New BW EFR Turbo Thread
#3361
I went back a actually measured all the intake and from filter to turbo inlet its 22".
#3362
I've found that the Amsoil filters are the best and relatively inexpensive. They also have the most flow for the best filtration according to data.
The best part when you think about all this are all the mid-frame turbo Subaru guys with the rubber inlet pipe. I have to wonder if it crushes down like that too.
The best part when you think about all this are all the mid-frame turbo Subaru guys with the rubber inlet pipe. I have to wonder if it crushes down like that too.
#3363
Very cool video Black E thanks for posting! You would get a good laugh from what a K&N tech support person told me about pressure drop across one of their air filters at full rated flow. He told me 1.5 inches of water. I said, "do you mean 1.5 inches of mercury?" He said no, it's 1.5 inches of water. (1.5 inches of water is .054 psi) Pretty funny. It could be feet of water, but not inches.
Last edited by Talonboost; Sep 15, 2015 at 04:42 PM.
#3364
Hopefully the OEM rubber intake pipes are ribbed enough to keep them from collapsing from a little vacuum. It looks like the rubber elbow in this video is not ribbed at all - so it would be ok for pressure but not for vacuum. Yeah, metal intake pipes FTW!
Very cool video Black E thanks for posting! You would get a good laugh from what a K&N tech support person told me about pressure drop across one of their air filters at full rated flow. He told me 1.5 inches of water. I said, "do you mean 1.5 inches of mercury?" He said no, it's 1.5 inches of water. (1.5 inches of water is .054 psi) Pretty funny. It could be feet of water, but not inches.
Very cool video Black E thanks for posting! You would get a good laugh from what a K&N tech support person told me about pressure drop across one of their air filters at full rated flow. He told me 1.5 inches of water. I said, "do you mean 1.5 inches of mercury?" He said no, it's 1.5 inches of water. (1.5 inches of water is .054 psi) Pretty funny. It could be feet of water, but not inches.
#3366
BW EFR9174 2.1L Bottom mount small runners A/C compatible
New personal results to date. Strapped the evo on the Dyno at at BMR's Dyno day last Friday for 3-pulls. Temperature in the dyno room was 107 degrees. Started with 38PSI then 40PSI and finished with 862/626 whp/wtq @42PSI.
Last setup was 2.3L (12.5:1 CR) with PTE6467 and car made 835/656 whp/wtq @44PSI.
The build: Wingz 2.1LR (2.4 block, R&R alum 156mm rods and Wiseco 1400HD 10.5:1 86.5mm, stock 88m crank knife edged; assembly fully balanced running race shaft); head fully ported and polished with 1mm os valves and S3 cams; Full-Race small runner bottom mount T4 divided with BW EFR9174 turbo. Kit was designed to keep your AC. This is so far Full-Race's highest hp setup with AC intact.
Enjoy!
Last setup was 2.3L (12.5:1 CR) with PTE6467 and car made 835/656 whp/wtq @44PSI.
The build: Wingz 2.1LR (2.4 block, R&R alum 156mm rods and Wiseco 1400HD 10.5:1 86.5mm, stock 88m crank knife edged; assembly fully balanced running race shaft); head fully ported and polished with 1mm os valves and S3 cams; Full-Race small runner bottom mount T4 divided with BW EFR9174 turbo. Kit was designed to keep your AC. This is so far Full-Race's highest hp setup with AC intact.
Enjoy!
#3368
Jesus christ that power curve! What was your opinion running 12.5 CR?? How did you like turning up the boost on it?? I'm debating a 11.5 or 12:1 CR for a future engine build, but i won't be using aluminum rods.
#3369
So you're the guy that Geoff was talking about in my thread;
http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/1130...-build-thread/
Why is the boost threshold so high compared to other cars?
Examples;
A 9174 on a 9:1 civic with the .92AR IWG housing at 18 psi
Black E's 9180 .92 AR IWG 10.1:1
Byproduct of the 1.45 housing I'm assuming you're running? Dyno load generation not being the same since it's a roller vs a dynapack? It being hot as hell here in Phoenix?
Curious what you think is the culprit, especially with such high CR
http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/1130...-build-thread/
Why is the boost threshold so high compared to other cars?
Examples;
A 9174 on a 9:1 civic with the .92AR IWG housing at 18 psi
Black E's 9180 .92 AR IWG 10.1:1
Byproduct of the 1.45 housing I'm assuming you're running? Dyno load generation not being the same since it's a roller vs a dynapack? It being hot as hell here in Phoenix?
Curious what you think is the culprit, especially with such high CR
#3370
New personal results to date. Strapped the evo on the Dyno at at BMR's Dyno day last Friday for 3-pulls. Temperature in the dyno room was 107 degrees. Started with 38PSI then 40PSI and finished with 862/626 whp/wtq @42PSI.
Last setup was 2.3L (12.5:1 CR) with PTE6467 and car made 835/656 whp/wtq @44PSI.
The build: Wingz 2.1LR (2.4 block, R&R alum 156mm rods and Wiseco 1400HD 10.5:1 86.5mm, stock 88m crank knife edged; assembly fully balanced running race shaft); head fully ported and polished with 1mm os valves and S3 cams; Full-Race small runner bottom mount T4 divided with BW EFR9174 turbo. Kit was designed to keep your AC. This is so far Full-Race's highest hp setup with AC intact.
Enjoy!
Last setup was 2.3L (12.5:1 CR) with PTE6467 and car made 835/656 whp/wtq @44PSI.
The build: Wingz 2.1LR (2.4 block, R&R alum 156mm rods and Wiseco 1400HD 10.5:1 86.5mm, stock 88m crank knife edged; assembly fully balanced running race shaft); head fully ported and polished with 1mm os valves and S3 cams; Full-Race small runner bottom mount T4 divided with BW EFR9174 turbo. Kit was designed to keep your AC. This is so far Full-Race's highest hp setup with AC intact.
Enjoy!
#3373
My last setup was 12.5:1 on a 2.3L. This setup is 2.1L is only 10.5:1. The dyno room temp was 107 degrees. I am using the 1.45 AR housing. I was not measuring back pressure so couldn't tell you. The turbo speed was 107-108K RPMs. You can see the video of the turbo data on Full-Race's FB page from dyno day.
I'll get the upper radiator hose part number for you guys.
EFR9174 Small runners uncorrected dyno numbers
I'll get the upper radiator hose part number for you guys.
EFR9174 Small runners uncorrected dyno numbers
Last edited by gsxwingz; Sep 18, 2015 at 10:23 PM.
#3374
My evo X Final Edition lands december, and these EFR's look tasty
Exhaust housing technical talk aside, does anyone have actual 7163 data on a stock block 4B11 (or even 4G63)? 93/E85? All I can see is a heap of TTRS 2.5L audi spam and one graph from Chad on CBRD's website which looks very underwhelming in terms of spool and bottom end. Promises of additional data/dynos have not been delivered yet.
I was at full boost (~26psi) by ~3800 on my BBK Full on stock block 4G, and 3650 on BBK Lite, the full even felt a little slow in the hills out of corners but was great once up and going. The RBX kit with the 7163 looks like it spools slower than an FP Red on 4B11, the graph below from CBRD shows it not even at full boost (only 26.5psi) by 4698rpm... not what I was hoping for for my application. But in another post, Chad says the 7163 gave up only <400rpm spool vs a BBX Lite? Really need some more data, because the only graph I've seen does not support that claim, these things look lazy down low, but do make good top end numbers.
Exhaust housing technical talk aside, does anyone have actual 7163 data on a stock block 4B11 (or even 4G63)? 93/E85? All I can see is a heap of TTRS 2.5L audi spam and one graph from Chad on CBRD's website which looks very underwhelming in terms of spool and bottom end. Promises of additional data/dynos have not been delivered yet.
I was at full boost (~26psi) by ~3800 on my BBK Full on stock block 4G, and 3650 on BBK Lite, the full even felt a little slow in the hills out of corners but was great once up and going. The RBX kit with the 7163 looks like it spools slower than an FP Red on 4B11, the graph below from CBRD shows it not even at full boost (only 26.5psi) by 4698rpm... not what I was hoping for for my application. But in another post, Chad says the 7163 gave up only <400rpm spool vs a BBX Lite? Really need some more data, because the only graph I've seen does not support that claim, these things look lazy down low, but do make good top end numbers.
Last edited by EvocentriK; Sep 20, 2015 at 08:43 AM.