3582HTA vs 6265 Dyno Comparo
Jan 10, 2009, 02:36 PM
#136
Evolving Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want a 600whp EVO that can attain that figure without spinning the compressor to its limits, while having a broad torque curve and best possible transient response. The obvious choice was an HTA3582R in twinscroll configuration, and I have yet to see anything better suited to the task. The fact that the turbo can be pushed somewhere beyond 700whp is irrelevant to my power and longevity targets. I don't quite see how that makes me a 'bench racer'. I feel a term like 'rational individual' is more fitting.
'Everyone and their grandma' knows getting something costs something else, but that is true only in a broad sense. Advances in technology defy that rule, and in this case, it comes as a result of swapping a more efficient compressor onto an already efficient turbine.
'Everyone and their grandma' knows getting something costs something else, but that is true only in a broad sense. Advances in technology defy that rule, and in this case, it comes as a result of swapping a more efficient compressor onto an already efficient turbine.
In case you forgot, the 6265 uses a custom billet wheel as well, which runs a smaller hub, thus makinf for more "blade" than a conventional wheel with a similar inducer. The difference is that the HTA stuff also took some of the inducer away to further lighten the wheel. IE, the 62 pte wheel is a good bit bigger and will have a lot higher choke flow. My grandma told be that an ~800whp compressor will spool slower than a 700whp one, all else being equal of course
Jan 10, 2009, 05:19 PM
#138
There are lots of reasons that two dyno tests done on different dynos, with different cars, at different times with four different turbos could reach results that would confuse someone who assumes performance characteristics between different turbos in the FP and PT families and then extrapolates that different results should have happened. Why you'd ASSume that the FP dyno results were changed, but accept the Mike AWD dyno tests as gospel is beyond me...
Ted B. is dead on. When you read these results, ask yourself how much they tell you about what a turbo would do for you on your own car. How many of us are going to be running 40 PSI ever, much less on a regular basis? Find the turbo that works well in the parameters you'll use. For the vast majority of people, I bet that a turbo like the 82HTA seems to be very well documented as a winner...
Ted B. is dead on. When you read these results, ask yourself how much they tell you about what a turbo would do for you on your own car. How many of us are going to be running 40 PSI ever, much less on a regular basis? Find the turbo that works well in the parameters you'll use. For the vast majority of people, I bet that a turbo like the 82HTA seems to be very well documented as a winner...
forget that the 6262 made 784whp on our dyno and realize it ran 8.98@156mph...you dont have to take the dyno #'s as gospel but the track times you should..
Last edited by AWD Motorsports; Feb 6, 2009 at 01:16 PM.
Jan 10, 2009, 06:49 PM
#139
Sorry i dont buy into the dynograph myself.. that 59mm turbo making more power and tq than the 62mm PTE comparable is not going to happen.. The hta86 is a closer comparison as the 3582 has run nowhere near 8's or even bottom bottom 9's...
forget that the 6262 made 784whp on our dyno and realize it ran 8.98@156mph...you dont have to take the dyno #'s as gospel but the track times you should..
forget that the 6262 made 784whp on our dyno and realize it ran 8.98@156mph...you dont have to take the dyno #'s as gospel but the track times you should..
Back on topic. Peak HP or full drag track times provide useful information for someone interested on that particular narrow focus. It provides much less useful information on the performance characteristics I'm interested in for a high power street car. I want a turbo with torque under the curve. Your numbers provide no comparison there.
Jan 10, 2009, 06:57 PM
#140
Since the FP graphs show HP for both turbos peaking at under 600HP, I expect that whatever the conditions you are testing at are at substantially higher boost and/or with different fuel (given 784HP) than those described in FP's testing. I'm guessing that most of the other parameters of your testing are not comparable, either. Does that give me enough information to question your posted data? No. Neither does the data you apparently question because it does not meet your assumptions give you enough information to conclude that it is inaccurate.
Back on topic. Peak HP or full drag track times provide useful information for someone interested on that particular narrow focus. It provides much less useful information on the performance characteristics I'm interested in for a high power street car. I want a turbo with torque under the curve. Your numbers provide no comparison there.
Back on topic. Peak HP or full drag track times provide useful information for someone interested on that particular narrow focus. It provides much less useful information on the performance characteristics I'm interested in for a high power street car. I want a turbo with torque under the curve. Your numbers provide no comparison there.
Good luck finding what you are looking for.. I went off the beaten path of HTA hype and it worked out very well for us.. I think the 6062 precision will be the next turbo to shine from precision for a street car.. well see what happens when we test it..
Jan 11, 2009, 09:17 AM
#144
Thanks, Mike. I do to. 
I applaud your results and hard work.
I do note, though, that when you're a dealer who makes a living selling parts, I understand why you would look for turbo options other than FP, since FP's profit margins for dealers are lower than some other companies, of which PTE is a good example. That's been posted by other vendors for years. But that fact is also a good reason for us to look carefully at all data and opinions posted by you and other vendors, too, since you all have a financial "dog in the fight".
For the rest of us who are turbo buyers, just looking for a great turbo for our own applications, there's no "hype" in the results that Buschur and others have documented with the various FP HTA equipped turbos. And if you're looking for a TS option, as Ted B. noted, the 3582HTA looks like its head and shoulders above any other options available.
I do note, though, that when you're a dealer who makes a living selling parts, I understand why you would look for turbo options other than FP, since FP's profit margins for dealers are lower than some other companies, of which PTE is a good example. That's been posted by other vendors for years. But that fact is also a good reason for us to look carefully at all data and opinions posted by you and other vendors, too, since you all have a financial "dog in the fight".
For the rest of us who are turbo buyers, just looking for a great turbo for our own applications, there's no "hype" in the results that Buschur and others have documented with the various FP HTA equipped turbos. And if you're looking for a TS option, as Ted B. noted, the 3582HTA looks like its head and shoulders above any other options available.
Jan 11, 2009, 09:57 AM
#145
A few notes to summarize my observations:
Mike's drag strip results are impressive. At the same time, we must realize that when it comes to using drag strip ETs as a measuring stick, the difference between 8.98@156mph and mid 9's@156mph in this case boils down to suspension, launch, traction, shiftpoints, and things that are particular to the car and driver. If we want to compare turbos between two cars of similar weight and gearing, the trap speed is the most useful indicator of average applied power. Mike's 156mph trap speed with 'only' 780whp is because he has over 700whp available for the better part of 3000rpm.
As far as an HTA3582 not 'running 8's or bottom 9s', that only really matters to drag racers, who typically gravitate toward larger turbos and are willing to accept reduced longevity. I see the HTA3582 as a more advantageous street option. That being said, it is not difficult to see the difference between a 11 sec and 13 sec car on the street without ending up in jail, but not two 9 sec cars.
As for the graph in the OP, it was made clear that the indicated boost pressure was the same in both instances. That leaves little doubt that if more were applied, the larger turbo should pull away, albeit requiring more rpm to do it. It is interesting nonetheless for anyone <=600whp and who pays retail for parts/services, which is at least 90% of us.
And as Mike noted, the PTE 6062 would have made for a more appropriate comparison, and would be useful for those who would consider that vs an HTA3582. It's too bad PTE's website is in such disarray, as I see no mention of a 6062, 6262, 6265, etc. anywhere in that jumbled mess of turbo listings.
And finally, it's too bad PTE overlooked TS turbine housings in their new lineup. I'm seeing 20psi by 4000 rpm with my TS HTA3582, and the TS T4 1.06 A/R is capable of more than the compressor can deliver (over 700whp). Again, if there is something else that can match that, I haven't seen it.
Mike's drag strip results are impressive. At the same time, we must realize that when it comes to using drag strip ETs as a measuring stick, the difference between 8.98@156mph and mid 9's@156mph in this case boils down to suspension, launch, traction, shiftpoints, and things that are particular to the car and driver. If we want to compare turbos between two cars of similar weight and gearing, the trap speed is the most useful indicator of average applied power. Mike's 156mph trap speed with 'only' 780whp is because he has over 700whp available for the better part of 3000rpm.
As far as an HTA3582 not 'running 8's or bottom 9s', that only really matters to drag racers, who typically gravitate toward larger turbos and are willing to accept reduced longevity. I see the HTA3582 as a more advantageous street option. That being said, it is not difficult to see the difference between a 11 sec and 13 sec car on the street without ending up in jail, but not two 9 sec cars.
As for the graph in the OP, it was made clear that the indicated boost pressure was the same in both instances. That leaves little doubt that if more were applied, the larger turbo should pull away, albeit requiring more rpm to do it. It is interesting nonetheless for anyone <=600whp and who pays retail for parts/services, which is at least 90% of us.
And as Mike noted, the PTE 6062 would have made for a more appropriate comparison, and would be useful for those who would consider that vs an HTA3582. It's too bad PTE's website is in such disarray, as I see no mention of a 6062, 6262, 6265, etc. anywhere in that jumbled mess of turbo listings.
And finally, it's too bad PTE overlooked TS turbine housings in their new lineup. I'm seeing 20psi by 4000 rpm with my TS HTA3582, and the TS T4 1.06 A/R is capable of more than the compressor can deliver (over 700whp). Again, if there is something else that can match that, I haven't seen it.
Jan 11, 2009, 10:39 AM
#146
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as Mike noted, the PTE 6062 would have made for a more appropriate comparison, and would be useful for those who would consider that vs an HTA3582. It's too bad PTE's website is in such disarray, as I see no mention of a 6062, 6262, 6265, etc. anywhere in that jumbled mess of turbo listings.
And finally, it's too bad PTE overlooked TS turbine housings in their new lineup. I'm seeing 20psi by 4000 rpm with my TS HTA3582, and the TS T4 1.06 A/R is capable of more than the compressor can deliver (over 700whp). Again, if there is something else that can match that, I haven't seen it.
And finally, it's too bad PTE overlooked TS turbine housings in their new lineup. I'm seeing 20psi by 4000 rpm with my TS HTA3582, and the TS T4 1.06 A/R is capable of more than the compressor can deliver (over 700whp). Again, if there is something else that can match that, I haven't seen it.
Yeah, PTEs website is terribly out dated, the only real way to get info is to call them or talk with a dealer who has the product catalog. Im also a bit disgruntled that they dont offer a TS housing, it definitely leaves something on the table, Im going to be talking with them again this week about it. The only real solution I have found is use the TS GT35R but upgrade to a PTE 62mm compressor. Its still not as good as a TS 6262 would be, but it works for now.
Last edited by ScorpionT; Jan 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM.
Jan 12, 2009, 08:29 AM
#147
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing the 6265 to the hta3582 is not an ideal comparison IMO. The 65mm turbine wheel is much better suited to a larger displacement engine or something with a larger compressor wheel than the 62mm wheel. I feel all of these turbos perform very well but you have to keep it apples to apples.
I saw it mentioned that the PTE wheels were made of 6061? How was the specific alloy actually determined?
Jan 12, 2009, 08:45 AM
#149
Account Disabled
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few notes to summarize my observations:
Mike's drag strip results are impressive. At the same time, we must realize that when it comes to using drag strip ETs as a measuring stick, the difference between 8.98@156mph and mid 9's@156mph in this case boils down to suspension, launch, traction, shiftpoints, and things that are particular to the car and driver. If we want to compare turbos between two cars of similar weight and gearing, the trap speed is the most useful indicator of average applied power. Mike's 156mph trap speed with 'only' 780whp is because he has over 700whp available for the better part of 3000rpm.
As far as an HTA3582 not 'running 8's or bottom 9s', that only really matters to drag racers, who typically gravitate toward larger turbos and are willing to accept reduced longevity. I see the HTA3582 as a more advantageous street option. That being said, it is not difficult to see the difference between a 11 sec and 13 sec car on the street without ending up in jail, but not two 9 sec cars.
As for the graph in the OP, it was made clear that the indicated boost pressure was the same in both instances. That leaves little doubt that if more were applied, the larger turbo should pull away, albeit requiring more rpm to do it. It is interesting nonetheless for anyone <=600whp and who pays retail for parts/services, which is at least 90% of us.
And as Mike noted, the PTE 6062 would have made for a more appropriate comparison, and would be useful for those who would consider that vs an HTA3582. It's too bad PTE's website is in such disarray, as I see no mention of a 6062, 6262, 6265, etc. anywhere in that jumbled mess of turbo listings.
And finally, it's too bad PTE overlooked TS turbine housings in their new lineup. I'm seeing 20psi by 4000 rpm with my TS HTA3582, and the TS T4 1.06 A/R is capable of more than the compressor can deliver (over 700whp). Again, if there is something else that can match that, I haven't seen it.
Mike's drag strip results are impressive. At the same time, we must realize that when it comes to using drag strip ETs as a measuring stick, the difference between 8.98@156mph and mid 9's@156mph in this case boils down to suspension, launch, traction, shiftpoints, and things that are particular to the car and driver. If we want to compare turbos between two cars of similar weight and gearing, the trap speed is the most useful indicator of average applied power. Mike's 156mph trap speed with 'only' 780whp is because he has over 700whp available for the better part of 3000rpm.
As far as an HTA3582 not 'running 8's or bottom 9s', that only really matters to drag racers, who typically gravitate toward larger turbos and are willing to accept reduced longevity. I see the HTA3582 as a more advantageous street option. That being said, it is not difficult to see the difference between a 11 sec and 13 sec car on the street without ending up in jail, but not two 9 sec cars.
As for the graph in the OP, it was made clear that the indicated boost pressure was the same in both instances. That leaves little doubt that if more were applied, the larger turbo should pull away, albeit requiring more rpm to do it. It is interesting nonetheless for anyone <=600whp and who pays retail for parts/services, which is at least 90% of us.
And as Mike noted, the PTE 6062 would have made for a more appropriate comparison, and would be useful for those who would consider that vs an HTA3582. It's too bad PTE's website is in such disarray, as I see no mention of a 6062, 6262, 6265, etc. anywhere in that jumbled mess of turbo listings.
And finally, it's too bad PTE overlooked TS turbine housings in their new lineup. I'm seeing 20psi by 4000 rpm with my TS HTA3582, and the TS T4 1.06 A/R is capable of more than the compressor can deliver (over 700whp). Again, if there is something else that can match that, I haven't seen it.
Exactly!
comparing track times is worthless IMO. At those levels its all driver and setup.
Either way i think all the new options make things very interesting. Its awesome how fast some of you guys are going on "t3 based" turbos.
Jan 12, 2009, 08:46 AM
#150
Fair enough. We'll just have to wait and see what you develop.
The basic difference between 6061 and 2000 series is the 6061 alloy has more silicon, while 2000 series has more copper. 6061 is more 'user friendly' in that it is easy to weld and is a general purpose alloy. 2000 series has significantly greater tensile strength and better fatigue resistance, but I believe it is a little less corrosion resistant (not that it would be an issue in this application).
The basic difference between 6061 and 2000 series is the 6061 alloy has more silicon, while 2000 series has more copper. 6061 is more 'user friendly' in that it is easy to weld and is a general purpose alloy. 2000 series has significantly greater tensile strength and better fatigue resistance, but I believe it is a little less corrosion resistant (not that it would be an issue in this application).