[NissTorq]

I think the factory can is pretty lame, and the turbosmart seems to be a solution that I know of

Turbosmart dual stage/port boost can, and turbosmart controller actuator or GFB D-Force, will give you way more control over the spool, plus have ability to tune and monitor boost and EGT if get the EGT kit for D-Force. Needless to say I have the D-Force controller

 

[Electrolyte]

Bob Your choice of .8 T4 flange might be a bit ambitious for a STD 11mm Ti pump even turned up. That combination has not been tested. And i am not sure your adaptor T3/T4 is a divided model.

To be honest and to save you any pain i would highly suggest you stick to the proven open T25 .63 housing. The T4 twin scroll is quite large combined with a T3 small the volume change will loose some pulse which is the stuff we are chasing to get earlier response.

The efr 7163 is a different turbo with mixflow turbine so the 15+% increase in early efficiency and spool will be slightly offset with the volume change going through the adaptor. The 6758 does not have the mixflow turbine so the volume change will hit the lower efficiency wheel a little harder and might be less than the t25 63 combination. If you are prepared to experiment go for it but if you want sure fire results then mate stick to the proven stuff open T25 .63.

Bob, obviously i cannot predict exactly what or how well the .8 twin scroll will work, but we do know you get a bonus from the scroll in the spool area before the mass flow of the turbine gets into its effective area on the turbine map. (flat part of the map)

The 7163 is a bit bigger turbo so will have a bit more flow from the compressor in the mid to top end range. The bottom end could be slightly better but you will need fuel to make this happen. The 6758 which is more than big enough but with the smaller turbine wheel should spool faster with less fuel on the twin scroll. i dont think the 7163 is better but it might produce slightly better results with the mixflow wheel but the bigger flowing 63 wheel might offset this compared to the 58 wheel.

Sadly math will only go so far in this stuff as there are just too many variables with temperature in the exhaust housing and fuelling. Borg warner have a very different approach in design in their turbine housing allowing more wheel flow and trim with a lot less recirc past the smaller clearance nozzle. The supplied PHI turbine maps only give you a idea, like most OEM's they don't supply the efficiency islands across the flow maps making it difficult to calculate actual drive on the wheel.

Bob you dont seem like a guy to complain if things dont work out. I would like to see you have a go at this, but you are a bit far away from me to help tune and any other issues you might have. But the saving grace here is, its not too expensive to buy a T25/.63 housing if it doesn't spool like i expect it too. I can say from math the twin scroll .8 will produce better volumes/torque after the 1800 rpm area and will hold torque a lot longer than the T25 housing. With fuel it will move the horsepower curve higher earlier than the T25 after 2200 rpm until the comp wheel starts to choke.

@OldMav . Sorry, I am a bit of a pedant.
I'm in the process of ordering a 6758 and kepp swinging between the T4 & T25. Reading again many posts, it appears your view of the T4 .80 v T25.64 has changed with experience and time. Is it fair to say that with a full divided manifold you now favour the T4, or have I misunderstood?

@Jjjag2099
The twin scroll by it self on a proper full divided exhaust manifold like the early DTS manifold without the EGR thing in the bottom will actually make the turbine more effective by 10 to 15% compared to the same AR sized single volute housing. So you will see slightly better spool from pulse effect but more you will see more drive which in turn will move your pr point across the compressor map which is more volume, so more importantly more density, so more oxygen for the same silly boost pressure. ( Remember boost is not a measure of how good a turbo is) But to see the full effect of that 10 to 15% we need good swirl flowing heads and all the other induction crap attached to the intake side of the head. For this .80 twin scroll which has a larger volute size than the .64 open volute we are behind the 8 ball for early spool, which gives us a faster higher torque curve. My early testing of a .85 twin scroll on a efr7163 on a STD manifold with the big hole in the bottom spooled slightly slower than the 6758 .64 housing. But still made more torque slightly later in the rpm range for the same IP same fuel. And a bit better with pin adjustments. The efr6758 .80 twin scroll on a STD GU manifold with the big hole spooled the same as the 6758 .64 same pump same fuel, same peak torque but 7 more rwkws at 3800 rpm with 1 extra AFR points and .3 points less EMP:IMP. This next project i am working on is to use a proper full divided manifold to get that extra pulse. So to answer your question yes a QSV like the one pictured above on a proper divided manifold with the .80 twin scroll will generate a lot more early spool and obviously more torque peak in theory. Most QSV are designed for open manifolds so their effect is a lot less due to no pulse. On the other side of the coin if we can charge as much boost as a turbo can generate before camshaft effective rpm point then yes we will see more torque. Holding torque and power in the upper rpm is a issue if EMP gets too far above 1.6 ratio. But then again there are quite a few turbos doing good power with 3 and 4 EMP:IMP at 3800 rpm if facebook crap is anything to go by.

@OldMav . Sorry, I am a bit of a pedant. I'm in the process of ordering a 6758 but keep swinging between the T25 .64 and T4 .8 twin scroll. On reading again many posts, am I right in thinking you have changed your views with time and experience and now favour the T4 for a fully divided manifold? Have I misunderstood. (I sometimes do you know lol).

 

[OldMav]

The EFR series are a bit of an old ball compared to other turbos. They use a very light turbine wheel with old school blade shape design, which means they have a very quick transition and will spool volume quickly so they have a different characteristic to AR turbine size. BW's thinking i can only presume is to compensate for their light titanium composite wheel is by adding a bit more diameter to their turbine wheel with a bit larger trim % to flow more volume so a bit less drive in the lower to mid turbine RPM range so as not to over speed the assembly during spool causing surge or pushing the compressor wheel outside its designed map so it will work on petrol engines like most would expect. When fitted to a diesel we dont have any concerns with lean fuel like petrol, we just add more fuel for more torque and or response.

With that in mind, when sizing a turbo for the TD we can easily send the EFR into mid spool surge loosing density and volume from the compressor. The EFR 6758 T25.64 will easily surge at about 21 to 22 psi in spool with a 12mm IP. Due to the 6x6 compressor wheel and no map extension the comp map is laid over which suggest even in surge or running close to the surge line we still make compressor volume compared to other turbo's. The down side to the .64 housing with a good IP is we end up with a bit more EMP in the upper rpm range which decreases power development on such a light turbine wheel small AR housing.

But for us there are good 12mm injector pumps and very crappy 12mm injector pumps and everything in-between, so more often than not with a good fuel mapped and timing pump these above issues are avoided with a few adjustments to where the fuel comes in and wastegate adjustments usually. On the pumps i like to use and recommend, out of the box they are near perfect for the EFR 6758 at 30 psi and just over 200rwkw's on 33 tyres. With a shim removed and a slight tweak to the star wheel they do the same 200rwkw's on 35 tyres. Its just easier to tune and adjust with the T4 .80 twin scroll housing.

The T4.80 housing being a bit larger will compensate for a crappy pump and absolutely dynamic on a good injector pump with tuning.adjustments. On the dyno there is little difference they both spool about the same with good IP's. Actually swapping turbos same engine and IP, they spool exactly the same and both make the same peak torque at the same point with the same IP. The difference is the T4.80 Will allow a bit more fuel at about 15 psi which can be adjusted on the star wheel to keep 16 AFR all through the spool rpm. This does increase peak torque a bit. In the latter part of the rpm range the T4.80 has a bit more power due to a lower EMP and a bit higher AFR at the end of the rpm range.

In the real world on the road they both perform pretty much the same, But with the above star wheel adjustment the T4 does seem a bit more responsive and does show this with a pocket dyno or timed speed runs. But really you have to have a really good ass to feel the difference with seat of the pants criteria.

Either turbo is a good choice only fools like me will pick the difference with tuning. I simply prefer the T4 for lower EMP values and the T4 just seems to make the TD a bit more free revving above 2500 rpm. i am not a putter putter diesel driver i rev the thing its a square engine so its meant to rev, its not a under square toyota truck engine with OHC to compensate the short comings.

The other bonus using the T3 to T4 adapter being only 10mm thick there is no need to massage the shock tower for the dual port turbosmart boost actuator to fit with clearance.

 

[Electrolyte]

Great response P. I actually ordered a T4 but got a refund as no stock available. They are a bit more costly than the T25. I like the fact the adaptor is thinner as I may end up changing the actuator in time, not for more power, but for better control. I doubt I will change the pump, or need to, as I'm not chasing max KW and Nm. I also don't think high emp is a good thing (goodness knows what it is atm with the HT18 working hard), but also with less fuel than a 12mm IP delivers I wonder if it would be any real issue using the T25. The cost difference could go towards an electronic boost controller (which I could run on the standard BW solenoid, at least at first). Btw, has anyone tried using an afr type boost controller? To me that would make sense.
So, it's pros, cons, and $ as always.

 

[Benny Jahmin]

The EFR series are a bit of an old ball compared to other turbos.

Is there an EFR small enough to suit a 3L CRD?

 

[OldMav]

If you are never going to go 12mm IP i highly suggest you go for the T25.64 single volute housing. The STD 11mm will never put out the fuel required to max spool a EFR6758 .64. Also you would have to be doing a lot wrong to get EMP over 1.2:1 with a 11mm STD or even to get a EFR to suge with a 11mm STD pump.

I have to be a bit careful here as i have a modified 11mm IP on my sons GU ute which will push a lot of fuel or just as much as a 12mm, it can run well over 800Nm and 200rwkw but timing drives me mad so its turned back to be civil on road..It was an experiment with fuel injection duration which was a fail it makes no difference on a IDI engine.

Electronic controller is highly suggested i would get one as soon as you are able it makes a big difference in driveability. I have not used the newer Aeroflow 3 stage controller or the wiz bang Innovate SCG1 controller. But i have read the instructions and a few Vids on tuning and setup. AFR is a nice to have feature but these controllers are aimed at petrol where high boost can lean off your combustion causing catastrophic damage. Our diesel doesn't care about lean we can consistently run well above 100 AFR and will run at 45 to 85 at cruse speeds. If you set this feature up on our diesel it would be cutting boost every time you are at cruse speeds. The wideband sensor can only read about 30 afr anyway. so no point really. I haven't found anywhere in the documentation where you can set cutoff for say 14afr which would be a good thing for diesel safety. lean control is pointless for a diesel. Besides we have a really old school diesels running near zero engine electronics so to be honest it would be pointless really. But the SCG1 seems to have a few features that might give us a bit more control on boost consistency. I would have to trial one to find out. I could use data logging but i have a better data logger in a dynamics dyno with extras.

 

[Jjjag2099]

Here are all the sizes,
Smallest I believe is the 6255

 

[OldMav]

Is there an EFR small enough to suit a 3L CRD?

EFR 6258 but i have never bothered to try or find or make a manifold to suit. Besides there are a number of perfectly good turbo's for the ZD30. Maybe one day i will manufacture a ball bearing Gamma titanium version if i ever need to, but hmmm a BMW M57 just seems way better in std trim and would cost less.

 

[Jjjag2099]

EFR 6258 but i have never bothered to try or find or make a manifold to suit. Besides there are a number of perfectly good turbo's for the ZD30. Maybe one day i will manufacture a ball bearing Gamma titanium version if i ever need to, but hmmm a BMW M57 just seems way better in std trim and would cost less.

That's cheating

 

[Benny Jahmin]

EFR 6258 but i have never bothered to try or find or make a manifold to suit. Besides there are a number of perfectly good turbo's for the ZD30. Maybe one day i will manufacture a ball bearing Gamma titanium version if i ever need to, but hmmm a BMW M57 just seems way better in std trim and would cost less.

EFR 6258 but i have never bothered to try or find or make a manifold to suit. Besides there are a number of perfectly good turbo's for the ZD30. Maybe one day i will manufacture a ball bearing Gamma titanium version if i ever need to, but hmmm a BMW M57 just seems way better in std trim and would cost less.

Have you got an eclipse to suit the 4jj1?

 

[Electrolyte]

If you are never going to go 12mm IP i highly suggest you go for the T25.64 single volute housing. The STD 11mm will never put out the fuel required to max spool a EFR6758 .64. Also you would have to be doing a lot wrong to get EMP over 1.2:1 with a 11mm STD or even to get a EFR to suge with a 11mm STD pump.

I have to be a bit careful here as i have a modified 11mm IP on my sons GU ute which will push a lot of fuel or just as much as a 12mm, it can run well over 800Nm and 200rwkw but timing drives me mad so its turned back to be civil on road..It was an experiment with fuel injection duration which was a fail it makes no difference on a IDI engine.

Electronic controller is highly suggested i would get one as soon as you are able it makes a big difference in driveability. I have not used the newer Aeroflow 3 stage controller or the wiz bang Innovate SCG1 controller. But i have read the instructions and a few Vids on tuning and setup. AFR is a nice to have feature but these controllers are aimed at petrol where high boost can lean off your combustion causing catastrophic damage. Our diesel doesn't care about lean we can consistently run well above 100 AFR and will run at 45 to 85 at cruse speeds. If you set this feature up on our diesel it would be cutting boost every time you are at cruse speeds. The wideband sensor can only read about 30 afr anyway. so no point really. I haven't found anywhere in the documentation where you can set cutoff for say 14afr which would be a good thing for diesel safety. lean control is pointless for a diesel. Besides we have a really old school diesels running near zero engine electronics so to be honest it would be pointless really. But the SCG1 seems to have a few features that might give us a bit more control on boost consistency. I would have to trial one to find out. I could use data logging but i have a better data logger in a dynamics dyno with extras.

So it looks like I should order a T25. Never say never but if I ever change to a 12mm IP I can change the housing too. More $ Lol. But at that stage I'd be doing a lot of other stuff too. It never ends, and for a vehicle of this age, there has to be a limit. We'll be driving fuel cell electric vehicles soon😳. Massive potential there that our pollies can't comprehend.
I hadn't looked at the limitations of afr controllers, but you are right. It doesn't matter how lean, but would want to control minimum ratio.
Thanks for your insights P. Obviously you have a passion for this subject and have backed that with many hard yards.

 

[GQshayne]

So it looks like I should order a T25. Never say never but if I ever change to a 12mm IP I can change the housing too. More $ Lol. But at that stage I'd be doing a lot of other stuff too. It never ends, and for a vehicle of this age, there has to be a limit. We'll be driving fuel cell electric vehicles soon😳. Massive potential there that our pollies can't comprehend.
I hadn't looked at the limitations of afr controllers, but you are right. It doesn't matter how lean, but would want to control minimum ratio.
Thanks for your insights P. Obviously you have a passion for this subject and have backed that with many hard yards.

I doubt you would ever bother to change from the 6758 - T25.

Under normal driving conditions I never use full throttle. There is just no need to. And my GQ is no lightweight at 3.1T unloaded.