Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yeah those numbers seemed high for a 6766 on a Mustang, though I am still shocked that people are taking hp ratings as some kind of gospel. How much did you make atw on your old GT3076R? And what are GT3076Rs rated at?

The 6870 is certainly looking the goods, no matter how you slice it. Would have loved to have seen FPs Super94/99s on more things - they are in T4 twin scroll and imho until this came along the best thing since sliced bread for the ">6766 power without going BIG frame".

Ha, you stumped me on that one, I'm one of those guys. It was a 3037S, HKS rated to 480PS, Garrett 525hp, I made 503whp. In saying that, we pushed it to 25psi with a T2 1.12a/r housing, it had a held a flat boost curve unlike the .73 which would fall from 24>22psi (458whp). Car full weight went 10.4@136mph 2870lb.

The figure for which I base my decision on turbo selection is what the manufacturer rate them to anyway, as long it is capable of making that then it's all good. Going gung ho and trying be superman by making a shitload more that what they rate them to usually means that you're just reducing the life of the turbo in the first place. Hit your goal with the smallest turbo possible by all means, get greedy and you might find yourself with nothing left on your shaft. Hmm that sounds kind of funny...

In saying that, even with their massive claims, the yanks are doing some damn impressive stuff. I'll be ordering a 6870 in a couple of weeks depending on a call tomorrow. 1100hp at the crank should see my car trap 168mph. I'm feeling a bit excited.

In saying that, even with their massive claims, the yanks are doing some damn impressive stuff. I'll be ordering a 6870 in a couple of weeks depending on a call tomorrow. 1100hp at the crank should see my car trap 168mph. I'm feeling a bit excited.

Fwiw FP's closest equivalent to the PT6870 has pushed a couple of AWD Mitsis to very low 8s and over 180mph in cars which probably aren't hugely different in weight to your car, 168mph shouldn't be a massive ask from a PT6870 by any stretch

Ryan, absolutely impressed with that result, as I was with the STM Ricer at 2850lb and 8.75@167mph!! And I'm not having a dig at what the cars have achieved, only how our figures compare to overseas. At the end the day the track is what tells the truth to me.

Lith, totally agree, if I was turbo sponsored, I'd be happy to try and push the 6766 to 167mph (ran 154.86 on 36psi). The 7175 is pretty much tapped on 52psi and it went 164, the only thing I can really do is go out again, with more power and the longer gearing it has now 4.11. I think 170mph is possible, high 170's though? Not gonna happen.

PJ did you mention earlier that the JW automatic GTR ran 8.7 on a 6766? GST or not that is making some serious power from a 67mm

Just to elaborate on it also man, the car setup has a massive influence over the ET. The car trapped 153mph, that is a very good time for the trap speed.

I don't know of the weight, but it's an RB30/26 auto and it launches like a bat out of hell. Pretty sure when I spoke to Justin they had maxed it out, my 6766 showed signs of boost falling off @ 42psi (850whp) and the 7175 is showing 920whp with nothing left.

If I was a betting man I'd say that I was at the limit of the 6766's 935hp rating and probably sitting on 1000hp at the crank (7175 rated to 985hp).

Only sure way is an engine dyno. Rather wear my engine out on the track.

Edited by PJ.

Lith, totally agree, if I was turbo sponsored, I'd be happy to try and push the 6766 to 167mph (ran 154.86 on 36psi). The 7175 is pretty much tapped on 52psi and it went 164, the only thing I can really do is go out again, with more power and the longer gearing it has now 4.11. I think 170mph is possible, high 170's though? Not gonna happen.

Oops yeah sorry I wasn't saying that you would go near 180mph... I still think those cars are lighter and possibly generally more hard core set up to run those higher traps so not apples and apples, but still pretty amazing stuff compared to what people were doing similar times and traps with not that long ago considering.

So my 6870 will be on the way shortly, I plan to push it until it has nothing left to offer which according to its 1100hp rating should be a nice gain over the 7175. Certainly won't sound as good or hit as hard but that's not the reason I'm putting it on.

I would expect it to need at least 55psi to get it to a point where it won't offer any more power.

I'm chasing more response and the driveability that the 6766 offered. This is a custom 1.00 divided T4 housing we are using, so it will be a good comparison as the 7175 was running a .98 T4 divided.

It packs the goods to run low 8's in my car, I will try and better my time in the coming few weeks with the 7175 through better car setup before retiring it for turbo # 9 and the 6th Precision turbo since 2010. :)

24g9chs.jpg

  • 5 weeks later...

I called powertune today and there happy to swap over my 6766 (still in the box new) for a 6870 and I pay there difference between the two, I'll be putting it on a 26/30 but I've got to finish building my motor. I'm going to get the divided .83 rear housing . Just have to wait for the turbo to make its way over to aus pretty sure?

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

At this stage it'll be limited by standard 1uz bottom end (just head studs, mls headgaskets, porting, cams and valve springs) so I won't push it over 400kw. When I get the built bottom end back under it and a trans that can handle the power I'm hoping it will do 600kw.

At this stage it'll be limited by standard 1uz bottom end (just head studs, mls headgaskets, porting, cams and valve springs) so I won't push it over 400kw. When I get the built bottom end back under it and a trans that can handle the power I'm hoping it will do 600kw.

Yeah everything has to be able to handle it, with the 4Lts that should be fun, when you do the bottom end and turn it up to 600Kw, hold on tight :)

Put a 6262 CEA on my R34GTR , wanted to get rid of some of the lag from the T78, worked OK but not good enough, so got a 3.2Lt stroker going in and the 6262 should work great with the extra torque and rated around 700hp it will be more than plenty for what I want from the car.

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

    • The rain is the best time to push to the edge of the grip limit. Water lubrication reduces the consumption of rubber without reducing the fun. I take pleasure in driving around the outside of numpties in Audis, WRXs, BRZs, etc, because they get all worried in the wet. They warm up faster than the engine oil does.
    • When they're dead cold, and in the wet, they're not very fun. RE003 are alright, they do harden very quickly and turn into literally $50 Pace tyres.
    • Yeah, I thought that Reedy's video was quite good because he compared old and new (as in, well used and quite new) AD09s, with what is generally considered to be the fast Yokohama in this category (ie, sporty road/track tyres) and a tyre that people might be able to use to extend the comparo out into the space of more expensive European tyres, being the Cup 2. No-one would ever agree that the Cup 2 is a poor tyre - many would suggest that it is close to the very top of the category. And, for them all to come out so close to each other, and for the cheaper tyre in the test to do so well against the others, in some cases being even faster, shows that (good, non-linglong) tyres are reaching a plateau in terms of how good they can get, and they're all sitting on that same plateau. Anyway, on the AD08R, AD09, RS4 that I've had on the car in recent years, I've never had a problem in the cold and wet. SA gets down to 0-10°C in winter. Not so often, but it was only 4°C when I got in the car this morning. Once the tyres are warm (ie, after about 2km), you can start to lay into them. I've never aquaplaned or suffered serious off-corner understeer or anything like that in the wet, that I would not have expected to happen with a more normal tyre. I had some RE003s, and they were shit in the dry, shit in the wet, shit everywhere. I would rate the RS4 and AD0x as being more trustworthy in the wet, once the rubber is warm. Bridgestone should be ashamed of the RE003.
    • This is why I gave the disclaimer about how I drive in the wet which I feel is pretty important. I have heard people think RS4's are horrible in the rain, but I have this feeling they must be driving (or attempting to drive) anywhere close to the grip limit. I legitimately drive at the speed limit/below speed the limit 100% of the time in the rain. More than happy to just commute along at 50kmh behind a train of cars in 5th gear etc. I do agree with you with regards to the temp and the 'quality' of the tyre Dose. Most UHP tyres aren't even up to temperature on the road anyway, even when going mad initial D canyon carving. It would be interesting to see a not-up-to-temp UHP tyre compared against a mere... normal...HP tyre at these temperatures. I don't think you're (or me in this case) is actually picking up grip with an RS4/AD09 on the road relative to something like a RE003 because the RS4/AD09 is not up to temp and the RE003 is closer to it's optimal operating window.
    • Either the bearing has been installed backwards OR the gearbox input shaft bearing is loosey goosey.   When in doubt, just put in a Samsonas in.
×
×
  • Create New...