Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was thinking about getting a Precision PT6262 for my RB26/30, have had a look on eBay $1137.28 delivered and Powertune Australia looks to have dropped their prices to$1150, only $13 difference so i ordered through Powertune Australia as they have warranty for the turbos as well as the support! I am excited and can't wait to test this baby out!! :)

sounds about right, powertune quoted me for 6266 jb $1080

  • 2 weeks later...

Finally got my 6466 .82 twin scroll running on a RB25/30 - beautiful response down low and its well on boost by 4000 rpm if not earlier,

Currently making 308rwkw at 13psi - low boost as the engine is still being run in.

That's good to hear! What's the maximum psi you plan on running on pump gas with that 6466?

Also, can you please do me a personal favor and measure the exterior diameter/width of your housings? I'm just worried I may not be able to fit it in my engine bay as my current setup is already a tight fit. Here's what my engine bay looks like:

20130318_133158_zps8104801e.jpg

wow 86 pages now? this thread is popular!.

got some results from my build for yaz.

431 hp atw @ 16psi on the little 6262 t4 t/s .84 on pump with plenty more left in it. will update the dyno charts section with my dyno sheet when I can be f*kt, or after I go back for the second tune.

Well, curiosity got the better of me after I encountered an issue with my 6466. I removed the unit, removed the drain and inlet oil restrict or and had a peek inside. Seems the entire rotating assembly is shifting forwards and backwards inside of the cartridge housing, almost as is there is a retaining clip missing. So on the blower I get, and it seems they don't really seem too keen on warranting it as I removed the restrictor. The fcuk? I wasn't born yesterday! I'll. upload a vid of it soon. I hope precision comes to the party on this one, same goes for PT.

I'm still debating whether to go with 6262, 6266 or 6466 as I'm planning to run this on 98 octane pump gas no more. I was told by a vendor the spool difference between a 6266 and a 6466 is almost negligible.

Yeah I can measure it up for you PM me to remind me if I forget!

I had the same dilemma I spoke to precision directly and workshops in the US that dealt with them and they all pretty much said about 300-500rpm difference in each so I bit the bullet and went the bigger as I knew id always be curious if I didnt. I haven't looked back put it that way, although I have it in twin scroll on a 6 boost manifold to help it all along and its on a 3L

Should be mid 20s on pump and 30+psi on E85 for the get farrked boost setting

  • Like 1

the 6466 is much bigger than a 3540 .7 front if that helps

That's good to hear! What's the maximum psi you plan on running on pump gas with that 6466?

Also, can you please do me a personal favor and measure the exterior diameter/width of your housings? I'm just worried I may not be able to fit it in my engine bay as my current setup is already a tight fit. Here's what my engine bay looks like:

20130318_133158_zps8104801e.jpg

Thanks for your feedback Donut_king! It looks like I'll be going with a 6266. The 6466 seems like it would require a lot of boost to come alive and that is no fun mated when it comes to pump gas.

Edited by G37Sam
  • 2 weeks later...

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...