any suggestions on the 6262 turbo

[bison]

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?

I meant both. Guys are doing a lot of posting about running high tens with a 62. That is no BFD by any means. For those looking for mid 11's with a d5 converter the 44/Garrett .63 can't be beat. For faster I'd use a 5857 down to 11.0. For 11.0-10.5 I'd go with a 6262. No matter what you need a good coupling converter that will work at both ends. A $500 converter will not get it done. Most seem to find it easy to justify spending $1k on a turbo but won't spend $950 on a converter. You definitely get what you pay for on converters. The single most neglected performance part for sure. If you aren't sure what you're going to do and have a marginal converter it's still worthwhile to do the 44 Garrett combo then sell it when you can afford a proper converter and turbo. A good 44 with a Garrett .63 is worth $400-500 all day. You will be into one about $700 if you buy it new and have to ship an ex housing out to be machined.

 

[JT'sV6]

Bison, what cam were you running when you tested the 6262? How recent was the test? and is there a thread?

 

[bison]

A low lift version of the 212/212. It was within the last year. There was a thread where i tested a few different turbos. I wasnt trying to run them for all they were worth. I compared power with them at the same or similar boost levels. All the boost levels i ran were at least as high as 99% of what i see people running here. The car eventually ran 10.61@127.85 with a 60-1 which i cant remember if i included any dyno data for. There was a thread for that anyway.

 

[marleyskater420]

A low lift version of the 212/212. It was within the last year. There was a thread where i tested a few different turbos. I wasnt trying to run them for all they were worth. I compared power with them at the same or similar boost levels. All the boost levels i ran were at least as high as 99% of what i see people running here. The car eventually ran 10.61@127.85 with a 60-1 which i cant remember if i included any dyno data for. There was a thread for that anyway.

Thanks for the information. I appreciate your input. It has greatly helped my turbo selection, and changed my fundamental view towards building a car. Instead of the "one part at a time" view, I'm trying to take a step back and look at the combination as a whole, and maximize each piece.

I sent you a PM a few days ago. Any chance you ever read it?

 

[bison]

Thanks for the information. I appreciate your input. It has greatly helped my turbo selection, and changed my fundamental view towards building a car. Instead of the "one part at a time" view, I'm trying to take a step back and look at the combination as a whole, and maximize each piece.

I sent you a PM a few days ago. Any chance you ever read it?

Im catching up on pm's right now. ill get back

 

[JT'sV6]

A low lift version of the 212/212. It was within the last year. There was a thread where i tested a few different turbos. I wasnt trying to run them for all they were worth. I compared power with them at the same or similar boost levels. All the boost levels i ran were at least as high as 99% of what i see people running here. The car eventually ran 10.61@127.85 with a 60-1 which i cant remember if i included any dyno data for. There was a thread for that anyway.

I remember reading that thread. Did the converter you ran have lock up and was it locked when you tested it? Reason I ask is because earlier in this thread you mentioned the 6262 would take more than 35psi to hit 600rwhp, and judging by my 1/8th mile trap the other month it shows roughlly 580 to the wheel and that was at 27psi and race fuel. My turbo does have the cea turbine though, so maybe theres more power to be had at those levels.

 

[bison]

I remember reading that thread. Did the converter you ran have lock up and was it locked when you tested it? Reason I ask is because earlier in this thread you mentioned the 6262 would take more than 35psi to hit 600rwhp, and judging by my 1/8th mile trap the other month it shows roughlly 580 to the wheel and that was at 27psi and race fuel. My turbo does have the cea turbine though, so maybe theres more power to be had at those levels.

I ran a 9.5" PTC. No lockup. It would have taken over 35psi to hit 600whp on the engine i was using. Junk heads, low CR and low lift cam. If i used a purpose built engine i could hit 600whp around 23-24psi with the 6262. Weve had them over 550 whp with less than 25psi with stock short blocks and other bolt ons.

 

[wmerrell]

I ran a 9.5" PTC. No lockup. It would have taken over 35psi to hit 600whp on the engine i was using. Junk heads, low CR and low lift cam. If i used a purpose built engine i could hit 600whp around 23-24psi with the 6262. Weve had them over 550 whp with less than 25psi with stock short blocks and other bolt ons.

Just received some dyno numbers on the 6262. 409 SAE and 428 STD at 20 lbs of boost. Does that sound reasonable? Told the tuner to increase the boost up to 25 lbs. Hopefully that will provide better results.

 

[bison]

Just received some dyno numbers on the 6262. 409 SAE and 428 STD at 20 lbs of boost. Does that sound reasonable? Told the tuner to increase the boost up to 25 lbs. Hopefully that will provide better results.

That's a little light unless the timing was less than 20*. with the converter locked and whats in yr sig I'd expect 500whp around 22-23psi/22*. For turbocharged engines the most consistent power to fuel consumption numbers come with uncorrected dyno numbers.

 

[wmerrell]

That's a little light unless the timing was less than 20*. with the converter locked and whats in yr sig I'd expect 500whp around 22-23psi/22*. For turbocharged engines the most consistent power to fuel consumption numbers come with uncorrected dyno numbers.

I was disappointed with the 6262 numbers. The car dynoed at 376 hp with 20 lbs of boost with a TA 49.

 

[bison]

I was disappointed with the 6262 numbers. The car dynoed at 376 hp with 20 lbs of boost with a TA 49.

If they were both dynoed on the same day and you picked up peak 50whp with just a turbo change id be pretty happy with that. Youre definitely going to feel that. The 6262 should make considerably more power over 4600 rpm and continue picking up more and more over the 49 above that. Id expect 100whp more at 5500rpm. If the timing and a/f is optimized you would probably wind up with 500whp around 22-23psi on 93/alky. With 116 and more timing it would be in the 525whp range. This is all considering the converter is doing what it should. Your ex is probably hurting spool up some too.

 

[Pronto]

Everyone I know that had Flowmasters got faster immediately after switching to other mufflers.

 

[wmerrell]

If they were both dynoed on the same day and you picked up peak 50whp with just a turbo change id be pretty happy with that. Youre definitely going to feel that. The 6262 should make considerably more power over 4600 rpm and continue picking up more and more over the 49 above that. Id expect 100whp more at 5500rpm. If the timing and a/f is optimized you would probably wind up with 500whp around 22-23psi on 93/alky. With 116 and more timing it would be in the 525whp range. This is all considering the converter is doing what it should. Your ex is probably hurting spool up some too.

The test pipe dump was opened up for the testing.

Been running a D5 with 2800 stall.

If I am going to run a $1,500 turbo, it is about time the converter is upgraded.

What converter? Lock up or not?

Stall?

Who do I contact?

Car is driven on the street and taken to the track about once a month.

 

[rmar]

He is going to tell you call Dusty at PTC...............


I hope...:biggrin::biggrin:

 

[bison]

^^^this. order a 9.5" NL if you are planning on going over 500whp

 

[jasjamz]

That's a little light unless the timing was less than 20*. with the converter locked and whats in yr sig I'd expect 500whp around 22-23psi/22*. For turbocharged engines the most consistent power to fuel consumption numbers come with uncorrected dyno numbers.

What would his numbers be uncorrected? Seems like a respectable gain and we all know it'll get better with more boost. Now was this 376hp@20psi before the heads and alky?

 

[wmerrell]

What would his numbers be uncorrected? Seems like a respectable gain and we all know it'll get better with more boost. Now was this 376hp@20psi before the heads and alky?

Back in August the car was dynoed at 376 without alky after the heads were installed. Bison saw the old heads - what a mess.
On a different dyno the car was 350 this week before the 6262 was installed.
The alky is still not working yet.

 

[jasjamz]

OK so was it 409hp after the 6262 on that same dyno it showed 350hp on or the one it made 376hp on? Thanks for the update. I just want to be clear on the increase.

 

[wmerrell]

OK so was it 409hp after the 6262 on that same dyno it showed 350hp on or the one it made 376hp on? Thanks for the update. I just want to be clear on the increase.

The 409hp and 350 hp were the same dyno.

 

[jasjamz]

So you gained 59rwhp and your not happy? You're a are fella to please LOL. I know you will feel a nice improvement at like 26-28 when you get that alky going.