Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Doesn't sound that bad Pete. The new dump will improve response, something you should really feel driving it rather than see on a dyno. Obviously the turbo was selected for response so that's why its running out of puff up top on a 3.2 and why the bigger dump isnt making much difference in the top end. Don't stress about it. As long as all the tuning is done right so you don't have the previous issues. Don't worry about e85 either, it would be a head f**k for a daily seeing that its becoming more scarce. See how you go but I recon it should be exactly what you want. Hope so anyway. :)

I am not sure how it works but the PT6262 CEA is rated at over 700HP and this is only running around 520HP @ 22psi so I do not think it is running out of puff, might need some boost to get the 6262 going harder , do I need more boost, I do not think so,but it would be interesting to see how it goes :)

But as you said, it will be all I want if the dump gives a little more response and it only matters when you are driving it.

Why didn't that embed......

What's the response of car like, or not driving it yet?

Not yet, should be sometime this week, if the leak has been sorted, should know tomorrow and maybe it will be tuned then ?

Based on others, 6266 is better for higher revs on a 3.2. Your 62 rear is probably restricting exhaust gas flow. Even if you increase boost its a scenario of diminishing returns comparing to a bigger turbo, but the trade off would be low end. But the 3.2 will look after that to a point.

  • Like 1

Your probably around the 560-570hp mark ATM Pete

700 is absolute best case scenario

ATM it is about ,615HP ish crank. well I think 386 awkw is around 520whp

I know I keep saying this, but I still want it to go earlier , so I will wait and see what happens when I give it a run :)

I'm probably missing something;

Ran car at full power (identical set up?) and noticed less power than before...casual observation, nothing more to add?

Turned boost down (from 22 psi) and then it doesn't misfire...is that being offered as the solution to the misfire?

Put other cams in that were found to be better, then took them out again...?

  • Like 2

Based on others, 6266 is better for higher revs on a 3.2. Your 62 rear is probably restricting exhaust gas flow. Even if you increase boost its a scenario of diminishing returns comparing to a bigger turbo, but the trade off would be low end. But the 3.2 will look after that to a point.

I know this will sound dumb to you blokes that have driven these cars for yonks, but getting used of a car that revs so high is very strange.

This car was limited at 10000rpm, or maybe no limiter,the first time I went over 10000rpm because I was too slow to change up, it went nuts from 6000rpm , hit 10,000 in a flash and I shit myself LOL

I'm probably missing something;

Ran car at full power (identical set up?) and noticed less power than before...casual observation, nothing more to add?

Turned boost down (from 22 psi) and then it doesn't misfire...is that being offered as the solution to the misfire?

Put other cams in that were found to be better, then took them out again...?

Lets see how it goes, only a few days to wait until I get my arse in the car, that is the only test :)

All jokes aside, what's the obsession with turning them so damn hard? Is it the noise of it screaming it's head off?

Mainly because it would not go over 6500rpm, there was no need to do it. Shit load of fun @5500rpm :)

Mainly because it would not go over 6500rpm, there was no need to do it. Shit load of fun @5500rpm :)

Not talking about your setup. I'm talking about turning the to 10,000 rpm and beyond for a car that's driven on the street. Is 8000 rpm not enough?

All jokes aside, what's the obsession with turning them so damn hard? Is it the noise of it screaming it's head off?

All of the above. He he. Love it.

Seeing you're such a fan of 26s, I think you will like to know I am putting a t04z on mine shortly. More lag, just the way you like it, he he

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

    • 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.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...