How much power with a 6265?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just don't know how this is possible?????? this is what pte says on the turbo on a pt6266CEA
Street and Race Turbocharger - PT6266 CEA
HP Rating: 735

so you at 696 with a 6265 at 17% loss is 118.3 comes out to 814 flywheel HP in rough numbers. So your making over 15% of what they rate the turbo at without pushing it????????

Your very close if not over what Pete and Patrick from PTE says what my PT6766CEA H housing will make on a 248ci with ta heads,intake,block and 10 to 1 comp! unless they way under rate these things.

Than this question comes to mind. why do they rate these turbos than?and I'm just going off ratings abd what I was told by PTE not knocking you or calling you out just wondering!!!!!!!
 
smoke20 said:
I just don't know how this is possible?????? this is what pte says on the turbo on a pt6266CEA
Street and Race Turbocharger - PT6266 CEA
HP Rating: 735

so you at 696 with a 6265 at 17% loss is 118.3 comes out to 814 flywheel HP in rough numbers. So your making over 15% of what they rate the turbo at without pushing it????????

Your very close if not over what Pete and Patrick from PTE says what my PT6766CEA H housing will make on a 248ci with ta heads,intake,block and 10 to 1 comp! unless they way under rate these things.

Than this question comes to mind. why do they rate these turbos than?and I'm just going off ratings abd what I was told by PTE not knocking you or calling you out just wondering!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
don't be fooled. I was working it pretty hard. There was maybe another 20-30hp there. But that's about it on this engine. I've consistently made at least 10% more than any of the ratings that are out there on anything whether it's precision or turbonetics dyno numbers, fuel consumption, or quarter trap speed/race weight. Ratings mean little to anyone looking to extract the most of what's available. If they were set it stone I would have stopped at 22psi. If you look at all top heads up racers they are all making well above the rating. I don't like hp ratings because they don't take into consideration the application. If you have a high pressure application with more rpm with less mass flow/rpm (imports) I'd expect an even bigger variation. There are a few imports who have hit around 750whp with this turbo. Torque was considerably less. Precision doesn't post maps (which don't tell the whole story either) so I have to make my own conclusions about mass flow. I'm figuring this compressor really shines between 2.5 and 3.5:1 pressure ratios and 75-80lbs/min of air. it spools fast and hits hard if running it like i did. There are a lot of possibilities out there with compressor wheel design. This wheel seems to be a decent compromise between pressure and volume for these engines. It could have been designed to flow more or less mass flow and more or less pressure ratio to really hone in on the application.
 
smoke20 said:
I just don't know how this is possible?????? this is what pte says on the turbo on a pt6266CEA
Street and Race Turbocharger - PT6266 CEA
HP Rating: 735

so you at 696 with a 6265 at 17% loss is 118.3 comes out to 814 flywheel HP in rough numbers. So your making over 15% of what they rate the turbo at without pushing it????????

Your very close if not over what Pete and Patrick from PTE says what my PT6766CEA H housing will make on a 248ci with ta heads,intake,block and 10 to 1 comp! unless they way under rate these things.

Than this question comes to mind. why do they rate these turbos than?and I'm just going off ratings abd what I was told by PTE not knocking you or calling you out just wondering!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I think a lot of has to do with the copst in making a turbo map. Turbonetics tells me it cost at least 10K to map a turbo. So, what it appears is that these guys release a wheel and maybe do some testing on some limited applications and base the rating on those test. Who knows what they based these numbers on and if they were really optimized.


Allan G.
 
What's your wastegate setup? And which 6265? CEA, BB, Journal...and which exhaust housing? And thanks for doing the test.
 
theraf8100 said:
What's your wastegate setup? And which 6265? CEA, BB, Journal...and which exhaust housing? And thanks for doing the test.
Click to expand...
Original 6265s journal .63. All 6265's from precision were cea tmk. Wategate is an internal with heavy spring. Untouched wastegate hole. It's about .900
 
V6sleeper said:
wow thats 80 more then my prediction,650 at 25 is huge good to know 25psi has allways been my no knock start getting worried limit no matter how my combo has changed over the years...Great info.
Click to expand...
dont rely on 25psi always being safe. An engine like this one is getting a really good cylinder fill and needs less timing than would normally be run and alky/93 gets tricky over 600whp. 30psi on this engine is nothing to 116 octane. Easily tolerated and well below the limit of the fuel.
 
bison said:
Original 6265s journal .63. All 6265's from precision were cea tmk. Wategate is an internal with heavy spring. Untouched wastegate hole. It's about .900
Click to expand...
Just to clarify this post the turbine is not the new 66 cea wheel that is currently supplied on new turbos. It's the old f1 65 small shaft.
 
I read through the thread but missed the fuel used to get 696 WHP. Was it C16? Also, what cam would you spec on a 6765 turbo? Would you still go with lower duration on intake even with a bigger compressor wheel (67) vs 65 exhaust wheel?
 
tonysmach said:
I read through the thread but missed the fuel used to get 696 WHP. Was it C16? Also, what cam would you spec on a 6765 turbo? Would you still go with lower duration on intake even with a bigger compressor wheel (67) vs 65 exhaust wheel?
Click to expand...
It was at least 95% c16. The rest was 93 octane. The cam would depend on the power and other things. This cam would work well with a 6765 though. For a street driven car the common 212/212 is hard to beat. You would need a higher pressure ratio to get more out of the larger compressor unless you raised the rpm with a different cam. It would probably show a few more hp up to 675 then from there a decent gain and would likely outrun the turbine before the comp wheel was done. Thats only speculation though.
 
Wonder how the new 62mm cea turbine would stack against the old school f165mm wheel. Whats your opinion bison judging by the new 6262 705hp rating to the 6265 700hp rating?
 
JT'sV6 said:
Wonder how the new 62mm cea turbine would stack against the old school f165mm wheel. Whats your opinion bison judging by the new 6262 705hp rating to the 6265 700hp rating?
Click to expand...
I think the rating on the 6262cea is a lot closer to what someone could get out of it more so than the 6265's conservative rating which was not hard at all to surpass. Based on whats been done already its really hard to justify in my mind that the power potential is that close. If you look at mine with the 65 and a new cea 62 and whats been done with the 65 already it would be a chore to make 700+hp with a 6262. Ive yet to see anything posted about it going faster than 10.50? and that may have been with the old f162. For a turbo regal looking to run sub 10.50 it seems the 65 ex wheel is a more sensible choice unless you are somehow restricted from using it. The 62 cea comp wheel will likely overrun the 62 ex wheel well before its out of breath. The new 62 should spool alot faster than a 65 though. So unless you are looking to run faster than 10.50 thats a no brainer.
 
bison said:
dont rely on 25psi always being safe. An engine like this one is getting a really good cylinder fill and needs less timing than would normally be run and alky/93 gets tricky over 600whp. 30psi on this engine is nothing to 116 octane. Easily tolerated and well below the limit of the fuel.
Click to expand...
Gotcha...thanx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
First time on the dyno with the Buick!
Replies
1
Views
320
mblum
M
H
Low Cost Power Antenna Repair
Replies
2
Views
476
Hunter Dog
H
VADR
Losing Power at WOT - No Codes
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
John Larkin
John Larkin
G
100,000 mile engine service - a few questions
Replies
11
Views
610
granitestategn
G
M
Skipping/sputtering under boost.
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
mommasGN
M
Top