any suggestions on the 6262 turbo

[jasjamz]

Then the 60's or 80's are fine with a single XP pump.

 

[V6POWER]

The duty cycle on my car is mid-60's on pump gas and a single nozzle Alky kit.

 

[wmerrell]

The duty cycle on my car is mid-60's on pump gas and a single nozzle Alky kit.

Thanks!

BTW nice 60' time. What is the secret? or set up?

 

[V6POWER]

Thanks!

BTW nice 60' time. What is the secret? or set up?

Suspension is just boxed lca's, ATR sway bar, and Koni shocks all around. I launch with about 5# boost, off the foot brake.

 

[thunderace31]

60's should support like 575 rwhp. That is 720 flywheel, which is what that turbo is rated at. If you are upgrading, buy the 80's and one of the newer high flow pumps. You don't want to be running at 90-100% injector duty cycle. I see you don't have alky so I'm assuming you are using race fuel. So to answer your question, yes if you have stock heads, unported.

Ok now Im either off in lala land some place but my last BBC made 702HP On the Engine dyno and it put 599HP to the wheels that was threw a TH400 and 9" with 4.56 hears and 29" tall tire. So some one needs to explain how 720 Flywheel = 575 at the tire the 200R4 does not suck up as much power as the Th400 would. So Id have to say HP would be closer to 670 Flywheel and 575 to the wheels Next at that HP TQ will be silly around 620 or so on the little 3.8 at 30psi. You would be in the 10.60-10.80 range with a good 60foot at around 3650-3700lbs or full weight GN or T. I went 11.09 on 460 Rear wheel HP in a 3400 T a few years back. You really have to have the whole set up right so the car makes a good pass.

 

[jasjamz]

60x6x2=720
720x20%= 144
720-144=576

Average drivetrain loss is 20%. Excuse me if the numbers are a bit off because its just to approximate which isn't too far away from what you posted.

 

[thunderace31]

60x6x2=720
720x20%= 144
720-144=576

Average drivetrain loss is 20%. Excuse me if the numbers are a bit off because its just to approximate which isn't too far away from what you posted.

Well for one the 6262 is rated from PTE at 680HP at 30psi per PTE (Spoke to them)
And they even said a few weeks ago that it would close to 580hp at the rear wheels with the right mods. You may get 720HP out of one with heads a cam and e85
Also a Front mount on average (From mine and other friends cars) is only worth 1-2 10ths in the quarter

 

[John Wilde]

Well for one the 6262 is rated from PTE at 680HP at 30psi per PTE (Spoke to them)
And they even said a few weeks ago that it would close to 580hp at the rear wheels with the right mods. You may get 720HP out of one with heads a cam and e85
Also a Front mount on average (From mine and other friends cars) is only worth 1-2 10ths in the quarter

I am not sure how they could tell you the HP rating at a specific PSI.
Heads, Cam, Intake and Cubic Inch can all impact what PSI a turbo will max out at on different combinations.
For what it is worth, I am going to say the newer turbos are conservatively rated.
However with that being said the current version of the 6262 is rated at 705HP.

http://www.precisionturbo.net/Stree...Street-and-Race-Turbocharger---PT6262-CEA/245

 

[jasjamz]

Well for one the 6262 is rated from PTE at 680HP at 30psi per PTE (Spoke to them)
And they even said a few weeks ago that it would close to 580hp at the rear wheels with the right mods. You may get 720HP out of one with heads a cam and e85
Also a Front mount on average (From mine and other friends cars) is only worth 1-2 10ths in the quarter

I was making a reference to what the injectors could support. That is what he asked. Since they rated the 6262 at 705hp it would be somewhat of a good match on paper. However, as John stated its a conservative rating as with all the billet units. Also, as John said, how could they offer the 680@30psi number and you take that and run with it no questions asked or a given combo? I have used the 6262 and the 6765. I also have E85 in my car now. So I am speaking from personal experience which is more important to me. I guess you can go back to picking my post apart word for word and maybe the original poster will find that more useful.

I am not sure how they could tell you the HP rating at a specific PSI.
Heads, Cam, Intake and Cubic Inch can all impact what PSI a turbo will max out at on different combinations.
For what it is worth, I am going to say the newer turbos are conservatively rated.
However with that being said the current version of the 6262 is rated at 705HP.

http://www.precisionturbo.net/Stree...Street-and-Race-Turbocharger---PT6262-CEA/245

John, I'm glad you posted that. I have seen some post lately that really make me question some of the things going on around here.

 

[marleyskater420]

Well for one the 6262 is rated from PTE at 680HP at 30psi per PTE (Spoke to them)
And they even said a few weeks ago that it would close to 580hp at the rear wheels with the right mods. You may get 720HP out of one with heads a cam and e85
Also a Front mount on average (From mine and other friends cars) is only worth 1-2 10ths in the quarter

To paraphrase a friend of mine "Boost is a measure of air not going in your engine".

How could PTE tell you HP at a certain psi when they have no clue about all the factors in your engine/setup? Thats just silly!

However, look at a thread made by Otto or Bison where they test some of the newer billet wheels. They seem to make pretty good power at 28-30psi. I think with ported irons and a 212/212 they had an engine make 520~550rwhp? Not quite sure, but its still plenty for most.

I am not sure how they could tell you the HP rating at a specific PSI.
Heads, Cam, Intake and Cubic Inch can all impact what PSI a turbo will max out at on different combinations.
For what it is worth, I am going to say the newer turbos are conservatively rated.
However with that being said the current version of the 6262 is rated at 705HP.

http://www.precisionturbo.net/Stree...Street-and-Race-Turbocharger---PT6262-CEA/245

Hey man, how come the 6262 is now rated 25hp more? What is the difference between the CEA and the billet wheels-I thought they were the same? Or is this new 6262 have the newer turbine wheel they just came out with?

 

[Pronto]

Hey man, how come the 6262 is now rated 25hp more? What is the difference between the CEA and the billet wheels-I thought they were the same? Or is this new 6262 have the newer turbine wheel they just came out with?

All‐new Ultra High‐Flow CEA turbine wheels announced



Hebron, IN – September 21, 2011 – PRECISION TURBO AND ENGINE has announced the addition of all new, ultra high‐flow CEA (Competition Engineered Aerodynamics) turbine wheels to their current product line.

Specifically engineered to produce massive power gains over older turbine wheel designs, usage of Precision’s new CEA wheels typically results in an average increase of 30‐45 horsepower over comparably sized standard designs. Furthermore, spool‐up time is improved when using PTE’s CEA turbine wheels to further reduce turbo lag.
Precision’s current 62mm turbine wheels will be replaced by the new 62mm CEA version whereas the current 65mm turbine wheels will be replaced with a newly‐developed 66mm CEA wheel. Utilizing an enhanced design, the new ultra high‐flow turbine wheels will come standard on all of Precision’s 62mm and 66mm turbine wheel equipped turbochargers that also feature our exclusive CEA compressor wheels. They are available in both air cooled ball‐bearing and journal bearing versions. These include the 5862, 6262, 6266 and 6766 units.

Additionally, all current turbine housing offerings will be available with the new CEA turbine wheels. Similar in concept to our CEA compressor wheels, these new CEA turbine wheels offer unparalleled performance and the best “bang for your buck”. The cutting‐edge technology found in Precision Turbo and Engine’s CEA turbine wheels and CEA compressor wheels is unlike anything else on the market today. PTE is committed to keeping racers well ahead of the competition by constantly innovating and engineering the most powerful turbos possible.

Contact:
Precision Turbo and Engine, Inc
616A S Main Street, PO Box 425
Hebron, IN 46341
P: (219) 996‐7832
F: (219) 996‐7749
Precision Turbo and Engine: Turbochargers, Air/Fuel Delivery, Boost Control, Racing







This is the official press release about our proprietary and exclusive 66mm CEA turbine wheel that was just released yesterday. What this means for the Buick world, is more power at the same boost level, when compared to the CEA 6765 that it displaces and quicker spool up. With the decreases in back pressure with this new turbine wheel and wanting to use an internally wastegated downpipe, it may be necessary to install the larger RJC internal downpipe puck assembly.

As you would need to port the wastegate hole in the turbine housing more than you normally could with a standard 1.5" puck typically used on the internally wastegated 3" and 3.5" downpipes. Or you could eliminate any doubt about boost control and run an external wastegate. The Precision .63 and .85 A/R 3-bolt turbine housings are available for these new units, as well as our T4 Tangentials in .58, .68, .81 and .96 A/R.
Stay tuned for more pictures and information too come about these new CEA turbine wheel equipped turbos.

Patrick

 

[jasjamz]

Yep, Pronto keeps track of the things going on around here. Him and Grumpy are the early risers. I have friends with both versions of the 6262. Pronto, one car is very similar to yours and will be looking to run the same times. (Faster when he's not looking)

 

[bison]

Well for one the 6262 is rated from PTE at 680HP at 30psi per PTE (Spoke to them)
And they even said a few weeks ago that it would close to 580hp at the rear wheels with the right mods. You may get 720HP out of one with heads a cam and e85
Also a Front mount on average (From mine and other friends cars) is only worth 1-2 10ths in the quarter

580whp would take a lot of boost on top of a really good engine. When I ran the 6262 on the dyno on my blur car I did not make anywhere near 580whp. I ran as much as 34psi. The engine had junk heads and 7.5:1 CR. The engine propelled my blue car to 10.61@127.85 with a 60-1@30-31psi.

 

[jasjamz]

580whp would take a lot of boost on top of a really good engine. When I ran the 6262 on the dyno on my blur car I did not make anywhere near 580whp. I ran as much as 34psi. The engine had junk heads and 7.5:1 CR. The engine propelled my blue car to 10.61@127.85 with a 60-1@30-31psi.

So how much did it dyno with the 60-1@30-31psi?

 

[bison]

So how much did it dyno with the 60-1@30-31psi?

The dyno wasn't able to load it to get 30-31 the way I have it set up. It was around 28psi with 24* and made around 510. It was probably 540-545 on the 127.85 pass.

 

[marleyskater420]

The dyno wasn't able to load it to get 30-31 the way I have it set up. It was around 28psi with 24* and made around 510. It was probably 540-545 on the 127.85 pass.

The 60-1 really seems hard to beat. If your engine was 9 or 9.5:1 do you feel the 62 would have outshined the 60-1?

It seems the 60-1 is more turbo than 90% of the community will need. However no one wants to run the boost levels to take them there.

 

[bison]

The 60-1 really seems hard to beat. If your engine was 9 or 9.5:1 do you feel the 62 would have outshined the 60-1?

It seems the 60-1 is more turbo than 90% of the community will need. However no one wants to run the boost levels to take them there.

The funny thing is the performance I got out of that old compressor doesn't agree with the map. If you look you will see that at 2.2:1 pressure ratio Is where the 60-1 has the highest mass flow. Assuming a 2 psi drop across the intercooler and the fact I was at 1100' on the 127+pass I was wayyyyy off the map. High and to the right at over 3:1. Having a higher CR does nothing for the compressor. It helps squeeze out the crap in the cylinder on the ex stroke a lot better and increases power relative to fuel consumption. The 62 would likely have shown something over the 60-1 but keep in mind the mass flow is crap through that engine. The heads are junk and it has hyd lifters with a theoretical lift less than .500. The 62 would likely make 5-10% more power than I had if I ran it in the same conditions with 34-35psi. Probably around 585-590whp. That is working it pretty hard. The CR might be too low for that potential mass flow. Backpressure is about the same with the 2 turbines. I'll be able to see what the 62 compressor can do with good heads and 8.3:1 CR soon. It will be a 65 ex. I'm thinking 600whp@26psi no problem

 

[marleyskater420]

The funny thing is the performance I got out of that old compressor doesn't agree with the map. If you look you will see that at 2.2:1 pressure ratio Is where the 60-1 has the highest mass flow. Assuming a 2 psi drop across the intercooler and the fact I was at 1100' on the 127+pass I was wayyyyy off the map. High and to the right at over 3:1. Having a higher CR does nothing for the compressor. It helps squeeze out the crap in the cylinder on the ex stroke a lot better and increases power relative to fuel consumption. The 62 would likely have shown something over the 60-1 but keep in mind the mass flow is crap through that engine. The heads are junk and it has hyd lifters with a theoretical lift less than .500. The 62 would likely make 5-10% more power than I had if I ran it in the same conditions with 34-35psi. Probably around 585-590whp. That is working it pretty hard. The CR might be too low for that potential mass flow. Backpressure is about the same with the 2 turbines. I'll be able to see what the 62 conpressor can do with good heads and 8.3:1 CR soon. It will be a 65 ex. I'm thinkIng 600whp@26psi no problem

Interesting.

So with an engine the flowed better all around, and had a higher CR, the 62 would out perform the 60-1? But unless the engine allowed for adequate flow of what the 62 is capable of, running a 62 isn't really needed?

What difference do you think you will have between the 62turbine wheel and the 65?

 

[bison]

Interesting.

So with an engine the flowed better all around, and had a higher CR, the 62 would out perform the 60-1? But unless the engine allowed for adequate flow of what the 62 is capable of, running a 62 isn't really needed?

What difference do you think you will have between the 62turbine wheel and the 65?

the 62 billet compressor likely flows 70-75lbs/min of air working it hard. This is likely at 3-3.5:1 pressure ratio. If the engine can take advantage of it with better heads and cam then the 62 will make considerably more power than the 60-1. Going to the 65 ex wheel will reduce backpressure a bunch over 600hp. Likely little gain under 600hp though. Increasing massflow will increase backpressure faster at a lower rpm. I guess I'll find out for sure since I haven't ran the 62 for all it's worth yet. I dont anyone on here has. Gn4u2c ran mid 10's on a stock longblock. That is really cranking it. How many on here have gone at least that fast with any version of the 62 compressor? Most have "much better" stuff and can't even achieve that.

 

[jasjamz]

I just reread the GN4u2c thread, have re-read the interesting dyno testing thread and your 10.61@127 thread. Interesting enough when I suggest the 6262 someone looking to buy a new unit, I just about get flamed like I suggested a 76HPQ lol!
When you said "Thats cranking it" did you mean those were good numbers, or he was pushing the turbo/tune hard?