New Borg Warner S300sxe Turbos

Smokem said:
Picture of the flange adapter.

11813299_1006160852737991_7260830282295306745_n.jpg


I should add that the elbow/clamp is actually cheaper than the flange adapter.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the flange adapter I had from SPS... Blew it apart at 15 pounds of boost 5 minutes after having it on. Just welded it and now all is good.
 
dwebb16 said:
That's exactly the flange adapter I had from SPS... Blew it apart at 15 pounds of boost 5 minutes after having it on. Just welded it and now all is good.
Click to expand...


What flange is that ? Wondering if an s400 flange could be welded to this turbo also


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just had this show up. 64.5/73/.80 t3 divided with 2.75" elbow welded on, polished compressor cover and ceramic coated turbine housing. Its going on a slammed 2wd dually with a 2nd gen swap, trans, 100hp nozzles, udc, and other supporting mods. Should be a fun fast spooling setup. I will let you guys know when its rolling.




uploadfromtaptalk1447782543485.jpguploadfromtaptalk1447782552226.jpguploadfromtaptalk1447782560816.jpguploadfromtaptalk1447782568390.jpguploadfromtaptalk1447782575905.jpguploadfromtaptalk1447782583483.jpg

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 
Im not sure why pictures posted twice. But its nice enough to look at twice. Elbow is in just about identical location to factory 3rd gen outlet

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 
Kick Start said:
Everyone scared of the 369? Nobody seems to post anything about them.
Click to expand...

I was about to run a s369sxe over a 484 and based on what Jose at forced told me and the reviews of the 66sxe that there wasn't much benefit to go bigger.

Damn good turbo in my opinion and I have tried aaaaaalot of them.
 
[ame="http://s815.photobucket.com/user/turbolvr/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1098_zpsldzru9t7.jpg.html"]IMG_1098_zpsldzru9t7.jpg Photo by turbolvr | Photobucket[/ame]

[ame="http://s815.photobucket.com/user/turbolvr/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1099_zpstmu0qlk3.jpg.html"]IMG_1099_zpstmu0qlk3.jpg Photo by turbolvr | Photobucket[/ame]
 
If like to see what the difference would be between the sxe 69 and a box 468 on a 12v.
 
Hope this helps on the S369SX-E.

The S300SX-E uses the same turbine wheel dimension (79.76/73.37) as all previous S300SX3 units. The wheel was re-designed for an improvement in efficiency, but there has been no real change in peak flow.
It is obviously going to have a lower peak flow (and efficiency) than the 83/74mm S400SX3 turbine wheel.
The SX-E wheel compares similarly to the EFR9180, so you could use MatchBot to compare them.
The 69/91mm FMW compressor, however, does have excellent flow and efficiency, and for that reason, it should compare very well to the 177248, but again, turbine flow will be the point of restriction on that unit, which gives the larger, S400SX3 some advantage at higher pressure ratio. In many cases, particularly with smaller displacement, gasoline engines, this smaller turbine is an advantage.

The S467SX3 or 178855 comes close to the S369SX-E in max flow and spool-up but the 177248 got a bit more flow left on hi pressure ratio’s
 
tall boy said:
Hope this helps on the S369SX-E.



The S300SX-E uses the same turbine wheel dimension (79.76/73.37) as all previous S300SX3 units. The wheel was re-designed for an improvement in efficiency, but there has been no real change in peak flow.

It is obviously going to have a lower peak flow (and efficiency) than the 83/74mm S400SX3 turbine wheel.

The SX-E wheel compares similarly to the EFR9180, so you could use MatchBot to compare them.

The 69/91mm FMW compressor, however, does have excellent flow and efficiency, and for that reason, it should compare very well to the 177248, but again, turbine flow will be the point of restriction on that unit, which gives the larger, S400SX3 some advantage at higher pressure ratio. In many cases, particularly with smaller displacement, gasoline engines, this smaller turbine is an advantage.



The S467SX3 or 178855 comes close to the S369SX-E in max flow and spool-up but the 177248 got a bit more flow left on hi pressure ratio’s
Click to expand...


So if I read that right a 66 has more flow than the 467? Correct ? I have been debating the 467 for strength and I can use it as a single before I get the 485. Just something I have been thinking about
 
Ya so should I just just go with a s475 87 with 1.10 housing? I'm wanting to run a good size single but want to hit atleast 750hp with a usable power band or would one of the other two do it with less lag?
 
a s475 87 1.1 as a single will be very laggy, if all you want to hit is 750hp max and have good driveability for then a 369/366 will do what you want with any housing
 
97rada said:
So if I read that right a 66 has more flow than the 467? Correct ? I have been debating the 467 for strength and I can use it as a single before I get the 485. Just something I have been thinking about
Click to expand...

No the S366SX-E has less flow than the S468SX3 and S471SX3 on a 3.4 pressure ratio but on 4.2 to 4.6 pressure ratio the S366SX-E dos better compared to the S468SX3 and also the response will be better on a small engine with the S300SX-E series.
The S468SX3 has the same compressor wheel as the EFR 9180 series.
 
tall boy said:
No the S366SX-E has less flow than the S468SX3 and S471SX3 on a 3.4 pressure ratio but on 4.2 to 4.6 pressure ratio the S366SX-E dos better compared to the S468SX3 and also the response will be better on a small engine with the S300SX-E series.

The S468SX3 has the same compressor wheel as the EFR 9180 series.
Click to expand...


Will the s366sx-e live well at high pressure ratios? We ran a 66 this year and got 12.50 out of it but the turbo might need rebuild soon. I just don't like the reliability. But still might try one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top