[Sound Performance]

Last year we did some secret testing on the 6466 on Reid's car. Interestingly the 6466 came out the clear winner on a 100% bone stock 2J motor.

 

[mr2envi]

Wow 6466 made more than 6766 and spooled slightly faster!

 

[SnkPoiSon]

All using the same/similar AR exhaust housing?

 

[suprareyrey]

Just because of power band or all out power?

 

[Sound Performance]

All using the same/similar AR exhaust housing?

All were .81 undivided turbine housing.

 

[92TealAZ]

Wow very Impressive!

 

[Northstar]

Awesome!!!!

 

[GT47]

Stock cams?

 

[unkle_uber]

Hi larry, from your other thread, you posted a dyno chart with the 6265 comparing to the 6466 and the 6766:

the 6265 reads: 745whp and 755wtq 36 psi

And then you have the dyno chart above comparing the 6266 with the 6466 and the 6766:

the 6266 ALSO reads: 745whp and 755wtq 36 psi

Was there an typing error on the first dyno chart? Was it really a 6265 or a 6266? I ask because both the 6265 and the 6266 reads the same whp and wtq on both these dyno graphs. How is it possible ? I thought the 6266 was at least 30hp more than its predecessor?

 

[RussianMKIV]

last year?

p.s. can i borrow your time machine?

 

[Sound Performance]

Hi larry, from your other thread, you posted a dyno chart with the 6265 comparing to the 6466 and the 6766:

the 6265 reads: 745whp and 755wtq 36 psi

And then you have the dyno chart above comparing the 6266 with the 6466 and the 6766:

the 6266 ALSO reads: 745whp and 755wtq 36 psi

Was there an typing error on the first dyno chart? Was it really a 6265 or a 6266? I ask because both the 6265 and the 6266 reads the same whp and wtq on both these dyno graphs. How is it possible ? I thought the 6266 was at least 30hp more than its predecessor?

Precision sent us the turbos to test. At first we thought it was a 6265 because we did not know that a 6266 existed. Unknown to us it ended up being a 6266.

 

[BlackoutZ]

Great information!!

 

[Slow_Sc3]

why is the 64mm making more power then the 67mm?

 

[foreverpsycotic]

Were all BB, or are we comparing JB 6266 and 6766 to the bb 6466.

 

[unkle_uber]

Precision sent us the turbos to test. At first we thought it was a 6265 because we did not know that a 6266 existed. Unknown to us it ended up being a 6266.

ok thanks for clearing that up Larry. I've been doing a lot of research lately on these 3 turbos, and i just wanted to clarify to clear any doubts.

So in other words, these 2 dyno charts are essentially the same then ?

 

[Sound Performance]

ok thanks for clearing that up Larry. I've been doing a lot of research lately on these 3 turbos, and i just wanted to clarify to clear any doubts.

So in other words, these 2 dyno charts are essentially the same then ?

Yes, when we tested the all of the turbos on Craigs car, Precision informed us that what we thought was a 6265 was indeed a 6266.

 

[Sound Performance]

Were all BB, or are we comparing JB 6266 and 6766 to the bb 6466.

All BB, not that it really makes a difference on the dyno..... 100 rpm at most.

 

[foreverpsycotic]

All BB, not that it really makes a difference on the dyno..... 100 rpm at most.

Apples to apples

 

[Hurrakaine]

I really think everyone should be looking at dyno results on a stock displacement car, instead of getting all excited on a high compression stroked 2jz, because lets face it, almost all of us aren't running anywhere close to Craig's motor, which I would imagine would probably cost 10-15K to duplicate.

 

[Beau]

^ I dunno man, maybe I'll just shave the head and carbon up the heck out of the combustion chamber and get my 9.5:1 I'll have to deal without the stroker for now :]