2009 CTS-V 427lsx TT 6266's
10-30-2013, 10:01 AM
#4
9 Second Club
Doesn't work as generically as that though. 700hp on a unit on a small 4cylinder engine with the compressor working in a great part of the map isn't the same as a big cube with the compressor miles off its efficiency island, overspinning its little ***** off
10-30-2013, 10:28 AM
#6
9 Second Club
Physical size ? If you use same front cover and turbine housing, they are identical externality. Likewise 6766.
I've used the 62 and 64 on a Subaru before. They work great there
I've used the 62 and 64 on a Subaru before. They work great there
6766 would have been nice! I assume I can swap center sections at some point. Trending Topics
11-19-2013, 10:01 PM
#18
yeah the 5558 to 6766 all have the same foot print.
5558
5858
5862
6262
6266
6466
6766
11-20-2013, 04:15 AM
#19
9 Second Club
What sort of diameters or CSA do the different housings have ?
ie T3, T3 V-Band, and T4 say even for a same number A/R ?
We seen a thread discussing crossover diameter for a single setup, and it seemed that 2.5" OD was excessive in many cases, and than 2.25 or even 2" was better suited.
So for a twin application, would even a large T3 V-banded turbine housing be much smaller than say 2" ?
ie T3, T3 V-Band, and T4 say even for a same number A/R ?
We seen a thread discussing crossover diameter for a single setup, and it seemed that 2.5" OD was excessive in many cases, and than 2.25 or even 2" was better suited.
So for a twin application, would even a large T3 V-banded turbine housing be much smaller than say 2" ?
11-20-2013, 09:13 AM
#20
What sort of diameters or CSA do the different housings have ?
ie T3, T3 V-Band, and T4 say even for a same number A/R ?
We seen a thread discussing crossover diameter for a single setup, and it seemed that 2.5" OD was excessive in many cases, and than 2.25 or even 2" was better suited.
So for a twin application, would even a large T3 V-banded turbine housing be much smaller than say 2" ?
ie T3, T3 V-Band, and T4 say even for a same number A/R ?
We seen a thread discussing crossover diameter for a single setup, and it seemed that 2.5" OD was excessive in many cases, and than 2.25 or even 2" was better suited.
So for a twin application, would even a large T3 V-banded turbine housing be much smaller than say 2" ?
this cross over thing.. alot of those guys still have t6 flanges above 1000 horse.
t3 = quick spool and dies around 1000-1200
t4 = slower spool but can support alot ( with the right ar it will spool quikcer of coarse but never as good as a t3 )
t6 is the best singel turbo flange for a 370+ CI motor.
now CI comes in to play. you get alot of exhaust gasses with bigger cubes.
this is why a 7675 will make more power on a 5.3 liter than a 6.0
or these turbos. on a 4.8L gm twin style i have seen as high as 1400. but as the cubes go up. the limit goes down.