Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

PJ....that R34 with the stock bottom end and stock cams....what was the power at the hubs? Im presuming the dyno run is showing corrected power at the fly? Im in the UK and I want to run a single on my Forged RB26 in my R32 GTR (Stock head and cams). Im going with a T3/T4 topmount manifold and was looking at the 6262.....I want 500BHP at the hubs at no more than 25PSI.......is this gonna be do-able with the 6262? Im looking for spool compariable to uprated twins but with the ability to crack 500BHp at the wheels. What do you reccomend guys??? Exact turbo specs please?

Oh.......why all the reference to 4 Cylinder Nissan engines and even worse Toyota engines??? Surely you guys must be all running 6 cylinder RB's in the main???? Just find it a little strange as in the UK where im from there isnt a lot of skyline interest in 4 cylinder mills....its all RB26/26/30 etc.......

Cheers

Andy

Is it a T3 or T4 manifold, you cant have both.

Is it a T3 or T4 manifold, you cant have both.

Now you can!

They are making manifolds with flange plates which have the bore of a T3 and the footprint of a T4 with the bolt holes for both.

Sounds OK. Flexible :)

Your in the UK arent you Andy B?

In OZ we measure actual energy at the output point. Thus if we are on a Hub dyno we are measuring energy at the hubs and if we are on a Chassis dyno we are measuring energy at the wheels.

Obviously the hub dynos read a little higher as the wheels sap a little energy away on the chassis dyno.

We normally want to know what sort of power we are putting to the road, it is a good indicator of the cars performance. Take our fabled Commonwhore V8's for example, some of the older LS1 models rolled out of the factory with something along the lines of 280kw (flywheel rated), yet you chuck them on a dyno and should be pleased if you have 200rwkw.

Yanks are also guilty of calculating flywheel HP through a chassis dyno or similar, sort of misleading IMHO. I would rather know what sort of energy I put to the road than what sort of energy I could theoretically put to the road lol

Guys,

Estimating Flywheel power is comon here in the UK and yes, I agree its a load of BS. Power at the wheels is where its at. Im surprised the PT 6262 mande nearly 500BHP ATW..........................

i saw that sound performance in the US were testing the 6266 on a stock motor/w kelford cams 3.0 ltr 2JZ with a cast manifold it made 748 whp and 730 tq @ 29 psi on E64 and say they can squeeze 800whp out of it with more boost. He did one pull on pump gas also and made about 530 whp @ under 20 psi

6266.... What's the specs on that? It's bigger than the 6262 I presume??

its a newer wheel from precision thats for the 67 and 62 turbos , spools for example 6766 spooled better and picked up 35 hp over the 6765

some more info about it and price on the Sound Performance site 899 US dollars for the normal journal bearing one

spracingonline.com/store/Precision_62mm_CEA_Billet_Turbo_6266

here is the dyno sheet from the stock motor 3.0 ltr 2JZ using a 6266

MarkCook11024x768.jpg

Here is a comparison between a 6765 and a 6766

299736_2240601587792_1630643829_2220817_1240013805_n.jpg

Edited by R32GTR/Iceland

That looks great but has anyone put one of these on a 26?? I see loads of high boost RB30 examples but I wanna see a 26 ..... Not running on E85.... Just pump gas . Can anyone post up such results? A good turbo on a 26 with std cams and pump fuel should be able to make 500whp well under 2 bar......spooling at less than 3500 and making full boost by 4500........ Anyone???

some more info on a 6266 on a Supra / 2JZ

amazing results !

Craig's Supra:

Precision 6266 CEA Billet .81 A/R

3.4L Stroker with 9.5:1 CR

Kelford 274 cams

Built but UNported Head

Hypertune Intake Manifold

Approx 683whp/590wtq and crossing 300ft-lb @ 2900rpm on SP's mustang dyno. @ 18.3 psi

770whp/700wtq @ 24 psi

843 whp wtq @ 29 psi

300wtq @ 3000rpm

Peak Torque @ 4800rpm

Peak Power @ 5300rpm

Steady Power through 7800rpm redline

959 RWHP and 941 TQ on a 6266 with nitrous !!! Boost hit 38 psi then fell to 29 where it actually makes peak hp. 125 shot of nitrous.

bush_843whp844wtq29psi.jpg

6266 with nitrous

CraigBush5.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
×
×
  • Create New...