6266 vs 6466
10-10-2018, 05:27 AM
#12
I have had all different turbos and you really want the smallest turbo for the hp goal. A 600whp 58mm turbo will have a way better power band and way better drivability for daily driving and it will also be faster than 600whp on a 62mm or 64mm turbo.
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. The turbo s2000 will just have way more power everywhere in the power and and thus will be a faster car. If you don’t like the low end power with the turbo you can always delay spool with the wastegate through the boost solenoid.
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. The turbo s2000 will just have way more power everywhere in the power and and thus will be a faster car. If you don’t like the low end power with the turbo you can always delay spool with the wastegate through the boost solenoid.
"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.
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.
Last edited by hatrickstu; 10-10-2018 at 05:30 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Spoolin (10-10-2018)
10-10-2018, 08:43 AM
#13
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
10-10-2018, 06:04 PM
#14
"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.
"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.
10-11-2018, 04:43 AM
#15
But your still gonna need fuel for 1000. Im considering saying **** e85 and back to C/Q16
The following users liked this post:
Spoolin (10-11-2018)
10-11-2018, 05:11 AM
#16
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
But your still gonna need fuel for 1000. Im considering saying **** e85 and back to C/Q16
Spoolin, you just end up using one 3-port on the top of the gate, and one on the bottom to bleed pressure.
10-11-2018, 06:05 PM
#17
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.
Spoolin, you just end up using one 3-port on the top of the gate, and one on the bottom to bleed pressure.
10-12-2018, 05:18 AM
#18
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
But your still gonna need fuel for 1000. Im considering saying **** e85 and back to C/Q16
10-12-2018, 07:04 AM
#19
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.
The following users liked this post:
Spoolin (10-12-2018)
10-12-2018, 10:39 AM
#20
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.