Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Opinions on a 6466 w/ .84 TS on a built 2.6 with 272/272 10.2mm lift cams?

I have poured through this thread, and as such was leaning towards the 6262 or even considered the 6062 Gen2 thats just been released - but my engine builder is telling me the 6466 is 100% the go

I trust the workshop, but just want to double check other's results; dont want something that comes on at 5k or later.. id rather it come on hard at 4.2-4.5k rpm

Its concerning seeing people say a 6466 outflows a T51R

A rb30 usually adds about 500rpm response all things equal... My cams are bigger than yours, so you could possibly base it off that. I'm using a 1.0 divided housing.

I don't think it will be bad, certainly better than a T51R in response, even if it does flow more top end. Thats the beauty of new technology.

If you're worried about response though your are probably better off with a smaller turbo, unless you have a power figure you definitely want. Take into account the 6466 is a 600awkw turbo

Depends on car use, I'd be giving a 6062 a go if your stuck between the 6262 and 6466 for a decision. It should sit right in the middle in response and power :)

I try and do everything with my car from tight sprints, circuit work,1000m drags and powercruise etc. and the 6262 is right in the sweet spot of power and response. I actually turn it down 140hp for everything apart from powercruise and drags because it's more than enough. What do you want from your car?

A 6466 is going to be responsive for its size but it's getting towards drag car only power band on a 2.6L, if that's what you want then go for it but your never going to keep up with the Jones's.

What would you guys recommend for. Street drag VL, auto re401a

Forged Rb30 NEO head

270 9.2mm cams

Plenum etc etc 3k stall

Currently running gt35 .82 internal gate

22psi 422hp but out of injectors

98ron

I was looking at the 6466

6466 1.0 divided.

I make 433awkw on 22psi, 98

100kw more on e85

Should be plenty to run 9's

It's been a while but here is my Dyno sheet from build

Rb26 precision 6262 at 19 psi.

Car is running good other than its smoking from turbo.

Anybody here using restrictors? I just put a .030 restrictor and stopped smoking but not sure if I should drive it.(n1 pump)

EC990DBB-75E3-4453-89C1-EC9B0C5E4339_zps

Thanks for the quick reply guys. Haven't removed the factory restrictor. I'm running a -4an feed line and a -10 am drain line. Drain line is pretty straight down with now kinks. I also did a leak down test and compression test on the engine. Got 128 psi on all 6 cyl.(running 8:3:1 CR) and dry leak down test was 10% on al 6 but #1 13%. Not sure what other options I have

I'm getting 45psi. Pressure at 2.5-3krpms and over 60 psi from 4k up

Edited by silvianc

Is that America?

because that is epic power in Australia for that boost

Lol yeah. I'm in the U.S.

Setup made

390hp@9psi

450@11psi

560@15psi

611@19psi

This is on a 2.6, 87mm pistons and Tomei type B cams, t4 .84 divided housing and limiter on 8400 Rpms but u can see dyno sheet actually was 7.8k Rpms

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=773329676088103&id=142284982525912&_rdr

Our horses are angrier

It's been a while but here is my Dyno sheet from build

Rb26 precision 6262 at 19 psi.

Car is running good other than its smoking from turbo.

Anybody here using restrictors? I just put a .030 restrictor and stopped smoking but not sure if I should drive it.(n1 pump)

EC990DBB-75E3-4453-89C1-EC9B0C5E4339_zps

Hell yeah. I'm in the USA too. Here I am thinking of seeing 550 whp on pumpgas and I'm at sea level and I'm on a stroker motor. Heck I may see 650 whp on pump after seeing this !

Hell yeah. I'm in the USA too. Here I am thinking of seeing 550 whp on pumpgas and I'm at sea level and I'm on a stroker motor. Heck I may see 650 whp on pump after seeing this !

You'll probably see 550 Australian horses if you've been looking at our graphs. More if in USA

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...