New Product Release: FFTEC MAX! Performance Turbo System for the Mustang Ecoboost!!

[Sup3rPat]

Would be nice to know what supporting Mods the car has and what kind or fuel they used. CA. 91 octane pump gas?

Forged pistons and rods. Didn't see what fuel tho.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12744

Sponsored

 

[dragonacc]

Look at the top of the first dyno graph, it states Dyno Jet.

I think you are right, they have a Mustang dyno, this must have been dyno'd somewhere else. Not that it matters much, the numbers are nice. Would be nice to know what supporting Mods the car has and what kind or fuel they used. CA. 91 octane pump gas?

It was, they posted that a while back in another thread. They 100% use a mustang dyno in house and the numbers they've officially released are from their dyno.

 

[MAPerformance]

Keep in mind when looking at these dyno sheets neither of the EFR turbos are close to being maxed out. As far as the precision unit without a compressor map which they don't provide who knows.

It's a 62lb/min turbo, it supports up to 620hp but the head and stock pistons are the limiting factors at this point to make anymore power on this turbo. One of the key things I posted in another thread regarding spool differences is that they start the dyno at 1500rpms and we start ours at 2300-2500rpms this is a key factor in spool differences and can't accurately say one spools faster than another. I don't want to post much information in this thread is this is for FFTEC's product not ours.

Good going with the numbers FFTEC! I can't wait to get the built block in our car and strap it back down.

 

[Anthony@FFtec]

This is a 7163 as LStillman stated -- this is a dynojet graph.

We made this power without pushing the limits of the turbo system to far, staying near 25PSI. There is a lot more left in it.

This next graph is an 8374 on our Mustang Dynonamometer. Our dyno does read significantly lower than the DynoJet at our disposal. On average, 12 to 18% lower.

Versus the dyno plot posted by MAP, the 7163 seems to spool 1100 RPM quicker, and the 8374 appears to spool about 150 RPM quicker.

We've been deliberately limiting overall TQ with both turbochargers. Using either turbocharger we have previously produced well over 450 ftlbs ..... :eyebulge:

-----

I created this chart many moons ago. It is a great quick reference for anyone with size comparison questions about turbocharger selection.

http://www.fftec.com/article/177/Turbo_Size_and_Comparison_Chart.html

As always, we are committed to excellence, and building the fastest cars in CA; and across the country! We are definitely committed to the MEB Chassis!

Ask more questions! I stop in to reply any chance I get -- even by smartphone ;)

Anthony

 

[BigCatDan]

This is a 7163 as LStillman stated -- this is a dynojet graph.

We made this power without pushing the limits of the turbo system to far, staying near 25PSI. There is a lot more left in it.

This next graph is an 8374 on our Mustang Dynonamometer. Our dyno does read significantly lower than the DynoJet at our disposal. On average, 12 to 18% lower.

Versus the dyno plot posted by MAP, the 7163 seems to spool 1100 RPM quicker, and the 8374 appears to spool about 150 RPM quicker.

We've been deliberately limiting overall TQ with both turbochargers. Using either turbocharger we have previously produced well over 450 ftlbs ..... :eyebulge:

-----

I created this chart many moons ago. It is a great quick reference for anyone with size comparison questions about turbocharger selection.

http://www.fftec.com/article/177/Turbo_Size_and_Comparison_Chart.html

As always, we are committed to excellence, and building the fastest cars in CA; and across the country! We are definitely committed to the MEB Chassis!

Ask more questions! I stop in to reply any chance I get -- even by smartphone ;)

Anthony

For the EFR 7163 and staying near 4oo hp and tq, are the forged pistons and rods a necessity?

 

[David@FFtec]

For the EFR 7163 and staying near 4oo hp and tq, are the forged pistons and rods a necessity?

Hi Dan,

That's a good question. IMHO 400/400 is safe IF you have a good, consistent tune and good fuel. A good tune will have the ability to repeatedly hit the torque targets in order to stay inside the safety margin. If you look at the torque curve on our EFR7163 dyno charts you can see that we're hitting our torque targets with good repeat ability.

This is the turbo I feel the car should have come with from the factory. It is one of the reasons we opted to use it as a test subject. The 7064 will have the same power output but flow better on the top end -- which helps out the uniquely designed cyl head .. lol.

Off-Topic ---

To add more data and insight about our build: Do keep in mind that we have a built engine, but remember that its characteristics are near identical to the OEM engine assembly. We are keeping our calibrations relative to what you should expect to see or achieve on a stock engine; we just have a huge safety net in terms of making an erroneous calibration change, or software caveats, as we push our turbo system to the extremes.

For the record: Our Cylinder head features factory head porting (straight from the ford casting process ;)), stock valve's , stock cams :cheers:, etc. As indicative of our 8374 dyno chart the power keeps climbing. Even at over 435HP we haven't found an OEM head to be restrictive -- yet. While the head may not be perfect it isn't a power limiting factor in our experience.

We will soon post some graphs representing what you can achieve with a built engine system -- on the OEM head! :amen:

 

[David@FFtec]

Since turbo upgrades are a new experience on this platform I thought I'd share some of my seat-of-the-pants impressions from driving our shop car.

Driving experience- The smaller EFR7163 was a pleasure to drive during commutes and on the freeway. Stoplight to stoplight in morning traffic was easy, power was always there, no lag at all. Even though it spools up at 3k rpm on the dyno, that only tells half the story. Transient response was instantaneous no matter what the rpm. Back in February I took a day trip out to the Central Valley, which consisted of many hours of freeway cruising between 65 to 70 MPH. The tall gearing of the 6 speed trans kept engine speed around 2k rpm, which is great for Highway gas mileage. At just 2k rpm the turbo hits 10psi right away, no waiting. I closely watched the boost gauge while rolling into the throttle and it was like the gas pedal was tied to the boost gauge, no delay at all. It was fun watching the boost gauge tracking along with the throttle. Needless to say, passing slower traffic was easy in top gear, too. No need to downshift even at 2k rpm.

In regards to dyno spoolup, our standard procedure for dyno tuning a turbo car is to begin the pull at least 2,000 rpm before the expected spoolup point to help load up the engine. This is typical across the industry, starting the pull earlier doesn't really have much effect on spoolup. We found it difficult to follow this protocol since the smaller EFR begins to build boost right away. We tried to start the dyno pull at 1000 rpm but the engine was obviously lugging so we had to bail on that run.:doh: No worries, this turbo is so quick to respond that we could've started the pull at 2500rpm and it still would've hit peak boost at 3k rpm just as easily. Yes the EFR series is that responsive!

The EFR8374 is a completely different animal tho. More on that turbo soon.

 

[dragonacc]

Very interested in hearing your thoughts on the 8374.

 

[drewdiz]

FFTEC FTW!

 

[David@FFtec]

Very interested in hearing your thoughts on the 8374.

Well, it's a 62mm turbo that spools up at 3900rpm, so it's awesome. :cheers:

Sponsored