S2000 Forced Induction S2000 Turbocharging and S2000 supercharging, for that extra kick.

Precision 6262/6265

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 12, 2009 | 11:24 AM
  #31  
Full Race Geoff's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Peter@ISP,Mar 10 2009, 12:17 PM
i just installed this turbo on my car. so far so good. having boost tapering issues though. im going to upgrade my intercooler and up my timing to see if it helps
interesting to see the powerband, only making 200hp/ftlb until ~5200rpm. what manifold and turbine housing are you using? tq dropping off like that is usually indicitive of high backpressure which could be solved with a larger turbine housing, but with the repurcussion of later spool.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2009 | 11:47 AM
  #32  
2QYK4U's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,790
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by leo520,Mar 12 2009, 12:15 PM
i think they burn 2x times faster than the regular oil right??

I am sure you meant to say "burn 2x times faster than the regular gas". If so, E-85 burns about 30% quicker. However, most people who use E-85 don't care about fuel consumption--they are looking for a cheap high octane fuel. E-85 is ~104-105 octane and costs ~$2/gallon. C16 is ~117 octane but costs ~$14/gallon. Unless somebody is going for a power record, or doesn't have immediate access to E-85, E-85 is a no brainer for those looking to make big power at a very reasonable price.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2009 | 01:01 PM
  #33  
Peter@ISP's Avatar
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by Full Race Geoff,Mar 12 2009, 11:24 AM
interesting to see the powerband, only making 200hp/ftlb until ~5200rpm. what manifold and turbine housing are you using? tq dropping off like that is usually indicitive of high backpressure which could be solved with a larger turbine housing, but with the repurcussion of later spool.
i was asking same question after we tuned it.
here is what i found so far
-compression is 160 all the way across (i believe it might be because of head porting?)
-i have small intercooler so that might cause boost to drop 4 psi?
-i found small boost leak around throttle body
-i was using low spring so that might cause it too

the manifold im using is lovefab minime with the t4-t3 adaptor on top of it. never had torque drop off like that with other turbos but than again i never turned up my boost to 30 psi...
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2009 | 01:29 PM
  #34  
ScorpionT's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by 2QYK4U,Mar 12 2009, 01:47 PM
I am sure you meant to say "burn 2x times faster than the regular gas". If so, E-85 burns about 30% quicker. However, most people who use E-85 don't care about fuel consumption--they are looking for a cheap high octane fuel. E-85 is ~104-105 octane and costs ~$2/gallon. C16 is ~117 octane but costs ~$14/gallon. Unless somebody is going for a power record, or doesn't have immediate access to E-85, E-85 is a no brainer for those looking to make big power at a very reasonable price.
Exactly. On top of that, you can build your motor for slightly higher compressor and make more power at the same boost and use less fuel.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2009 | 08:02 PM
  #35  
ChefJ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,659
Likes: 3
From: Braselton, GA
Default

You need more e-85 to burn then regular petrol though. Which is why most if not all people running e85 on high boost platforms upgrade the entire fuel system setup.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2009 | 10:09 PM
  #36  
ScorpionT's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ChefJ,Mar 12 2009, 10:02 PM
You need more e-85 to burn then regular petrol though. Which is why most if not all people running e85 on high boost platforms upgrade the entire fuel system setup.
There are some exceptions. You can make 400whp a couple different ways. You can up the boost which requires more air, or you can bump the compression ratio which requires higher octane. If you up the compression ratio, you could boost less and still make 400whp, and you would also save fuel.

Most guys dont usually take the second route, but its always an option.
Reply
Old Mar 13, 2009 | 03:34 AM
  #37  
2QYK4U's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,790
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ScorpionT,Mar 12 2009, 11:09 PM
There are some exceptions. You can make 400whp a couple different ways. You can up the boost which requires more air, or you can bump the compression ratio which requires higher octane. If you up the compression ratio, you could boost less and still make 400whp, and you would also save fuel.

Most guys dont usually take the second route, but its always an option.
There is a third variable--timing. With E-85 you can run a lot more timing than you could with 91 or 93 octane. Timing by itself can make big power increases.
Reply
Old Mar 13, 2009 | 11:07 AM
  #38  
Full Race Geoff's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Peter@ISP,Mar 12 2009, 01:01 PM
i was asking same question after we tuned it.
here is what i found so far
-compression is 160 all the way across (i believe it might be because of head porting?)
-i have small intercooler so that might cause boost to drop 4 psi?
-i found small boost leak around throttle body
-i was using low spring so that might cause it too

the manifold im using is lovefab minime with the t4-t3 adaptor on top of it. never had torque drop off like that with other turbos but than again i never turned up my boost to 30 psi...
ahh that makes sense. the short runner manifold will generally have higher backpressure, so that combined with your boost leak are likely to be the cause for your tq dropoff. fix the boost leak, get a better FMIC, and then maybe a turbo manifold with longer runners
Reply
Old Mar 13, 2009 | 02:56 PM
  #39  
bigmac834's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Default

would it be better to get a bigger turbine housing, or a new manifold with longer runners. Either way spool should take longer, no?
Reply
Old May 18, 2009 | 01:55 PM
  #40  
Shftat9k's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Default

Anyone else have any information on the 6262? I am wondering what it would spool at on a log manifold.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 AM.