Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

A mate of mine has been building his RB25 for AGES, has a PT6765 CEA for it and was aiming for around 800hp @ hubs - the 66s seem like a decent improvement too. I've prefered the HTAs up till now, still quite interested to see more PTxx66 results and see if they have made up some of the difference. Another mate has a GT3586HTA on his RB30 running >700hp @ hubs on relatively mild boost levels and E30, was held back by fuel system - was still gaining power.

Thats cool but the supra is 3 litres and this ones taken out even more.... We need to see some RB26 results to be able to fully understand if this turbos gonna be a lag monster or not ??

Try it, let us know, kthanxbi

ITP Race cars tuned a Skyline with a stock RB25 running a PT6262 BB turbo and made >350kw @ wheels on 98 octane, looked really good but the impression I got from the dyno plot was that it was making full boost in the area of 5000-5500rpm.... fairly inline with the impression I've always had of the PT6262s, quite laggy but quite potent.

How does the gt35 hta compare to gtx35??

Never seen a comparison, but I'd suggest that the HTA GT3582R would spool better and be more responsive than the GTX3582R but that GTX3582R would be capable of more power.

ITP Race cars tuned a Skyline with a stock RB25 running a PT6262 BB turbo and made >350kw @ wheels on 98 octane, looked really good but the impression I got from the dyno plot was that it was making full boost in the area of 5000-5500rpm.... fairly inline with the impression I've always had of the PT6262s, quite laggy but quite potent.

Never seen a comparison, but I'd suggest that the HTA GT3582R would spool better and be more responsive than the GTX3582R but that GTX3582R would be capable of more power.

Would GT3586Hta make more than GTX3582?

The GT3586HTAs have definitely made some insane power, and are my preference... though the GTX3582Rs aren't exactly shrinking violets.

Garrett used slightly misleading naming on their Garrett GTX range, the GTX3582R for example has a 83mm exducer - or 85mm if you factor in the extended tips. The old GT3582R had a 61mm inducer, while the GTX3582R inducer is 62.5mm (bigger than PT6262) which is getting up there considering a GT4088R is 63.5mm! Its a substantial sized compressor they are using, it'd be really interesting to drive a GT3582R and GTX3582R car back to back to see the difference.

  • 2 weeks later...

OK guys im trying to achieve 400hp with stock internals. Anyone reckon i could do that for about 6 months before she blows. and im also having a big debate over the GT-RS and the Precision turbo PT5558. Which one would be more suitable for a street car which low to mid range boost but lso with some reasonable power.

The GT3586HTAs have definitely made some insane power, and are my preference... though the GTX3582Rs aren't exactly shrinking violets.

Garrett used slightly misleading naming on their Garrett GTX range, the GTX3582R for example has a 83mm exducer - or 85mm if you factor in the extended tips. The old GT3582R had a 61mm inducer, while the GTX3582R inducer is 62.5mm (bigger than PT6262) which is getting up there considering a GT4088R is 63.5mm! Its a substantial sized compressor they are using, it'd be really interesting to drive a GT3582R and GTX3582R car back to back to see the difference.

a guy on sau has done gt35 to gtx35 on his car, gained some top end power, but lost midrange and response.

OK guys im trying to achieve 400hp with stock internals. Anyone reckon i could do that for about 6 months before she blows. and im also having a big debate over the GT-RS and the Precision turbo PT5558. Which one would be more suitable for a street car which low to mid range boost but lso with some reasonable power.

anyway im after a precison billet turbo that would have a low to midrange power band. and also has the capability to produce 300kw, so im thinking along street/race turbo of some sort. any help

I will assume you have an RB powered car, in which case I will say both the GTRS and 5558 are poor options for 300kw.

Firstly the GTRS is not capable of getting you there, that is a 250kw job and thats it. The Precision is a high boost application and will need E85 to make it a comfortable result.

There are better/easier methods of hitting the 300 mark on an RB (assume RB25 from here), I would recommend you look at a GT30 based turbo or a hypergear G3 unit. The GT30 has great resale and is a well proven item, it will need a custom dump/lines/intake. The hypergear G3 will need the custom intake pipe but will work with most of the stock lines and will bolt up to the OEM dump. The G3 is probably a little more likely to hit 300kw on 98 but the GT30 will be a little more responsive (both run a .82 IW housing).

If you want to move to an externally gated option you can pick up one of the 'steampipe' manifolds for a good price and look at a kando T67 for you 300kw mark. That will be more likely to net 330kw, and the mentioned kit totals roughly the same as a hypergear and much less than the said GT30.

Now back to precision turbos.

  • 3 weeks later...

The new Precision PT6465CEA is now out and Sound Performance have tested it out against a PT6266 and PT6766 on a couple of different engines. First is a bog stock 2JZ running E85 on 36psi:

62vs64vs67_ReidsCar.jpg

Then just for prosperities sake they ran the same turbos to their limit on a fully built 3.4litre:

62vs64vs67.jpg

Interesting to note that the 64mm made more power everywhere on the stock motor running "less than maxed out", the 67mm only came into its own when everything was pushed to their limits - which really shouldn't be too surprising.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...