Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I know it's the shittest pic in the world but this should give you an idea of 6262 power potential. We ran it up at just under 2 bar (1.96 I believe) and it went 710rwhp (530rwkw) and 776Nm.

Stock bottom end RB26 with 1.2mm head gasket and Grex 9.1mm cams

20131003_173129_zps562ef6cf.jpg

I know it's the shittest pic in the world but this should give you an idea of 6262 power potential. We ran it up at just under 2 bar (1.96 I believe) and it went 710rwhp (530rwkw) and 776Nm.

Stock bottom end RB26 with 1.2mm head gasket and Grex 9.1mm cams

Fark! :blink:

Still running the 1200cc injectors or have you upgraded?

I know it's the shittest pic in the world but this should give you an idea of 6262 power potential. We ran it up at just under 2 bar (1.96 I believe) and it went 710rwhp (530rwkw) and 776Nm.

Stock bottom end RB26 with 1.2mm head gasket and Grex 9.1mm cams

20131003_173129_zps562ef6cf.jpg

Why do you post this result you will destroy my wallet!!!

Holy molah!

*chucks the twins in the bin*

I know right hahaha

I know it's the shittest pic in the world but this should give you an idea of 6262 power potential. We ran it up at just under 2 bar (1.96 I believe) and it went 710rwhp (530rwkw) and 776Nm.

Stock bottom end RB26 with 1.2mm head gasket and Grex 9.1mm cams

Awesome result man :D Got to be happy with that, had no doubt that a 6262 would make that kind of power but still cool to see somewhere here throw it down in a GTR along with a decent power delivery :) Going to be an animal!

I am rapt that people in Oz are embracing these (Precision CEA and FP HTA turbos), I wish people in NZ would join this decade too :(

I have been prattling on about them for YEARS, and just get chortled at like people think it is inflated dyno results or whatever. Had a bit of that a few years ago on this forum but now it's the new black.

  • Like 1

Its a damn good result and to be honest that dyno figure would be quite conservative as well.

We get the 200SX tuned by Yavuz and at about 430rwkw i have run 137mph at Eastern Creek in complete street trim. I am talking stereo and all, so with a 484rwkw your most certainly going to be running into the 9's at over 140mph

I am really looking forward to seeing what the 6766 twin scroll does on our car now. I got a 1.0 rear so it will be interesting to see just how responsive it will be

With regard to traction, throw a couple of washers on top of the diff mounts and point the nose of the diff down ie between the diff and cradle. Made a pretty massive difference to the car after we did that. I know it can be fun to drive without them, but nothing beats being pinned back into the seat and not being able to move :)

My main thing was that i wanted it be strictly streetable and wasnt fussed about the dyno figure - not that its too bad at all! Therefore I went for a 6466 with .84 twin scroll - I was concerned this would be too big as I was thinking to go for a 6266 originally - although very happy with this setup which is super responsive compared to most cars I have been in, not to mention torquey-as down low due to the RB30.

It has been running for some time on 13psi run in tune which it did 308rwkw on pump 98 - then 20psi on e85 which it did 365rwkw for about 2 weeks.

Even on 20 psi the car is a wild drive on the streets - stepping out in 4th gear once is hits about 4000rpm as if it was second gear (still waiting on half decent tyres to show up).

If I upgrade the catch can (which is small as I wanted it to be hidden) they could push 34psi but doubt I will ever need to, nor bother going to the troubble as this thing has been in the making for over a year now!

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

    • Input shaft bearing. They all do it. There is always rollover noise in Nissan boxes - particularly the big box. Don't worry about it unless it gets really growly.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...