and sold a ton of precision turbos... I didn't have that many failures, but that was back when they were still using Garrett CHRAs. I'm sure they're fine. I hope that the transient response is really ground breaking on these. It would be nice to hear what the owner of the supra had to say after driving both.
#1677
I've ran and sold a ton of precision turbos... I didn't have that many failures, but that was back when they were still using Garrett CHRAs. I'm sure they're fine. I hope that the transient response is really ground breaking on these. It would be nice to hear what the owner of the supra had to say after driving both.
#1678
The Precision 6266 shown is running a T4 single scroll 0.81 with a BB center section. Both turbos were run on a divided HKS manifold. It's a 3.4L 2JZ with a unported head, valve job, cams, 9.5:1 compression on E85.
#1679
Some obvservations.
And open T4 will be laggier than a Divided T4... which means that the PTE6266 is at a disadvantage on spool up (which it does surprisingly...VERY well on this dynochart versus the BW)
It also means that it will have significantly reduced back pressure at high flow rates.... which puts it at a large advantage out the top end. (which is quite evident on this dynochart)
I guess this just shows when you put the smaller turbine housing of the EFR on a 3.4L engine it chokes up top. SURPRISE. Not really... we all saw it coming.
Also the 6266 has a higher flowing turbine wheel than it's 6262 counterpart... lending to it's top end prowess on a 3.4L engine.
So I guess its not really a true apples to apples, but it shows that the EFR is not earth shattering different as far as looking at the dynosheet. it's on par with GTX, FP, and PTE turbo's with a MUCH lighter rotating assembly. Which IMO... still makes it the best choice.
It just makes me wonder what kind of amazing turbo is possible if we had FP, Garrett, and Precision using titanium turbines like BW.
And open T4 will be laggier than a Divided T4... which means that the PTE6266 is at a disadvantage on spool up (which it does surprisingly...VERY well on this dynochart versus the BW)
It also means that it will have significantly reduced back pressure at high flow rates.... which puts it at a large advantage out the top end. (which is quite evident on this dynochart)
I guess this just shows when you put the smaller turbine housing of the EFR on a 3.4L engine it chokes up top. SURPRISE. Not really... we all saw it coming.
Also the 6266 has a higher flowing turbine wheel than it's 6262 counterpart... lending to it's top end prowess on a 3.4L engine.
So I guess its not really a true apples to apples, but it shows that the EFR is not earth shattering different as far as looking at the dynosheet. it's on par with GTX, FP, and PTE turbo's with a MUCH lighter rotating assembly. Which IMO... still makes it the best choice.
It just makes me wonder what kind of amazing turbo is possible if we had FP, Garrett, and Precision using titanium turbines like BW.
Last edited by R/TErnie; Mar 30, 2012 at 10:20 AM.
#1680
Some obvservations.
And open T4 will be laggier than a Divided T4... which means that the PTE6266 is at a disadvantage on spool up (which it does surprisingly...VERY well on this dynochart versus the BW)
It also means that it will have significantly reduced back pressure at high flow rates.... which puts it at a large advantage out the top end. (which is quite evident on this dynochart)
I guess this just shows when you put the smaller turbine housing of the EFR on a 3.4L engine it chokes up top. SURPRISE. Not really... we all saw it coming.
Also the 6266 has a higher flowing turbine wheel than it's 6262 counterpart... lending to it's top end prowess on a 3.4L engine.
So I guess its not really a true apples to apples, but it shows that the EFR is not earth shattering different as far as looking at the dynosheet. it's on par with GTX, FP, and PTE turbo's with a MUCH lighter rotating assembly. Which IMO... still makes it the best choice.
It just makes me wonder what kind of amazing turbo is possible if we had FP, Garrett, and Precision using titanium turbines like BW.
And open T4 will be laggier than a Divided T4... which means that the PTE6266 is at a disadvantage on spool up (which it does surprisingly...VERY well on this dynochart versus the BW)
It also means that it will have significantly reduced back pressure at high flow rates.... which puts it at a large advantage out the top end. (which is quite evident on this dynochart)
I guess this just shows when you put the smaller turbine housing of the EFR on a 3.4L engine it chokes up top. SURPRISE. Not really... we all saw it coming.
Also the 6266 has a higher flowing turbine wheel than it's 6262 counterpart... lending to it's top end prowess on a 3.4L engine.
So I guess its not really a true apples to apples, but it shows that the EFR is not earth shattering different as far as looking at the dynosheet. it's on par with GTX, FP, and PTE turbo's with a MUCH lighter rotating assembly. Which IMO... still makes it the best choice.
It just makes me wonder what kind of amazing turbo is possible if we had FP, Garrett, and Precision using titanium turbines like BW.
Anyways can't wait to try out my 7076 on my Road Race Evo
2.3 fully built short block
fully built head (headgames)
shep trans and transfer
fortune auto custom coilovers
alcon 6 piston brakes
lexan windows
and a very very light car with VP Q16 Racing Fuel! ummm smells good already!
Last edited by JARVEVO8; Mar 30, 2012 at 01:50 PM.