Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yeah those numbers seemed high for a 6766 on a Mustang, though I am still shocked that people are taking hp ratings as some kind of gospel. How much did you make atw on your old GT3076R? And what are GT3076Rs rated at?

The 6870 is certainly looking the goods, no matter how you slice it. Would have loved to have seen FPs Super94/99s on more things - they are in T4 twin scroll and imho until this came along the best thing since sliced bread for the ">6766 power without going BIG frame".

Ha, you stumped me on that one, I'm one of those guys. It was a 3037S, HKS rated to 480PS, Garrett 525hp, I made 503whp. In saying that, we pushed it to 25psi with a T2 1.12a/r housing, it had a held a flat boost curve unlike the .73 which would fall from 24>22psi (458whp). Car full weight went 10.4@136mph 2870lb.

The figure for which I base my decision on turbo selection is what the manufacturer rate them to anyway, as long it is capable of making that then it's all good. Going gung ho and trying be superman by making a shitload more that what they rate them to usually means that you're just reducing the life of the turbo in the first place. Hit your goal with the smallest turbo possible by all means, get greedy and you might find yourself with nothing left on your shaft. Hmm that sounds kind of funny...

In saying that, even with their massive claims, the yanks are doing some damn impressive stuff. I'll be ordering a 6870 in a couple of weeks depending on a call tomorrow. 1100hp at the crank should see my car trap 168mph. I'm feeling a bit excited.

In saying that, even with their massive claims, the yanks are doing some damn impressive stuff. I'll be ordering a 6870 in a couple of weeks depending on a call tomorrow. 1100hp at the crank should see my car trap 168mph. I'm feeling a bit excited.

Fwiw FP's closest equivalent to the PT6870 has pushed a couple of AWD Mitsis to very low 8s and over 180mph in cars which probably aren't hugely different in weight to your car, 168mph shouldn't be a massive ask from a PT6870 by any stretch

Ryan, absolutely impressed with that result, as I was with the STM Ricer at 2850lb and 8.75@167mph!! And I'm not having a dig at what the cars have achieved, only how our figures compare to overseas. At the end the day the track is what tells the truth to me.

Lith, totally agree, if I was turbo sponsored, I'd be happy to try and push the 6766 to 167mph (ran 154.86 on 36psi). The 7175 is pretty much tapped on 52psi and it went 164, the only thing I can really do is go out again, with more power and the longer gearing it has now 4.11. I think 170mph is possible, high 170's though? Not gonna happen.

PJ did you mention earlier that the JW automatic GTR ran 8.7 on a 6766? GST or not that is making some serious power from a 67mm

Just to elaborate on it also man, the car setup has a massive influence over the ET. The car trapped 153mph, that is a very good time for the trap speed.

I don't know of the weight, but it's an RB30/26 auto and it launches like a bat out of hell. Pretty sure when I spoke to Justin they had maxed it out, my 6766 showed signs of boost falling off @ 42psi (850whp) and the 7175 is showing 920whp with nothing left.

If I was a betting man I'd say that I was at the limit of the 6766's 935hp rating and probably sitting on 1000hp at the crank (7175 rated to 985hp).

Only sure way is an engine dyno. Rather wear my engine out on the track.

Edited by PJ.

Lith, totally agree, if I was turbo sponsored, I'd be happy to try and push the 6766 to 167mph (ran 154.86 on 36psi). The 7175 is pretty much tapped on 52psi and it went 164, the only thing I can really do is go out again, with more power and the longer gearing it has now 4.11. I think 170mph is possible, high 170's though? Not gonna happen.

Oops yeah sorry I wasn't saying that you would go near 180mph... I still think those cars are lighter and possibly generally more hard core set up to run those higher traps so not apples and apples, but still pretty amazing stuff compared to what people were doing similar times and traps with not that long ago considering.

So my 6870 will be on the way shortly, I plan to push it until it has nothing left to offer which according to its 1100hp rating should be a nice gain over the 7175. Certainly won't sound as good or hit as hard but that's not the reason I'm putting it on.

I would expect it to need at least 55psi to get it to a point where it won't offer any more power.

I'm chasing more response and the driveability that the 6766 offered. This is a custom 1.00 divided T4 housing we are using, so it will be a good comparison as the 7175 was running a .98 T4 divided.

It packs the goods to run low 8's in my car, I will try and better my time in the coming few weeks with the 7175 through better car setup before retiring it for turbo # 9 and the 6th Precision turbo since 2010. :)

24g9chs.jpg

  • 5 weeks later...

I called powertune today and there happy to swap over my 6766 (still in the box new) for a 6870 and I pay there difference between the two, I'll be putting it on a 26/30 but I've got to finish building my motor. I'm going to get the divided .83 rear housing . Just have to wait for the turbo to make its way over to aus pretty sure?

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

At this stage it'll be limited by standard 1uz bottom end (just head studs, mls headgaskets, porting, cams and valve springs) so I won't push it over 400kw. When I get the built bottom end back under it and a trans that can handle the power I'm hoping it will do 600kw.

At this stage it'll be limited by standard 1uz bottom end (just head studs, mls headgaskets, porting, cams and valve springs) so I won't push it over 400kw. When I get the built bottom end back under it and a trans that can handle the power I'm hoping it will do 600kw.

Yeah everything has to be able to handle it, with the 4Lts that should be fun, when you do the bottom end and turn it up to 600Kw, hold on tight :)

Put a 6262 CEA on my R34GTR , wanted to get rid of some of the lag from the T78, worked OK but not good enough, so got a 3.2Lt stroker going in and the 6262 should work great with the extra torque and rated around 700hp it will be more than plenty for what I want from the car.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...