Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

quaition on new 6466 vs 6766 .

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 30, 2012 | 07:10 PM
  #16  
SmurfZilla's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
I made more the 735 on a 6265. I would've made over 800 if one of my fuel pumps didn't become an issue.

I'm sure the 6266 can hit 850. It'll be in its upper ranges. but it should be able to achieve it.
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2012 | 07:56 PM
  #17  
maperformance's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (358)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,805
Likes: 20
From: Cottage Grove, MN
Originally Posted by asubennett
You misnterpreted what I was getting at. Sorry I should have been more clear.

If the 6466 has made a witnessed 950whp on a dynojet I would think the difference between the 6266 and 6466 would only be 100hp at best for the mechanical difference bewteen the two turbos.

I have yet to see a 850whp 6266 graph. Have you? If there is a 6466 graph at 950whp dyno jet it makes me optimistic that a 6266 could crank out 850whp dynojet on kill in a well equipped set up.
The 6466 has a different blade profile, which obviously has proved to be the better over the latter designs. Thus why it can make as much power as the 6766, and be a little smaller.
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2012 | 07:59 PM
  #18  
maperformance's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (358)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,805
Likes: 20
From: Cottage Grove, MN
Originally Posted by SmurfZilla
I made more the 735 on a 6265. I would've made over 800 if one of my fuel pumps didn't become an issue.

I'm sure the 6266 can hit 850. It'll be in its upper ranges. but it should be able to achieve it.
It would be out of its efficiency range and would be dumb to push to that point.

If you want 725+whp turbo, get the 6466. If you want 1000whp get 71HPSHP.
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2012 | 08:04 PM
  #19  
PRS's Avatar
PRS
Account Disabled
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: Central Florida
The 6466 looks to be a beast
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2012 | 08:28 PM
  #20  
EvoDan2004's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (94)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,984
Likes: 8
From: New Jersey
Originally Posted by maperformance
The 6466 has a different blade profile, which obviously has proved to be the better over the latter designs. Thus why it can make as much power as the 6766, and be a little smaller.
i would hope PTE would take that 6466 7 blade compressor technology and make it into a 7 blade 67mm for the 6766. that might do well too.
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2012 | 10:55 PM
  #21  
maperformance's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (358)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,805
Likes: 20
From: Cottage Grove, MN
I'm sure there is a reason why they haven't. Might not be efficient in that size, just like we use different wheels in our EVO X turbo's than our EVO 8/9 turbo's and not just because of reverse rotation.
Reply
Old May 2, 2012 | 12:59 PM
  #22  
EVO(boss)'s Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Likes: 2
From: KSA
I ordered 6466 from u adam and I will see .
Reply
Old May 2, 2012 | 01:04 PM
  #23  
maperformance's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (358)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,805
Likes: 20
From: Cottage Grove, MN
You'll be happy, I promise. As I promise EVERYTHING
Reply
Old May 2, 2012 | 01:06 PM
  #24  
EVO(boss)'s Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Likes: 2
From: KSA
thanks man I trust u 4ever
Reply
Old May 2, 2012 | 03:52 PM
  #25  
Svendiesel's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 3
From: Teh internets.
DAMN the 64 is like $700 bucks more than the 67.
Reply
Old May 2, 2012 | 05:09 PM
  #26  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Just got done Etuning a 6466 that is at the track at 37psi dropping to 33 on a 2.4 VIII. 26psi by 4600, ran a 6.7@111 spinning, unknown vehicle weight.
Reply
Old May 2, 2012 | 06:40 PM
  #27  
EvoDan2004's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (94)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,984
Likes: 8
From: New Jersey
Originally Posted by JohnBradley
Just got done Etuning a 6466 that is at the track at 37psi dropping to 33 on a 2.4 VIII. 26psi by 4600, ran a 6.7@111 spinning, unknown vehicle weight.

is that good? sorry im not being sarcastic. i just dont know.
Reply
Old May 3, 2012 | 04:09 AM
  #28  
SmurfZilla's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
Originally Posted by maperformance
It would be out of its efficiency range and would be dumb to push to that point.

If you want 725+whp turbo, get the 6466. If you want 1000whp get 71HPSHP.
I'm making 777 at 33 PSI on the 6265 and I'm not pushing the turbo I use now. I don't know how the 6266 would be any less efficient.
Reply
Old May 3, 2012 | 09:02 AM
  #29  
maperformance's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (358)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,805
Likes: 20
From: Cottage Grove, MN
Originally Posted by Svendiesel
DAMN the 64 is like $700 bucks more than the 67.


Umm, no its not.... Its cheaper than the 67....
Reply
Old May 3, 2012 | 09:05 AM
  #30  
maperformance's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (358)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,805
Likes: 20
From: Cottage Grove, MN
Originally Posted by SmurfZilla
I'm making 777 at 33 PSI on the 6265 and I'm not pushing the turbo I use now. I don't know how the 6266 would be any less efficient.
Like I said if you want 725+ get the 6466. 6266 efficiency range is 735whp, once you hit that PTE themselves recommend the next up turbo, which is the 6466.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 PM.