6266 vs 6466
 

Stock internals aiming for 450 on 93 and 600s on E85

is 6466 overkill? or should I just get the 6266

Either one IMO would be fine and they both spool up similar. The 6466 wouldn't have to work as hard to make the power and would be easier for life on the turbo. You could have more room to grow with it also in the future. With that said, I have a brand new 6466 for sale that is still in the plastic that I am selling only because I'm switching to the 6870 for bigger power goals. I'm selling it cheaper than you can get it anywhere else. Let me know.

6266 works great i just did one, had 400hp @9psi

Lol. K. 460lb ft at 5500...

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.s2k...c17577feb8.jpg

You have to ask yourself if you really even need/want a turbo to spool at 2-3k RPM. Are you going to be racing it there? What is the purpose of the car you are building? If it's just straight line stuff there isn't any need to have a turbo spooling super soon and then being taxed in the higher RPM situations.

I would go with a 6266 in your case. Should be able to make and hold peak power the entire operating range you are going to be using it in (assuming straight line oriented goals). The yellow torque line you see there is my stock engine setup on a 6466, notice it makes peak torque from 5k-9k, pretty ideal!

OP didn't say what he was doing with the car but 95% of the people here are not making all out race cars. and damn near 99% of people always go stupid big on the turbo because "the internet said so" I started with a 6062 shooting for 500hp...fking horrible choice.
I switched to a BW 257sxe which cost 1/3 of that precision and it makes the same power...just WAYYY sooner. It can full spool by 3k and makes the car one hell of a daily driver.
I've since moved onto a garrett. but anyway, yeah...a 6466 is a big ass turbo for 600hp.

As I said, I would do the 6266... I also made no mention of building a race car. I simply pointed out that having peak torque across the RPM range at which you are looking for peak torque makes the most sense. Why in the world do you need full spool by 3k RPM? Just pick the right gear...

because it's awesome? not having torque til 6k is not fun....just like your graph shows. I guess "fun" is subjective, but ill take my torque off the line every time over a sloth. If I want that kinda powerband I'd rather ride a two stroke dirtbike... I've let quite a few ppl drive my car and they all come back saying they want to go to a more responsive turbo.

What housing where you on with the 6466? I had thought about just keeping mine and upping it to the open .96 AR but I would still think it will cap out in the low 900 whp range and I'd like to get closer to 1000 whp. The reason on going with the 6870. What are your thoughts? Don't mean to thread jack, just asking to get an opinion.

Made 518whp with a 6262
2.0, ported head, 16psi, 93 octane
was told it's good for 650whp+ on e85 but will probably never see it because transmission

"smallest turbo for the hp goal" Wrong. What happens if it makes your horsepower goal way before redline and then falls off?

"will also be faster than 600whp on a 62mm or 64mm turbo." Only if its a situation where those are super lazy, which they aren't on these cars. Noone is doing pulls from 3,500rpm, and if you are that is your own fault. I have already posted a 6466 on a stock engine making peak torque from 5-9k.

"this is like comparing a 400whp turbo s2000 that hits full boost by 4500rpm compared to a 400whp centrifugal supercharged s2000 that hits full boost at redline 9k rpm." Except that is apples to oranges. Again, look at real world dyno graphs of 6266's, they spool plenty fast.


I have the .82 v-band. I 100% can not claim the 6466 will make 1,000, but I will tell you that the 845 dyno there was only using one boost solenoid. The car made like 34 and fell to 27. We started using the second a little while after and the car held 40psi to redline, so there is a chance it's close to 1,000whp.

6266 is my vote. smaller turbos are a waste of time. hatrickstu already laid it out it plain terms. ok, thats a lie, 6466 is my real vote as its the greatest turbo ever created, the only one you will ever need. but realistically, 6266 will get you everything you want, safer, for longer, can always be sold for decent $ if you do want bigger, and still have room to grow as everyone always does eventually

Interesting on the two boost solenoids, I've never heard of doing that. How exactly does that work and would it be hooked up? This is some really good info.

You can use 2 3ports, or just go to a 4 port. Ive been told that the 2 3ports offer more resolution, but we didnt see it on my car. I opted to go back to 1 single 3 port and just throw 22lb springs in the gates as we know i wont run less than that and still want 40-some psi.

But your still gonna need fuel for 1000. Im considering saying **** e85 and back to C/Q16

There is definitely a difference in resolution. We had a 4-port originally and getting the boost dialed in and consistent wasn't nearly as easy as with the two 3-ports. Keep in mind this isn't going to be as evident in an application where you trying for as much boost as possible most of the time. Mine was on the stock engine where we were really trying to protect the motor and keep power down on the street.

Spoolin, you just end up using one 3-port on the top of the gate, and one on the bottom to bleed pressure.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks

Be very careful with c16, it is known to not be a good option above 800 whp, you could melt the pistons down. Q16 may be ok but then you would need to make sure your injectors will work ok with it. Ill just go like we had discussed and put another set of injectors into the stock intake, something like a 1700 for good idle and have the 2200s come in under big boost. I think two of the 112 psi 450 pumps will support 1000 whp with this injector setup.

You don't need 1700's and 2000's, especially with a non ethanol based fuel. I am on E85 and have ID1000 primaries and ID1700 secondaries with no fueling issues. Gas based stuff will require far less injector. Email me any fueling questions you have: stuart@t1racedevelopment.com

True, i wasnt saying 2 3 ports didnt have more resolution, but it wasnt right with my setup. 2% addition was like 10psi. Not saying there wasnt something else going on, but it was worth ruling it out since there were easier ways to get what i wanted.

Yeah, I understand that but I'll be on either pump e85 or a race version of e85 and I already have the 2000's, so I figured going with a 1700 as primaries would be good. Maybe 1000's and 2000's then? I'm trying to get near 1000 whp on e85 with twin 112 psi max 450 pumps.

This is the most important question. I don't think we talk about this topic enough in this forum.

So many guys come in here chasing numbers and don't know what those numbers truly mean in the real world. An S2000 that makes 400hp to the ground is a REALLY fun street car, but it's not looked at as favorably by a lot of newbies because they see the bigger numbers. On the street...just the street, not racing or tracking...400hp is more than enough for 90% the people who want to modify their cars. It's double the stock power for god sakes. Literally twice as fast.

With that said, I agree with the notion of getting the smallest turbo that can comfortably meet your goals. If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably have stayed with a 50-55mm turbo and maxed it out only when I tracked it. I thought I was going to race it a lot more than I did and it turns out being truly competitive in drag racing is a LOT of money and LOT of time that I simply didn't have the dedication for. I built the car to go 10's and that's what it ended up being, which comes with a ton of sacrifices that made it much less fun to drive on the street. I tried to have it both ways and in many ways I did - but in the ways that ultimately mattered to me in the long term I feel like I failed. Turns out having to beat on the car to get it to "move" sounds better on the computer than it does from behind the wheel. I feel like a lot of that came down to the power band that the 60+mm turbo's have on a 2.0L...all top end. Which is ****ing great when you want it, not so great when you don't.

Cliffs - it's a lot easier to start small(er) and progressively move your way up. Going the other direction is much harder than it seems.

:faint:

Very well said. I set out with similar goals, but knew right from the get that drag racing the car wasn't part of my plan. I wanted the ultimate Street S2000, something the wife and I could still hop in and cruise around town in, with plenty of power to keep the pesky subaru vape boiz, and these newer domestics at bay.

I feel like with some planning and thought, it's possible to get a 600+ whp street car with very few compromises. In my case, the biggest nuisance is the twin disc clutch, which could have been avoided by running something like the SOS carbon twin as I hear it's much easier to drive, and much quieter.

Outside of the clutch, I feel like heat would be the next issue for us street drivers.

With those addressed, and proper turbo sizing, I don't see a ton of other places to make compromises. My car still has full A/C and cruise, and runs like a stock car outside of boost.

I originally built the kit with the s366 w/ an open .88a/r hotside and while the car made good power (500) on pump, it was super laggy and didn't do much until 6500. This was fine for roll racing, but it certainly felt a bit flat around town.

This year I swapped to a twinscroll .91a/r hotside and what a difference it made. The car spools so much faster, and the difference in transient response is night and day. The mid range torque around town is much more prevalent, and it still has plenty of room for power up top. I honestly wouldn't want it to spool any sooner and am very happy with the turbo choice overall. Same 66mm turbo, completely different powerband.