I feel like this was directed towards me/my posts...
re. popular beliefs and keyboard scientists, dyno sheets and data logs not meaning shit in real life (because I guess data is fictional?)... that's a pretty funny thing to say coming from someone who probably hasn't had any seat time in other setups on the same/similar platform. Telling people you don't need a bigger turbo for the street pretty much confirms that.
Never said it was fictional, just stated they don't transfer over to real life like people think they do. And I have driven cars with different setups, 1jz,2jz cars, ej powered high hp cars, Turbo hondas, big turbo, small turbos, you don't know me lol. But what I can tell you is, people who chase numbers and fall in love with all those dyno sheets and data logs end up doing just that, chasing numbers a lot more than enjoying their cars and actually racing. On paper I was told I wasn't gonna make 450, I was going to be choking hp, not going to go 125, this and that. You know what I did? Just drove.
Of course they transfer over... If you actually know what you're looking for with the data. Saying it doesn't transfer over to real life is just a bunch of nonsense.
I don't know you, but you certainly seem to believe a lot of fiction.And I have driven cars with different setups, 1jz,2jz cars, ej powered high hp cars, Turbo hondas, big turbo, small turbos, you don't know me lol. But what I can tell you is, people who chase numbers and fall in love with all those dyno sheets and data logs end up doing just that, chasing numbers a lot more than enjoying their cars and actually racing. On paper I was told I wasn't gonna make 450, I was going to be choking hp, not going to go 125, this and that. You know what I did? Just drove.
Sure lol let's go with that then. Guess my time slips were all fictional as well. Data logging is useful to correct issues. To just build cars around other people's data and dyno sheets before even testing stuff out on your own is absurd in my opinion, but what do I know. You believe in dynos, I believe in real world results. Guess that's fairy land here on this forum. Seems that way anyways.
Last edited by E36Mylo; 07-15-2018 at 01:16 PM.
I don't even get what point you're trying to make. What does YOUR car have to do with any of this? You're taking this personal because you have a 6262? you think that what you did with your car is special? you think that it's unique or the only one? Please help me understand.
You seem to think you know a lot of about me and make a ton of assumptions. You're welcome to believe what you want, but again you seem to believe in a lot of fiction and deny yourself a lot of truths.Data logging is useful to correct issues. To just build cars around other people's data and dyno sheets before even testing stuff out on your own is absurd in my opinion, but what do I know. You believe in dynos, I believe in real world results. Guess that's fairy land here on this forum. Seems that way anyways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1989 535i - sold
1999 M3 Tiag/Dove - sold
1998 M3 Turbo Arctic/black - current
2004 Built motor TiAg/Black - Sold
2008 E61 19T Turbo-Wagon - current
2011 E82 135i - S85 Swap - current
1998 M3 Cosmos S54 swapped Sedan - current
1998 Turbo: PTE6870 | 1.15 ar | Hp Cover, Custom Divided T4 bottom-mount, 3.5" SS exhaust, Dual Turbosmart Compgates, Turbosmart Raceport BOV, 3.5" Treadstone Intercooler, 3.5" Vibrant resonator and muffler, Arp 2k Headstuds | Arp 2k Main studs | 87mm Je pistons | Eagle rods | 9.2:1 static compression, Ces 87mm cutring, Custom solid rear subframe bushings, Akg 85d diff bushings, 4 clutch 3.15 diff, , Poly engine mounts, UUC trans mounts W/ enforcers, 22RPD OBD2 Stock ECU id1700 E85 tune, 22RPD Big power Transmission swap w/ GS6-53
I'm using MY car as an example because I race it and I know first hand how all the internet savvy data logging dyno queen cars seem to spend years chasing the best setup for this and that without actually trying to go out there and just do real world driving and racing. Nobody ever said anything about you, I don't know you, don't care to either. You addressed ME, not the other way around. I never said my car was special or what I did was special, I'm just using it as an example because I saw previous replies mention the 6262 and even saw other people mention MY car as an example. So I shared MY opinion and info on real world racing and driving. I was giving MY reasoning and proof that you don't need a huge turbo and the fanciest manifold. idk your build or your car but if it isn't special to do what I did, please do me the favor and go drive your car to the track, run a 10 second pass, and drive it home. I'll be right here waiting... Make sure you don't forget your laptop.
Last edited by E36Mylo; 07-15-2018 at 02:17 PM.
As a side note, I just re read the original post the op made regarding questions about a manifold / turbo combo, to see if I was the crazy one, he's literally referencing a pte 62mm and a spa manifold, both of which I have, and have had real world success with and proven it over and over, yet "what does my car have anything to do with this" the guy is literally asking for advice from people who might have experiences with these things yet I'm the one thats believing in fiction and not truths. Lol I'm done now. I'll go back to not using this site and app. Reminds me of local hard parker car meets.
1996 332IS
Built 3.2
CES/Steed TS Precision 6466, spraying a "$π!℅" load of meth.
Technique Tuning 80# tune.
1/4 mile 10.84 @ 136.72
Your 1 and only stop for all your BMW performance needs
WWW.CESMOTORSPORT.COM
So what, plenty of people race their cars... You're arguing a completely moot point.
You talk about internet dyno queen cars, whats it to you if someone wants to chase numbers on a rolling drum? Does that make them any less successful in what they're doing compared to what you think you're doing?
I addressed you since I am the only one in the thread to say the 6262 is not a good fit, and you seemed to take that personally somehow.. I took your reply just as personal as what I do requires me to allow data to be a big part of allowing me to make decisions. You saying that data doesn't translate is completely and utterly false. Without data YOUR car wouldn't be what and where it is plain and simple.Nobody ever said anything about you, I don't know you, don't care to either. You addressed ME, not the other way around. I never said my car was special or what I did was special, I'm just using it as an example because I saw previous replies mention the 6262 and even saw other people mention MY car as an example. So I shared MY opinion and info on real world racing and driving. I was giving MY reasoning and proof that you don't need a huge turbo and the fanciest manifold. idk your build or your car but if it isn't special to do what I did, please do me the favor and go drive your car to the track, run a 10 second pass, and drive it home. I'll be right here waiting... Make sure you don't forget your laptop.
I suppose you want a pat on your back for banging off a 10 second pass... I'll see if I can figure out how to do that from my laptop one day.
Just think that if you had your car built with a 6466 we'd be in agreement right now
Last edited by NOTORIOUS VR; 07-15-2018 at 02:52 PM.
I'm going to make my point very clear. You stated the 6262 was lazy in comparison, you stated the 6466 would be a better fit. Both turbos of which I have the real world experience with, mine having the 6262 and butters with a 6466. We both race. The reason why I bring mine up is because the op asked for advice using a spa manifold and a 62mm. My whole point is you claim the 6262 is lazy in comparison because of your data, when in REAL LIFE I have evidence to prove that isn't true. Now tell me again how it's a moot point? I have real physical slips cutting 1.6s and 1.7s on this turbo setup you claim is lazier than others. This is my entire point of saying sometimes stuff doesn't translate to real life. Just because your laptop tells you it'd work better and flow better, real life racing might say otherwise. You're advising someone with what is essentially a 3.0l, to go for a 6466 on a log style manifold because your data says so. I hope he does take your advice. So you can see how shitty that would actually be in real life. Especially at the drag strip.
No YOU said/claimed that I did, when in fact I never said any such thing.
You don't have any evidence to prove that (whatever you that is) at all actuallywhen in REAL LIFE I have evidence to prove that isn't true.
You think your turbo is related to your 60' times???I have real physical slips cutting 1.6s and 1.7s on this turbo setup you claim is lazier than others.
This is my entire point of saying sometimes stuff doesn't translate to real life. Just because your laptop tells you it'd work better and flow better, real life racing might say otherwise. You're advising someone with what is essentially a 3.0l, to go for a 6466 on a log style manifold because your data says so.You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. I never once said or eluded to anything of the sort.I hope he does take your advice.
And you know that how?So you can see how shitty that would actually be in real life. Especially at the drag strip.
So this isn't you saying it's lazy in comparison to those? And this is also you saying that a 6466 would be a better choice. So who has the reading comprehension issues now?
And 60' times and 1/8 mile times and trap almost directly relate to responsiveness of turbos and acceleration. I've trapped 102.4mph to the 1/8th on my 6262 setup on a spa, while others have gone slower with much bigger turbos and better manifolds. How can you say that's not real proof?
Last edited by E36Mylo; 07-15-2018 at 03:56 PM.
Yes I said it seems lazy to me in power delivery... in seat of the pants driving back to back of the 3L 6262 car vs my own 2.9L 4094R car. I know what I said, what point are you trying to make.
It was me saying that I believe a 6466 would be an all round better choice, yes. Again, where is the part that you actually start to make a point?And this is also you saying that a 6466 would be a better choice.
Obviously still you.So who has the reading comprehension issues now?
LOL WUT?And 60' times and 1/8 mile times and trap almost directly relate to responsiveness of turbos and acceleration.
It proves that you went faster. It doesn't at all prove that it was because of your manifold and turbo choice.I've trapped 102.4mph to the 1/8th on my 6262 setup on a spa, while others have gone slower with much bigger turbos and better manifolds. How can you say that's not real proof?
Still waiting for you to make a valid point with all of this.
6466 is a better choice for >600 rwhp. 6262 is the better choice for <500 rwhp. Between 500 and 600 rwhp, there could be some debate. I’d probably take the 6262 sized turbo, having had a GT3582R, GTX4088R, EFR8374 and EFR9180.
I have a 6262 on an RSI manifold on my OBD2 m50b25tu.
It is a lag machine.
I originally sized it based on the M52b28 i had originally but that engine was trashed before i got to fit it.
Will soon be building the spare M50 in the back of the garage with m54b30 crank bored to 86.5 and running JE 9:1 pistons i.e. S52 clone bottom end.
I think the extra 0.7l will definitely help in the lag department20170805_180322.jpg
Low compression 2.5l’s are lag buckets. I refuse to drive them xD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1989 535i - sold
1999 M3 Tiag/Dove - sold
1998 M3 Turbo Arctic/black - current
2004 Built motor TiAg/Black - Sold
2008 E61 19T Turbo-Wagon - current
2011 E82 135i - S85 Swap - current
1998 M3 Cosmos S54 swapped Sedan - current
1998 Turbo: PTE6870 | 1.15 ar | Hp Cover, Custom Divided T4 bottom-mount, 3.5" SS exhaust, Dual Turbosmart Compgates, Turbosmart Raceport BOV, 3.5" Treadstone Intercooler, 3.5" Vibrant resonator and muffler, Arp 2k Headstuds | Arp 2k Main studs | 87mm Je pistons | Eagle rods | 9.2:1 static compression, Ces 87mm cutring, Custom solid rear subframe bushings, Akg 85d diff bushings, 4 clutch 3.15 diff, , Poly engine mounts, UUC trans mounts W/ enforcers, 22RPD OBD2 Stock ECU id1700 E85 tune, 22RPD Big power Transmission swap w/ GS6-53
Data is only useful if you know how to use it, know what to look for and what all the variables are. Even using a time slip, which is also data, there are many variables involved.
It wasn’t mentioned above but a 60’ time relates mostly to the tire and chassis set up (even better if it’s an auto tranny) and not to how fast a turbo spools. There are shitty old fox body Mustangs with half the hp that can do a 60’ in almost half the time it takes me as well as cars with monster turbos that have spooled up well before the lights turns green.
A fast spooling turbo can be more enjoyable in traffic, autox, road racing and in the twisties; slower spooling turbos are better at roll racing, drag racing, Texas mile events and peak dyno numbers. It all depends on what you are into. Drag racing is not the end all be all for everyone. I think road racing/HPDE track days are way more fun but I still do the occasional drag race for shits and giggles.
Last edited by chikinhed; 07-16-2018 at 08:51 PM.
Taking in as much data from this thread as I can since I’m in the same boat right now. I want to shoot for ~580whp on a factory internals 2.8 with 93, but I’m unsure of what turbo to go with.
First off I have the 6262 and the SPA manifold on a 2.8 with 22rpd base tune and love it. The lag is minimal and I haven't even found a need to turn up the boost or bother Zack for more power, yet. I'm STILL on a 7 PSI spring and everyone who has ridden in the car with me has said its the fastest one they've been in. I've put almost 3,000 miles on it
To say the 6262 is no good is stupid as its basically the PTE equiv to the garrets 35 series. And how many I6's saw/seen gt35/gtx35 turbos? A lot... All depends on what you want. I think I've used my data logger, once
Lets save the negative criticism for the guys who doubt these cars or their power plants in general. We're all trying to achieve similar goals here...
I think 550 is the safe number on 93 but some people push it. I would aim 400 for a good, reliable, and fun car. But its yours , if you wanna max it out there are tuners who can do it.
But I think the 6262 or GTX35R would be fun :-). 6262 says its rated for 700 but I can't confirm it
Last edited by 328iFun; 07-18-2018 at 06:51 PM.
Bookmarks