Borg Warner test the BATMOWHEEL

If any of this test data is accurate there are some records that will be broken if Johnny from stainless switches to cast wheels. 1000hp vp truck on fuel! :hehe:
 
Anything is bound to happen on the internet. Just trying to help anyone reading with an open mind on the BatMoWheels. Seems like the Dodge guys arent happy with them, but they have worked awesome on the Duramaxes we put them on and do pick up power from the cast BW wheel. Its already been stated that it wasnt a "Cast vs Bat" comparison but a new design thats not even available yet.
 
SHEESH! Thank god i didnt go for the double batmo on the diesel pulling chanllenge app! That $hit costs like .99 cents!
 
MFSPSTurbo, I think you're a little confused on the turbine discussion.

Danville is putting the 96mm BW Twheel (normally residing in the T6 1.32 TH) into a modded T4 housing normally used for the BW 83mm TW at 1.1A/R. So this smaller housing is probably at a much reduced effective A/R than 1.1. It may be likened to a 0.9 or 0.85 or whatever (who knows for sure).

Anywho in Danville's dyno plots, they compare it to the 87mm Garrett TW driving its GTX 108mm compressor. Obviously this combo is a little under-turbined by comparison and likely explains why it takes a lot longer to come into its peak HP and looks a bit lazy compared to the other BW chargers tested. And several of us commented that quite possibly it needs a bigger housing to get the mass flow up so the turbine output is more in line with the 96mm BW (not knowing of course how much it's handicapped by the super tight housing they put it in).
 
Last edited:
jszakel said:
Its already been stated that it wasnt a "Cast vs Bat" comparison but a new design thats not even available yet.
Click to expand...

Actually what was stated, and what is fact is that the BW wheel used in the test is available, and has been for some time.
 
However, there is some not-so-good news; the newest compressor wheel designs (I'll try to get this right this time), the 67.7/91, the 76/105, the 80/110 and the 82/110 are not released for distribution or resale, and at this time, we do not expect that to change.
Click to expand...

I understood this to be the wheel that was tested against the BatMo?
 
MFSPSTurbo said:
You're correct; I mis-typed twice; it's the danger of working 14 hours, then responding to forum posts.

Again, my apologies for the typo, but the data, as posted originally, including the compressor map and test information, is all accurate. All of the numbers on the map, specific to dimensional and part number data are correct, and, as I've pointed out several times, this testing is done in a lab setting.

For reference, the 80/110 and 82/110mm wheels are both FMW, and both 7/7 blade, as of pre-SEMA 2011.

To directly answer your question as to the map being 'different' than the one shown in the previous magazine article, the answer is, once again, clearly noted on the compressor map. This testing was completed on October 1st, 2012.

Ironically, I was at the plant that day, as well as the next. The gas stand testing could have been underway during my visit to that portion of the tech center, but we would not know that now.

In order for that map to have been published several months ago in any magazine, time, as we know it, would have had to stop, reverse, then move forward again. Turbos do rotate at high speed, but not fast enough for time travel.

It is most likely that the map noted in that magazine article was the map generated several years ago using the cast 80/110mm wheel, and I would submit that you could confirm this by viewing the published map found in the free MatchBot software, found on the borgwarnerboosted.com website. As I'm new to this forum, I'm not certain of the issue of posting links. I trust anyone interested in researching further can access this data very easily, but I'm available for assistance.

Also, just to clarify, none of these products are "mine". These are products manufactured by Borg Warner Turbo Systems. We are a proud Franchise Distributor and EFR/AirWerks Tier 1 Master Distributor, but we make no pretense about who develops, tests and manufactures these parts. But thanks for lumping us in; that is appreciated.

However, you are incorrect in assuming that the new compressor covers are "production John Deere covers" and therefore nothing new.

The part number, thankfully, of all O.E. BWTS compressor covers, is actually etched into the diffuser face, so it's easy for one to determine what cover they're working with.

Firstly, the O.E. John Deere cover, part number 177213 (actually, the original "John Deere"-branded cover was part number 173350, and we used to stock it, with the logo intentionally removed), was never offered for the 80/110 (see, I got it right that time :)) cast, 8/8-blade compressor wheel, with the inlet treatment. The only covers trimmed for John Deere and fitted with a 'similar' inlet treatment (referred to as a "noise attenuator", actually) were covers 177352 and 177354, for the 71/100 and 74/100mm compressor wheels.

In all likelihood, the (O.E.)covers you have had in your possession were likely either 177213 housings (no inlet treatment), or re-trimmed 177352 or 177354 covers (with inlet treatment). If it had a 'de-branded' John Deere logo, it was likely 173350, but it has been several years since I've seen that cover.

However, just recently, BWTS did revise fitment, and now the 177213 (no inlet treatment, 'old' recirculation groove) cover has been replaced in both fitment to the popular 177287 turbocharger (where it originate) by the 179178 compressor cover referenced on the compressor map.

Those covers are available for sale, and are fitted to turbochargers 179171, 177286, 179174, 177287 (assuming it was produced before September 2012) and 177288, and ARE NOT equipped with the revised recirculation groove design. Again, the exception to this is 179178, which is equipped in this manner, and now fitted to the 177287 (thank you, Seth).

I am fairly certain that the 179178 is available for sale, as we have three in stock at this time, but I will confirm that this is not restricted, as some items are. If it is not restricted, then they are technically 'available'.

You don't have to purchase these housings to confirm whether they are the same or not. We stock all of them, and I would be happy to post photos of them, since all BWTS compressor covers are clearly marked with part number and revision history, so that we can point out the obvious difference in the recirculation groove and inlet treatment designs. I sincerely believe you would be surprised to see the difference, and I invite you to stop by the booths at either SEMA or PRI to see them firsthand.

If anyone would like for me to do this, please let me know, or if doing so would create any conflicts, I would be happy to email photos, directly to those who would like them

However, there is some not-so-good news; the newest compressor wheel designs (I'll try to get this right this time), the 67.7/91, the 76/105, the 80/110 and the 82/110 are not released for distribution or resale, and at this time, we do not expect that to change.

The cast versions of the 67.7/91 and the 80/110, as well as the 'old' 8/8-blade 82/110 FMW wheel, are still available for sale, and we do keep these in stock.

Lastly, to respond to an earlier note regarding flow on the 87/81mm turbine wheel as fitted to the T4-flanged housings, I would again submit that the data you may be seeking can also be found in the MatchBot software; all of the most current turbine maps are located there, and if you need assistance locating them, please don't hesitate to ask.

The turbine maps are also published in the 2012 Performance Turbocharger Catalog, although the print is quite small.

In there, you will note that the 87mm turbine wheel (the 'new' 87/81, not the earlier 87/80) has peak turbine flow just below that of the 96/88mm turbine wheel, when comparing the T4, 1.25A/R housing to the T6, 1.32A/R housing.

BWTS has never released or endorsed a smaller A/R housing for the 96/88mm turbine wheel, although we have seen both T4 and T6,housings, extensively modified for fitment. There is likely no way to be certain of whether that sort of modification has an effect on turbine flow, except to state that "this" wheel was not designed to fit or function in "that" housing. That's not to say it won't, as we all know it will, and it does.

In summary:

I sure know how to touch off a poopstorm with a few typos!

I believe I've helped to clarify the validity of the test data that has been published. However, opinions tend to vary. If in doubt, BWTS publishes nearly all of the data I've referenced in my text.

With the exception of some loose parts noted, EVERYTHING I've discussed is described by part number, so if you are interested in obtaining these items, any Borg Warner Distributor would be happy to supply it
Click to expand...

Well thank you for the better explanation and corrections, we ALL appreciate that. To get you correct, the billet FMW's are not available or are you referring to the EPR ball bearing stuff?
 
nwpadmax said:
MFSPSTurbo, I think you're a little confused on the turbine discussion.

Danville is putting the 96mm BW Twheel (normally residing in the T6 1.32 TH) into a modded T4 housing normally used for the BW 83mm TW at 1.1A/R. So this smaller housing is probably at a much reduced effective A/R than 1.1. It may be likened to a 0.9 or 0.85 or whatever (who knows for sure).

Anywho in Danville's dyno plots, they compare it to the 87mm Garrett TW driving its GTX 108mm compressor. Obviously this combo is a little under-turbined by comparison and likely explains why it takes a lot longer to come into its peak HP and looks a bit lazy compared to the other BW chargers tested. And several of us commented that quite possibly it needs a bigger housing to get the mass flow up so the turbine output is more in line with the 96mm BW (not knowing of course how much it's handicapped by the super tight housing they put it in).
Click to expand...

He gets it.

"BWTS has never released or endorsed a smaller A/R housing for the 96/88mm turbine wheel, although we have seen both T4 and T6,housings, extensively modified for fitment. There is likely no way to be certain of whether that sort of modification has an effect on turbine flow, except to state that "this" wheel was not designed to fit or function in "that" housing. That's not to say it won't, as we all know it will, and it does. "
 
Just reaffirms what I thought about the bat before. Now it looks like damage control on the last couple pages $.02
 
Joesixpack said:
He gets it.

"BWTS has never released or endorsed a smaller A/R housing for the 96/88mm turbine wheel, although we have seen both T4 and T6,housings, extensively modified for fitment. There is likely no way to be certain of whether that sort of modification has an effect on turbine flow, except to state that "this" wheel was not designed to fit or function in "that" housing. That's not to say it won't, as we all know it will, and it does. "
Click to expand...

10-4 ...I got lost in the long post...:doh: sorry for rehashing the hashed hash.
 
Last edited:
nwpadmax said:
MFSPSTurbo, I think you're a little confused on the turbine discussion.

Danville is putting the 96mm BW Twheel (normally residing in the T6 1.32 TH) into a modded T4 housing normally used for the BW 83mm TW at 1.1A/R. So this smaller housing is probably at a much reduced effective A/R than 1.1. It may be likened to a 0.9 or 0.85 or whatever (who knows for sure).

Anywho in Danville's dyno plots, they compare it to the 87mm Garrett TW driving its GTX 108mm compressor. Obviously this combo is a little under-turbined by comparison and likely explains why it takes a lot longer to come into its peak HP and looks a bit lazy compared to the other BW chargers tested. And several of us commented that quite possibly it needs a bigger housing to get the mass flow up so the turbine output is more in line with the 96mm BW (not knowing of course how much it's handicapped by the super tight housing they put it in).
Click to expand...

Yes, Matt is right. The only reason the GTX info was posted was because it was the turbo that was on the truck when it showed up on my doorstep and it is 80mm so I feel it was relavent info. Turbine is too small for a compressor of this size.
 
Anybody that wants to give up there batmo's I'll take them lol. I guess vp trucks and duramax's like them
 
atvracn08 said:
Anybody that wants to give up there batmo's I'll take them lol. I guess vp trucks and duramax's like them
Click to expand...

No one is saying that the Batmo is complete garbage. According to the compressor map that T$ posted, they aren't that far off of each other. Theres no doubt that the Batmo is capable of making power, but is it really worth the extra coin?

At best I think its an excellent marketing strategy that has no doubt put some $$$ in many pockets.

I know of two people that have experience with them on engine dynos that claim to have seen losses in HP when going from a cast wheel to the Batmo wheel. Both of these were shops that are involved in the pulling world so you can bet your money that they would use them if they would give an adavantage on the pulling track.
 
I'm a 3rd party with nothing to gain. I bought a batmo and tested identicle setups with a precision billet wheel and batmo , both 75mm , same ar an turbine , the batmo lost in just about every way. It did have a tiny bit in the torque and spoolup , but peak and carrying power out past peak was a drastic difference. I bought both turbos myself and tested at mine and elite diesels cost to either prove or disprove this batmo phenomenon. The results spoke for themselves. I stood nothing to gain except my own piece of mind and got the answer i was looking for.
 
teddybear said:
No one is saying that the Batmo is complete garbage. According to the compressor map that T$ posted, they aren't that far off of each other. Theres no doubt that the Batmo is capable of making power, but is it really worth the extra coin?

At best I think its an excellent marketing strategy that has no doubt put some $$$ in many pockets.

I know of two people that have experience with them on engine dynos that claim to have seen losses in HP when going from a cast wheel to the Batmo wheel. Both of these were shops that are involved in the pulling world so you can bet your money that they would use them if they would give an adavantage on the pulling track.
Click to expand...

I'd be running a htt 66mm right now if it was cheaper than the batmo I have
 
MarkBroviak said:
Well thank you for the better explanation and corrections, we ALL appreciate that. To get you correct, the billet FMW's are not available or are you referring to the EPR ball bearing stuff?
Click to expand...

The billet wheels are not available by themselves. They are, however, available as part of a complete turbo. As stated earlier, we don't expect to see them as a stand alone part anytime soon. Same goes for the EFR turbos, no individual components just complete turbos.
 
MarkBroviak said:
Bullseye does have a gas test stand and use it alot to get us where we are today.
Click to expand...

I am surprised there is nothing about the test stand on the Bullseye website. The maps on the website are completely lacking in efficiency data even though the contours are there. Why...

While on this morning's rant, all you BW folks watching this -

Matchbot is cool. However, please explain why you obfuscate your turbine data in that phi parameter that is about useless in comparing your turbines to the rest of the known world. The units of phi make zero sense to me and a whole lot of others. I see no earthly reason to hide your flow data behind some nonsense parameter. I mean, I could go to home depot and buy lumber by the d!ck length, but someone with some common sense decided to use feet and inches so everyone is on the same page.

You put your compressor maps in mass flow, how about doing the same for your turbines?

Geek rant off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top