Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Garrett vs Precision

Hello.

cant seem to find a previous comparison thread so thought I'd start one.

want to see people's opinions on 2 specific turbochargers. The Garrett GTX3582r and the Precision Gen2 6266. Both seem to be on par in terms of power. To me it seems to be a location thing. If you are in the USA its precision if not then it's Garrett. But are there any huge differences in terms of technology? Is one definitively better then the other?

 

as an example a built 2.6l RB26 running E85. Chasing 500AWKW. Mostly for street and track.

 

which would you use and why?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/466817-garrett-vs-precision/
Share on other sites

...or you just use the precision and crank boost in until it makes the power you want.

 

But if you want to study a compressor map for days to find that it is most efficient at 21.9767571psi and set it there only to find that is makes 400hp and the guy with the precision is at the track running 9s already

  • Like 2

Iv got a Precision 6262, keen to see what it'll make when turned up. This should be a closer match to the gtx3582r??? Can't hold boost atm still on standard boost solenoid. Haven't installed my boost controller yet.

17 hours ago, zebra said:

...or you just use the precision and crank boost in until it makes the power you want.

 

But if you want to study a compressor map for days to find that it is most efficient at 21.9767571psi and set it there only to find that is makes 400hp and the guy with the precision is at the track running 9s already

I need the equivalent of a geiger counter for sarcasm for you zebra, lol... some people think things through a little more than 'cranking boost'.

Ok it seems that precision wins on outright power even though manufacturers say they should be about the same. What about response? White setup being the same, which would spool up better? In the day to day commute, which would make a nicer car to drive?

This is purely out of curiosity rather then personal need. If it's very similar spec to the other 2, sure lets add it to the list.

this 400-500kw level seems to be where most GTR owners aim to be. Faster then 99% of everything on the road. Rediculous drag/drift/drag potential yet still usable on a daily basis. 

Edited by khezz
  • Like 1

If you're starting out with a build and that's the target, the BW 8374 is probably where you'd aim as you would have a healthy budget to do so.

I also thought the GTX3582 was a size down from the 6266 and 6466, benefits of being a size down apply as the GTX is generally a good unit once you crank up the boost which is what the GTX compressor is good for over the GT. But if you don't crank the boost it's going to look "laggy" for its power, but it's just because you can (have to?) really lean on the GTX to make the power, Similar to the Precision - Less so for the 8374.

But on a 2.6 that wants 500AWKW (.. why... what gearbox do you plan to use?) the answer is 8374.

  • Like 1

I always thought the gtx3582 and the 6266 were of very similar size. Both seem to reach around the 500kw mark. Learn something new every day.

So is it the common thought that BW efr8374 is the best all round turbo interns of power delivery vs lag/response?

What about cost and longevity?

I should point out that this is not regarding any particular car. Just want to see experienced people's views. It seems that high mount twins are dead as dead can be. Low mounts are old tech.

My car will be getting a pair of low mount Gtx units. In search of 450awkw. The cost of engineering papers puts a high mount single out of reach.

1 hour ago, khezz said:

I always thought the gtx3582 and the 6266 were of very similar size. Both seem to reach around the 500kw mark. Learn something new every day.

So is it the common thought that BW efr8374 is the best all round turbo interns of power delivery vs lag/response?

What about cost and longevity?

The EFR's cost a little bit more. 

Everyone bangs on about "light weight billet compressors" in the front.... But what happens when you take out half the weight of the other side of the wheels (turbos have two sides, seems a lot forgot this with ERR MAA GAWD.. Shiney compressor). It can't be a bad thing, right?

The people that have put on and running EFR's all say the same thing. Transient response is greatly improved, on much earlier. Transient reaponse isn't something that shows up on a dyno though.

There is a particular S2000 at the shop that will be tuning my car. They were running a 6466 and now a 9180. Turn two at Eastern Creek they would have to use second gear with the 6466 but with the 9180 they now use third. The 6466 is, a smaller turbo but the 9180 is on earlier. Makes you wonder huh?

There is a back to back I posted in the EFR thread between a 3582 vs 8374 on a larger BMW engine. GTX off EFR on. EFR made more midrange and the same top end.

For the sake of a back to back, there will be one between a 6266 0.84 and a 8374 1.05 on a 3.2/Vcam. This will happen early next year. The tuner has said that he could go to a 9180 and not lose anything down low to the 6266, however low end grunt is the goal so a 8374 has been chosen. 

I run a 6266 gen 3 love it perfect size for street. not laggy on my Rb 26 30 the fact that it s oil cooled only was a big deal less fitting s also running evens coolant. It's not a loud turbo in comparison to the garret

I also saw that dyno graph, and well, the difference in minimal, and you can screw in more boost on the GTX to the point where it may nose over where the 8374 was.

It comes down a bit to what you need, and realistically, budget.

I can't low mount an 8374 on a stock manifold, (I have a 25) I can with a Garrett. Garretts are well known and extremely available and god damned durable for the most part relative to others, historically. They also always seem to perform the same no matter what car they go on. They're dependable.

The thing about the BW though, is all things considered, no one regrets having chosen it once they've paid the money. Not one person has said "Well, it's a little better, but it's not really worth the extra coin"

It can be argued that you can drive around a little more lag especially with AWD, or in my case more midrange = more smoke. That may be so, but the truth is no one is complaining once they do it.

Just watched this video thats seems to put a little dent in the BW EFR. Its a back to back test of the 8374 vs 6266 on the same car and the 6266 wins quite comprehensively. They use a 3.4L 2jz supra. the EFR does spool quicker but the power difference is huge.

 

 

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

    • You have just offended every teenage boy in America
    • Structured text and other high level PLC programing languages are not allowable in Functional Safety. They are very difficult to audit. My PLC stuff is almost exclusively oriented towards Burner Management Systems which are a particularly pernicious form of Safety Instrumented System, when implemented in an SPLC. Even the part of the code written to work in the non-safety logic part of the PLC, like with a Siemens S7-1500 series, still needs to be treated as if it was safety code, with access restrictions, code fingreprints and the like. And Allen Bradley can go EABODs. They ae full of shit. They have this whole lie going on where they say if you use a ControlLogix controller and its IO, and then just duplicate the IOs (ie, run in series or parallel depending on type, to try to make it "fail safe") and "use these programming styles and place these restrictions on what you do" that you can achieve SIL2. What a load of crap. They just get away with it because no-one in the US seems to understand the first thing about Functional Safety and carries on as if all they have to do is buy only SIL2 rated equipment and hey presto, it's a SIL2 system. Idiots. /rant
    • If you're really considering leaving it, a great question to ask is, is the magnet going to stick to the sump? The answer to the above is the same answer towards if I'd have any level of comfort leaving it... Personally, based on the cost of a motor if the magnet were to cause damage, I'd be fishing it out either way. Use the methods in here. It fit in through the plug hole, it'll come out.   PS, get a small actuatable claw for a bore scope. OR if you know a vet, they have really cool controllable scopes with hooks on the end. Supposedly they're like playing a video game. Ask if they can acquire you one of their scopes... Engine oil after all is just a different type of lube right? Will only make it easier on the next dog or cat...
    • All other (Boolean) logic functions though, are just built on those blocks above. Which does give you a lot of functionality in logic. It is basing that on using thresholds with analogue signals like GTS alluded to.   Not having things like timers will make it less useful for some of the ramp up logic you'd want, and again, on Haltecs capacity specifically, I'm not across anymore what you can / can't do with different tables.   I'm assuming, with your logic you want to implement, not only do you want your timing safeties, you're wanting to be able to derive the duty cycle for your solenoid, to maintain I'm assuming 175PSi? Or are you using a standalone WMI controller to maintain the DC correct, and you just want the Haltech working out which fuelling maps you should be on?
    • It doesn't seem to follow revs. Oddly it seems to follow TPS a little bit from what I can see, but with some delay a bit. IE end of the graph, when he lets off throttle fully, pressure drops a lot, then slowly builds back up, but rpm is on a nice cruisey drop off. I do agree though, it seems very electrically.
×
×
  • Create New...