Damn, this is my favourite turbo-related channel. There is no other that gives such priceless information, good comparisons and explainations. Thanks, man you helped me A LOT. I've watched tens of videos and neither gave me the information I got from yours. Keep it up. Thanks again!
Well im hooked, next time tell us to bring a pad and pencil...class was in session here. Thanks Professor...im now a little more secure about the 7163.
Haha - pleasure buddy - glad you enjoyed the video. Just remember that when you dealing with BorgWarner, you have nothing to worry about. This company is rock solid, and in fact larger as a corporation than Garrett is. Garrett is bankrupt and in business rescue (Section 11) which worries me personally, because the expertise in designs from Honeywell (who manufacture jet engines and aeronautical designs - which is where the original designs for Garrett came from) are not associated with Garrett anymore. Secondly if they are bankrupt, do they have budget for R&D? Who knows, time will tell. With EFR and BorgWarner - there is nothing to worry about.
Another great vid, I've come back again to touch up haha, hope you're doing well, still looking forward to the 1J vids! I think bang per buck the Airwerks are killer but here's so many variations it's a bit hard to pick the right 1
It seems that i should shoot a video just on the "compressor map" as a whole. The basic intro and then some more information into it - i wasn't aware that so many people were interested in the maps, and that there were so many questions and hunger for the knowledge.
Pleasure Finn - many opinions out there and little facts. We hold agencies for both brands, but facts are facts, and those who can appreciate and accept this, are true to themselves and their products.
Great video! and nice for once to see a detailed analyze of compressor map done correctly! Shaft speed lines could also be addressed as well, as it will tell the G-series are not that "punchy". Also nice that some actually are not just reading from the Marketing material and looking through all the BS marketing on lbs ratings these days
I really like seeing how you delve into looking at compressor maps. I've pored over them for hours. It's actually how i determined WHY my previous turbo wouldn't make any more power at 30psig vs ~26psig and i ended up getting something a bit better. Now i'm looking to get into a BW or newer Garrett, but the BWs seem to be a MUCH bigger package, which may deter me. Unfortunate because they clearly have a better turbine wheel and bearing design. The 8370 and 7670 are just huge compared to a GTX3582r, though.
Sorry i disagree - the 35 in Garrett is IDENTICAL in height to the 8474 Black Series (non gates T/housing) and the 7670 s the same as the 30 family in Garrett (apples with apples) If you take gated housings versus gated option from Garrett, Garrett have a wider actuator bracket compared to Borg ---
@@TurboDirectSA I'm actually looking for a compact package, which seems easy to obtain with a garrett or xona turbo due to turbine housing options. Especially with a manifold mounted gate. I'm not finding much in the way of turbine housing options for similarly sized BW turbos.
@@mitsuturbo IF you use the BOT match app, youll see that the available housings cover all the spool, linear response and power requirements with decent overlap - too many housings complicate things, and some housings on the Garrett side are actually a waste in some applications.
Thank You. For peak power the Borg and for mid range power gerrett (yes the 79% is smaller than borgs 75%, however, Gerrett has a larger 75%efficiency island) . It looks like I'll be running up the center of the islands at max power with the Gerrett as well as getting my desired early spool, hopeing to better the current "small "hx35/10cm + BD Diverter Valve(5cm below 15psi) 52mm inducer ~1150rpm@20psi only 60% fuel isleft on the table by 2350rpm governor cuts fuel, showed 45whp by 2500rpm down from 173.8 at 1976rpm. To get more than 400hp of fuel out of my cummins will require a p-pump conversion (cost 2x more than a EFR or G searies )so I'll be working in the mid range flow at peak hp with the smallest T2 family of eather offering.
Just remember that you will ALWAYS fall off the other side of the efficiency island as the engines RPM increases as HP also increases, what you need to watch is the choke limit line - the lines pull inward (power loss) with Garrett, and the claimed HP is not accurate at all.
Garrett...short winded. Borg....long winded, spool it up and hang on. Big single borg on my 6.7 cummins. Obviously smokes a bit (you've seen the charts). Lites like a champion...with proper fuel! Look at a cut away turbo comparison. The construction and detail won't leave you questioning a single thing. BORG WARNER FOR LIFE!!!! Reassurance: Look into the history of both companies.
Thanks Tom - you are 100% correct, Garrett is overrated, and overpriced with their new products, but its a tactic to generate as much cash flow as possible since the bankruptcy. The previous models are proven and excellent products, the G-series is majorly overrated.
But have you tried the g45 1125 or the g45 1350. I think they might out spool the borg Warner. The g45 1125 I think would be the perfect 5.9 turbo and the g45 1350 is a good 6.7 turbo I would love to compare the bg467.7 and the g451125 that’s the money shot
Cannot thanks enough, really loved loved this video. Cannot ask anything more, you are fantastic, real pleasure to listen you and learn!! I also really been surprised, as I thought G series was superior to the EFR even by far. Looking the comparison of compassion map between 7163 and 660, (asked and really thanks for this comparison) I'm stunned from the result. Much higher usable range at maximum power for the efr. I have a 7163 single scroll on my over 500hp TT mk1 1.8t 20v (82.5mm piston so 1900cc with stock stroke revving to 8000rpm) was seriously thinking to go to a G25, for a faster spooling. Currently spooling ad 3800/4000rpm. With catcams rally profile, thinking G25 would give a much better spool... Now after your video, will keep hold strong my EFR7163. Wondering how much would be the gain on spool going from single scroll to twin scroll housing and manifold, if any sensitive benefit. Anyway after your video I understood what a great piece of turbo I have under the bonnet. Cause at the end is it true I'm going on spool not so soon, but at the same time, is quite fast to reach those rpm, and also thanks to its lights wheel and low inertia it is very fast responding to throttle. There is not just spool timing, much more to appreciate for the EFR. Cannot THANK YOU ENOUGH for all you teach us, you are unique, lots of people taking about turbos, pretending to teach and explain a lot, but no one not even close to your knowledge !!!
Thanks for the comments, im glad to hear you enjoyed the video - many more will result. Please watch this video - ruclips.net/video/z_BFLTqstoY/видео.html It discusses exactly what you mention about the housing options ont he EFR7163 -- there is some fallacy surrounding the twin scroll versus open scroll housings - this video will answer your question. Remember also that the 1800cc engine is a slouch especially with larger turbos - i can tell you that in its current config, it will NOT spool faster with the G25 even with the AR72 turbine option. If however you stroked the engine with the 2.0 steel crank, the spool will be improved substantially with the EFR7163 you currently running. Both the G25 and EFR use turbine housings from the 28 family, and the AR is close between the two - the lightweight Gamma TI turbine with the EFR weighs less than the G25 does, and the turbine housing volute shape and design is also an improvement over the Garrett, especially the internally gated gas path diversion at he inlet leading to the swing valve. Thanks again for the comments - its much appreciated, and this is what keeps us going making new videos for you guys out there.
Great videos , as always! I have watch so many of your videos in the past few days. There was something specific you mentioned in one video and I can’t remember what video it was. But I remember you had turbos on the table vertical spinning them, then you raised the cartridge out of them and spun them again horizontally to show the difference in journal vs DBB bearing. Would greatly appreciate help finding that video
Thanks for the compliment Bodnar. There are so many videos where i spin the rotating assemblies, i would have to sift through all the content and look for this - I would suggest that you check your history and go through the videos on your end in your history on RUclips - this would be the fastest way to find this.
Garrett overrating/overhyping their turbos one way or another seems to be their MO. They also seem to like mismatching relatively giant compressors with relatively tiny turbines (like with the G25-660, GTX3076R, etc), I'm assuming so they can tout their relatively quick spool. It's all very annoying. Despite those things, I have a G25-660 on one of my cars, and I like it a lot (but I'm only making 400 whp). Its smaller packaging is really what made me go with it over an EFR (sometimes 1/2-inch extra clearance in the engine bay is everything). In an ideal world, I would've definitely gone with an EFR7163 though. Oh, and I was also surprised at the lack of proper QA with the G25 steel turbine housing I got. The inner aligning groove on the v-band inlet was slightly off-centered, which is absolutely ridiculous for a $2k USD turbo.
Fully agree with you on the QC with Garrett, and the price is honestly really high for what you get. The compressors used on the Garrett aren't really oversized in relation to the turbine wheel dimensions, but the maps are most certainly inaccurate. Ill be doing another video on the maps and ill reveal some really interesting info on this.
That is what it seems like, but how's spool on your setup with g25-660, and also transient response? I think EFR might be better in response (on off throttle), on paper g25 seems crazy good, better than EFR7163...
@@jutjub22 In reality we have compared the two on the Golf7R platform and seen that the punch response (around 4000-4500RPM and suddenly punching the throttle) the EFR responds much faster, almost as if the engine is normally aspirated. The G-series seems to take some time to come on song. Off throttle outside of boost, and going to full throttle you will wait longer for the G25 to come into boost then the EFR .
@@TurboDirectSA Good info, thanks. Was that with twin scroll? That is exactly what EFR talks about, response that is not seen on dyno. That transient response is very important to me, and makes car feel much better, even if it has less power. I thought g25 would have better response because of the wheel size ... I have 2.0 1.8T stroker (TTE480 on it now), and decided to go for g25-550, but may choose EFR instead. What about spool down low, 2000-3500, between the two?
@@jutjub22 Keep in mind that the turbine wheel diameter might be smaller with the G25 - but the aero design, and weight of the EFR7163 is better (solid back disc) and it weighs less than the Garrett G25 wheel. G25 = 185grams, and the EFR7163 = 174grams
@@TurboDirectSA one bit that imo isnt a fair comparison: you compared max efficiency on the comp map. Would be cool to see the analysis where you compared the borg at max eff 74/75% and the garret at 74% and not at 79% garrets max. I know you went into a lot of detail! Would love a video on this subject where you rambled on further. This type of content is hard to find! Cheers man!
@@michaellecompte1889 You need to understand that the number in the efficiency is irrelevant when comparing two compressors. Just because one compressor has an efficiency of 79% versus anothers' of 75% does not mean the higher efficiency is making more HP, nor does it mean that it makes this HP sooner or later either. You'll notice that the efficiencies are used for determining the characteristics of the compressor as opposed to its HP outlput. ALL choke limits (or close to the choke) is where the max HP output sits - and the efficiency at this point is low.
@@TurboDirectSA Roger that! It’s the flow that’s making more hp/torque... the efficiency number just tells us that potentially the compressor is building less heat to produce the given pressure and flow correct?
@@TurboDirectSA no, thank you so much! To be honest after watching this. If my Old HKS GT3037S by Garrett needs replacement I will definitely go with the Borg and a custom manifold. Thank you for these informative videos.
The twin scroll really fills in the lower boost ranges with lower speed efficiency. The G25 is more efficient but has a narrower operating area at it's most efficient.
G25 is a total failure if you see how many fail prematurely. They dont perform like thry advertised, they are a big hype turbo with nothing but disappointment once you pay your hefty price for it.
@@pietererasmus7804 Okay. That sucks for their customers. That point wasn't made in the video so it's not really part of the conversation we were having.
I personally think the GTX Gen 1 wheels offer a more usable compressor map for a wider range of engine applications, and also without any surge protection port I've never heard one chirping due to compressor surge even on fast spooling VNT turbochargers
They are really good, we have seen surge on the Gen1 GTX4202 and GTX4294R -- the Gen2 is much better, but the G-series is rubbish compared to other family sizes and HP comparisons from BorgWarner for example.
@@TurboDirectSA yes I have done multiple overlays of the g series compared to airwerks and efr and they are not even close for the same wheel sizes. The GTX-I don't offer as wide of a map as the BW stuff but I think that's because of the surge protection of the housing more than the actual wheel designs, but I could be wrong
Again the mistake about wheel sizes.....@@diesel-technology5507 -- wheel size has nothing to do with it - its the aerodynamic design. Turbo comparisons are done based on claimed air flow (HP output) and not wheel size. If you advertise a 650HP turbocharger, then a fair comparison is the next manufacturers 650HP turbocharger -- its in a HP group that its advertised in, and if you are able to produce say - 720HP from the same physical wheel size, then i guess you have an advantage in bracket racing...... Aero designs.
@@TurboDirectSA well this is why I'm doing it based on the housing a/r and wheel exducer and trim, since when you can't trust the manufacturers claims you have to base it on objective testing and the available information. 11+0 will give a higher available pressure ratio at max flow than a 9+0 with the same wheel size, but the 9+0 can be in a smaller a/r housing and still manage the same max flow rate but at a lower pr... that's the general rule I have come to see on all turbochargers produced by Garrett. I'm doing variable geometry turbochargers and they are always surge limited and require high pressure ratios due to the lower engine rpm and reduced ve of the engine at higher rpm compared to petrol engine equivalents. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, I'm just stating what I have come to find with my own experiences
Here's a perfect example of the lie Garrett sell... GTX3076 gen 1 - 58 trim 76mm 11+0 max flow approx 64lb/min at 145krpm and 3.25pr GTX3076 gen 2 - 58 trim 76mm 9+0 max flow approx 66lb/min at 145krpm and 2.75pr According to Garrett gen 1 will do 640hp but gen 2 will do 750hp 🤣 Is the gen 2 wheel better? Without question, because they shove it in a .60 a/r housing and it still flows more peak than the gen 1 does in a .70 a/r housing and benefits from the improved surge capacity of the smaller a/r housing. If we take the claimed power to compare wheels like you suggest, then as above gen 1 but gen 2 is supposedly GTX3071 650hp which has 59lb/min peak at 2.75pr and 140krpm shaft speed....not sure how they come up with their claimed hp ratings but they don't seem to be very consistent based on the available graphs. However if the gen2 GTX3071 is spun at 155krpm+ I would expect it to make 65lb/min at 3.25pr or somewhere in that region based on the way the graph is trending. They say max rpm 140krpm but that's no where near 550m/s tip speed
Nice video Im using the s257 sxe with a T3 .82 AR single scroll from AGP on my bmw e30 325i with m20b25 engine It made 481 whp and 64 kg of torque at wheels at 1.75 bar with pump gas and water methanol injection It boost very fast and keeps the torque and power all the way Amazing turbo
Chris great video. I've got lots to learn. Question: We have VW, Jetta, mk4, 1.8t (awp), 02m (6 speed). Engine getting forged rods and upgraded exhaust valves and valve springs. We're looking to make 400hp/ftlb at the crank. Which turbo do you recommend? Which exhaust manifold? Usage: street car / daily driver. Thanks again.
Hey Joe thanks for the comment - see here for a very well suited turbo. turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g3077r-forged-detail We have many of these running in our country, and with great results. Quick spooling, all the power delivered as per the rated output, dual ball bearing, great price.
The pressure ratio vs boost explanation is valid only on sea level. Quite good rule of thumb. Once you go little up on elevation it is no longer valid. PR 2 on 900mbar atmosphere is 1.8bar on gauge for example. To have 2bar you need to go approx 2.2 PR. I think garrett maps are quite odd ..to me it looks like it is "limited safe" wheel speed at 165krpm...maybe turbine limited? What do you think? I play with diesels but I found out from my own projects that garretts have quite small turbines related to compressor. I had gtx2863r 0.64ar housing, with 2.5bar imp and 3bar emp. Changed over from 47mm to gt/gtx 29 53mm turbine it spooled 300-400rpm quicker and reduced emp by 0.5bar.
No sir - the pressure ratio explanation used was an example as if we were at the coast - purely because its easier to understand. It works 100% for higher altitudes aswell - BUT you will need to do some maths to convert the losses in P2C for the altitude compensation as you go higher up. P2C differs with different altitudes, and altitude densities - there is no definite 1 plus 1 equals 2 with this im afraid - density altitude is affected by temperature, humidity, baro pressure, etc etc as a BASIC outline, you can ignore all the above and only use Baro pressure for an idea (not 100% accurate) of the plots on the map. The speed limits on the rotating assembly are related to the bearing system, not the rotating assembly (SWA and CW) do not exceed this, as the balls will slip, skid and cause massive damage to the ball grooves, cages and eventually destroy the CHRA.
I wasn't sure which was the best video to respond to so I hope this is OK. Honda K24A2 swapped into an MR2, CXRacing journal GT35, currently running 15psi on a T3 log manifold, 38mm WG, currently making 424 to the wheels on pump gas. This is street car that MIGHT see a quarter mile just to get the numbers only, otherwise it lives it's life roll racing. I've recently purchased a tubular T4 manifold, 60mm WG and I'm torn which turbo to go with. The stock engine is capable of 600+/- on E85, I'll be running a Flex Fuel sensor so I can go back and forth as I desire. I love the cars current power band, I can be doing 3000rpm on the freeway, go WOT and I'm at 15psi by 3300rpm. Most Honda owners seem to love peaky, zero to hero, 5k+ boost...not me. Being that I'm happy with a generic GT35, getting an authentic and/or ball bearing turbo will get better spool, but I'm afraid what I'll be losing due to changing manifold designs. An S2K owner asked about their car and you'd suggested they stick with their currently installed GTX3582R 1.01ar and install a smaller .83ar housing vs going to a G30 or G35. I don't plan on going built motor like that guy did, but everyone says that...but even then I still don't plan on making it some 1k HP either :-) What do you suggest that'll give me streetable boost while still allowing me for more headroom up top to reach 6-700 tops?
Thanks for the comment. I think you have answered your own question in your outline above. The current setup works for you, and you have mentioned that you currently have a great boost response - why do you want to change it? Simply up the boost on what you currently running to around 2.0bar (hopefully the turbo doesn't let you down being Journal bearing) and see what power you make. IF you happy then you are where you want to be. If say, the turbo lets go or you not making the power you want, then change something - BUT only change one thing at a time. I would then change the turbo ONLY - leave the wasetgate alone. Install the Gen2 GTX3582R with the same turbine housing AR that you are currently using (to maintain the same boost response you currently have) and this will increase the power expectation. PS:- running such a large wastegate on this setup is only going to create lag. Ill do a video on this soon.
@@TurboDirectSAFor the record, I bought the car already K swapped, tuned, etc. Point being that I don't have ANY experience in turbo selection for what I'm trying to accomplish. But like all fast cars, eventually it becomes slow again, hence my reason for upgrading :-) Not to mention I've seen videos showing K's like to breath and I worry I'm hurting the engine with a log. I've spoken with my tuner who says I'm currently limited at 425hp due my poorly flowing exhaust manifold, which is why I'm upgrading from a T3 log manifold to a T4 tubular manifold. I've already bought the manifold and WG, I just need the turbo now. I've considered buying a T3 to T4 adapter to reuse my existing turbo, but I'm sure that'd be frowned upon even though such adapters are exist. I assume I'm going to lose some back pressure/spool time going from a restrictive log manifold to a freer flowing tubular manifold, not to mention boost recocery time between shifts going from a 38mm WG to a 60mm WG. I'm curious what turbo you'd recommend post mani/WG swap that'll allow me to keep my great spool time AND allow me the headroom to increase the HP from 425 to around 600 these engines are known to still be safe at. I don't know if the GT35 tranlates straight over to a G35-900 or if I should consider something like a G30-660 (but then I'm theoretically limited to 660hp) or if I should just do a slight upgrade to a GTX3582R Gen 2 which will supposedly spool better than my current turbo and will still allow me to go past 600hp on the wild chance I do decide to upgrade the engine.
@@M5JamesE39 Before you spend money - why dont you up the boost first and see what happens. Or has the tuner already done this? Keep an eye on the EGTs and Inlet temps as you up the pressure. you should be able to run 20psi safely, depending on the results - id only then consider spending money again. If the motor has a lowered compression, you will not be hurting it at this boost pressure - you would not make the power you are at the boost you are running if the motor wasnt happy -- this may change s the pressure increases, but try it and see. If you going to change the turbo - i would suggest you consider the EFR8474Black Series - run the internal gate (sell your external) for the same money as the G35 costs. Watch this part1 video -it shares some good info on the Garrett vs BorgWarner offerings. ruclips.net/video/amRt0ma8m-0/видео.html
@TurboDirect S.A Sorry, I've edited my post and maybe you didn't see the changes. I mentioned above the tuner said he stopped at 425 @ 15psi due to the manifold design is basically acting as an EGR valve and he won't push it anymore until I upgrade manifold from the current $160 eBay log it's running now - rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F224324184312 I've already bought a $1200 tubular manifold and $600 Turbosmart 60mmWG, I'm fine selling the WG but I'm not going to continue using the log due to the tuners recommendations and from what I've seen about K's liking to breath. The motor is bone stock w/ stock compression. I also plan on upgrading to a flex fuel system so I can up the power from 425 closer to the 600 mark, so I simply cannot keep using the current restrictive manifold.
garret as usuall making an agessive marketing, i dont even understand what means "660" at g25-600, because even at paper g25 will not produce that power (660)
@GK-iw3hi your answers show your experience when you don't know what reality is you believe anything ... everyone on RUclips has had problems with this turbine with a/r72 and a/r90 maybe because they didn't contact you 🤣🤣🤣🤣if I had met you before I would have saved a lot of money 🤣🤣🤣 if we talk about GTX 3071 then things change ... if you had the ability to read the exhaust graphs you would understand that those powers can only be obtained in your dreams it's useless for you to answer you've already talked too much
Love these videos, very informative and easy to understand! i have a question if you don't mind answering, I've got a Porsche 930 3.3 and was looking to upgrade my stock turbo, is the 7163 with the ar85 vband good for this engine size? I'm looking for the best response down low without the turbo power completely dying out after 5800rpm (rpm limiter is 7100). my goal is 400-450hp at 1.1 bar
Vazione - the 7163 is way too small, it will surely spool extremely fast but run out of steam around 4500RPM already. The engine is large enough to spool the EFR7670 easily with the AR92 turbine housing and still make power through the entire RPM range. This is my suggestion to you.
Real interesting and well explained👍!!! Only one critic if you cou call it that, if you copmare borgwarner that has got max 74% eficienci woud it bee faier that you also took from 74% eficienci the garret turbo and not comparing 74% borg to 79% garret?
Thank you for the comment - this is something that was requested to elaborate on previously, I have made a video on this and i will upload the answer to this tomorrow morning. B Berk had similar comments, the video covers this in some detail. Look out for it tomorrow morning.
I am just stumbling on this video now and what a treat that was! Thank you for going through each of them like that. Super useful to understand the compressor maps like that as well. I'm curious what would happen if twin g25-660s were utilized? on a 2.7/2.8L V6 revving to at least 8k rpm? Would it be more useful going up in size then, instead to a 630-770? or what kind of Borg would you recommend instead? This is on B5 S4 so packaging and real estate is definitely at a premium haha
@TurboDirectSA ok good to know! I did go down a bit of a turbo rabbit hole and found xona uhf Turbos. I meant to go back on your channel to see if you reviewed them too. Their UHF technology seems to be quite the game changer.
@@SuitedUp2The9s Im not sure there is that much of a difference/improvement with that at all. Weight and Aero design combinations that Borg use seem to have the best results.
The ugly part of the garret turbine housing is where the molten metal enters the mold. It would have had a tang there that is cut off. They have not finished it all that well is all.
i am in process of buying a efr 7163 or a g25-660 but in this video you dont have an answer for spool. Wich spools faster on a 2l engine ? and by how much? now i have an old T3/T04E garret and is spools late(1.65bar at 4500rpm) and also fall off at 6500 rpm. And dont know what to chose.Thank you! also very interesting videos i-ve been watching a bunch to understand turbos.
So I’m looking for quick response and around 350hp on a 2jz I picked up a sx200 and added a 51 induction side thinking it would help. But now I’m thinking I was fine with the original setup
Reccomendation for a ca18 , 9.5:1 , e85 , 264/272 hydraulic Cosworth cams , tenth gram balanced cp pistons , spool rods ARP mains and head studs. Safe for 9000+ rpm. Would like full boost around 4.5 and climbing til we shut it it off at 9. S257 enhanced with a t4 split pulse?
Hayden the S200SXE will be a great choice for this engine. Use a separated manifold with a decent collector - you cant go wrong. The turbo will spool around the area you looking for. The other option is the EFR7163 (you should see 550WHP) or the 7670 which will be a loaded gun on this engine.
@@TurboDirectSA i was looking at the efr but I don't know if budget will allow. The widebodies almost finished. (100+ hours moulding fenders , deleting style lines , re shaping spoilers etc) I'd like to put it back on the road for ten Australian as will then be doable in the next year. It's been years since it was driving last. Manifold , turbo , gate , injectors and rail are 4-5k AUD and 6+ using the efr. I really think I need the other 5 minimum to do pumps , lines , harness stand alone and a tune. I'm not going back to nistune. We used to run a custom 3576 in a T2 set up so should spool same or better but actually flow reasonably once the gates opened.
@@TheSol115 does that engine rev that high? If so then so be it, if not, I would not increase the rpm limit past stock unless major work is done to the engine. The HP target is very easy to achieve and can be done with a number of different options for turbos. What is the main application for the car? (Street, circuit, drift, rally, drags?)
Question “efficiency island”. Are the efficiency actually comparable? You were noting the Garrett’s efficiency island comes in later, but it’s efficiency rating is much higher. Dropping down to a comparable efficiency, it seems the Garrett may come to that point sooner?
Thats always a question posed to us, even in training seminars we offer. The simple answer is "NO" two totally different air pumps are not comparable to oneanother in efficiency, because the designs are totally different, the maps are different, the aerodynamic aspects are nothing the same -- yes the HP output and "family size" are in competition in terms of spool characteristics, and physical size and total air flow (Inside of say 10-15% Claimed) but the efficiencies will never be comparable because of the above. Change one thing on the turbine wheel and the resulting compressor map changes - e.g the older Garrett GT3071R turbocharger - there are three turbine wheel sizes (i bet many of you didnt know this) 1) 51.78 x 55mm - used with the AR64 GT28 turbine housing 2) 53.78 x 55mm - used with AR86 GT28 turbine housing 3) 55 x 60mm - Used on GTX turbos with the T3 turbine housing range (the exducer was too wide to machine into the GT28 housing - not enough material left to seal against the downpipe 5bolt flange face) Each of the above turbine wheels will yield totally different spool characteristic (obviously because of the housing AR mostly) but also different power delivery - and youll be surprised at the difference in using these slightly different sizes turbines and the resulting power output. Its a broad topic and one that will never reach finality due to the complexity of the nature of the turbocharger, and there is only so much information i am able/willing to share on this for specific reasons, but dont let the numerical % number bother you, rather concentrate on where, how big, how wide the efficiency islands are.
Another great video, Chris. Question: Do you have the capability to verify/validate the compressor maps shared by the manufacturers? Are they always accurate and honest?
Yes we do - its ALOT of work on a gas stand, but we can verify this. What we prefer doing is logging data (turbo speed, Boost, and air flow - measure this against HP) to see how/what the turbo is doing. Real world results are what people want anyway.
@WhiteBlurr "ST" Thank you for the comment - ok lets begin with AR. The EFR housing is AR48, the SXE is AR53 - larger yes, but is not intended to yield a performance gain, not on the smaller 71mm and 76mm exducer compressors at least. The SXE housing offers geography savings in packaging rather than performance gains. The SXE cover offers the boost only source, and speed sensor port, without the DV installation. Tight installations - go for the SXE cover -- Ill be testing the differences in these covers in an upcoming video to show the facts surrounding the two on both the EFR7163 and the 7670
@@TurboDirectSA I appreciate the swift response, Chris. It would be interesting to know the data, as a number of places state that it improves spool and flow, but it's all anecdotal.
Hi from Athens Greece!Great video as always!Very informative and beautifully presented!One question if i may,i am searching for a turbo for my forged engine Audi S3 8p and I’m looking for a fast daily,quick spooling one and I’m aiming the 600 hp.Which turbo would you choose?Note that my car is methanol injected with bigger injectors,pump,intercooler,exhaust,intake,well everything that is needed to run that kind of power.Thanks in advance keep up the good work!
Thank you Stamatis for the compliment, i am happy to hear you enjoying the channel content. I would opt for one of our IS38 upgraded ball bearing turbochargers for the power you are looking to make. The IS38-450 made 480HP on our development car see here:- ruclips.net/video/mXeSW9B17bs/видео.html We have a larger option aswell which will make close to the 600HP output - this turbo is found here:- turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/is38-550-forged-detail This is available in both longitudinal and transverse options.
@@TurboDirectSA How do you put that turbo(is38) on a Audi 8P . Since it is based on the old k03 platform. Do you have a manifold made for this because if so I am interested
@@mikemayers9353 You need to fabricate manifold and related components. Or you can simply install this:- turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/k04-0064-forged-detail
What are your thoughts on using a s200 (sxe252 with .46 a/r agp T3 housing) on an 3.0 Mercedes OM606 vs the larger SX257 with a .63 a/r agp T3 housing when used in a Jeep Cherokee for daily driving? Would the 252 be a bit too small? Would it case any heat issues?
I wouldn't go near the mismatched turbine housing you mentioned - its a GUARANTEED way to kill your turbo. The OM606 revs so high for a diesel, and its a large CID engine, why are you looking for such a small turbine housing? The Turbo choice is fine, for that engine, BUT you could get benefit from a ball bearing turbo in terms of spool, since its a daily driver - also depending on the tranny you going to use, (if auto - lag lag lag) this has a big effect on drive-ability too. This is something i would consider using for this application as a daily driver with an auto gearbox, this will make some decent power on the Diesel OM606, BUT nothing excessive store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g28r-660-forged-detail Its internally gated and spools fast for the engine choice, and will make power to the top end of your RPM range.
600WHP will be near impossible with 94octane fuel im afraid. In order to make this power, you will have to run some boost, and anything higher than around 1.2bar gauge pressure, you will start finding that 94octane fuel will reach its knock limits. (engine dependant, CR dependant, etc) with the correct fuel you will make this power easily with a number of turbos - which brings me to the next question -- What is the intended application? Is it s a street car? Drift setup? Drag only? Depending on the application, the choice of turbo will apply. The EFR7670 will make this power, so will the EFR8474 lack Series, and so will a number of other options, BUT they will all respond differently, and the 1JZ is not as able to spool a large turbo up like the 2JZ as an example.
@@TurboDirectSA By the way that's 94 AKI. It's a street /drift setup WIth the EFR7670 wouldn't I have to throw a lot of boost at it? I was thinking EFR8474 as well but just don't know the amount of lag. Thanks for the replies.
@@Mr.Flintstone Careful on the 1JZ - the 8474 will spool slightly too late for a drift setup - unless you setup the valve train for high revving up to around 8500RPM, youll be able to get away with the 8474 Black series, and stlll have a good "in boost" RPM band in case you fall outside of the speed/gear for the drift.
@@Mr.Flintstone Over-rated to be honest, The turbo will never sustain 900HP with the small Turbine side, although Garrett advertise this in their HP number but their entirely compressor map is contradictory to it showing it not coming close to the 90lb/min axis. As an example - In comparison to the EFR7163 BorgWarner claim this to be a 550HP capable turbo, yet the compressor map cuts into the 60lb/min axis which actually relates to a 600HP capable turbo. The 55lb/min line on the EFR7163 covers a massive P2C range aswell - no Garrett map compares at all.
Love these comparison videos!! I wish I would have gone with a better sized turbo for my honda 2 liter b series. Any suggestions on what to run for a more linear power curve versus a big rush of power? Car is a street car with minor circuit racing usage. Currently running a Garrett GTW3476R with a .82 housing on 28psi making 591hp and 450trq but it seems its more suited for drag racing as it has a lil bit of lag.
Thanks for sharing the info - The GTW is very old technology in terms of the Aero designs, and well they work .... but not as well as some other options like the BorgWarner S200SXE and S300SXE designs which are revised and share the latest aero technology as the newest offerings from BorgWarner. If its response you looking for, id suggest the EFR range - on your setup definitely the EFR7670 will give you that kick in the pants that will put a smile on your face every time!
@@TurboDirectSA I really want to go the EFR route but don't want to change my entire manifold setup and wastegate and bov. Is there anything from the Garrett lineup even somewhat close to the EFR 7670. Only need 550hp max. GTX3071R Gen2 fit the bill?
@@warreeeng The 7670 uses the same T3 flange face on the AR83 turbine housing. Its also Vband outlet - which should simplify things for you. The Garrett GTX3071R Gen2 uses a vband inlet and outlet flange - this will necessitate an entire manifold change. Either EFR or GTX/G-series will involve changing the oil feed line anyway -- you have to change these items no matter which route you choose.
I’m looking for a twin turbo setup for my GTR R35, everyone keeps telling me go with the g30-770 as my goal is 1200whp. But I’ve seen a few times where you have suggested the EFR’s as being superior as far as spool/response/power in comparison to the g series. Which would you recommend for my setup/goal? Thanks in advance!
Thanks for the comment Tony - i would definately not use the G30-770 as the claimed power is not what you will get, keep that in mind. The EFR is a far superior and better spooling product which lives up to the claimed HP ability. The aluminium bearing housing (if this option is chosen) is light years ahead of any G-series turbo. The stock iron bearing housing is also much better than the G-series, with larger cooling ports, larger beating cartridge, and the GAMMA TI turbine wheel is 50%+ lighter than the G-series turbine wheel. The turbos are also properly internally gated with alot of attention to detail in this area - To achieve 1200HP on the GTR35 is easy to be honest, and we have options for this aswell - have you considered this as yet another option? store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g3076r1-forged-detail These turbos will outflow the G-series turbo and spool much quicker when used with this turbine housing:- store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/ss3079vband-detail
G25 is smaller but weighs more by almost 30% I have weighed these previously and cant remember the actual weight in gramms, but i do remember that the Garrett weight is around 30% heavier -
Big four-cylinder diesel engines by Detroit intentionally combine two exhaust pulses only separated by 180 degrees on the same side of the twin-scroll turbo. For naturally-aspirated engines, separating exhaust pulses by an exactly even number of degrees is the WIN. For a turbo engine, they thrive on exaggerated pulsation to get them off the bottom of the boost curve ASAP. Most people in the industry to NOT KNOW THIS. If you combine even 360-degree-opposite pulses on each side of a twin-scroll turbo, YOU HAVE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT. FOR A TURBOCHARGED ENGINE AT THE BOTTOM OF ITS BOOST CURVE, PULSATION IS POWER! Who do you think knows more how to widen the power band of an engine? The multibillion-dollar Detroit Diesel, or Clem Duggins with an Opinion in his garage in Teebakky Chawmp, South Carolina? Remember that saying. For getting a Turbo engine off the bottom of its boost curve, PULSATION IS POWER.
Nope - its a measure of air flow, versus speed and boost pressure - the turbo is driven by GAS on a gas bench/stand - it is NOT driven by fuel of any kind. The turbine is excited by ENERGY - not fuel or air flow - believe it or not.
@@TurboDirectSA I know Chris, I meant that for example G25-660 is capable of making only 60lbs of air, that means around 600HP. but Garret claims that it's capable of 660HP. So, I thought that this proporotion - 10lbs/min - 100HP is true only for regular gas. For E85 (ethanol) you need less air for making same power, because of different stoichiometry. Am I wrong?
@@stanislavaleshin1202 Buddy the compressor maps are factual "spec sheets" based on the tests done on the turbocharger as a whole - it is not hing to do with an engine or fuel. Its a simple measurement of the results that a fixed mechanical device can produce based on speed, pressure and flow. Thats why we are able to flow calibrate any VNT turbo with compressed air - its not even flammable.
@@stanislavaleshin1202 no buddy, Garrett used to be conservative with the maps - under rate them, and when the power reads 100HP - the maps reaches the flow on the axis..... Since Garrett's been given some competition they have changed the maps to over-read. There is no bike or car in South Africa that makes 574KW using the G30-770 however I can show you many that make 480-490KW using the GT3582R (675HP rated) The newer small diameter G-series wheels are just not up to it. Get my drift ?
Interesting, I am trying to figure out the best "fast road" turbo for N54 (3.0 BMW, pump fuel) to replace stock twins horror. Precision 6262 seems to be the common single turbo used but I'd prefer some newer turbo tech as times have moved on. Looking for same response and power/torque build up to the end of rev range as I had with GT28r on CA18det which I loved (it was kind of rewarding to rev). The idea is for the turbo to not come on boost too hard so it's easier to control on the street. I hate the midrange wall of torque and then tapering off. I came to conclusion that G30-770 would be the best bet but now I need to re-think. Would you be available to help me out? I would happily pay for the consultation to save money long term. Parameters: 3.0 direct injected inline-6, sea level, 98 octane (euro spec), assuming 1.2 bar boost max. 7000 rpm rev limit
Firstly anyone charging you for advise is a rip off. We free with knowledge, as this is something that should be shared in order to grow a sport/community in any sport/recreational hobby or interest. There are many options depending on the HP target you have in mind. shoot me an email to chris@turbodirect.co.za ill gladly advise you from there.
Any turbo will perform well at either altitudes, the only issue is that the turbo works harder, and if it gets into the choke limit at altitude as opposed to when its running at the coats (very high altitude density) then you'll notice a difference when the Power is maxed out.
@@TurboDirectSA Once again thank you, love the knowledge and technical know-how you possess! When I'm ready I'll come to you for a turbo on my project.
Does the S200SXE S252 use the same size compressor housing as the S257 or is it smaller like how the G30 660 is compared to the 770? And is the S200SXE housing smaller than an average to4e housing?
Yes same comp housing. different CNC profiling and compressor wheel. The S200SXE housing is more or less the same physical dimensions as the T04B family AR60 housing. The volute however is measured in AREA CM2 - so not comparable to the AR of the T04 series, BUT i can tell you that it outflows the T04B range by just a little bit.
The weight with most of these frame size turbochargers are very similar, and not extremely important to most people - when you start working with the larger frame turbochargers this becomes alot more important because the size of the turbochargers are massive with the 2000HP+ setups.
Definately not - @@burns985 -- the EFR is leagues ahead with materials, spool, output performance and quality. The G-series turbochargers are overrated and do not make close to the claimed, printed power in the Garrett catalogues.
@@TurboDirectSA This is what im searching for months sir! My aim for my S3 2L hillclimb is 450-500hp reliable and responsive as possible. I was always between G25-660 and EFR 6758! Do you suggest me the EFR6758?
Hey Chris, great video! I am planning on adding a turbo to my mercedes 3L n/a M104 Engine. The n/a power is 204hp but the stock block should handle 600hp with lowered compression. I would like to go twinscroll and internal WG... Which turbo do you recommend? Thanks a lot for your answer!
Hey Don - i would consider the EFR7670 with T4 twin scolr AR92 turbine housing. This is internally gated and will see you to more than 600HP - BUT dont push the limits if the block is only able to safely see 600HP - setup to around 480-500HP max - try make sure you have reliability build it. This size engine will spool the turbo up nicely even with the larger AR92 housing.
@@TurboDirectSA thanks man sounds great! To pick a smaller turbo for an even better spool would be beneficial? I just want to know the reason for picking a larger turbo than needed for the target hp output.
@@konradnee844 Yes it would be beneficial, BUT at what cost - to make the power you want (close to 600HP from what i could understand) you will need to push the smaller turbo to near its max all the time, which is not really ideal. So choosing a slightly larger turbo that will still spool fast and make more power than you want to achieve, will result in a setup that runs less boost, less heat and will run easier on the turbocharger itself at the same time == reliability
Remember the EVO 4G63 motor has a massive exhaust flash - thats why you run extremely low ignition advance - this motor spools a large turbo up easily. I would opt for the EFR7670 without a doubt!
@@St0RM33 No i relate to the energy that the engine produces. Any 4G63 owner/enthusiast/tuner will know what im talking about. The engine has a large flame front which easily drives a larger turbocharger. The ignition advance used on these engines as a result is VERY conservative, at boost levels around 2.0bar you will find many engines running 2deg -5deg of advance even with Ethanol etc.
They say g25 660 but realistically on a Subaru ej25 06 sti it makes 425 wheel torque and about 450-470 wheel hp on e85 ethanol and full spool at 35-3700 rpm depending on load, but this g25660 is a great rally cross turbo for my car.. borg Warner are know for being the toughest turbos. I mean the Cummins guys spray the crap out of them with nitrous… and they live quite awhile
The EFR 7163 will outspool and outperform the gseries garrett By a long shot. We have done side by side comparisons and Garrett lose dismally. The RFR gamma-TI turbine wheels are mixed flow in the 7163 which makes for even better results
Awesome info! Would a g25-660 be a match for a built 2 liter b series vtec 400-550whp, or should I grab the g30-770? 72ar for the 660 or 61ar for the 770?
The Honda engines are high revving - the smaller exducer designs on the G-25 and G-30 will run out of steam up top - i would use the GTX3071R Gen2 or the EFR7163 or EFR7670 for a full power curve across the rev range.
@@St0RM33 Im not following you - where is a CA18 anything similar to the RB26 engine in its design? It uses a totally different crank, cams, valves, head design, bore size, stoke length, block design -- i dont see any similarity on the CA18 and RB26DETT engines at all.
@@TurboDirectSA get a rb26, cut 2 cylinders off, change bore to stroke ratio to more square, and you have a ca18 pretty much. There are lots of similarities, example oil pump design, head design with overhead cams, same port design, and more
Thanks. Watched this video and I learned a thing or two about compressor maps. Might not the best place to ask but will try, I want to upgrade from my K04 to something that still spools like it but has a wider power or torque band. I aim for a 450-500 crank horsepower. Car is a mk6 Edition 35 gti. I know there are other things involved (forging etc) but in terms of turbo, which ones would you recommend from experience? Thanks
Thanks Nelson. The best route for this engine is the EFR7163 without a doubt. The lightweight turbine wheel will spool fast and the turbo makes the 550HP that it claims on its compressor map - in fact we see 550WHP on the Golf7R's with this turbo. The turbo is Ball bearing, dont try push a journal bearing turbo the size of a K04 to make this power, it will break 100% guaranteed.
@@TurboDirectSA Thanks for this. Yes, I don't aim to push k04 beyond it's capabilities ( running around 340bhp with WMI, integrated FDS, Forge Actuator, 3inch turbo back etc). So for the EFR 7163, twin scroll or single? Larger A/R ?
@@NelsonSakwa Buddy for the HP target you have at the crank - the Twin scroll smaller housing will be more than enough, and you get the benefit of the added spool/response.
So, are you recommending that the G25-660 be ran between 1.5 bar and 2.5 bar, with the most power happening at 1.5? In my testing so far, it seems like power has been increasing up to at least 1.9-2 bar. That said, I think I'm going to keep all things equal in my map and just test purely what the output differences are from 1.5=2.5. Thanks for putting this review together!
Thanks for the comments, the outline i gave was according to the compressor map, and the point is that the Garrett maps are incorrect in some areas, and certainly do not reflect the real world results. The power we have seen (Depending on the engine and the state of it) the max power is seen around 1.8-2.0bar boost, but the map does not reflect this. The BorgWarner EFR maps in comparison show something totally different, the maps marries 100% up to the P2C axis and the flow (HP) numbers marry up aswell. Once again there WILL be different results (slightly) depending on the engine and the state of it. (mods, ability to flow, cams, CR etc etc) Generally the EFR maps are gospel - Garrett ...... not close.
@@TurboDirectSA Thanks for the response. I'm currently running mine to about 2 bar. It seemed to continue making power up until that point, but I'm changing fuel and timing and have done about 20+ pulls before I ran that much boost. Now I'm dialing in the flex tune. After I get the flex tune safe, I'll probably experiment with running a touch more and a touch less boost to see what the exact result is. Appreciate all these detailed videos you produce!
BorgWarner EFR7163 is a perfect choice for extremely fast spool and will make that power easily! We have another range which is a direct service replacement for the Garrett lineup - its our own TurboDirect S.A series of turbos. I would suggest using this:- turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/turbocharger-turbodirect-s-a/gt3071rforgedturbochargergt3071rt3ar63-vbandantigen1560hp-5809-detail
I dont understand why you compared the PTC ratios of the 7163 and g25-660 at different flow rates? What does the advertised horsepower matter? When comparing at 55lbs per min on both turbos, it would seem to me that the Garrett has a wider spread from pressure ratio 1.9 to 3.8, a ratio of 1.9. As well has having more efficiency and smaller wheels to do the same job, wouldnt it spool faster and have better transient reponse over the EFR as well?
Thanks for commenting - the reason is to show the difference between the two offerings. These two turbos are NOT apples with apples when it comes to the bearing system, BUT they both claim 650ish HP output - however the Garrett falls shy of this by plenty! The Borg being journal bearing, has a much better and more usable map/range. At Max power offering (Borg 650HP - 65lb/min, and Garrett 60lb/min) the Borg can be run at different boost levels (P2C) which the Garrett cannot hold against, not in power/flow rate nor in the range (P2C) Advertised HP matters when choosing a turbo for a specific application, if i want to build a drag specific application to run a specific 1/4mil time or to compete in a class of racing where HP is a controlled factor, or want to achieve a specific time down the strip, i would need a specific turbo to suit. The compressor map is KEY in matching a turbo to an engine for a specific application, based on the specific engine configuration (cams, valves, VE etc) Without a Map (which shows you flow = HP, aswell as boost pressure and speed) you shooting in the dark. HP in my video shows two turbos that can be compared to eachother, and the specifications of each relate --- two turbos in the "same" HP range -- compared. Not at all - Garrett does not come close to the width of the map compared to the Borg, the Garrett map does not come close to the HP output (width of the map) compared to the Borg, it falls shy by 60HP compared to what Garrett claim it makes (false claims) At the point where the maps reach their max flow rates (right hand side of the map - choke limit) the Borg stays there for 1.2bar range of P2C - ruclips.net/video/aXqkRCKvwoc/видео.html and the Garrett holds its max power for alot less "range" Remember this is not an EFR (which is ball bearing) this is a S200SXE - journal bearing turbo. Now response is provided by many aspects .... 1) turbine housing AR 2) turbine housing design (twin scroll...... 3) turbo match to engine ...... hense this video in the first place. 4) manifold design to suit the turbine housing setup. I would bet that these turbo turbos would spool very similarly, even though the Gseries is a ball bearing turbo, because of the great design turbine housing from Borg, aswell as the fact that the Borg comes into its max efficiency island sooner than the Garrett does - BUT this would have to be proven on a dyno.
The Garrett hit 75% efficiency right around 0.4 bar which is comparable or slightly better that the BW. Is comparing 75% to 79% efficiency islands really a fair comparison? Not trying to be sarcastic, real question, I don't know the answer.
Heres another way of looking at it - Efficiency is in essence a measure of how much work the compressor is doing for a certain input effort. The Borg rotating assemblies achieve their specific efficiencies at much lower RPM, therefore less work required to achieve the result - If you compare the flow rates at the same P2C ratios, Borg shines through taking into consideration the rotating assemblies speed.
What turbo would you recommend for a k24a2 engine in the euro accord /American Acura TSX if im looking for 500-600 crank HP? Mainly street driving with some track time. Im looking for a really responsive turbo. Thinking G30-770 .83ar. Or would there be a better option? Thanks!
The G30 series seem to fall off up top according to the compressor map, and the Honda being a high revving engine, will produce a lumpy power and torque curve with all the fun in the mid range RPM and then everything will fall away up top. I would go for a turbo that is able to hold its flow as the engines demand in higher RPM increases. The EFR7670 will suit this engine much better than the G30 will. The 7670 will also make the power you require easily and then some. The AR of the turbine housing is 0.83 and the internal swing valve measures 42mm which is a serious wastegate control.
@@TurboDirectSA awesome! Thank you so much for your knowledge and advice! Ill go with an EFR7670 .83ar per your recommendation. Great informative video. Keep up the content! Subbed.
The difference between 74% and 79% efficiency is MASSIVE for a compressor. It seems very misleading to compare the point when two turbos reach peak efficiency if one is so much less efficient at its peak. Would you recommend running those efrs beyond(below) their 58% efficiency mark? Can you please explain why Garrett maps end below a certain efficiency and borg maps just have a line falling away?
The line that falls away is situated on the choke limit of the map, the turbo will never get there. Its like plotting data outside of the surge limit on the left side of the map - the turbo simply will never operate there - ever. Let me play devils advocate here, ill ask you 3 questions the same questions i asked in the other comment which has been deleted. 1) What exactly does efficiency mean on the compressor map? 2) Does efficiency affect the HP output? 3) What is it about efficiency on a compressor map that you consider and apply to matching a turbo to your build? 99% of people have this wrong, and once you answer these questions, i believe you might be surprised.
@@TurboDirectSAThe efficiency is all about heat generation. If I'm running a race car, I can upgrade my intercooler or swap to water to air and it wouldn't be a big deal. My street car already fills the available space with its intercooler. My point was, if you're going to mark the pressure ratio where turbo A hits 74% efficiency, how hard would it be to mark the point where turbo B hits 74% efficiency? And my other point you agreed with. Nobody is pushing the absolute limit of the compressor as published. Pick a limit that's actually reasonable and treat the two maps the same. There seems to be no equivalency.
@@bberk1286 :-) you side stepped the questions, answer them and ill show you how little the efficiency % number plays a part in compressor choice (its not even a contributor) - and instead it plays a more important part (irrelevant to the number in %) in response, power delivery and ill show you how unrelated it is to outright HP/Flow - but more importantly how it directly affects the expected dyno curve based on the shape, position (not the % number) and dimensions of the island. Let me elaborate a little more -- When choosing a turbocharger match to an engine you need to consider how much HP the turbo is capable of and will that meet your design parameters? When will the turbo come into boost, and will this be a match for the application of the vehicle (Drift, drag, topend runs, rock crawling etc) Efficiency does not play a part in the basic turbocharger choice while using/referencing a compressor map. In fact youll be surprised how little efficiency affects (Directly) the HP output of a said compressor wheel.
@@TurboDirectSA So lets say in an impossible hypothetical that Garrett waves a magic wand and the presented turbo is exactly the same in every regard, but the compressor efficiency plateaus at 74%. The 74% island is the same as it already was, but islands within it vanish. You're telling me that's a better turbo? Why stop there? If 5% efficiency doesn't matter, wave the wand again and cut it back to the 69% island. We now have a turbo with a peak efficiency island the size of australia. Is that better again? A lot of the shaft's power is now going toward heat, but at least we're in the peak efficiency island for our entire power band. The compressor maps are based on data, but ultimately they're advertising tools and each company chooses how to present the information. Borg shows their peak flow rate at efficiencies well below 60% which seem extremely unrealistic. Yet you take the compressor map at face value and quote these flow values. You guys obviously know way more than me, am I wrong that that's unrealistic? I really appreciate your content and this discussion. I'm learning a lot.
@@bberk1286 Answer the questions sir, and ill surprise you. Your perception of efficiency is flawed/incorrect, and im trying to explain it to you. I don't work on anything hypothetical im afraid -- Hypothetical = lala land (which doesn't exist) Hypothetically i have a turbo that has an efficiency of 4% and produces 12000000HP -- its nothing but nonsense. Sorry not trying to be sarcastic, but i prefer to work on hard cold facts. Trying to comment on another companies marketing is also speculation and opinion, no facts -- irrelevant and all it does is call for further opinion. I learned one thing in life and its this "Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one" I reserve mine in place of fact. Lets stick to facts and let me guide you where i am able to, on the efficiency relating to the specific compressor maps you have mentioned above. Lets start with answers to my questions, the reason i ask these specific questions is so that i can explain fact to you about this topic.
Are there mock turbos (made from plastic) that you can use for mock up before purchasing the real thing? I am here battling between gt3584rs (used at reduce price) and a Borgwarner twin scroll offering to fit in limited space.
Not sure how a 54/67 Garrett vs 57.15/76.2 Borg turbo comparison is apples to apples? (3.55 vs 4.0 sq in inducer area roughly or 12% more for the Borg) Why not do this comparison with the G30-770 which is a 58mm inducer? All rule sets that limit turbochargers by physical dimensions use a inducer limit, and the G30-770 provides 72 lbs/min flow compared to the 65 lbs/min here. Let alone if we start looking at the hot side of each turbo you're comparing here, the dual ball bearing G25-660 is much smaller and will spool much quicker being that both wheels are inconel but the nozzle, inducer and bearing type would all favor the Garrett. Pair that with the map that shows it's a turbo designed around lower boost ranges. We are talking two different applications here, with the Garrett being the more street friendly & pump gas version. I guess the Borg takes the cake if we are comparing it to a smaller turbo in a max power/race setting. Today you would make this comparison with the GBC-700-58mm. that would be a good video comparison 2 years later. You're videos are great BTW and it's nice to see such technical content on the Tube.
it compares based on the garrett and Borgwarner POWER and Family application as advertised by the above manufacturers. Size has nothing to do with power output, as you can clearly see by your very question. GBC is a cheap product based on ancient bearing system and housings. The only change was the billet compressor design -- relating to a cheap to build (existing castings and old designs) and maximum profit with a fancy name -
@@TurboDirectSA @ 5:05 you even say in this video "it's not really a fair comparison because the bearing systems are different" because the Borg runs a journal bearing, just like the GBC, and they are similar prices. So it's way more apples to apples. (It's ok to be wrong) If inducer size had nothing to do with power output, it wouldn't be the limit on every set of rules for turbocharger racing classes. The reason it has a impact is non compressed air has a maximum flow limit thru a orifice AREA for a given pressure drop. This is basic physics. So either the guy explaining things in your videos is not the same as who is answering your comments, or you need to hire someone with the technical knowhow to explain things better in the comments.
Exactly right @@bretbauer7582 - the Garrett has the advantage over the Borg being Ball Bearing, and claiming higher HP than the S200, yet it doesnt really compare because the claimed power does not come close to the real life output, and the disadvantaged Borg makes more power at less money with similar spool characteristics. The above example proves the size is irrelevant to HP output, there are hundreds of turbocharger compressors which are different sizes (inducer and exducer) which make more than 20% more/less power output - Rules in drag racing relate to inducer size for one reason, there is no other way to limit the class unless they use a restrictor on the inlet of the compressor like Rally and other forms of circuit racing - then it becomes an engineering placement issue which once again gets alot more technical than most that watch this channel can grasp. Im never arrogant to believe i know everything, but in this case, im not incorrect, and have over 25years of experience to back up my point with facts. Relating to physics, lets delve therein - so lets place two turbochargers (ill keep the models quiet for now - and reveal them to you once you confuse yourself) with two totally different AR compressor housings, BUT with the same inducer dimension (68mm) the smaller AR comp housing is limited in it flow capacity to just over 1000CFM, the other has the flow capacity of 1375CFM - which will produce more power? Keep in mind the INDUCER is identical in size -- blade design is not discussed nor is Exducer dimensions. Let me answer - The larger AR housing will flow more than the smaller AR can - this is obvious, the flow rate (volume only - not pressure --- physics here we come) of the compressors are based on the turbine stage (but you already knew this i would hope) and backpressure (direct effect on the engines VE) in the turbine housing. We cannot assume the turbine stages are the same as these two turbochargers are totally different designs - The larger AR comp housing would naturally in your mind make more power than the smaller AR comp housing, but this is not necessarily true because you have no idea whats going on on the turbine side of these turbochargers. The higher the backpressure on the turbine stage, the less the compressor performs, and vice versa - up to the maximum capacity of the compressor itself. So what does this all mean .... there are way too many criteria for you to claim that one aspect of a compressor wheel design is the be all and end all of a turbochargers ability/limitation.
These are a model mostly found on Volvo and Deutz industrial engines - do you have a part# that i can reference and provide more info to you on? There is no S200G in the latest Borg Catalogue.
@@TurboDirectSA thank you very much for the reply and the offer to find out more about this turbo. I subscribed as a small thank you. The model number on the plate is as follows. S200G 26G11-0375 0450 2805 I know the S200 is a great turbo. I found this G model while searching and wondered if its also a decent version. Thanks again.
@@AshGTE Hey Ash - the turbo in question here is in fact from a Deutz engine TDC2012L6 - 6cyl Diesel making max 155KW @2400RPM - this turbo uses a Billet Aluminium compressor wheel, but with a massive AR turbine housing. This is not suited to a performance application at all - as the compressor is designed to deliver air flow specifically in conjunction with the mated turbine wheel and its housing. Using this setup is going to make power quite late in most 4cyl applications and power will not be much.
@@TurboDirectSA thanks again for the reply. The engine I will be using is a Mercedes OM606. They are a 3.0, 6 cyl turbo diesel. For the power I want a S200SXE or a HX35 is required. Like you mentioned the AR is important and I don't want the power to come in too late. Nothing bigger than .70 on the turbine side is what i've found out. I also can't have a really small AR as that then can damage the engine. I'll check out more of your videos and hopefully I can learn something from them. Thanks,
@@AshGTE Hey Ash, wont work, that engine revs too high for this turbo work properly - if im not mistaken 4800 - 5000RPM is useable, so rather spec a turbo inside of this RPM range and configure it to suit the response curve you want based on the application -
Hi John -- here is a link to the turbo i would recommend using in a twin turbo setup - store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g3076r1-forged-detail They come with the AR63 turbine housing with T3inlet and Vband outlet, but i can machine this into a vabnd inlet aswell.
It all depends on what HP you looking to make. What drivetrain are you running, the EVO has a glass drivetrain (in comparison to the subaru setup) unfortunately. If you have upgraded the drivetrain then the world is your oyster as that opens up MANY options in a wide range of HP band - the EVO motor spools up big turbos nicely!
What HP? If you playing in the 600HP range, and want a bang for your buck (cost effective as possible) The S200SXE is untouchable. If you want Ball bearing - then the 7670 is without a doubt a loaded gun!
Thanks you are the man! Learning so much. I would probably start in the 500hp range and have it tuned to be more mild and reliable. Then at some point would like to leave room to go if I wanted to go closer to 600. What is the big trade off between the 2 turbos you recommended? I know the latter is ball bearing so faster spool I assume?
@@r6blaze Pleasure -- the difference is yes one is journal and the other Ball bearing. They are so closely matched in Power, but the response will be the main differentiating factors - the AR housing options are also very different on the EFR7670 - both will give you 650HP no problem at all, and from around 1.8-2.2bar gauge pressure upwards.
No you are wrong regarding the comparison you made on the min boost. You need to compare to the same efficiency islands. Just because BW doesn't show the islands more than 75% doesn't nessesarily mean that is their peak, but since they are not measured/given you need to compare known efficiency for both compressors, and in this case @75% which the garrett looks to start at 1.48bar and it's normaly due to the smaller compressor wheel
ALL the data from the Borg map is present and displayed, i confirmed this with Borg before i made the video - The response was simple "why would we hide features form plain sight?" No two compressor maps have the same efficiencies, a compressor map is an outline of the compressors capability performed on a test bench like a hot gas stand, then the manufacturer decides what "X" factor to use to multiply the air flow by in order to achieve the P2C ratio cross to the lb/min air flow - no two manufacturers are the same. Each compressor map has different characteristics in both flow and P2C, aswell as surge and choke limits - its not possible to compare compressors based on efficiency numbers in percentages. Thats like trying to compare the 2JZ 6 cylinder engine to a Barra, and TB48 - none of the engines are the same and none of them have the same VE (volumetric efficiency) so comparing one engines VE at 2500RPM against the next engines 3250RPM is totally off the mark and irrelevant in the results it may produce. Each compressor wheel is a different size, different tip height etc - based on the designs of these wheels and their differences, the "spec sheet" (compressor map) will differ in all aspects. IF HOWEVER you had to wheels that were identical in inducer, exducer, number of blades and tip height aswell as root dimensions, that would be a different story altogether. At the end of the day the Borg wheel produces more power with a lower efficiency than the Garrett does - the Borg map doesn't fall away with boost above 1.4-1.6bar, The Borg map is wider and reaches the claimed lb/min demarkations ..... The Garrett wheel is lacking due to its smaller size, and the fact that the compressor maps flow axis is multiplied by more than X10 (go research this factor and you will understand)
@@TurboDirectSA don't get me wrong, yes i agree with you and in fact i was only considering an EFR upgrade before garrett released the G series, i just don't agree that you used different efficiency islands for that point you made. Either way that doesn't matter in practice because it's unlikely that an engine will hit that point; the only way is if you took actual measurements and plotted the line of where a particular engine operates; then it's possible to do a better comparison. The only sure thing i can say for the garrett's from experience it's that they are pretty reliable. In fact i'm still using the trusty GT2871r 52trim i bought years ago new 😂
@@St0RM33 Ofcourse its possible to compare efficiency islands - you compare them based on the specification of each - the same way you compare different vehicles - they dont have to have the same size wheels or engine, or make the same power - thats the very reason i do these comparisons, to show the difference in the designs, maps and what you can expect from the turbocharger in comparison with eachother - Facts dont lie - and the issue that i think you referring to is that the Borg reaches its maximum efficiency (irrelevant what the number or % is) before Garrett and it has a wider map, and taller map, relating to specific characteristics. Noone said that Garrett is not reliable - we are a Master Distributor for Garrett and we have more than 20 years experience with the brand - ofcourse they are reliable - BUT in comparison when standing the Borg Bearing cartridge next to the Garrett unit for example - there are differences which are obvious to the eye and reliability compared is obvious. They are both great turbos, but there are big differences and one is better than the other - it is what it is.
Saying ignore the efficiency of the island on the compressor map is incorrect. If you look at the equivalent efficiency island on the garrett map it starts at a lower boost level and sooner than the borg warner. The statement about Garrett taking the angled flow to the wastegate valve design from borg warner is also incorrect. Have a look at a Garrett GT2052 for 1 example and have a look at the wastegate flow path, and then look at when that turbo was designed by Garrett. Turbo speed sensor o-ring potential for leaks again is mute point as the compressor covers are sealed to the center cartridge with an o-ring as well. End users have more potential of damaging their turbo compressor cover or compressor wheels and causing leaks by finish drilling the hole incorrectly than it is for a direct drop in speed sensor without the need for drilling. All that being said, I can agree with majority of what else was mentioned in the video and both turbos are great units.
I have to disagree, the maps are clear. The maximum efficiency island on the Borg S200SXE starts sooner than all the Garrett counterparts that operate in the same HP range. The gas path diversion on the GT2052 is not angle into a seperate chamber , it uses the identical design as the GT2860R and GT2871R and GT3071R etc -- the inlet volute is a single opening, and there is a swing vlave port lying flat on the side of the housing wall, well inside the volute entry - we flow these with a pneumatic grinder all the time on the RB26DETT twins. The gas is not divided by a separate chamber BEFORE the volute starts. The same design was incorporated by BorgWarner in the 60's on some of the porsche and industrial applications. Garrett did not upgrade the performance gas path deviation until the latest (2019/2020) internally gated G25 turbine housing, which i might add they had serious quality problems with which caused massive delays (from the horses mouth) as a result, which i believe i also touched on in the video -- care to comment on this? O-rings in this case are not made form VITON, they are rubber - over time with constant high and low heat cycles, i can assure you that the O-ring WILL perish - you will start seeing leaks. I agree that it is possible and probable to drop a catch while drilling the comp housing on the EFR - thats why in 99% of all builds there is a fabricator or shop doing the install - which negates the probability of mistakes in drilling the housing. Thanks for the comments - its great to converse with people about these facts.
@@TurboDirectSA The BW S200SXE max efficiency is only 75% and it starts at 1.7PR on the compressor map. The G25-660 75% efficiency map starts around 1.4PR... Next you are comparing maxxing out a turbocharger to its flow limit in accordance with the compressor map, where many people size their turbocharger differently. The more efficient a turbo the easier it will make power due to not putting heat into the boost charge, so ignoring that the Garretts are advertised "more efficient" than BW is making it seem this video was made to lean to be biased to BW. Most of off shelf garrett turbochargers has a 90 diversion to their wastegate flapper valve yes but also Garrett also made plenty of OEM turbochargers where the flow to the wastegate is prioritized and it can be seen by the angle of the wastegate valve on the turbo exit area so like I said to say Garrett copied it from BW EFR range on their G series would be incorrect. All these wastegate ideas and designs are to simply provide wastegate flow priority will help with overboosting and achieving a nice accurate boost curve, nothing more, nothing less. Does anyone experience boost control issues with the new G series IWG design? Quality control issues used to haunt BW in their initial EFR series which you didn't mention in your above comment (documented all over the interweb and also had teams who did experience it as well). BWs are very delicate to overspeeding so maxxing out a BW to the end of its compressor map where you are playing with its max recommended compressor tip speed will cause your turbo to shit itself quite quick. Again many have been there and done that. This is where the turbo speed is something someone should always run and have incorporated in their boost control parameters for turbo control if you want to be playing around the end of the compressor map. This is one of the reasons why you dont see much BW turbos in harsh environments like Rallycross or WRC even on Manufacturer team cars who used BW turbos exclusively on their road going cars but will change over to Garrett's stuff for the harsh motorsport usage. (Ask me how I know?) The Viton seal is necessary because of it being in close contact and proximity to the CHRA. The compressor cover area where the turbo speed sensor will be located Garrett probably tested and realized it may not need such a seal and a quality o-ring should suffice.... Even in a worse case scenario, as a manufacturer I would rather be selling seals than having a bunch of people out there finish drilling the turbo speed hole incorrectly and cause damage to the housing or wheel of the compressor. Not everyone has a machinest or a shop to do their work and BW has it advertised as to simple finish drill the hole and deburr it. With this said, hope you know this is not an argument by me or am I bashing your video, as I like these sort of technical explanations as alot of people fail to understand these things and I'm tired of having to explain when I can simply just send them a video, but the bits where my opinion differentiate I was interested in commenting. I'm in no way connected to and sponsored or biased to Garrett. I can agree with the new Garrett stuff not being impressive for their pricing. They just released a new GBC series for the small journal bearing stuff and for a turbocharger released in 2021 they aren't impressive at all. And at the speed they rolled out new turbo series one behind the other also had me wondering if they are just releasing products onto the market to make it seem like they are trying to use product release recency as a way to try to win the aftermarket
@@KiG1208 Thanks for the long message - ill respond to all your points with a factual side by side comparison video for you next week - you will see that there is no bias at all - and only facts. As you obviously heard me say both are great products, BUT the facts remain as i mentioned. Keep a look out for the next video - ill delve deeper into the gas diversion path and internal gates between BW and Garrett - Ill go more into the Maps and explain a little more about efficiencies so you can understand clearly - you seem to have missed the point i was trying to make, so ill explain it in more detail. As mentioned, i went over the obvious and "in your face" features on the maps - What ill do is use a specific engine and plot onto the compressor map for you so you can understand my thinking process and explanation methodology.
@TurboDirect S.A will look out for the video 👍🏽... Just remember different engines will show that each unit may be a better choice, and the choice will be down to engine, so use more than one engine example
Fantastic, civil discussion, gents (?). Very rare thing for a RUclips comment section these days. Looking forward to the video on gas diversion paths and compressor map efficiencies.
@@TurboDirectSA we had an EFR 6758 on a 1.4L engine producing 520hp on axles. Installed a 7163, but the .85 ar exhaust housing is definitely too big for 1.4L. My question is now: would the G25-660 with ar .49 put down a similar result like the efr 6758 with ar .64 ? or lower because of the smaller exhaust housing?
@@low-budget-racing The Garrett will spool later than the 6758, the turbine wheel is much heavier than the EFR is. The EFR is rated 500HP, but made 520HP. The Garrett is claimed to be capable of 660HP, but wont see this power, it will be closer to 550HP from experience. The 7163 with AR80 T4 Twin scroll turbine housing will spool similarly to the G25-660. With the AR49 housing is similarly sized to the AR64 on the EFR6758. If you looking for more power and happy with the EFR6758, i would upgrade the compressor wheel in the EFR6758 - this will yield the best results.
@@low-budget-racing Pleasure - im not sure which 1.4L engine this is - but how much laggier was the 7163? If you were to increase the rev limit by 500RPM - will this bring the 7163 into its own? I ask this because its actually in reality a true 600HP turbo. With the smaller AR80 housing it should not spool that much later than the EFR6758
The turbo will not reach this power at any rotational speed - the compressor maps confirms this in black and white, yet the printed catalogues claim HP that is simply non existent from the rotating assembly.
@@TurboDirectSA maybe I'm mistaken with this specific wheel, but I have sent many compressor wheels well off into oblivion past their respective maximum rotation, maximum flow, and maximum boost pressure limits as explained on the compressor maps, and they have done more than their claimed maximum rated choke flow and confirmed this with MAF sensor kg/h flow measurements and MAP sensor output. One prime example is the 60 trim 10t mitsubishi wheel found in 335i BMW's..... according to the compressor map that won't do more than around 0.135 M3/s at 2.3 pr which equates to around 600kg/h at 15°c ambient.....but they will do 800kg/h flow at 2 bar on a 1686cc engine on a smaller a/r compressor housing. The Garrett 55 trim 49mm compressor wheel will make more than 220hp as proven on multiple engines even though the compressor map says it can't manage more than 170hp. In my experience if the engine displacement is small enough to push the flow at higher boost pressure then the additional rpm will move more air at the higher than rated maximum pr.....maybe on larger engines where the pr is lower and at the far edge of the choke line then they will choke out, but I've never experienced that personally because I'm focusing primarily on high boost low rpm diesel applications
Talking MHI is a different story altogether. @@diesel-technology5507 -- compressor efficiency and flow capcity has more to do with what is driving it on the turbine side than yuo might think. Trim55 compressors can be driven by T3 shafts (see my other video on how many different T3 shafts exist) and also T4 shafts (of which there are over 15 variants) inside of different AR housings. What you should be marrying up is compressor maps based off of complete turbochargers off the shelf as advetised in the catalogues, not specific individual compressor wheels coupled to a myriad of different possibilities of turbine stages. G30-900 for exmaple will never in its life see 900HP -
@@TurboDirectSA fortunately in the world of variable geometry the a/r of the exhaust side is changing which gives less importance to the exhaust wheel trim, even the inducer is less sensitive to sizing because in a diesel there's basically no meaningful valve overlap and with the lower rpms there's plenty more time for the blow down period so backpressure isn't really a concern in a lot of cases. That being said, a larger turbine wheel is always beneficial because you can spool the thing from as low rpm as a smaller wheel by keeping the a/r lower for longer and getting more energy into the turbine wheel, so there's no real disadvantage to using a larger wheel and still benefit from reduced drive pressure and lower exhaust temps......within reason of course
@@diesel-technology5507No sir - the AR does not change at all - the backpressure in the turbine stage changes inside of a fixed AR cast turbine housing depending on the position of the guide ring and vanes. The very reason that the diesel engine has a much smaller RPM window, proves the efficiency of the VNT design.
@@TurboDirectSA Thanks! Pity, it was kind of neat from a packaging view with everything integrated. Is it that ball bearing turbos has less oil flow so it doesn't cool as good?
@@TurboDirectSA I gathered that. Any recommendations for a turbo with a good integrated wastegate, capable of ~500 hp at 0.8ish bar of boost that don't need water?
@@magnuswennerberg2506 500HP at 0.8bar boost - i doubt you will find a turbo able to provide this in any small, midrange size - no large frame or high-end turbo comes internally gated - not capable of this air flow at that low boost pressure anyway.
Garret now rate their turbos on the possibility of using E85 type fuels which require less air for the same power. That is the reason they are overrated in their naming.
The fuel used will not increase the flow rate of a turbocharger - the compressor map reads totally differently to the claimed HP - this is an overrate by Garrett and an error as in practise the turbos dont make what they claim.
@@TurboDirectSAI'm not saying different fuel flows more air, I am saying that different fuel 'Requires' less air. In this case methanol blends have a much lower air fuel ratio. 200 grams a second of air with petrol makes about 200 KW, but with methanol that same amount of air will net 220KW. Garrett do say "the map depends on what fuel you use" eg they have made it look as good as they can.
@@chippyjohn1 The Calorific value is what you are referring to and has nothing to do with air flow - it has to do with concentration/volume of the combustible in relation to the oxygen provided. Next --- the amount of oxygen will not change for a specific turbo at a specific boost on a specific engine - its the amount of FUEL volume required to achieve the same AFR (e.g stoich) at the same conditions.
Hold it. You do not get to 79 percent efficiency EVER with the turbo on the left diagram. Remember to be more thorough with your comparisons. The Garrett turbo on the right gets 79 percent efficiency at 0.9bar at 32 pounds/hour. The one on the left still languishes at 76 percent efficiency at that same point. Let me guess. The turbo on the left has a plain bearing, turbo on the right has a ball bearing. Be more careful in your analyses. Also, demonstrate your backpressure maps for the same boost pressure. A turbo that puts out 1.5 bar with 3.9 bar of backpressure is not heroic. More, regardless of their marketing hype, how about comparing two same-size turbos with the same bearing system to see how they really compare? Garrett's own Boost Advisor would steer you away from the 600hp-capable turbo if you were looking at one. What does Borg-Warner's Boost Advisor do? Right. Nothing. They don't have one. In their Anschluss to South Africa, they neglected to inform the rest of the world of any of their turbos' capability. IN fact, I will go now and look at the boost maps of an actual 650hp Garrett. Garrett G40-900 in 62mm wheel diameter: 78 percent efficiency at 2 bar boost at 65 lbs/minute of airflow. Check out the boost map yourself. 76 percent efficiency at 2.4 bar boost at 65lbs/minute of airflow. 72 percent efficiency at 3 bar of boost and 70lbs/minute of airflow. Yes, the Garrett is a smaller turbo that gets better spool-up times, but at sea level on a four-valve engine, it does not seem to need 65 pounds/hr of airflow. The higher your altitude, the more pounds of airflow you need, because much of the power is being used to force that turbo to spin up enough to stuff that low-pressure air into the engine. But, the Boost Adviser did NOT have that cute little huffer as a recommendation for a 4.0L 7000 RPM 600hp motor. I will try it for different motors: 3.0L 7000 RPM 600hp: A few 58mm offerings. Now this is where it gets interesting GTX 3576R Gen II 58mm: at 65 pounds per minute, 2bar, 61 percent efficiency. I would not touch this turbo unless my life depended on instantaneous spool-up. At sea level, this thing only claims to need 52.93 pounds of air per minute to get 600hp at 7000 RPM. Are you nowhere near sea level in South Africa? Do you have any coastline nearby? Tell you what. Put a pair of identical-size, identical-bearing, identically-sized turbine turbos on the dynamometer on the exact same engine, like Richard Holdener. THEN measure the BSFC and backpressure of each engine. Show which is the best. Garrett is NOT claiming anything they are not delivering. At 7500 feet of altitude, the turbo may not deliver enough, but how many mountains do you race on in South Africa? A true, side-by-side, same-engine, same-exhaust, same-everything comparison with a Borg Warner and a Garrett of identical sizes with BSFC measurement, EGT and backpressure measurement, would sound less opinionated.
It depends on the application. There are excellent models in both the Garrett and BorgWarner range. For Drift applications and street setups EFR is unbeatable in a specific HP range. For Circuit racing EFR is tops for various reasons. The Garrett Range for an all out high HP Drag application is a great choice (1500HP +) Bolt on replacements for the RB26DETT - Garrett is excellent, but MHI also has a bolt on (journal bearing) which comes into its own with bang for the buck. The VNT setups for the street cars, Garrett is tops for specific bolt on models. You need to understand that Garrett is no longer the leader in turbochargers in terms of technology nor size of the business itself -- BorgWarner has a larger range (more SKU's) than Garrett does, MHI and IHI aswell as Continental are serious contenders in this game and are up and coming in a big way. When considering a turbocharger, it's important to understand the business and the company you are purchasing from. Some interesting info for you - The Designers from Garrett in the "good old days" when Honeywell owned Garrett, was when the Garrett product was at its best in my opinion, the Honeywell aerospace engineers were responsible for the designs of the Gen1 GTX compressor, and this changed the game entirely - those days are gone, Honeywell no longer have a design "finger in the pie", and the products compressor maps and real world results reflect this. The company is in Section11 (business rescue) because when they listed on the NY Stock exchnage December 2018 - the share price was $19.00USD - and fell to under $2.00USD in a littel more than a year -- ask yourself why...... Now the management team will probably try do damage control and say that it was because of an asbestos legal claim ...... At the end of the day noone has made any offers to purchase the companies Debt or rescue them as yet (you would expect one of the other turbocharger Giants like BorgWarner to opt to buy them out?) - The bankruptcy information is what is being communicated internationally by CRG financial LLC - bankruptcy Department -- so it seems that the writing is on the wall with regards to Garrett - who knows, maybe the Chinese will buy them out - something similar to Bosch/Mahle - with their turbo attempts that failed. It's really sad because the once "dream team" at Garrett is no more. The products nowadays are not what they used to be, and the pricing has increased astronomically, which brings into question the viability of the product for the price - you asked for my personal opinion - there you have it.
@@TurboDirectSA Wow that's a lot of info thanks I appreciate it. Another question, if you were going to put a single turbo on a 6th Gen Camaro SS which one would you go with?
@@RaceCarFriends Always keep in mind that a turbo is simply an air pump - the bigger the pump the more air flow and the more HP capability exists in the system (yes together with lag and and and) For me to answer this question, i need to know what HP target you have in mind, aswell as what application the vehicle will be used for - (drift, drag, street, circuit etc) from there its easy to provide you with recommendations that will suit your expectations. Not many tuners, fabricators (at least in South Africa anyway) have the slightest basic knowledge of turbochargers or turbocharger systems, and 99% of them aren't able to understand what you expect from a setup, let alone understand whether or not your expectation is realistic or not.... So let me know more about the project and ill make some suggestions for you from there.
@@TurboDirectSA Got it, well I'll be looking to get 700 WHP out of the Camaro SS with the 6.2L LT1 motor, and it's going to be a street car that I will want to pull hard in the top end, it's also a 6 speed manual.
@@RaceCarFriends you going single or twin turbo setup? Twin will cost you ALOT more - Single gets tricky with the manifold design - ill make suggestions for you with both. IMO twin looks nicer and although costs alot more, is easier from a fabrication point of view. Single on this size motor will require a large pump - something like the Airwerks S300SXE with the largest trim compressor which is an 1100HP capable turbo, yes its "too big" BUT its big enough for the motor to not spool too late and also not to make all the power too early in the RPM range and land up having the power and torque falling away up top. - Benefits are that the turbo will not work very hard to make 700WHP when its capable of producing 1100HP. Less heat, and smaller heat exchanger requirement. Lastly it will cost less. Twins i would opt for two S200SXE unit which will yield a total of 1200-1300HP capable flow. The nice thing is that the two turbos divided on each bank of 3.1litres will spool nicely (use the larger AR1.15 turbine housing) with the twin scroll turbine housing - build a separated manifold and you'll see a STRONG setup with great response starting to produce boost around the 2500-2800RPM range and come into full swing around 3500-3700RPM and will not run out of steam before 5800-6200RPM where the curve will start to level off - at this point if you planning on running higher RPM, you will increase boost around 200RPM before the curve flattens out and increase in increments of around 0.2-0.4bar to lift the curve some. You might need to do this earlier or later depending on the engine mods carried out to the head (valve train, flow increased etc) If its Ball bearing you want - EFR 7670 on either side with the AR83 turbine housing will be a loaded gun! nice thing is that the swing valve diameter on these turbos are really large and will flow anything you throw at them. Hope that helps you buddy
Splitting hairs, too much attention to detail that does nothing to add performance of the product. Casting is good enough for the job it is designed to. But I do agree that the casting feed cutout gould have been finished better.
Paying the money that these products demand is not splitting hairs, once you find porosity in the casting, the only thing that will split/crack is your housing. Casting especially stainless steel must be done properly. In my opinion, when paying this amount of money - the product needs to be top notch - not negotiable, and the Garrett product just is not.
14:50 gonna stop you there to say that the Garrett according to these charts would actually be MORE efficient, since it's highest efficiency island is 79% compared to Borg's 75%. On top of that, if you compare 75% to 75% sections, the Garrett is equally efficient at 0.3 bar lower boost pressure. So unless I'm looking at this graph sideways... Also, this isn't even mentioning the other upsides of it being ball bearing nor the V-band turbine housing mount to the core. Now, onto the rest of the video and I'll edit my comment as I watch. EDIT: Not much to edit. The verbiage used when comparing the 7163 and the 660 was a little biased as the "usable range" and fall off points according to the graph are basically identical (60lb/min starting at roughly 2.5, falling off to 55lb/min at roughly 3.8), but overall a pretty fair video, I suppose. I guess in this case Garrett's numbers are either crank horsepower, or they're actually doing something magical and getting closer to 11HP per lb/min air flow instead of the traditionally accepted 10. Nonetheless, once you consider other design advantages (I haven't checked the prices of any Borgs, though) I think I prefer the Garrett offerings. If the 10hp per lb/min airflow is absolute and Garrett rates high, well... You can always compensate by buying the next size up Garrett and still have an extremely well-made overall design with some extra benefits the Borg seems to forego.
You seem to have missed 14H41 - where he mentions that the turbo comes into its max efficiency -- the SXE reaches its max efficiency sooner than the Garrett does - thats the point. And again at 14H51 he says "for a low boost application ...." maybe you missed that one. at the same P2C i clearly see that the Garrett only reaches 76% but at 23lb/min - the SXE hits its max efficiency at 26lb/min >> 30HP more at this boost level. And its a journal bearing turbo, thats what i call impressive when compared to the latest and greatest from Garrett.
@Siya - you got it spot on sir, you have been taking in the info well my son.... LOL @drunken Hamster - what you neglect to understand is the fact that the 7163 is only rated at 550HP and the 660 is rated at 660HP ,yet facts remain the 7163 had a better useable and longer (P2C range) power band than the 660 does. The 660 does not come close to 66lb/min, when in fact the 7163 exceeds its flow rating by almost 10%. The more you push the garrett the less it flow, the more heat it generates and the more unreliable it becomes. Id suggest you watch the BorgWarner Vs Garrett 2 part videos for more info on the internal structure of the two manufacturers. Garrett's numbers are shy every time, and its printed in black and white, the obvious elephant in the room is "why are Garrett over-rating their turbos?? " Facts are simple - a smaller Borg outperforms a larger Garrett, the Borg outspools the Garrett, The Borg has a larger, and more efficient cooling design surrounding the bearing cartridge, the Borg 's turbine weighs 70% less than the Garrett turbine. The Price for the Borg far outweighs the Garrett in terms of features, value and reliability. Re - your last comment about buying the next size up -- this is an odd way to think of it, becuase the 7163 is already smaller than the Garrett, so buying 2 sizes larger to compete with the 7163 further proves the point about the Borg's far superior product - let alone the additional lag, larger physical size and higher price you will have to accept when buying that 'one size up' .... hhmm
@@siyabandasekho6851 @TurboDirect S.A please outline more on what efficiency actually is. Doesnt the higher the efficiency mean that the turbo is better? Why are the numbers in percentage and how do they calculate this?
Please share a video of this with us - Id love to see this result, as all our testing on many engine sizes and boost levels over 35 - 45psi showed nowhere close to your power output.
No spinning here - just facts. Facts that are visible to the naked eye too - which enforce those same facts even more. Hence the video in the first place.
@@TurboDirectSA Listen to the language used. There is spin there. And the comparison between the turbos islands are not comparing equal efficiencies by saying the BW hits it's "maximum efficiency island" earlier than the Garrett does, while that is true in itself if you compare the BW's 75% efficiency island to the Garrett's 75% efficiency island it tells a very different story, you even say the Garrett is less efficient but to "ignore the number". You choose a twin scroll vs a single scroll, you compare a T4 to a G25, when the BW is larger you say they are "basically the same", you imply the wheel speed sensor on the Garrett is more likely to leak, you imply Garrett copied the routing of the internal wastegate from BW while later admitting that it's really the only way to do it, you say the BW can be clocked anywhere but the Garrett with it's slot adjustable gate mount you say you can "more or less" get the same adjustability as the BW (in my experience the Garret's slots are easier to make small angle adjustments), you call the BW cast "perfect" and the Garrett "sketchy" and "split hairs" while you ignore the casting flash on the BW, you talk about the v-band vs the bolts on the BW and that you can loosen the BW bolts to take off the turbine housing, but with the v-band it's one bolt loosened, you use words like "only" and "just" and "concern" and "shy" and "run out of steam" and "deal breaker" when talking about the Garrett, when you are comparing the maps you show where the Garrett is not hitting the same peaks but don't really talk about how the Garrett is a smaller turbo and isn't intended for the same application with smaller map overall, you talk about the Garrett "losing" power as you go up in boost, but the same is true of the BW it's just higher on the map because they are different sizes, the fact that sizes of your comparison areas are larger on the BW makes sense because it's a larger turbo. And when you talk about price ... you are comparing an older technology journal turbo for mass manufacturers to a brand new small numbers ball bearing turbo ... of course the price point is different. Both turbos and their companies are good, it's just that you are making a direct comparison of two very different products with different markets and seem to be looking for anything you can say against the Garrett.
@@Scoots1994Once again facts and direct apples with apples comparisons are being made - LB for LB of air flow and PSI for PSI on the P2C - efficiency is irrelevant as the rotating assembly match is totally different on both designs and will obviously be different, HOWEVER the flow versus pressure at a specific speed is the comparison here - how efficient the one rotating assembly is compared to the other makes no difference to the resulting air flow and pressure that the air flow is made at. Garrett have overrated their G-series turbochargers by 10-20% and this is clear to see in the printed catalogues where Garrett claim a certain HP and yet the compressor map shows a different story. Contradiction on their own printed media, and proven on different dyno tests in reality too. Im sorry you have been offended by facts in this video, but we dont 'tread lightly' because of someones feelings, we share true facts and side by side details.
@@TurboDirectSA I remember the more detailed comparisons in the training with Chris with weight and turbine designs. No two or three turbos are the same they all have their own designs and flaws and tricks and treats but if they say they make 500hp then the compared 500hp to 500hp turbo is put to the compare test by the master himself. Who cares if one is round or one is square. The advertised power unit is compared to the next ones power in the same category. I wonder if scoots1994 will have much to say when ktm's bike is orange and bmw's is black and because the one bike uses an aluminium frame and the other uses steel, now its not a proper comparison. These videos are the best there are on youtube period.
I'd like to see a comparison within the same efficiency range too. Cause from what I understood then the g25 would be way more efficient.
That 76/70 EFR is a great turbocharger...🏁
Its dynamite - compared to the overrated Garrett G-series.
@@TurboDirectSA agreed 👍
Very, very nice, Chris! I'm happy that you consider compressors map now! It makes comparisons much understandable.
Thanks Buddy
Damn, this is my favourite turbo-related channel. There is no other that gives such priceless information, good comparisons and explainations. Thanks, man you helped me A LOT. I've watched tens of videos and neither gave me the information I got from yours. Keep it up. Thanks again!
Hey Simeon, im happy to hear that, much appreciate the feedback sir.
Well im hooked, next time tell us to bring a pad and pencil...class was in session here. Thanks Professor...im now a little more secure about the 7163.
Haha - pleasure buddy - glad you enjoyed the video. Just remember that when you dealing with BorgWarner, you have nothing to worry about. This company is rock solid, and in fact larger as a corporation than Garrett is. Garrett is bankrupt and in business rescue (Section 11) which worries me personally, because the expertise in designs from Honeywell (who manufacture jet engines and aeronautical designs - which is where the original designs for Garrett came from) are not associated with Garrett anymore. Secondly if they are bankrupt, do they have budget for R&D? Who knows, time will tell.
With EFR and BorgWarner - there is nothing to worry about.
@@TurboDirectSA Ooops, I used to think that Garret is something rockstable, thanks for knowledge, Chris!
@@stanislavaleshin1202 Pleasure sir
@@TurboDirectSA thank you Professor, additional notes taken.
@@1atinlove LOL - pleasure sir
As I said on another video, keep them them coming. The long in depth videos make for great bed watch with tons of useful information.
Thanks again my friend
thank you for this video. I no longer have to give a rudimentary difference anymore thanks to this video
Glad to have helped
A comparison on the G25-550 vs BW equivalent would be awesome as well. Owens also make great turbo chargers.
Another great vid, I've come back again to touch up haha, hope you're doing well, still looking forward to the 1J vids!
I think bang per buck the Airwerks are killer but here's so many variations it's a bit hard to pick the right 1
Thanks for coming back - much appreciated. We doing very well this side. 1JZ vids will come in time..... not sure when, but they on the cards.
Awesome! Thanks for this. Made me finally wrap my head around a compressor map
It seems that i should shoot a video just on the "compressor map" as a whole. The basic intro and then some more information into it - i wasn't aware that so many people were interested in the maps, and that there were so many questions and hunger for the knowledge.
@@TurboDirectSA if you make a video on it ill definitely watch it!
@@emory7467 Watch this space.
Thank you. Lovely to see something objective and honest and something that one agrees with 100% percent.
Pleasure Finn - many opinions out there and little facts. We hold agencies for both brands, but facts are facts, and those who can appreciate and accept this, are true to themselves and their products.
You're welcome Team. Always a pleasure 😎🏁🏁🏁
looking foward to hearing about the new borgwarner sxr line
Great video! and nice for once to see a detailed analyze of compressor map done correctly! Shaft speed lines could also be addressed as well, as it will tell the G-series are not that "punchy". Also nice that some actually are not just reading from the Marketing material and looking through all the BS marketing on lbs ratings these days
Thank for the compliment comments - much appreciated.
I just had to watch it again Great job
Thank you John.
I really like seeing how you delve into looking at compressor maps. I've pored over them for hours. It's actually how i determined WHY my previous turbo wouldn't make any more power at 30psig vs ~26psig and i ended up getting something a bit better. Now i'm looking to get into a BW or newer Garrett, but the BWs seem to be a MUCH bigger package, which may deter me. Unfortunate because they clearly have a better turbine wheel and bearing design. The 8370 and 7670 are just huge compared to a GTX3582r, though.
Sorry i disagree - the 35 in Garrett is IDENTICAL in height to the 8474 Black Series (non gates T/housing) and the 7670 s the same as the 30 family in Garrett (apples with apples) If you take gated housings versus gated option from Garrett, Garrett have a wider actuator bracket compared to Borg ---
@@TurboDirectSA I'm actually looking for a compact package, which seems easy to obtain with a garrett or xona turbo due to turbine housing options. Especially with a manifold mounted gate. I'm not finding much in the way of turbine housing options for similarly sized BW turbos.
@@mitsuturbo IF you use the BOT match app, youll see that the available housings cover all the spool, linear response and power requirements with decent overlap - too many housings complicate things, and some housings on the Garrett side are actually a waste in some applications.
Thank You.
For peak power the Borg and for mid range power gerrett (yes the 79% is smaller than borgs 75%, however, Gerrett has a larger 75%efficiency island) . It looks like I'll be running up the center of the islands at max power with the Gerrett as well as getting my desired early spool, hopeing to better the current "small "hx35/10cm + BD Diverter Valve(5cm below 15psi) 52mm inducer ~1150rpm@20psi only 60% fuel isleft on the table by 2350rpm governor cuts fuel, showed 45whp by 2500rpm down from 173.8 at 1976rpm.
To get more than 400hp of fuel out of my cummins will require a p-pump conversion (cost 2x more than a EFR or G searies )so I'll be working in the mid range flow at peak hp with the smallest T2 family of eather offering.
Just remember that you will ALWAYS fall off the other side of the efficiency island as the engines RPM increases as HP also increases, what you need to watch is the choke limit line - the lines pull inward (power loss) with Garrett, and the claimed HP is not accurate at all.
Garrett...short winded. Borg....long winded, spool it up and hang on. Big single borg on my 6.7 cummins. Obviously smokes a bit (you've seen the charts). Lites like a champion...with proper fuel! Look at a cut away turbo comparison. The construction and detail won't leave you questioning a single thing. BORG WARNER FOR LIFE!!!! Reassurance: Look into the history of both companies.
Thanks Tom - you are 100% correct, Garrett is overrated, and overpriced with their new products, but its a tactic to generate as much cash flow as possible since the bankruptcy. The previous models are proven and excellent products, the G-series is majorly overrated.
But have you tried the g45 1125 or the g45 1350. I think they might out spool the borg Warner. The g45 1125 I think would be the perfect 5.9 turbo and the g45 1350 is a good 6.7 turbo I would love to compare the bg467.7 and the g451125 that’s the money shot
Cannot thanks enough, really loved loved this video. Cannot ask anything more, you are fantastic, real pleasure to listen you and learn!! I also really been surprised, as I thought G series was superior to the EFR even by far. Looking the comparison of compassion map between 7163 and 660, (asked and really thanks for this comparison) I'm stunned from the result. Much higher usable range at maximum power for the efr.
I have a 7163 single scroll on my over 500hp TT mk1 1.8t 20v (82.5mm piston so 1900cc with stock stroke revving to 8000rpm) was seriously thinking to go to a G25, for a faster spooling. Currently spooling ad 3800/4000rpm. With catcams rally profile, thinking G25 would give a much better spool... Now after your video, will keep hold strong my EFR7163.
Wondering how much would be the gain on spool going from single scroll to twin scroll housing and manifold, if any sensitive benefit.
Anyway after your video I understood what a great piece of turbo I have under the bonnet.
Cause at the end is it true I'm going on spool not so soon, but at the same time, is quite fast to reach those rpm, and also thanks to its lights wheel and low inertia it is very fast responding to throttle. There is not just spool timing, much more to appreciate for the EFR.
Cannot THANK YOU ENOUGH for all you teach us, you are unique, lots of people taking about turbos, pretending to teach and explain a lot, but no one not even close to your knowledge !!!
Thanks for the comments, im glad to hear you enjoyed the video - many more will result.
Please watch this video - ruclips.net/video/z_BFLTqstoY/видео.html It discusses exactly what you mention about the housing options ont he EFR7163 -- there is some fallacy surrounding the twin scroll versus open scroll housings - this video will answer your question.
Remember also that the 1800cc engine is a slouch especially with larger turbos - i can tell you that in its current config, it will NOT spool faster with the G25 even with the AR72 turbine option. If however you stroked the engine with the 2.0 steel crank, the spool will be improved substantially with the EFR7163 you currently running.
Both the G25 and EFR use turbine housings from the 28 family, and the AR is close between the two - the lightweight Gamma TI turbine with the EFR weighs less than the G25 does, and the turbine housing volute shape and design is also an improvement over the Garrett, especially the internally gated gas path diversion at he inlet leading to the swing valve.
Thanks again for the comments - its much appreciated, and this is what keeps us going making new videos for you guys out there.
@@TurboDirectSA Whats the EFR equivalent of the G25-660 with 0.92 A/R?
@@zaakirwahab9023 EFR7163 with AR85 Vband housing. This turbo will make the same power as the G25-600 and outspool it by leaps and bounds
@@TurboDirectSA thanks for the info!
thought the EFR 7670 was more in line with the G25-660 flow rate?
@@zaakirwahab9023 Nope - look at the compressor map and you will clearly see that the EFR7163 outflows the G25-660
Great videos , as always! I have watch so many of your videos in the past few days. There was something specific you mentioned in one video and I can’t remember what video it was. But I remember you had turbos on the table vertical spinning them, then you raised the cartridge out of them and spun them again horizontally to show the difference in journal vs DBB bearing. Would greatly appreciate help finding that video
Thanks for the compliment Bodnar. There are so many videos where i spin the rotating assemblies, i would have to sift through all the content and look for this - I would suggest that you check your history and go through the videos on your end in your history on RUclips - this would be the fastest way to find this.
Garrett overrating/overhyping their turbos one way or another seems to be their MO. They also seem to like mismatching relatively giant compressors with relatively tiny turbines (like with the G25-660, GTX3076R, etc), I'm assuming so they can tout their relatively quick spool. It's all very annoying. Despite those things, I have a G25-660 on one of my cars, and I like it a lot (but I'm only making 400 whp). Its smaller packaging is really what made me go with it over an EFR (sometimes 1/2-inch extra clearance in the engine bay is everything). In an ideal world, I would've definitely gone with an EFR7163 though. Oh, and I was also surprised at the lack of proper QA with the G25 steel turbine housing I got. The inner aligning groove on the v-band inlet was slightly off-centered, which is absolutely ridiculous for a $2k USD turbo.
Fully agree with you on the QC with Garrett, and the price is honestly really high for what you get. The compressors used on the Garrett aren't really oversized in relation to the turbine wheel dimensions, but the maps are most certainly inaccurate. Ill be doing another video on the maps and ill reveal some really interesting info on this.
That is what it seems like, but how's spool on your setup with g25-660, and also transient response? I think EFR might be better in response (on off throttle), on paper g25 seems crazy good, better than EFR7163...
@@jutjub22 In reality we have compared the two on the Golf7R platform and seen that the punch response (around 4000-4500RPM and suddenly punching the throttle) the EFR responds much faster, almost as if the engine is normally aspirated. The G-series seems to take some time to come on song. Off throttle outside of boost, and going to full throttle you will wait longer for the G25 to come into boost then the EFR .
@@TurboDirectSA Good info, thanks. Was that with twin scroll? That is exactly what EFR talks about, response that is not seen on dyno. That transient response is very important to me, and makes car feel much better, even if it has less power. I thought g25 would have better response because of the wheel size ... I have 2.0 1.8T stroker (TTE480 on it now), and decided to go for g25-550, but may choose EFR instead. What about spool down low, 2000-3500, between the two?
@@jutjub22 Keep in mind that the turbine wheel diameter might be smaller with the G25 - but the aero design, and weight of the EFR7163 is better (solid back disc) and it weighs less than the Garrett G25 wheel. G25 = 185grams, and the EFR7163 = 174grams
This is what we’ve be waiting for! Thanks for showing all 4!
Pleasure - glad you enjoyed it.
@@TurboDirectSA one bit that imo isnt a fair comparison: you compared max efficiency on the comp map. Would be cool to see the analysis where you compared the borg at max eff 74/75% and the garret at 74% and not at 79% garrets max.
I know you went into a lot of detail! Would love a video on this subject where you rambled on further. This type of content is hard to find! Cheers man!
@@michaellecompte1889 You need to understand that the number in the efficiency is irrelevant when comparing two compressors. Just because one compressor has an efficiency of 79% versus anothers' of 75% does not mean the higher efficiency is making more HP, nor does it mean that it makes this HP sooner or later either. You'll notice that the efficiencies are used for determining the characteristics of the compressor as opposed to its HP outlput. ALL choke limits (or close to the choke) is where the max HP output sits - and the efficiency at this point is low.
@@TurboDirectSA Roger that! It’s the flow that’s making more hp/torque... the efficiency number just tells us that potentially the compressor is building less heat to produce the given pressure and flow correct?
@@michaellecompte1889 Yes you are correct in one aspect. You get the gist of it. :-)
Awesome video David, now I understand compressor maps :D
Absolute perfection. Thanks for these videos, much appreciated. We'll done. 😎🖐👍🏁🏁🏁
Thanks Oom Pete.
Wow! Very very informative! Thank you for these videos.
Glad you enjoying them.
@@TurboDirectSA no, thank you so much! To be honest after watching this. If my Old HKS GT3037S by Garrett needs replacement I will definitely go with the Borg and a custom manifold. Thank you for these informative videos.
Excellent advice guess i won’t be going with G25 .
Glad to help -
The twin scroll really fills in the lower boost ranges with lower speed efficiency. The G25 is more efficient but has a narrower operating area at it's most efficient.
G25 is a total failure if you see how many fail prematurely. They dont perform like thry advertised, they are a big hype turbo with nothing but disappointment once you pay your hefty price for it.
@@pietererasmus7804 No question they are expensive, and I don't like that little 25 housing. I have no idea if they are failing a lot.
@@Scoots1994well they are failing and ALOT
@@pietererasmus7804 Okay. That sucks for their customers. That point wasn't made in the video so it's not really part of the conversation we were having.
I personally think the GTX Gen 1 wheels offer a more usable compressor map for a wider range of engine applications, and also without any surge protection port I've never heard one chirping due to compressor surge even on fast spooling VNT turbochargers
They are really good, we have seen surge on the Gen1 GTX4202 and GTX4294R -- the Gen2 is much better, but the G-series is rubbish compared to other family sizes and HP comparisons from BorgWarner for example.
@@TurboDirectSA yes I have done multiple overlays of the g series compared to airwerks and efr and they are not even close for the same wheel sizes. The GTX-I don't offer as wide of a map as the BW stuff but I think that's because of the surge protection of the housing more than the actual wheel designs, but I could be wrong
Again the mistake about wheel sizes.....@@diesel-technology5507 -- wheel size has nothing to do with it - its the aerodynamic design. Turbo comparisons are done based on claimed air flow (HP output) and not wheel size. If you advertise a 650HP turbocharger, then a fair comparison is the next manufacturers 650HP turbocharger -- its in a HP group that its advertised in, and if you are able to produce say - 720HP from the same physical wheel size, then i guess you have an advantage in bracket racing...... Aero designs.
@@TurboDirectSA well this is why I'm doing it based on the housing a/r and wheel exducer and trim, since when you can't trust the manufacturers claims you have to base it on objective testing and the available information. 11+0 will give a higher available pressure ratio at max flow than a 9+0 with the same wheel size, but the 9+0 can be in a smaller a/r housing and still manage the same max flow rate but at a lower pr... that's the general rule I have come to see on all turbochargers produced by Garrett. I'm doing variable geometry turbochargers and they are always surge limited and require high pressure ratios due to the lower engine rpm and reduced ve of the engine at higher rpm compared to petrol engine equivalents. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, I'm just stating what I have come to find with my own experiences
Here's a perfect example of the lie Garrett sell...
GTX3076 gen 1 - 58 trim 76mm 11+0 max flow approx 64lb/min at 145krpm and 3.25pr
GTX3076 gen 2 - 58 trim 76mm 9+0 max flow approx 66lb/min at 145krpm and 2.75pr
According to Garrett gen 1 will do 640hp but gen 2 will do 750hp 🤣
Is the gen 2 wheel better? Without question, because they shove it in a .60 a/r housing and it still flows more peak than the gen 1 does in a .70 a/r housing and benefits from the improved surge capacity of the smaller a/r housing.
If we take the claimed power to compare wheels like you suggest, then as above gen 1 but gen 2 is supposedly GTX3071 650hp which has 59lb/min peak at 2.75pr and 140krpm shaft speed....not sure how they come up with their claimed hp ratings but they don't seem to be very consistent based on the available graphs. However if the gen2 GTX3071 is spun at 155krpm+ I would expect it to make 65lb/min at 3.25pr or somewhere in that region based on the way the graph is trending. They say max rpm 140krpm but that's no where near 550m/s tip speed
Great content! Very informative.
Glad you enjoying the content.
Nice video
Im using the s257 sxe with a T3 .82 AR single scroll from AGP on my bmw e30 325i with m20b25 engine
It made 481 whp and 64 kg of torque at wheels at 1.75 bar with pump gas and water methanol injection
It boost very fast and keeps the torque and power all the way
Amazing turbo
Glad you happy with the results - they are excellent performers.
max torque at what rpm?
@@laksflaks Close to 4200
@@bmwe-op4jx thats not so bad, thought it was gonna be higher. redline? considered 0.63/0.64 if possible?
@@laksflaks redline its at 6750
on street it starts to build boost at 2800-2900 and at 3500 it pulls hard up to redline
Chris great video. I've got lots to learn.
Question: We have VW, Jetta, mk4, 1.8t (awp), 02m (6 speed). Engine getting forged rods and upgraded exhaust valves and valve springs. We're looking to make 400hp/ftlb at the crank.
Which turbo do you recommend?
Which exhaust manifold?
Usage: street car / daily driver.
Thanks again.
Hey Joe thanks for the comment - see here for a very well suited turbo. turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g3077r-forged-detail
We have many of these running in our country, and with great results. Quick spooling, all the power delivered as per the rated output, dual ball bearing, great price.
Very nice explanation
Thank you
The pressure ratio vs boost explanation is valid only on sea level. Quite good rule of thumb. Once you go little up on elevation it is no longer valid. PR 2 on 900mbar atmosphere is 1.8bar on gauge for example. To have 2bar you need to go approx 2.2 PR. I think garrett maps are quite odd ..to me it looks like it is "limited safe" wheel speed at 165krpm...maybe turbine limited? What do you think? I play with diesels but I found out from my own projects that garretts have quite small turbines related to compressor. I had gtx2863r 0.64ar housing, with 2.5bar imp and 3bar emp. Changed over from 47mm to gt/gtx 29 53mm turbine it spooled 300-400rpm quicker and reduced emp by 0.5bar.
No sir - the pressure ratio explanation used was an example as if we were at the coast - purely because its easier to understand. It works 100% for higher altitudes aswell - BUT you will need to do some maths to convert the losses in P2C for the altitude compensation as you go higher up.
P2C differs with different altitudes, and altitude densities - there is no definite 1 plus 1 equals 2 with this im afraid - density altitude is affected by temperature, humidity, baro pressure, etc etc as a BASIC outline, you can ignore all the above and only use Baro pressure for an idea (not 100% accurate) of the plots on the map.
The speed limits on the rotating assembly are related to the bearing system, not the rotating assembly (SWA and CW) do not exceed this, as the balls will slip, skid and cause massive damage to the ball grooves, cages and eventually destroy the CHRA.
I wasn't sure which was the best video to respond to so I hope this is OK. Honda K24A2 swapped into an MR2, CXRacing journal GT35, currently running 15psi on a T3 log manifold, 38mm WG, currently making 424 to the wheels on pump gas. This is street car that MIGHT see a quarter mile just to get the numbers only, otherwise it lives it's life roll racing.
I've recently purchased a tubular T4 manifold, 60mm WG and I'm torn which turbo to go with. The stock engine is capable of 600+/- on E85, I'll be running a Flex Fuel sensor so I can go back and forth as I desire. I love the cars current power band, I can be doing 3000rpm on the freeway, go WOT and I'm at 15psi by 3300rpm. Most Honda owners seem to love peaky, zero to hero, 5k+ boost...not me. Being that I'm happy with a generic GT35, getting an authentic and/or ball bearing turbo will get better spool, but I'm afraid what I'll be losing due to changing manifold designs.
An S2K owner asked about their car and you'd suggested they stick with their currently installed GTX3582R 1.01ar and install a smaller .83ar housing vs going to a G30 or G35. I don't plan on going built motor like that guy did, but everyone says that...but even then I still don't plan on making it some 1k HP either :-) What do you suggest that'll give me streetable boost while still allowing me for more headroom up top to reach 6-700 tops?
Thanks for the comment. I think you have answered your own question in your outline above. The current setup works for you, and you have mentioned that you currently have a great boost response - why do you want to change it? Simply up the boost on what you currently running to around 2.0bar (hopefully the turbo doesn't let you down being Journal bearing) and see what power you make. IF you happy then you are where you want to be. If say, the turbo lets go or you not making the power you want, then change something - BUT only change one thing at a time. I would then change the turbo ONLY - leave the wasetgate alone.
Install the Gen2 GTX3582R with the same turbine housing AR that you are currently using (to maintain the same boost response you currently have) and this will increase the power expectation. PS:- running such a large wastegate on this setup is only going to create lag. Ill do a video on this soon.
@@TurboDirectSAFor the record, I bought the car already K swapped, tuned, etc. Point being that I don't have ANY experience in turbo selection for what I'm trying to accomplish. But like all fast cars, eventually it becomes slow again, hence my reason for upgrading :-) Not to mention I've seen videos showing K's like to breath and I worry I'm hurting the engine with a log.
I've spoken with my tuner who says I'm currently limited at 425hp due my poorly flowing exhaust manifold, which is why I'm upgrading from a T3 log manifold to a T4 tubular manifold. I've already bought the manifold and WG, I just need the turbo now. I've considered buying a T3 to T4 adapter to reuse my existing turbo, but I'm sure that'd be frowned upon even though such adapters are exist.
I assume I'm going to lose some back pressure/spool time going from a restrictive log manifold to a freer flowing tubular manifold, not to mention boost recocery time between shifts going from a 38mm WG to a 60mm WG. I'm curious what turbo you'd recommend post mani/WG swap that'll allow me to keep my great spool time AND allow me the headroom to increase the HP from 425 to around 600 these engines are known to still be safe at. I don't know if the GT35 tranlates straight over to a G35-900 or if I should consider something like a G30-660 (but then I'm theoretically limited to 660hp) or if I should just do a slight upgrade to a GTX3582R Gen 2 which will supposedly spool better than my current turbo and will still allow me to go past 600hp on the wild chance I do decide to upgrade the engine.
@@M5JamesE39 Before you spend money - why dont you up the boost first and see what happens. Or has the tuner already done this? Keep an eye on the EGTs and Inlet temps as you up the pressure. you should be able to run 20psi safely, depending on the results - id only then consider spending money again. If the motor has a lowered compression, you will not be hurting it at this boost pressure - you would not make the power you are at the boost you are running if the motor wasnt happy -- this may change s the pressure increases, but try it and see.
If you going to change the turbo - i would suggest you consider the EFR8474Black Series - run the internal gate (sell your external) for the same money as the G35 costs.
Watch this part1 video -it shares some good info on the Garrett vs BorgWarner offerings.
ruclips.net/video/amRt0ma8m-0/видео.html
@TurboDirect S.A Sorry, I've edited my post and maybe you didn't see the changes.
I mentioned above the tuner said he stopped at 425 @ 15psi due to the manifold design is basically acting as an EGR valve and he won't push it anymore until I upgrade manifold from the current $160 eBay log it's running now - rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F224324184312
I've already bought a $1200 tubular manifold and $600 Turbosmart 60mmWG, I'm fine selling the WG but I'm not going to continue using the log due to the tuners recommendations and from what I've seen about K's liking to breath. The motor is bone stock w/ stock compression. I also plan on upgrading to a flex fuel system so I can up the power from 425 closer to the 600 mark, so I simply cannot keep using the current restrictive manifold.
@@TurboDirectSA I just looked online and it appears the EFR8474 doesn't come in an undivided T4 flange to match my new manifold so that's out.
garret as usuall making an agessive marketing, i dont even understand what means "660" at g25-600, because even at paper g25 will not produce that power (660)
With 0.92 a/r less than 400hp ...if you want more back pressure ....
@@filipporossifavilli68 actually chinese knock off makes 500bhp with 0.72 AR. Clearly garrett wont make 660bhp, but 580-600 should be possible
@@GK-iw3hi do you know what exhaust back pressure is???
@@filipporossifavilli68 clearly you did not have any experience with those turbochargers...
@GK-iw3hi your answers show your experience when you don't know what reality is you believe anything ... everyone on RUclips has had problems with this turbine with a/r72 and a/r90 maybe because they didn't contact you 🤣🤣🤣🤣if I had met you before I would have saved a lot of money 🤣🤣🤣 if we talk about GTX 3071 then things change ... if you had the ability to read the exhaust graphs you would understand that those powers can only be obtained in your dreams it's useless for you to answer you've already talked too much
Love these videos, very informative and easy to understand!
i have a question if you don't mind answering, I've got a Porsche 930 3.3 and was looking to upgrade my stock turbo, is the 7163 with the ar85 vband good for this engine size? I'm looking for the best response down low without the turbo power completely dying out after 5800rpm (rpm limiter is 7100). my goal is 400-450hp at 1.1 bar
Vazione - the 7163 is way too small, it will surely spool extremely fast but run out of steam around 4500RPM already. The engine is large enough to spool the EFR7670 easily with the AR92 turbine housing and still make power through the entire RPM range. This is my suggestion to you.
@@TurboDirectSA Thank you very much!
I will look more into the 7670. Also been looking at the g35 Garrett, is that any better?
@@vazione5410 Just keep in mind that this turbo maxes out at 650HP - If its more that you need, the 8370 is the next choice.
Real interesting and well explained👍!!! Only one critic if you cou call it that, if you copmare borgwarner that has got max 74% eficienci woud it bee faier that you also took from 74% eficienci the garret turbo and not comparing 74% borg to 79% garret?
Thank you for the comment - this is something that was requested to elaborate on previously, I have made a video on this and i will upload the answer to this tomorrow morning. B Berk had similar comments, the video covers this in some detail. Look out for it tomorrow morning.
I’m looking for a turbo capable of pushing a 1000 HP with a internal waste gate
@@reallife4598 borgwarber EFR8474 black series
I am just stumbling on this video now and what a treat that was! Thank you for going through each of them like that. Super useful to understand the compressor maps like that as well. I'm curious what would happen if twin g25-660s were utilized? on a 2.7/2.8L V6 revving to at least 8k rpm? Would it be more useful going up in size then, instead to a 630-770? or what kind of Borg would you recommend instead? This is on B5 S4 so packaging and real estate is definitely at a premium haha
I wouldnt even consider Garrett - Borg EFR8370 will show a serious output and very streetable spool
@TurboDirectSA ok good to know! I did go down a bit of a turbo rabbit hole and found xona uhf Turbos. I meant to go back on your channel to see if you reviewed them too. Their UHF technology seems to be quite the game changer.
@@SuitedUp2The9s Im not sure there is that much of a difference/improvement with that at all. Weight and Aero design combinations that Borg use seem to have the best results.
I so wanted to go with the S200SXE but here they could not supply for at least 3 weeks...now there's a GTX3582R on the way...
Its a great turbo - you will enjoy it.
@@TurboDirectSA Need to hit you up for one of yours soon...
@@hondatrix Watch this space buddy - something is coming. And when it arrives, its going to change the game!
The ugly part of the garret turbine housing is where the molten metal enters the mold. It would have had a tang there that is cut off. They have not finished it all that well is all.
i am in process of buying a efr 7163 or a g25-660 but in this video you dont have an answer for spool. Wich spools faster on a 2l engine ? and by how much? now i have an old T3/T04E garret and is spools late(1.65bar at 4500rpm) and also fall off at 6500 rpm. And dont know what to chose.Thank you! also very interesting videos i-ve been watching a bunch to understand turbos.
So I’m looking for quick response and around 350hp on a 2jz I picked up a sx200 and added a 51 induction side thinking it would help. But now I’m thinking I was fine with the original setup
Reccomendation for a ca18 , 9.5:1 , e85 , 264/272 hydraulic Cosworth cams , tenth gram balanced cp pistons , spool rods ARP mains and head studs.
Safe for 9000+ rpm.
Would like full boost around 4.5 and climbing til we shut it it off at 9.
S257 enhanced with a t4 split pulse?
Hayden the S200SXE will be a great choice for this engine. Use a separated manifold with a decent collector - you cant go wrong. The turbo will spool around the area you looking for. The other option is the EFR7163 (you should see 550WHP) or the 7670 which will be a loaded gun on this engine.
@@TurboDirectSA i was looking at the efr but I don't know if budget will allow. The widebodies almost finished. (100+ hours moulding fenders , deleting style lines , re shaping spoilers etc)
I'd like to put it back on the road for ten Australian as will then be doable in the next year. It's been years since it was driving last.
Manifold , turbo , gate , injectors and rail are 4-5k AUD and 6+ using the efr. I really think I need the other 5 minimum to do pumps , lines , harness stand alone and a tune.
I'm not going back to nistune. We used to run a custom 3576 in a T2 set up so should spool same or better but actually flow reasonably once the gates opened.
hi . what's is the best turbo ford a Duratec 2.0 ( 145 hp ) . 7000 rpm and 300 hp
@@TheSol115 does that engine rev that high? If so then so be it, if not, I would not increase the rpm limit past stock unless major work is done to the engine. The HP target is very easy to achieve and can be done with a number of different options for turbos. What is the main application for the car? (Street, circuit, drift, rally, drags?)
i forget rod and piston on Duratec .. the use is street dayli and circuit , drag . y need forget crank ?
@@TheSol115 for street applications response is key to an enjoyable ride. You’ll need the smaller AR turbine housing
Gracias
Question “efficiency island”. Are the efficiency actually comparable? You were noting the Garrett’s efficiency island comes in later, but it’s efficiency rating is much higher. Dropping down to a comparable efficiency, it seems the Garrett may come to that point sooner?
Thats always a question posed to us, even in training seminars we offer. The simple answer is "NO" two totally different air pumps are not comparable to oneanother in efficiency, because the designs are totally different, the maps are different, the aerodynamic aspects are nothing the same -- yes the HP output and "family size" are in competition in terms of spool characteristics, and physical size and total air flow (Inside of say 10-15% Claimed) but the efficiencies will never be comparable because of the above.
Change one thing on the turbine wheel and the resulting compressor map changes - e.g the older Garrett GT3071R turbocharger - there are three turbine wheel sizes (i bet many of you didnt know this)
1) 51.78 x 55mm - used with the AR64 GT28 turbine housing
2) 53.78 x 55mm - used with AR86 GT28 turbine housing
3) 55 x 60mm - Used on GTX turbos with the T3 turbine housing range (the exducer was too wide to machine into the GT28 housing - not enough material left to seal against the downpipe 5bolt flange face)
Each of the above turbine wheels will yield totally different spool characteristic (obviously because of the housing AR mostly) but also different power delivery - and youll be surprised at the difference in using these slightly different sizes turbines and the resulting power output.
Its a broad topic and one that will never reach finality due to the complexity of the nature of the turbocharger, and there is only so much information i am able/willing to share on this for specific reasons, but dont let the numerical % number bother you, rather concentrate on where, how big, how wide the efficiency islands are.
Another great video, Chris. Question: Do you have the capability to verify/validate the compressor maps shared by the manufacturers? Are they always accurate and honest?
Yes we do - its ALOT of work on a gas stand, but we can verify this. What we prefer doing is logging data (turbo speed, Boost, and air flow - measure this against HP) to see how/what the turbo is doing. Real world results are what people want anyway.
@WhiteBlurr "ST" Thank you for the comment - ok lets begin with AR. The EFR housing is AR48, the SXE is AR53 - larger yes, but is not intended to yield a performance gain, not on the smaller 71mm and 76mm exducer compressors at least. The SXE housing offers geography savings in packaging rather than performance gains. The SXE cover offers the boost only source, and speed sensor port, without the DV installation. Tight installations - go for the SXE cover --
Ill be testing the differences in these covers in an upcoming video to show the facts surrounding the two on both the EFR7163 and the 7670
@@TurboDirectSA Hi Chris, did you end up testing the difference between the EFR and SXE covers on the7163 and 7670?
@ that we haven’t done - I doubt any difference will shine through at moderate boost levels though.
@@TurboDirectSA I appreciate the swift response, Chris. It would be interesting to know the data, as a number of places state that it improves spool and flow, but it's all anecdotal.
Nice comparison of the efr 7163 and the 660 but what’s about the efficiency? The 74% Island of the 660 is very big and early.
A little more on the efficiencies here:- ruclips.net/video/eNCWNJ-NZj4/видео.html
Hi from Athens Greece!Great video as always!Very informative and beautifully presented!One question if i may,i am searching for a turbo for my forged engine Audi S3 8p and I’m looking for a fast daily,quick spooling one and I’m aiming the 600 hp.Which turbo would you choose?Note that my car is methanol injected with bigger injectors,pump,intercooler,exhaust,intake,well everything that is needed to run that kind of power.Thanks in advance keep up the good work!
Thank you Stamatis for the compliment, i am happy to hear you enjoying the channel content. I would opt for one of our IS38 upgraded ball bearing turbochargers for the power you are looking to make. The IS38-450 made 480HP on our development car see here:- ruclips.net/video/mXeSW9B17bs/видео.html
We have a larger option aswell which will make close to the 600HP output - this turbo is found here:- turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/is38-550-forged-detail
This is available in both longitudinal and transverse options.
@@TurboDirectSA thanks for the immediate response!
@@stamatisvratsalis1480 Pleasure Bro
@@TurboDirectSA How do you put that turbo(is38) on a Audi 8P . Since it is based on the old k03 platform. Do you have a manifold made for this because if so I am interested
@@mikemayers9353 You need to fabricate manifold and related components. Or you can simply install this:- turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/k04-0064-forged-detail
What are your thoughts on using a s200 (sxe252 with .46 a/r agp T3 housing) on an 3.0 Mercedes OM606 vs the larger SX257 with a .63 a/r agp T3 housing when used in a Jeep Cherokee for daily driving? Would the 252 be a bit too small? Would it case any heat issues?
I wouldn't go near the mismatched turbine housing you mentioned - its a GUARANTEED way to kill your turbo. The OM606 revs so high for a diesel, and its a large CID engine, why are you looking for such a small turbine housing? The Turbo choice is fine, for that engine, BUT you could get benefit from a ball bearing turbo in terms of spool, since its a daily driver - also depending on the tranny you going to use, (if auto - lag lag lag) this has a big effect on drive-ability too. This is something i would consider using for this application as a daily driver with an auto gearbox, this will make some decent power on the Diesel OM606, BUT nothing excessive store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g28r-660-forged-detail
Its internally gated and spools fast for the engine choice, and will make power to the top end of your RPM range.
finally, this video helps me understand compressor maps thanks !!!!
What would you recommend for 1jz vvti looking for 600WHP 94 octane
600WHP will be near impossible with 94octane fuel im afraid. In order to make this power, you will have to run some boost, and anything higher than around 1.2bar gauge pressure, you will start finding that 94octane fuel will reach its knock limits. (engine dependant, CR dependant, etc) with the correct fuel you will make this power easily with a number of turbos - which brings me to the next question --
What is the intended application? Is it s a street car? Drift setup? Drag only?
Depending on the application, the choice of turbo will apply. The EFR7670 will make this power, so will the EFR8474 lack Series, and so will a number of other options, BUT they will all respond differently, and the 1JZ is not as able to spool a large turbo up like the 2JZ as an example.
@@TurboDirectSA By the way that's 94 AKI.
It's a street /drift setup
WIth the EFR7670 wouldn't I have to throw a lot of boost at it?
I was thinking EFR8474 as well but just don't know the amount of lag.
Thanks for the replies.
@@Mr.Flintstone Careful on the 1JZ - the 8474 will spool slightly too late for a drift setup - unless you setup the valve train for high revving up to around 8500RPM, youll be able to get away with the 8474 Black series, and stlll have a good "in boost" RPM band in case you fall outside of the speed/gear for the drift.
@@TurboDirectSA what about the g30-900?
@@Mr.Flintstone Over-rated to be honest, The turbo will never sustain 900HP with the small Turbine side, although Garrett advertise this in their HP number but their entirely compressor map is contradictory to it showing it not coming close to the 90lb/min axis.
As an example - In comparison to the EFR7163 BorgWarner claim this to be a 550HP capable turbo, yet the compressor map cuts into the 60lb/min axis which actually relates to a 600HP capable turbo. The 55lb/min line on the EFR7163 covers a massive P2C range aswell - no Garrett map compares at all.
Love these comparison videos!! I wish I would have gone with a better sized turbo for my honda 2 liter b series. Any suggestions on what to run for a more linear power curve versus a big rush of power? Car is a street car with minor circuit racing usage. Currently running a Garrett GTW3476R with a .82 housing on 28psi making 591hp and 450trq but it seems its more suited for drag racing as it has a lil bit of lag.
Thanks for sharing the info - The GTW is very old technology in terms of the Aero designs, and well they work .... but not as well as some other options like the BorgWarner S200SXE and S300SXE designs which are revised and share the latest aero technology as the newest offerings from BorgWarner. If its response you looking for, id suggest the EFR range - on your setup definitely the EFR7670 will give you that kick in the pants that will put a smile on your face every time!
@@TurboDirectSA I really want to go the EFR route but don't want to change my entire manifold setup and wastegate and bov. Is there anything from the Garrett lineup even somewhat close to the EFR 7670. Only need 550hp max. GTX3071R Gen2 fit the bill?
@@warreeeng The 7670 uses the same T3 flange face on the AR83 turbine housing. Its also Vband outlet - which should simplify things for you.
The Garrett GTX3071R Gen2 uses a vband inlet and outlet flange - this will necessitate an entire manifold change. Either EFR or GTX/G-series will involve changing the oil feed line anyway -- you have to change these items no matter which route you choose.
I’m looking for a twin turbo setup for my GTR R35, everyone keeps telling me go with the g30-770 as my goal is 1200whp. But I’ve seen a few times where you have suggested the EFR’s as being superior as far as spool/response/power in comparison to the g series. Which would you recommend for my setup/goal? Thanks in advance!
Thanks for the comment Tony - i would definately not use the G30-770 as the claimed power is not what you will get, keep that in mind. The EFR is a far superior and better spooling product which lives up to the claimed HP ability. The aluminium bearing housing (if this option is chosen) is light years ahead of any G-series turbo. The stock iron bearing housing is also much better than the G-series, with larger cooling ports, larger beating cartridge, and the GAMMA TI turbine wheel is 50%+ lighter than the G-series turbine wheel. The turbos are also properly internally gated with alot of attention to detail in this area -
To achieve 1200HP on the GTR35 is easy to be honest, and we have options for this aswell - have you considered this as yet another option? store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g3076r1-forged-detail
These turbos will outflow the G-series turbo and spool much quicker when used with this turbine housing:- store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/ss3079vband-detail
please tell me what is the weight of the hot wheel on the Borg Warner s200sxe (7670) and g25-660?
G25 is smaller but weighs more by almost 30% I have weighed these previously and cant remember the actual weight in gramms, but i do remember that the Garrett weight is around 30% heavier -
Big four-cylinder diesel engines by Detroit intentionally combine two exhaust pulses only separated by 180 degrees on the same side of the twin-scroll turbo.
For naturally-aspirated engines, separating exhaust pulses by an exactly even number of degrees is the WIN.
For a turbo engine, they thrive on exaggerated pulsation to get them off the bottom of the boost curve ASAP.
Most people in the industry to NOT KNOW THIS. If you combine even 360-degree-opposite pulses on each side of a twin-scroll turbo, YOU HAVE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT.
FOR A TURBOCHARGED ENGINE AT THE BOTTOM OF ITS BOOST CURVE, PULSATION IS POWER!
Who do you think knows more how to widen the power band of an engine? The multibillion-dollar Detroit Diesel, or Clem Duggins with an Opinion in his garage in Teebakky Chawmp, South Carolina?
Remember that saying. For getting a Turbo engine off the bottom of its boost curve, PULSATION IS POWER.
BTW, I thought that Garrett advertises maximum HP using E85 fuel. You need less air in this case.
Nope - its a measure of air flow, versus speed and boost pressure - the turbo is driven by GAS on a gas bench/stand - it is NOT driven by fuel of any kind. The turbine is excited by ENERGY - not fuel or air flow - believe it or not.
@@TurboDirectSA I know Chris, I meant that for example G25-660 is capable of making only 60lbs of air, that means around 600HP. but Garret claims that it's capable of 660HP. So, I thought that this proporotion - 10lbs/min - 100HP is true only for regular gas. For E85 (ethanol) you need less air for making same power, because of different stoichiometry. Am I wrong?
@@stanislavaleshin1202 Buddy the compressor maps are factual "spec sheets" based on the tests done on the turbocharger as a whole - it is not hing to do with an engine or fuel. Its a simple measurement of the results that a fixed mechanical device can produce based on speed, pressure and flow. Thats why we are able to flow calibrate any VNT turbo with compressed air - its not even flammable.
@@TurboDirectSA Ooooook, but in this case Garret are always very "optimistic" in theirs maps.
@@stanislavaleshin1202 no buddy, Garrett used to be conservative with the maps - under rate them, and when the power reads 100HP - the maps reaches the flow on the axis..... Since Garrett's been given some competition they have changed the maps to over-read. There is no bike or car in South Africa that makes 574KW using the G30-770 however I can show you many that make 480-490KW using the GT3582R (675HP rated) The newer small diameter G-series wheels are just not up to it.
Get my drift ?
Interesting, I am trying to figure out the best "fast road" turbo for N54 (3.0 BMW, pump fuel) to replace stock twins horror. Precision 6262 seems to be the common single turbo used but I'd prefer some newer turbo tech as times have moved on. Looking for same response and power/torque build up to the end of rev range as I had with GT28r on CA18det which I loved (it was kind of rewarding to rev). The idea is for the turbo to not come on boost too hard so it's easier to control on the street. I hate the midrange wall of torque and then tapering off. I came to conclusion that G30-770 would be the best bet but now I need to re-think. Would you be available to help me out? I would happily pay for the consultation to save money long term. Parameters: 3.0 direct injected inline-6, sea level, 98 octane (euro spec), assuming 1.2 bar boost max. 7000 rpm rev limit
Firstly anyone charging you for advise is a rip off. We free with knowledge, as this is something that should be shared in order to grow a sport/community in any sport/recreational hobby or interest. There are many options depending on the HP target you have in mind. shoot me an email to chris@turbodirect.co.za ill gladly advise you from there.
@@TurboDirectSA Excellent, thank you!
@@arnoldmiga5689 Pleasure
Thanks for the extra comparisons, is it possible to have a turbo set up which performs well at sea level and also at high altitude?
Any turbo will perform well at either altitudes, the only issue is that the turbo works harder, and if it gets into the choke limit at altitude as opposed to when its running at the coats (very high altitude density) then you'll notice a difference when the Power is maxed out.
@@TurboDirectSA Once again thank you, love the knowledge and technical know-how you possess! When I'm ready I'll come to you for a turbo on my project.
@@920400706 Thank you Johnny, appreciate the compliment.
Does the S200SXE S252 use the same size compressor housing as the S257 or is it smaller like how the G30 660 is compared to the 770? And is the S200SXE housing smaller than an average to4e housing?
Yes same comp housing. different CNC profiling and compressor wheel. The S200SXE housing is more or less the same physical dimensions as the T04B family AR60 housing. The volute however is measured in AREA CM2 - so not comparable to the AR of the T04 series, BUT i can tell you that it outflows the T04B range by just a little bit.
Does anyone care about weight? Which is heaviest/lightest ? Thank you
The weight with most of these frame size turbochargers are very similar, and not extremely important to most people - when you start working with the larger frame turbochargers this becomes alot more important because the size of the turbochargers are massive with the 2000HP+ setups.
@@TurboDirectSA in your opinion G25-660 is better than EFR? Thanks a lot for information
Definately not - @@burns985 -- the EFR is leagues ahead with materials, spool, output performance and quality. The G-series turbochargers are overrated and do not make close to the claimed, printed power in the Garrett catalogues.
@@TurboDirectSA This is what im searching for months sir! My aim for my S3 2L hillclimb is 450-500hp reliable and responsive as possible. I was always between G25-660 and EFR 6758! Do you suggest me the EFR6758?
EFR7163 with AR80 band turbine housing all the way. @@burns985
Hey Chris, great video! I am planning on adding a turbo to my mercedes 3L n/a M104 Engine. The n/a power is 204hp but the stock block should handle 600hp with lowered compression. I would like to go twinscroll and internal WG... Which turbo do you recommend? Thanks a lot for your answer!
Hey Don - i would consider the EFR7670 with T4 twin scolr AR92 turbine housing. This is internally gated and will see you to more than 600HP - BUT dont push the limits if the block is only able to safely see 600HP - setup to around 480-500HP max - try make sure you have reliability build it. This size engine will spool the turbo up nicely even with the larger AR92 housing.
@@TurboDirectSA thanks man sounds great! To pick a smaller turbo for an even better spool would be beneficial? I just want to know the reason for picking a larger turbo than needed for the target hp output.
@@konradnee844 Yes it would be beneficial, BUT at what cost - to make the power you want (close to 600HP from what i could understand) you will need to push the smaller turbo to near its max all the time, which is not really ideal. So choosing a slightly larger turbo that will still spool fast and make more power than you want to achieve, will result in a setup that runs less boost, less heat and will run easier on the turbocharger itself at the same time == reliability
@@TurboDirectSA perfect, thanks mate!
@@konradnee844 Pleasure buddy
For an evo looking to run 550 ish whp would you recommend an efr 7163 or 7670? Loved the video! Thanks
Remember the EVO 4G63 motor has a massive exhaust flash - thats why you run extremely low ignition advance - this motor spools a large turbo up easily.
I would opt for the EFR7670 without a doubt!
That's what I was thinking too, thank you!
@@NileshBandaranayake Pleasure sir
@@TurboDirectSA What do you mean by exhaust flash? you mean big exhaust ports?
@@St0RM33 No i relate to the energy that the engine produces. Any 4G63 owner/enthusiast/tuner will know what im talking about. The engine has a large flame front which easily drives a larger turbocharger. The ignition advance used on these engines as a result is VERY conservative, at boost levels around 2.0bar you will find many engines running 2deg -5deg of advance even with Ethanol etc.
They say g25 660 but realistically on a Subaru ej25 06 sti it makes 425 wheel torque and about 450-470 wheel hp on e85 ethanol and full spool at 35-3700 rpm depending on load, but this g25660 is a great rally cross turbo for my car.. borg Warner are know for being the toughest turbos. I mean the Cummins guys spray the crap out of them with nitrous… and they live quite awhile
The EFR 7163 will outspool and outperform the gseries garrett By a long shot. We have done side by side comparisons and Garrett lose dismally. The RFR gamma-TI turbine wheels are mixed flow in the 7163 which makes for even better results
Awesome info! Would a g25-660 be a match for a built 2 liter b series vtec 400-550whp, or should I grab the g30-770? 72ar for the 660 or 61ar for the 770?
The Honda engines are high revving - the smaller exducer designs on the G-25 and G-30 will run out of steam up top - i would use the GTX3071R Gen2 or the EFR7163 or EFR7670 for a full power curve across the rev range.
@@TurboDirectSA How about a Nissan CA18DET? Which is basically a 4cyl RB26?
@@St0RM33 Im not following you - where is a CA18 anything similar to the RB26 engine in its design? It uses a totally different crank, cams, valves, head design, bore size, stoke length, block design -- i dont see any similarity on the CA18 and RB26DETT engines at all.
@@TurboDirectSA get a rb26, cut 2 cylinders off, change bore to stroke ratio to more square, and you have a ca18 pretty much. There are lots of similarities, example oil pump design, head design with overhead cams, same port design, and more
@@St0RM33 yeah na , they're not that similar apart from twin cam and Nissan.
Thanks. Watched this video and I learned a thing or two about compressor maps. Might not the best place to ask but will try, I want to upgrade from my K04 to something that still spools like it but has a wider power or torque band. I aim for a 450-500 crank horsepower. Car is a mk6 Edition 35 gti. I know there are other things involved (forging etc) but in terms of turbo, which ones would you recommend from experience? Thanks
Thanks Nelson. The best route for this engine is the EFR7163 without a doubt. The lightweight turbine wheel will spool fast and the turbo makes the 550HP that it claims on its compressor map - in fact we see 550WHP on the Golf7R's with this turbo. The turbo is Ball bearing, dont try push a journal bearing turbo the size of a K04 to make this power, it will break 100% guaranteed.
@@TurboDirectSA Thanks for this. Yes, I don't aim to push k04 beyond it's capabilities ( running around 340bhp with WMI, integrated FDS, Forge Actuator, 3inch turbo back etc).
So for the EFR 7163, twin scroll or single? Larger A/R ?
@@NelsonSakwa Buddy for the HP target you have at the crank - the Twin scroll smaller housing will be more than enough, and you get the benefit of the added spool/response.
@@TurboDirectSA Thank you for taking time to respond and the information. Been of great help . Cheers 👍👍👍👍
@@NelsonSakwa Pleasure Anytime Nelson.
So, are you recommending that the G25-660 be ran between 1.5 bar and 2.5 bar, with the most power happening at 1.5? In my testing so far, it seems like power has been increasing up to at least 1.9-2 bar. That said, I think I'm going to keep all things equal in my map and just test purely what the output differences are from 1.5=2.5. Thanks for putting this review together!
Thanks for the comments, the outline i gave was according to the compressor map, and the point is that the Garrett maps are incorrect in some areas, and certainly do not reflect the real world results. The power we have seen (Depending on the engine and the state of it) the max power is seen around 1.8-2.0bar boost, but the map does not reflect this.
The BorgWarner EFR maps in comparison show something totally different, the maps marries 100% up to the P2C axis and the flow (HP) numbers marry up aswell. Once again there WILL be different results (slightly) depending on the engine and the state of it. (mods, ability to flow, cams, CR etc etc)
Generally the EFR maps are gospel - Garrett ...... not close.
@@TurboDirectSA Thanks for the response. I'm currently running mine to about 2 bar. It seemed to continue making power up until that point, but I'm changing fuel and timing and have done about 20+ pulls before I ran that much boost. Now I'm dialing in the flex tune. After I get the flex tune safe, I'll probably experiment with running a touch more and a touch less boost to see what the exact result is. Appreciate all these detailed videos you produce!
@@craigebaker1 Thanks alot - keep up posted. Will be nice to hear back from you.
What would you recommend for a gen2 3sgte for around 450hp
BorgWarner EFR7163 is a perfect choice for extremely fast spool and will make that power easily! We have another range which is a direct service replacement for the Garrett lineup - its our own TurboDirect S.A series of turbos. I would suggest using this:- turbodirect.co.za/store/index.php/shop/turbochargers/turbocharger-turbodirect-s-a/gt3071rforgedturbochargergt3071rt3ar63-vbandantigen1560hp-5809-detail
I dont understand why you compared the PTC ratios of the 7163 and g25-660 at different flow rates? What does the advertised horsepower matter? When comparing at 55lbs per min on both turbos, it would seem to me that the Garrett has a wider spread from pressure ratio 1.9 to 3.8, a ratio of 1.9. As well has having more efficiency and smaller wheels to do the same job, wouldnt it spool faster and have better transient reponse over the EFR as well?
Thanks for commenting - the reason is to show the difference between the two offerings. These two turbos are NOT apples with apples when it comes to the bearing system, BUT they both claim 650ish HP output - however the Garrett falls shy of this by plenty! The Borg being journal bearing, has a much better and more usable map/range.
At Max power offering (Borg 650HP - 65lb/min, and Garrett 60lb/min) the Borg can be run at different boost levels (P2C) which the Garrett cannot hold against, not in power/flow rate nor in the range (P2C) Advertised HP matters when choosing a turbo for a specific application, if i want to build a drag specific application to run a specific 1/4mil time or to compete in a class of racing where HP is a controlled factor, or want to achieve a specific time down the strip, i would need a specific turbo to suit.
The compressor map is KEY in matching a turbo to an engine for a specific application, based on the specific engine configuration (cams, valves, VE etc) Without a Map (which shows you flow = HP, aswell as boost pressure and speed) you shooting in the dark. HP in my video shows two turbos that can be compared to eachother, and the specifications of each relate --- two turbos in the "same" HP range -- compared.
Not at all - Garrett does not come close to the width of the map compared to the Borg, the Garrett map does not come close to the HP output (width of the map) compared to the Borg, it falls shy by 60HP compared to what Garrett claim it makes (false claims)
At the point where the maps reach their max flow rates (right hand side of the map - choke limit) the Borg stays there for 1.2bar range of P2C - ruclips.net/video/aXqkRCKvwoc/видео.html and the Garrett holds its max power for alot less "range"
Remember this is not an EFR (which is ball bearing) this is a S200SXE - journal bearing turbo. Now response is provided by many aspects .... 1) turbine housing AR 2) turbine housing design (twin scroll...... 3) turbo match to engine ...... hense this video in the first place. 4) manifold design to suit the turbine housing setup.
I would bet that these turbo turbos would spool very similarly, even though the Gseries is a ball bearing turbo, because of the great design turbine housing from Borg, aswell as the fact that the Borg comes into its max efficiency island sooner than the Garrett does - BUT this would have to be proven on a dyno.
The Garrett hit 75% efficiency right around 0.4 bar which is comparable or slightly better that the BW. Is comparing 75% to 79% efficiency islands really a fair comparison? Not trying to be sarcastic, real question, I don't know the answer.
Heres another way of looking at it - Efficiency is in essence a measure of how much work the compressor is doing for a certain input effort. The Borg rotating assemblies achieve their specific efficiencies at much lower RPM, therefore less work required to achieve the result -
If you compare the flow rates at the same P2C ratios, Borg shines through taking into consideration the rotating assemblies speed.
@@TurboDirectSA Thank you for the response. The more I think I understand, the more I realize I have a lot more to learn.
@@briancorrigan5350 Apologies for the confusion pal -- it is unfortunately a very technical topic.
What turbo would you recommend for a k24a2 engine in the euro accord /American Acura TSX if im looking for 500-600 crank HP? Mainly street driving with some track time. Im looking for a really responsive turbo. Thinking G30-770 .83ar. Or would there be a better option? Thanks!
The G30 series seem to fall off up top according to the compressor map, and the Honda being a high revving engine, will produce a lumpy power and torque curve with all the fun in the mid range RPM and then everything will fall away up top. I would go for a turbo that is able to hold its flow as the engines demand in higher RPM increases. The EFR7670 will suit this engine much better than the G30 will. The 7670 will also make the power you require easily and then some. The AR of the turbine housing is 0.83 and the internal swing valve measures 42mm which is a serious wastegate control.
@@TurboDirectSA awesome! Thank you so much for your knowledge and advice! Ill go with an EFR7670 .83ar per your recommendation. Great informative video. Keep up the content! Subbed.
@@thangcacdi Pleasure - glad to help. Please keep us posted on the project, would be great to post this info up for others to witness and learn from.
The difference between 74% and 79% efficiency is MASSIVE for a compressor. It seems very misleading to compare the point when two turbos reach peak efficiency if one is so much less efficient at its peak.
Would you recommend running those efrs beyond(below) their 58% efficiency mark? Can you please explain why Garrett maps end below a certain efficiency and borg maps just have a line falling away?
The line that falls away is situated on the choke limit of the map, the turbo will never get there. Its like plotting data outside of the surge limit on the left side of the map - the turbo simply will never operate there - ever.
Let me play devils advocate here, ill ask you 3 questions the same questions i asked in the other comment which has been deleted.
1) What exactly does efficiency mean on the compressor map?
2) Does efficiency affect the HP output?
3) What is it about efficiency on a compressor map that you consider and apply to matching a turbo to your build?
99% of people have this wrong, and once you answer these questions, i believe you might be surprised.
@@TurboDirectSAThe efficiency is all about heat generation. If I'm running a race car, I can upgrade my intercooler or swap to water to air and it wouldn't be a big deal. My street car already fills the available space with its intercooler.
My point was, if you're going to mark the pressure ratio where turbo A hits 74% efficiency, how hard would it be to mark the point where turbo B hits 74% efficiency?
And my other point you agreed with. Nobody is pushing the absolute limit of the compressor as published. Pick a limit that's actually reasonable and treat the two maps the same. There seems to be no equivalency.
@@bberk1286 :-) you side stepped the questions, answer them and ill show you how little the efficiency % number plays a part in compressor choice (its not even a contributor) - and instead it plays a more important part (irrelevant to the number in %) in response, power delivery and ill show you how unrelated it is to outright HP/Flow - but more importantly how it directly affects the expected dyno curve based on the shape, position (not the % number) and dimensions of the island.
Let me elaborate a little more -- When choosing a turbocharger match to an engine you need to consider how much HP the turbo is capable of and will that meet your design parameters?
When will the turbo come into boost, and will this be a match for the application of the vehicle (Drift, drag, topend runs, rock crawling etc)
Efficiency does not play a part in the basic turbocharger choice while using/referencing a compressor map. In fact youll be surprised how little efficiency affects (Directly) the HP output of a said compressor wheel.
@@TurboDirectSA So lets say in an impossible hypothetical that Garrett waves a magic wand and the presented turbo is exactly the same in every regard, but the compressor efficiency plateaus at 74%. The 74% island is the same as it already was, but islands within it vanish. You're telling me that's a better turbo?
Why stop there? If 5% efficiency doesn't matter, wave the wand again and cut it back to the 69% island. We now have a turbo with a peak efficiency island the size of australia. Is that better again? A lot of the shaft's power is now going toward heat, but at least we're in the peak efficiency island for our entire power band.
The compressor maps are based on data, but ultimately they're advertising tools and each company chooses how to present the information. Borg shows their peak flow rate at efficiencies well below 60% which seem extremely unrealistic. Yet you take the compressor map at face value and quote these flow values. You guys obviously know way more than me, am I wrong that that's unrealistic?
I really appreciate your content and this discussion. I'm learning a lot.
@@bberk1286 Answer the questions sir, and ill surprise you. Your perception of efficiency is flawed/incorrect, and im trying to explain it to you.
I don't work on anything hypothetical im afraid -- Hypothetical = lala land (which doesn't exist) Hypothetically i have a turbo that has an efficiency of 4% and produces 12000000HP -- its nothing but nonsense.
Sorry not trying to be sarcastic, but i prefer to work on hard cold facts. Trying to comment on another companies marketing is also speculation and opinion, no facts -- irrelevant and all it does is call for further opinion. I learned one thing in life and its this "Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one" I reserve mine in place of fact.
Lets stick to facts and let me guide you where i am able to, on the efficiency relating to the specific compressor maps you have mentioned above.
Lets start with answers to my questions, the reason i ask these specific questions is so that i can explain fact to you about this topic.
Are there mock turbos (made from plastic) that you can use for mock up before purchasing the real thing? I am here battling between gt3584rs (used at reduce price) and a Borgwarner twin scroll offering to fit in limited space.
Not that i know of - whats the application, i might have info for you.
Not sure how a 54/67 Garrett vs 57.15/76.2 Borg turbo comparison is apples to apples? (3.55 vs 4.0 sq in inducer area roughly or 12% more for the Borg) Why not do this comparison with the G30-770 which is a 58mm inducer? All rule sets that limit turbochargers by physical dimensions use a inducer limit, and the G30-770 provides 72 lbs/min flow compared to the 65 lbs/min here. Let alone if we start looking at the hot side of each turbo you're comparing here, the dual ball bearing G25-660 is much smaller and will spool much quicker being that both wheels are inconel but the nozzle, inducer and bearing type would all favor the Garrett. Pair that with the map that shows it's a turbo designed around lower boost ranges. We are talking two different applications here, with the Garrett being the more street friendly & pump gas version. I guess the Borg takes the cake if we are comparing it to a smaller turbo in a max power/race setting.
Today you would make this comparison with the GBC-700-58mm. that would be a good video comparison 2 years later.
You're videos are great BTW and it's nice to see such technical content on the Tube.
it compares based on the garrett and Borgwarner POWER and Family application as advertised by the above manufacturers. Size has nothing to do with power output, as you can clearly see by your very question.
GBC is a cheap product based on ancient bearing system and housings. The only change was the billet compressor design -- relating to a cheap to build (existing castings and old designs) and maximum profit with a fancy name -
@@TurboDirectSA @ 5:05 you even say in this video "it's not really a fair comparison because the bearing systems are different" because the Borg runs a journal bearing, just like the GBC, and they are similar prices. So it's way more apples to apples. (It's ok to be wrong)
If inducer size had nothing to do with power output, it wouldn't be the limit on every set of rules for turbocharger racing classes. The reason it has a impact is non compressed air has a maximum flow limit thru a orifice AREA for a given pressure drop. This is basic physics.
So either the guy explaining things in your videos is not the same as who is answering your comments, or you need to hire someone with the technical knowhow to explain things better in the comments.
Exactly right @@bretbauer7582 - the Garrett has the advantage over the Borg being Ball Bearing, and claiming higher HP than the S200, yet it doesnt really compare because the claimed power does not come close to the real life output, and the disadvantaged Borg makes more power at less money with similar spool characteristics. The above example proves the size is irrelevant to HP output, there are hundreds of turbocharger compressors which are different sizes (inducer and exducer) which make more than 20% more/less power output -
Rules in drag racing relate to inducer size for one reason, there is no other way to limit the class unless they use a restrictor on the inlet of the compressor like Rally and other forms of circuit racing - then it becomes an engineering placement issue which once again gets alot more technical than most that watch this channel can grasp.
Im never arrogant to believe i know everything, but in this case, im not incorrect, and have over 25years of experience to back up my point with facts.
Relating to physics, lets delve therein - so lets place two turbochargers (ill keep the models quiet for now - and reveal them to you once you confuse yourself) with two totally different AR compressor housings, BUT with the same inducer dimension (68mm) the smaller AR comp housing is limited in it flow capacity to just over 1000CFM, the other has the flow capacity of 1375CFM - which will produce more power?
Keep in mind the INDUCER is identical in size -- blade design is not discussed nor is Exducer dimensions. Let me answer -
The larger AR housing will flow more than the smaller AR can - this is obvious, the flow rate (volume only - not pressure --- physics here we come) of the compressors are based on the turbine stage (but you already knew this i would hope) and backpressure (direct effect on the engines VE) in the turbine housing. We cannot assume the turbine stages are the same as these two turbochargers are totally different designs -
The larger AR comp housing would naturally in your mind make more power than the smaller AR comp housing, but this is not necessarily true because you have no idea whats going on on the turbine side of these turbochargers. The higher the backpressure on the turbine stage, the less the compressor performs, and vice versa - up to the maximum capacity of the compressor itself.
So what does this all mean .... there are way too many criteria for you to claim that one aspect of a compressor wheel design is the be all and end all of a turbochargers ability/limitation.
I want to use borg warner turbo for my a4 b6 1.8T about 400 what turbo should i buy anyone help?
Slight off topic. What is the Borgwarner S200g all about? I can't find any info about it.
These are a model mostly found on Volvo and Deutz industrial engines - do you have a part# that i can reference and provide more info to you on?
There is no S200G in the latest Borg Catalogue.
@@TurboDirectSA thank you very much for the reply and the offer to find out more about this turbo. I subscribed as a small thank you.
The model number on the plate is as follows.
S200G
26G11-0375
0450 2805
I know the S200 is a great turbo. I found this G model while searching and wondered if its also a decent version.
Thanks again.
@@AshGTE Hey Ash - the turbo in question here is in fact from a Deutz engine TDC2012L6 - 6cyl Diesel making max 155KW @2400RPM - this turbo uses a Billet Aluminium compressor wheel, but with a massive AR turbine housing. This is not suited to a performance application at all - as the compressor is designed to deliver air flow specifically in conjunction with the mated turbine wheel and its housing. Using this setup is going to make power quite late in most 4cyl applications and power will not be much.
@@TurboDirectSA thanks again for the reply. The engine I will be using is a Mercedes OM606. They are a 3.0, 6 cyl turbo diesel. For the power I want a S200SXE or a HX35 is required. Like you mentioned the AR is important and I don't want the power to come in too late. Nothing bigger than .70 on the turbine side is what i've found out. I also can't have a really small AR as that then can damage the engine.
I'll check out more of your videos and hopefully I can learn something from them. Thanks,
@@AshGTE Hey Ash, wont work, that engine revs too high for this turbo work properly - if im not mistaken 4800 - 5000RPM is useable, so rather spec a turbo inside of this RPM range and configure it to suit the response curve you want based on the application -
What twin turbos would you suggest for a 3.5 ford 6 cylinder Ecoboost when you're after 700 to 750 rear wheel hp?
Hi John -- here is a link to the turbo i would recommend using in a twin turbo setup - store.turbodirect.co.za/index.php/shop/turbochargers/g3076r1-forged-detail
They come with the AR63 turbine housing with T3inlet and Vband outlet, but i can machine this into a vabnd inlet aswell.
@@TurboDirectSA Thank you I'm gonna look him up
@@TurboDirectSA So each 1 supports 820 horsepower
@@TurboDirectSA Also it looked kind of large for the available space down there in the engine Bay I mean
@@johnhoward6551 Yes thats correct
Help me! What should i get for my 4g63 baby
It all depends on what HP you looking to make. What drivetrain are you running, the EVO has a glass drivetrain (in comparison to the subaru setup) unfortunately. If you have upgraded the drivetrain then the world is your oyster as that opens up MANY options in a wide range of HP band - the EVO motor spools up big turbos nicely!
@@TurboDirectSA Evo 3 AWD
What turbo should I put on my built bottom end SR20 for max reliable horsepower?
What HP? If you playing in the 600HP range, and want a bang for your buck (cost effective as possible) The S200SXE is untouchable. If you want Ball bearing - then the 7670 is without a doubt a loaded gun!
Thanks you are the man! Learning so much. I would probably start in the 500hp range and have it tuned to be more mild and reliable. Then at some point would like to leave room to go if I wanted to go closer to 600. What is the big trade off between the 2 turbos you recommended? I know the latter is ball bearing so faster spool I assume?
Thanks again! For the Nissan sr20det engine mentioned, do you recommend any specific trims to work better with it?
@@r6blaze Pleasure -- the difference is yes one is journal and the other Ball bearing. They are so closely matched in Power, but the response will be the main differentiating factors - the AR housing options are also very different on the EFR7670 - both will give you 650HP no problem at all, and from around 1.8-2.2bar gauge pressure upwards.
@@TurboDirectSA thanks again take care!
BTW, extremely informative video
Thank you John!
No you are wrong regarding the comparison you made on the min boost. You need to compare to the same efficiency islands. Just because BW doesn't show the islands more than 75% doesn't nessesarily mean that is their peak, but since they are not measured/given you need to compare known efficiency for both compressors, and in this case @75% which the garrett looks to start at 1.48bar and it's normaly due to the smaller compressor wheel
ALL the data from the Borg map is present and displayed, i confirmed this with Borg before i made the video - The response was simple "why would we hide features form plain sight?"
No two compressor maps have the same efficiencies, a compressor map is an outline of the compressors capability performed on a test bench like a hot gas stand, then the manufacturer decides what "X" factor to use to multiply the air flow by in order to achieve the P2C ratio cross to the lb/min air flow - no two manufacturers are the same.
Each compressor map has different characteristics in both flow and P2C, aswell as surge and choke limits - its not possible to compare compressors based on efficiency numbers in percentages. Thats like trying to compare the 2JZ 6 cylinder engine to a Barra, and TB48 - none of the engines are the same and none of them have the same VE (volumetric efficiency) so comparing one engines VE at 2500RPM against the next engines 3250RPM is totally off the mark and irrelevant in the results it may produce.
Each compressor wheel is a different size, different tip height etc - based on the designs of these wheels and their differences, the "spec sheet" (compressor map) will differ in all aspects.
IF HOWEVER you had to wheels that were identical in inducer, exducer, number of blades and tip height aswell as root dimensions, that would be a different story altogether.
At the end of the day the Borg wheel produces more power with a lower efficiency than the Garrett does - the Borg map doesn't fall away with boost above 1.4-1.6bar, The Borg map is wider and reaches the claimed lb/min demarkations ..... The Garrett wheel is lacking due to its smaller size, and the fact that the compressor maps flow axis is multiplied by more than X10 (go research this factor and you will understand)
@@TurboDirectSA don't get me wrong, yes i agree with you and in fact i was only considering an EFR upgrade before garrett released the G series, i just don't agree that you used different efficiency islands for that point you made. Either way that doesn't matter in practice because it's unlikely that an engine will hit that point; the only way is if you took actual measurements and plotted the line of where a particular engine operates; then it's possible to do a better comparison. The only sure thing i can say for the garrett's from experience it's that they are pretty reliable. In fact i'm still using the trusty GT2871r 52trim i bought years ago new 😂
@@St0RM33 Ofcourse its possible to compare efficiency islands - you compare them based on the specification of each - the same way you compare different vehicles - they dont have to have the same size wheels or engine, or make the same power - thats the very reason i do these comparisons, to show the difference in the designs, maps and what you can expect from the turbocharger in comparison with eachother - Facts dont lie - and the issue that i think you referring to is that the Borg reaches its maximum efficiency (irrelevant what the number or % is) before Garrett and it has a wider map, and taller map, relating to specific characteristics.
Noone said that Garrett is not reliable - we are a Master Distributor for Garrett and we have more than 20 years experience with the brand - ofcourse they are reliable - BUT in comparison when standing the Borg Bearing cartridge next to the Garrett unit for example - there are differences which are obvious to the eye and reliability compared is obvious. They are both great turbos, but there are big differences and one is better than the other - it is what it is.
Saying ignore the efficiency of the island on the compressor map is incorrect. If you look at the equivalent efficiency island on the garrett map it starts at a lower boost level and sooner than the borg warner.
The statement about Garrett taking the angled flow to the wastegate valve design from borg warner is also incorrect. Have a look at a Garrett GT2052 for 1 example and have a look at the wastegate flow path, and then look at when that turbo was designed by Garrett.
Turbo speed sensor o-ring potential for leaks again is mute point as the compressor covers are sealed to the center cartridge with an o-ring as well. End users have more potential of damaging their turbo compressor cover or compressor wheels and causing leaks by finish drilling the hole incorrectly than it is for a direct drop in speed sensor without the need for drilling.
All that being said, I can agree with majority of what else was mentioned in the video and both turbos are great units.
I have to disagree, the maps are clear. The maximum efficiency island on the Borg S200SXE starts sooner than all the Garrett counterparts that operate in the same HP range. The gas path diversion on the GT2052 is not angle into a seperate chamber , it uses the identical design as the GT2860R and GT2871R and GT3071R etc -- the inlet volute is a single opening, and there is a swing vlave port lying flat on the side of the housing wall, well inside the volute entry - we flow these with a pneumatic grinder all the time on the RB26DETT twins. The gas is not divided by a separate chamber BEFORE the volute starts.
The same design was incorporated by BorgWarner in the 60's on some of the porsche and industrial applications. Garrett did not upgrade the performance gas path deviation until the latest (2019/2020) internally gated G25 turbine housing, which i might add they had serious quality problems with which caused massive delays (from the horses mouth) as a result, which i believe i also touched on in the video -- care to comment on this?
O-rings in this case are not made form VITON, they are rubber - over time with constant high and low heat cycles, i can assure you that the O-ring WILL perish - you will start seeing leaks.
I agree that it is possible and probable to drop a catch while drilling the comp housing on the EFR - thats why in 99% of all builds there is a fabricator or shop doing the install - which negates the probability of mistakes in drilling the housing.
Thanks for the comments - its great to converse with people about these facts.
@@TurboDirectSA The BW S200SXE max efficiency is only 75% and it starts at 1.7PR on the compressor map. The G25-660 75% efficiency map starts around 1.4PR... Next you are comparing maxxing out a turbocharger to its flow limit in accordance with the compressor map, where many people size their turbocharger differently. The more efficient a turbo the easier it will make power due to not putting heat into the boost charge, so ignoring that the Garretts are advertised "more efficient" than BW is making it seem this video was made to lean to be biased to BW.
Most of off shelf garrett turbochargers has a 90 diversion to their wastegate flapper valve yes but also Garrett also made plenty of OEM turbochargers where the flow to the wastegate is prioritized and it can be seen by the angle of the wastegate valve on the turbo exit area so like I said to say Garrett copied it from BW EFR range on their G series would be incorrect. All these wastegate ideas and designs are to simply provide wastegate flow priority will help with overboosting and achieving a nice accurate boost curve, nothing more, nothing less. Does anyone experience boost control issues with the new G series IWG design?
Quality control issues used to haunt BW in their initial EFR series which you didn't mention in your above comment (documented all over the interweb and also had teams who did experience it as well).
BWs are very delicate to overspeeding so maxxing out a BW to the end of its compressor map where you are playing with its max recommended compressor tip speed will cause your turbo to shit itself quite quick. Again many have been there and done that. This is where the turbo speed is something someone should always run and have incorporated in their boost control parameters for turbo control if you want to be playing around the end of the compressor map. This is one of the reasons why you dont see much BW turbos in harsh environments like Rallycross or WRC even on Manufacturer team cars who used BW turbos exclusively on their road going cars but will change over to Garrett's stuff for the harsh motorsport usage. (Ask me how I know?)
The Viton seal is necessary because of it being in close contact and proximity to the CHRA. The compressor cover area where the turbo speed sensor will be located Garrett probably tested and realized it may not need such a seal and a quality o-ring should suffice.... Even in a worse case scenario, as a manufacturer I would rather be selling seals than having a bunch of people out there finish drilling the turbo speed hole incorrectly and cause damage to the housing or wheel of the compressor. Not everyone has a machinest or a shop to do their work and BW has it advertised as to simple finish drill the hole and deburr it.
With this said, hope you know this is not an argument by me or am I bashing your video, as I like these sort of technical explanations as alot of people fail to understand these things and I'm tired of having to explain when I can simply just send them a video, but the bits where my opinion differentiate I was interested in commenting. I'm in no way connected to and sponsored or biased to Garrett.
I can agree with the new Garrett stuff not being impressive for their pricing. They just released a new GBC series for the small journal bearing stuff and for a turbocharger released in 2021 they aren't impressive at all. And at the speed they rolled out new turbo series one behind the other also had me wondering if they are just releasing products onto the market to make it seem like they are trying to use product release recency as a way to try to win the aftermarket
@@KiG1208 Thanks for the long message - ill respond to all your points with a factual side by side comparison video for you next week - you will see that there is no bias at all - and only facts. As you obviously heard me say both are great products, BUT the facts remain as i mentioned.
Keep a look out for the next video - ill delve deeper into the gas diversion path and internal gates between BW and Garrett -
Ill go more into the Maps and explain a little more about efficiencies so you can understand clearly - you seem to have missed the point i was trying to make, so ill explain it in more detail. As mentioned, i went over the obvious and "in your face" features on the maps -
What ill do is use a specific engine and plot onto the compressor map for you so you can understand my thinking process and explanation methodology.
@TurboDirect S.A will look out for the video 👍🏽... Just remember different engines will show that each unit may be a better choice, and the choice will be down to engine, so use more than one engine example
Fantastic, civil discussion, gents (?). Very rare thing for a RUclips comment section these days. Looking forward to the video on gas diversion paths and compressor map efficiencies.
I would be interested in a comparison between EFR 6758 and G25-660? Any experience?
This is not an apples with apples comparison - HP and physical rotating assembly differences aswell as housing Volutes are different families.
@@TurboDirectSA we had an EFR 6758 on a 1.4L engine producing 520hp on axles.
Installed a 7163, but the .85 ar exhaust housing is definitely too big for 1.4L.
My question is now: would the G25-660 with ar .49 put down a similar result like the efr 6758 with ar .64 ? or lower because of the smaller exhaust housing?
@@low-budget-racing The Garrett will spool later than the 6758, the turbine wheel is much heavier than the EFR is. The EFR is rated 500HP, but made 520HP.
The Garrett is claimed to be capable of 660HP, but wont see this power, it will be closer to 550HP from experience. The 7163 with AR80 T4 Twin scroll turbine housing will spool similarly to the G25-660. With the AR49 housing is similarly sized to the AR64 on the EFR6758.
If you looking for more power and happy with the EFR6758, i would upgrade the compressor wheel in the EFR6758 - this will yield the best results.
@@TurboDirectSA thank you for info!! this helps a lot. I think I will go back to the efr6758
@@low-budget-racing Pleasure - im not sure which 1.4L engine this is - but how much laggier was the 7163? If you were to increase the rev limit by 500RPM - will this bring the 7163 into its own? I ask this because its actually in reality a true 600HP turbo. With the smaller AR80 housing it should not spool that much later than the EFR6758
Garrett will claim the turbo will make 660hp but also tell you not to spin it faster than 165krpm 😅
The turbo will not reach this power at any rotational speed - the compressor maps confirms this in black and white, yet the printed catalogues claim HP that is simply non existent from the rotating assembly.
@@TurboDirectSA maybe I'm mistaken with this specific wheel, but I have sent many compressor wheels well off into oblivion past their respective maximum rotation, maximum flow, and maximum boost pressure limits as explained on the compressor maps, and they have done more than their claimed maximum rated choke flow and confirmed this with MAF sensor kg/h flow measurements and MAP sensor output. One prime example is the 60 trim 10t mitsubishi wheel found in 335i BMW's..... according to the compressor map that won't do more than around 0.135 M3/s at 2.3 pr which equates to around 600kg/h at 15°c ambient.....but they will do 800kg/h flow at 2 bar on a 1686cc engine on a smaller a/r compressor housing. The Garrett 55 trim 49mm compressor wheel will make more than 220hp as proven on multiple engines even though the compressor map says it can't manage more than 170hp. In my experience if the engine displacement is small enough to push the flow at higher boost pressure then the additional rpm will move more air at the higher than rated maximum pr.....maybe on larger engines where the pr is lower and at the far edge of the choke line then they will choke out, but I've never experienced that personally because I'm focusing primarily on high boost low rpm diesel applications
Talking MHI is a different story altogether. @@diesel-technology5507 -- compressor efficiency and flow capcity has more to do with what is driving it on the turbine side than yuo might think. Trim55 compressors can be driven by T3 shafts (see my other video on how many different T3 shafts exist) and also T4 shafts (of which there are over 15 variants) inside of different AR housings.
What you should be marrying up is compressor maps based off of complete turbochargers off the shelf as advetised in the catalogues, not specific individual compressor wheels coupled to a myriad of different possibilities of turbine stages. G30-900 for exmaple will never in its life see 900HP -
@@TurboDirectSA fortunately in the world of variable geometry the a/r of the exhaust side is changing which gives less importance to the exhaust wheel trim, even the inducer is less sensitive to sizing because in a diesel there's basically no meaningful valve overlap and with the lower rpms there's plenty more time for the blow down period so backpressure isn't really a concern in a lot of cases. That being said, a larger turbine wheel is always beneficial because you can spool the thing from as low rpm as a smaller wheel by keeping the a/r lower for longer and getting more energy into the turbine wheel, so there's no real disadvantage to using a larger wheel and still benefit from reduced drive pressure and lower exhaust temps......within reason of course
@@diesel-technology5507No sir - the AR does not change at all - the backpressure in the turbine stage changes inside of a fixed AR cast turbine housing depending on the position of the guide ring and vanes. The very reason that the diesel engine has a much smaller RPM window, proves the efficiency of the VNT design.
Would an EFR ball bearing turbo need water for cooling?
Yes it will. Any turbo with water cooling ports must be connected to water.
@@TurboDirectSA Thanks! Pity, it was kind of neat from a packaging view with everything integrated. Is it that ball bearing turbos has less oil flow so it doesn't cool as good?
@@magnuswennerberg2506 ball bearing turbochargers have a lower demand on lubrication volume compared to JB units. They still have to be cooled.
@@TurboDirectSA I gathered that. Any recommendations for a turbo with a good integrated wastegate, capable of ~500 hp at 0.8ish bar of boost that don't need water?
@@magnuswennerberg2506 500HP at 0.8bar boost - i doubt you will find a turbo able to provide this in any small, midrange size - no large frame or high-end turbo comes internally gated - not capable of this air flow at that low boost pressure anyway.
grest video you seem very unbias straight facts
Garret now rate their turbos on the possibility of using E85 type fuels which require less air for the same power. That is the reason they are overrated in their naming.
The fuel used will not increase the flow rate of a turbocharger - the compressor map reads totally differently to the claimed HP - this is an overrate by Garrett and an error as in practise the turbos dont make what they claim.
@@TurboDirectSAI'm not saying different fuel flows more air, I am saying that different fuel 'Requires' less air. In this case methanol blends have a much lower air fuel ratio. 200 grams a second of air with petrol makes about 200 KW, but with methanol that same amount of air will net 220KW. Garrett do say "the map depends on what fuel you use" eg they have made it look as good as they can.
@@chippyjohn1 The Calorific value is what you are referring to and has nothing to do with air flow - it has to do with concentration/volume of the combustible in relation to the oxygen provided.
Next --- the amount of oxygen will not change for a specific turbo at a specific boost on a specific engine - its the amount of FUEL volume required to achieve the same AFR (e.g stoich) at the same conditions.
Hold it. You do not get to 79 percent efficiency EVER with the turbo on the left diagram. Remember to be more thorough with your comparisons. The Garrett turbo on the right gets 79 percent efficiency at 0.9bar at 32 pounds/hour. The one on the left still languishes at 76 percent efficiency at that same point. Let me guess. The turbo on the left has a plain bearing, turbo on the right has a ball bearing.
Be more careful in your analyses.
Also, demonstrate your backpressure maps for the same boost pressure. A turbo that puts out 1.5 bar with 3.9 bar of backpressure is not heroic.
More, regardless of their marketing hype, how about comparing two same-size turbos with the same bearing system to see how they really compare? Garrett's own Boost Advisor would steer you away from the 600hp-capable turbo if you were looking at one. What does Borg-Warner's Boost Advisor do?
Right. Nothing. They don't have one. In their Anschluss to South Africa, they neglected to inform the rest of the world of any of their turbos' capability. IN fact, I will go now and look at the boost maps of an actual 650hp Garrett.
Garrett G40-900 in 62mm wheel diameter:
78 percent efficiency at 2 bar boost at 65 lbs/minute of airflow. Check out the boost map yourself.
76 percent efficiency at 2.4 bar boost at 65lbs/minute of airflow.
72 percent efficiency at 3 bar of boost and 70lbs/minute of airflow.
Yes, the Garrett is a smaller turbo that gets better spool-up times, but at sea level on a four-valve engine, it does not seem to need 65 pounds/hr of airflow. The higher your altitude, the more pounds of airflow you need, because much of the power is being used to force that turbo to spin up enough to stuff that low-pressure air into the engine.
But, the Boost Adviser did NOT have that cute little huffer as a recommendation for a 4.0L 7000 RPM 600hp motor. I will try it for different motors:
3.0L 7000 RPM 600hp: A few 58mm offerings. Now this is where it gets interesting
GTX 3576R Gen II 58mm: at 65 pounds per minute, 2bar, 61 percent efficiency. I would not touch this turbo unless my life depended on instantaneous spool-up. At sea level, this thing only claims to need 52.93 pounds of air per minute to get 600hp at 7000 RPM.
Are you nowhere near sea level in South Africa? Do you have any coastline nearby?
Tell you what. Put a pair of identical-size, identical-bearing, identically-sized turbine turbos on the dynamometer on the exact same engine, like Richard Holdener. THEN measure the BSFC and backpressure of each engine. Show which is the best. Garrett is NOT claiming anything they are not delivering. At 7500 feet of altitude, the turbo may not deliver enough, but how many mountains do you race on in South Africa?
A true, side-by-side, same-engine, same-exhaust, same-everything comparison with a Borg Warner and a Garrett of identical sizes with BSFC measurement, EGT and backpressure measurement, would sound less opinionated.
So which turbo do you prefer overall?
It depends on the application. There are excellent models in both the Garrett and BorgWarner range. For Drift applications and street setups EFR is unbeatable in a specific HP range. For Circuit racing EFR is tops for various reasons. The Garrett Range for an all out high HP Drag application is a great choice (1500HP +) Bolt on replacements for the RB26DETT - Garrett is excellent, but MHI also has a bolt on (journal bearing) which comes into its own with bang for the buck. The VNT setups for the street cars, Garrett is tops for specific bolt on models.
You need to understand that Garrett is no longer the leader in turbochargers in terms of technology nor size of the business itself -- BorgWarner has a larger range (more SKU's) than Garrett does, MHI and IHI aswell as Continental are serious contenders in this game and are up and coming in a big way.
When considering a turbocharger, it's important to understand the business and the company you are purchasing from. Some interesting info for you - The Designers from Garrett in the "good old days" when Honeywell owned Garrett, was when the Garrett product was at its best in my opinion, the Honeywell aerospace engineers were responsible for the designs of the Gen1 GTX compressor, and this changed the game entirely - those days are gone, Honeywell no longer have a design "finger in the pie", and the products compressor maps and real world results reflect this.
The company is in Section11 (business rescue) because when they listed on the NY Stock exchnage December 2018 - the share price was $19.00USD - and fell to under $2.00USD in a littel more than a year -- ask yourself why...... Now the management team will probably try do damage control and say that it was because of an asbestos legal claim ......
At the end of the day noone has made any offers to purchase the companies Debt or rescue them as yet (you would expect one of the other turbocharger Giants like BorgWarner to opt to buy them out?) -
The bankruptcy information is what is being communicated internationally by CRG financial LLC - bankruptcy Department -- so it seems that the writing is on the wall with regards to Garrett - who knows, maybe the Chinese will buy them out - something similar to Bosch/Mahle - with their turbo attempts that failed.
It's really sad because the once "dream team" at Garrett is no more. The products nowadays are not what they used to be, and the pricing has increased astronomically, which brings into question the viability of the product for the price - you asked for my personal opinion - there you have it.
@@TurboDirectSA Wow that's a lot of info thanks I appreciate it. Another question, if you were going to put a single turbo on a 6th Gen Camaro SS which one would you go with?
@@RaceCarFriends Always keep in mind that a turbo is simply an air pump - the bigger the pump the more air flow and the more HP capability exists in the system (yes together with lag and and and)
For me to answer this question, i need to know what HP target you have in mind, aswell as what application the vehicle will be used for - (drift, drag, street, circuit etc) from there its easy to provide you with recommendations that will suit your expectations.
Not many tuners, fabricators (at least in South Africa anyway) have the slightest basic knowledge of turbochargers or turbocharger systems, and 99% of them aren't able to understand what you expect from a setup, let alone understand whether or not your expectation is realistic or not....
So let me know more about the project and ill make some suggestions for you from there.
@@TurboDirectSA Got it, well I'll be looking to get 700 WHP out of the Camaro SS with the 6.2L LT1 motor, and it's going to be a street car that I will want to pull hard in the top end, it's also a 6 speed manual.
@@RaceCarFriends you going single or twin turbo setup? Twin will cost you ALOT more - Single gets tricky with the manifold design - ill make suggestions for you with both. IMO twin looks nicer and although costs alot more, is easier from a fabrication point of view. Single on this size motor will require a large pump - something like the Airwerks S300SXE with the largest trim compressor which is an 1100HP capable turbo, yes its "too big" BUT its big enough for the motor to not spool too late and also not to make all the power too early in the RPM range and land up having the power and torque falling away up top. - Benefits are that the turbo will not work very hard to make 700WHP when its capable of producing 1100HP. Less heat, and smaller heat exchanger requirement. Lastly it will cost less.
Twins i would opt for two S200SXE unit which will yield a total of 1200-1300HP capable flow. The nice thing is that the two turbos divided on each bank of 3.1litres will spool nicely (use the larger AR1.15 turbine housing) with the twin scroll turbine housing - build a separated manifold and you'll see a STRONG setup with great response starting to produce boost around the 2500-2800RPM range and come into full swing around 3500-3700RPM and will not run out of steam before 5800-6200RPM where the curve will start to level off - at this point if you planning on running higher RPM, you will increase boost around 200RPM before the curve flattens out and increase in increments of around 0.2-0.4bar to lift the curve some. You might need to do this earlier or later depending on the engine mods carried out to the head (valve train, flow increased etc)
If its Ball bearing you want - EFR 7670 on either side with the AR83 turbine housing will be a loaded gun! nice thing is that the swing valve diameter on these turbos are really large and will flow anything you throw at them.
Hope that helps you buddy
Splitting hairs, too much attention to detail that does nothing to add performance of the product. Casting is good enough for the job it is designed to. But I do agree that the casting feed cutout gould have been finished better.
Paying the money that these products demand is not splitting hairs, once you find porosity in the casting, the only thing that will split/crack is your housing. Casting especially stainless steel must be done properly.
In my opinion, when paying this amount of money - the product needs to be top notch - not negotiable, and the Garrett product just is not.
G SERIES IS OVERRATED. Kinda like Sony xplodes subwoofer.... 4,000 sub max! But really only a 250rms/ 500wattt max subwoofer lol
LOL havent heard that analogy before, but if you take into account the claimed HP printed in their catalogue, and the compressor map, you are correct.
You should've used S252 for comparison...
Nope its not in the same HP or air flow range - what we compared was correct.
This man has forgotten more about turbo’s than I will ever know. Ha
We learn here every day -- never know everything. Thanks for the compliment.
14:50 gonna stop you there to say that the Garrett according to these charts would actually be MORE efficient, since it's highest efficiency island is 79% compared to Borg's 75%. On top of that, if you compare 75% to 75% sections, the Garrett is equally efficient at 0.3 bar lower boost pressure. So unless I'm looking at this graph sideways...
Also, this isn't even mentioning the other upsides of it being ball bearing nor the V-band turbine housing mount to the core. Now, onto the rest of the video and I'll edit my comment as I watch.
EDIT: Not much to edit. The verbiage used when comparing the 7163 and the 660 was a little biased as the "usable range" and fall off points according to the graph are basically identical (60lb/min starting at roughly 2.5, falling off to 55lb/min at roughly 3.8), but overall a pretty fair video, I suppose. I guess in this case Garrett's numbers are either crank horsepower, or they're actually doing something magical and getting closer to 11HP per lb/min air flow instead of the traditionally accepted 10.
Nonetheless, once you consider other design advantages (I haven't checked the prices of any Borgs, though) I think I prefer the Garrett offerings. If the 10hp per lb/min airflow is absolute and Garrett rates high, well... You can always compensate by buying the next size up Garrett and still have an extremely well-made overall design with some extra benefits the Borg seems to forego.
You seem to have missed 14H41 - where he mentions that the turbo comes into its max efficiency -- the SXE reaches its max efficiency sooner than the Garrett does - thats the point. And again at 14H51 he says "for a low boost application ...." maybe you missed that one. at the same P2C i clearly see that the Garrett only reaches 76% but at 23lb/min - the SXE hits its max efficiency at 26lb/min >> 30HP more at this boost level. And its a journal bearing turbo, thats what i call impressive when compared to the latest and greatest from Garrett.
@Siya - you got it spot on sir, you have been taking in the info well my son.... LOL
@drunken Hamster - what you neglect to understand is the fact that the 7163 is only rated at 550HP and the 660 is rated at 660HP ,yet facts remain the 7163 had a better useable and longer (P2C range) power band than the 660 does. The 660 does not come close to 66lb/min, when in fact the 7163 exceeds its flow rating by almost 10%.
The more you push the garrett the less it flow, the more heat it generates and the more unreliable it becomes. Id suggest you watch the BorgWarner Vs Garrett 2 part videos for more info on the internal structure of the two manufacturers. Garrett's numbers are shy every time, and its printed in black and white, the obvious elephant in the room is "why are Garrett over-rating their turbos?? "
Facts are simple - a smaller Borg outperforms a larger Garrett, the Borg outspools the Garrett, The Borg has a larger, and more efficient cooling design surrounding the bearing cartridge, the Borg 's turbine weighs 70% less than the Garrett turbine. The Price for the Borg far outweighs the Garrett in terms of features, value and reliability.
Re - your last comment about buying the next size up -- this is an odd way to think of it, becuase the 7163 is already smaller than the Garrett, so buying 2 sizes larger to compete with the 7163 further proves the point about the Borg's far superior product - let alone the additional lag, larger physical size and higher price you will have to accept when buying that 'one size up' .... hhmm
@@TurboDirectSA Yes Chris you are a good teacher meneer. Now i feel lekker clever!
@@siyabandasekho6851 @TurboDirect S.A please outline more on what efficiency actually is. Doesnt the higher the efficiency mean that the turbo is better? Why are the numbers in percentage and how do they calculate this?
@@brunopotgieter2016 Dis pressies wat ek wou gevra het!
I made 614whp on 30 psi on civic type r with a g25-660. It had more in it also. That’s more than 660 at the crank. The g25-660 is a good turbo.
Please share a video of this with us - Id love to see this result, as all our testing on many engine sizes and boost levels over 35 - 45psi showed nowhere close to your power output.
Pretty clear the BorgWarner is preferred on this channel. I have no issue with that but the language is full of spin.
No spinning here - just facts. Facts that are visible to the naked eye too - which enforce those same facts even more. Hence the video in the first place.
@@TurboDirectSA Listen to the language used. There is spin there. And the comparison between the turbos islands are not comparing equal efficiencies by saying the BW hits it's "maximum efficiency island" earlier than the Garrett does, while that is true in itself if you compare the BW's 75% efficiency island to the Garrett's 75% efficiency island it tells a very different story, you even say the Garrett is less efficient but to "ignore the number". You choose a twin scroll vs a single scroll, you compare a T4 to a G25, when the BW is larger you say they are "basically the same", you imply the wheel speed sensor on the Garrett is more likely to leak, you imply Garrett copied the routing of the internal wastegate from BW while later admitting that it's really the only way to do it, you say the BW can be clocked anywhere but the Garrett with it's slot adjustable gate mount you say you can "more or less" get the same adjustability as the BW (in my experience the Garret's slots are easier to make small angle adjustments), you call the BW cast "perfect" and the Garrett "sketchy" and "split hairs" while you ignore the casting flash on the BW, you talk about the v-band vs the bolts on the BW and that you can loosen the BW bolts to take off the turbine housing, but with the v-band it's one bolt loosened, you use words like "only" and "just" and "concern" and "shy" and "run out of steam" and "deal breaker" when talking about the Garrett, when you are comparing the maps you show where the Garrett is not hitting the same peaks but don't really talk about how the Garrett is a smaller turbo and isn't intended for the same application with smaller map overall, you talk about the Garrett "losing" power as you go up in boost, but the same is true of the BW it's just higher on the map because they are different sizes, the fact that sizes of your comparison areas are larger on the BW makes sense because it's a larger turbo. And when you talk about price ... you are comparing an older technology journal turbo for mass manufacturers to a brand new small numbers ball bearing turbo ... of course the price point is different.
Both turbos and their companies are good, it's just that you are making a direct comparison of two very different products with different markets and seem to be looking for anything you can say against the Garrett.
@@TurboDirectSATo be clear I still value your channel and that you are doing the comparisons!
@@Scoots1994Once again facts and direct apples with apples comparisons are being made - LB for LB of air flow and PSI for PSI on the P2C - efficiency is irrelevant as the rotating assembly match is totally different on both designs and will obviously be different, HOWEVER the flow versus pressure at a specific speed is the comparison here - how efficient the one rotating assembly is compared to the other makes no difference to the resulting air flow and pressure that the air flow is made at.
Garrett have overrated their G-series turbochargers by 10-20% and this is clear to see in the printed catalogues where Garrett claim a certain HP and yet the compressor map shows a different story. Contradiction on their own printed media, and proven on different dyno tests in reality too.
Im sorry you have been offended by facts in this video, but we dont 'tread lightly' because of someones feelings, we share true facts and side by side details.
@@TurboDirectSA I remember the more detailed comparisons in the training with Chris with weight and turbine designs. No two or three turbos are the same they all have their own designs and flaws and tricks and treats but if they say they make 500hp then the compared 500hp to 500hp turbo is put to the compare test by the master himself. Who cares if one is round or one is square. The advertised power unit is compared to the next ones power in the same category.
I wonder if scoots1994 will have much to say when ktm's bike is orange and bmw's is black and because the one bike uses an aluminium frame and the other uses steel, now its not a proper comparison. These videos are the best there are on youtube period.