Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Has anyone done a back to back dyno comparison on changing the rear housing over, i have had a good trawl of the forums and can't find anything within the last 10 years. 

Currently have a .84 on RB28 doing 800whpish at 30psi however it has hit a bit of a wall, looking at going to 1.0 or 1.15 to make slightly more top end.  

Current graph below don't mind loosing a small amount of that midrange ?

IMG-20190329-WA0024.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/476580-rb28-6466-ar-change/
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2019 at 6:17 AM, GTScotT said:

Firstly, do your cams and head allow for more?

By my eye I think the nose over is more mechanical than it is in the turbine housing.

Winding more boost in just resulted in it dropping off in the top end, leading to believe back pressure is the issue from the rear housing. 

Cams are HKS 272's minor touch up work in the head to accommodate the new cams. 

 

Really keen to follow the rear housing comparison as the turbo needs to be rebuilt in anycase, so is cheap top end power but I want to see at what cost of the bottom end in rpm terms. 

A chap I know has tried all of them, actually just tuned a car running a 6466 with a 1.00 and is looking at going 1.15 - said the difference in flow between .84 and 1.00 is significant in itself, picked up a LOT of power "pound for pound" when going north of 20psi and only lost about 200rpm on a stock stroke RB26.  It's holding peak power at around 8000rpm with the RB26 at ~650awkw on a Dynapack on E85.   He is pretty certain the 1.00 is a better balance of response versus power than the .84 even on an RB26.

 

 

  • Like 2

My setup has the same issue with the 1.00 6466 choking the 3.4lt.  705whp at 5500 rpm till redline.  It seemed the hot side was just completely maxed out, at 30psi.

I've got 1.3 housing here to go on the car which should really liven it up in top end and make it a little less savage in mid range.

  • Like 2
On 4/11/2019 at 4:21 AM, Lithium said:

A chap I know has tried all of them, actually just tuned a car running a 6466 with a 1.00 and is looking at going 1.15 - said the difference in flow between .84 and 1.00 is significant in itself, picked up a LOT of power "pound for pound" when going north of 20psi and only lost about 200rpm on a stock stroke RB26.  It's holding peak power at around 8000rpm with the RB26 at ~650awkw on a Dynapack on E85.   He is pretty certain the 1.00 is a better balance of response versus power than the .84 even on an RB26.

 

 

would love to see some graphs if available 

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, 33GTRV said:

I have a 2.8 with a .84, it's a f**king weapon on the street mate, are you racing the car? I have a conservative 500awkw and I regularly get turfed from the track even on a roll through. 

car has gone 9.6 @ 146mph 

In terms of goals it is pretty much done, however it looks like we are leaving some power on the table. 

 

car gets used for everything from circuit / drags / runway racing and streeted so is an allrounder. I don't mind loosing a small amount of bottom end for top end gain, however just trying to quantify the impact. Sending the turbo off for rebuild shortly, will more than likely just do it.  

 

 

149 mate. 140 to 144 with street suspension, 149 and as high as 151 with bone stock suspension and a good wheel alignment. The track here is very very very good to the 1/8th, one of the fastest in the southern hemisphere, which suits the datsun well. What suspension are you using? 

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/22/2019 at 10:48 AM, 33GTRV said:

149 mate. 140 to 144 with street suspension, 149 and as high as 151 with bone stock suspension and a good wheel alignment. The track here is very very very good to the 1/8th, one of the fastest in the southern hemisphere, which suits the datsun well. What suspension are you using? 

interesting what times did you trap also? do you have the slip? keen for more details on your car to compare notes, do you have a build thread? 

  • 3 years later...

Bringing this bad boy thread back from the dead. I'm just about to purchase a 6466 and I'm also stuck between ordering a .84 or a 1.0. 

I was leaning towards a 1.0ar but being that I'll be running on pump gas + meth as opposed to E85, I'm worried about spool. This is on a 2.8 with VCT, 272 cams and a fair bit of porting. Goal is 600wkw on a mainline dyno.

The .84 rear on my stock bottom end 2.6 with vcam and e85 was all in at 4,100 and was an absolute weapon on the street, I only used the high boost twice and once it tried to kill me (turned out to be a transfer issue) 

  • Like 1
On 23/9/2022 at 9:17 AM, TurboTapin said:

Bringing this bad boy thread back from the dead. I'm just about to purchase a 6466 and I'm also stuck between ordering a .84 or a 1.0. 

I was leaning towards a 1.0ar but being that I'll be running on pump gas + meth as opposed to E85, I'm worried about spool. This is on a 2.8 with VCT, 272 cams and a fair bit of porting. Goal is 600wkw on a mainline dyno.

1.00 or 1.15.

 

  • Like 1

No smaller than 1.00 on 6466. Dont worry the 1.00 a/r is not too big, I'm  running on both the 32s. Stock cams and 2.6 or the 2.8 and big cams are both great to drive as it's just such a flexible turbo.

  • Like 1

I lost nothing going to a 1.15 and did just over 600kw on E85 so you should be fine

 

I am actually moving to a smaller 6062 turbo shortly if you want to buy my 6466 with a .84 and 1.15 housing, it was rebuilt by precision in america in feb this year, been used about twice since.

I am going smaller as i am doing more rallysprint style stuff these days, and can get alot more down low and 500kw from a 6062 which is what we need for rallysprint.

 

  • Like 1
22 hours ago, hattori hanzo said:

I lost nothing going to a 1.15 and did just over 600kw on E85 so you should be fine

 

I am actually moving to a smaller 6062 turbo shortly if you want to buy my 6466 with a .84 and 1.15 housing, it was rebuilt by precision in america in feb this year, been used about twice since.

I am going smaller as i am doing more rallysprint style stuff these days, and can get alot more down low and 500kw from a 6062 which is what we need for rallysprint.

 

Thanks for the info. I would buy it from you but I'm presuming you're not anywhere close to Canada and shipping would put your price into new turbo territory. 6466's are had here for 2650$CDN new to the door. Let me know, thanks. 

  • Like 1

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

    • The steering wheel on my 97 s3 gtr is a little bit worn out, so im on the hunt for something mint. I notice that this type of steering wheel is on several other nissan's of the era.  Does anyone know if their all identical, or are there slight differences? I feel like gtr tax applies to anyone selling one, but if it comes from any other car the price is much less, even though its the same design.  Chat gpt says the material for the gtr is slightly different and it says gtr on the wheel, but every pic ive seen it just says nissan. 
    • I might have to say it.
    • Ahh... it's an early RE5R01A box, that means the pinouts I gave are wrong (they were for the RE4R01A 4-speed box)... I'll have to dig around in my docs to see if I've got that schematic (they used the same gearbox plug, with the vacant pin wired to the direct drive clutch solenoid)...prolly hidden away in a supplement somewhere... ...there were 3 variants of the RE5R01A ~ this early schema was what we called the 'dumb' 5 speed ; it's what jatco called a 'medium duty' box, with torque holding up roughly ~200ft/lbs or so, which was good for NA from RB20/25DE and up to around VG30 output spec. With the RB25DET (and VG33/35 mills), the only options they had was the 4-speed 4AX00 box, which had been beefed up to handle the extra torque (primarily for the VG35, but it also suited the RB25DET mill and others)...and the RE4R03 box in large 4WDs a lot of the time... ...the next variant of 5-speed was redesigned, stronger, and 'smart'...first ones had external TCU with internal (on valvebody) Shift Control Unit, pressure switches, and 2 x TSS...and the last ones had internal TCU+SCU setup, with CANbus control etc etc. @DRoc81 On the RHS of the box towards the rear, there should be a stamped silver ID tag -- what's the model number? Oh...and with the early 5-speeds, the torque converter control solenoid assembly should be replaced as well (31940-60X00)...it's a bit Murphy's Law ....if one has failed, bet on the rest not being far behind ...
    • I remembered wrong, but was close though 1Kz setting because those Jaycar SSRs don't go any faster, 1x pump per SSR with flyback diodes & heatsinks. In saying that, the heatsinks are overkill. Just on an alloy plate is more than sufficient. You'll find without a flyback diode, your SSRs will heat up big time and also die prematurely.  I've been running the two same SSRs since the last motor, no issues, car does 2 hour straight drives in summer once in a while and gets punished on the track. Nothing melts, no hot messes, etc.    
    • Hmm. You're probably best off working out what the lobe centreline or even the LSA is for the stock cams, with VCT OFF. That's bound to be out there somewhere. Then, work on the assumption that the Kelford centreline is probably the same, and wouldn't be more than a couple of degrees away, if it is different at all. I'm very surprised that you needed to adjust the exhaust cam by 5° to get it on spec. That screams there's another problem somewhere. Anything from the belt being 1 tooth off (how many degrees is one tooth worth?) to simple user/measurement error on the degree wheel. I say this because Kelford, like most quality cam manufacturers these days, does a pretty good job of actually making the cams to spec, not relying on patching it up afterwards like we had to do back in the 80s.
×
×
  • Create New...