1. Login to disable the Ads!

Precision 6266 Vs. 6466 (Goal - 700whp)

Discussion in 'N54' started by Clean WHP, Apr 11, 2018.

  1. Clean WHP

    Clean WHP Specialist

    94
    2010 135i Msport 6MT
    thats nuts. did you guys do the tune for that?
     
  2. Twisted Tuning

    Twisted Tuning Lieutenant Vendor

    619
    Yes, correct
     
  3. Clean WHP

    Clean WHP Specialist

    94
    2010 135i Msport 6MT
    sheeesh thats some fast spool esp for that turbo
     
  4. Payam@BMS

    [email protected] Corporal Vendor

    140
    Terry we just did 700whp @26 psi on a ACF 6266 Top Mount last week LOL.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. Payam@BMS

    [email protected] Corporal Vendor

    140
    Btw Ive tested both 6266 and 6466. I couldn’t tell a difference. Now the 6870 that was a bit lazy.
     
  6. Erichale77

    Erichale77 Sergeant

    483
    Clearwater, FL
    07 E92 coupe
    Not lazy on my set up.
     
  7. ShocknAwe

    ShocknAwe Corporal

    103
    SC
    N54 1er
    Just pick a turbo that gives you 20% headroom over your current goal. 6266 g2 will certainly do that on E.
     
  8. Payam@BMS

    [email protected] Corporal Vendor

    140
    This was in 2015 with my testing. We have a customer with an ACF 6870 kit spooling like a 6266. :) That was a bit ago though so Im sure you’re possibly close to spooling like him.

    Plus Im comparing a 6266 vs 6870. Theres a big difference between them.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  9. Abacus38

    Abacus38 Sergeant

    402
    Tampa/Orlando, FL
    2007 Ti Ag 335i
    The beauty of spool mode and vanos tuning
     
  10. Erichale77

    Erichale77 Sergeant

    483
    Clearwater, FL
    07 E92 coupe
    Close? That's funny. 2400rpm is early enough for me
     
  11. Clean WHP

    Clean WHP Specialist

    94
    2010 135i Msport 6MT
    RIP stock connecting rods
     
  12. Abacus38

    Abacus38 Sergeant

    402
    Tampa/Orlando, FL
    2007 Ti Ag 335i
    His motor is fully built and on e85. On a stock motor on 93 the spool is significantly worst
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. Payam@BMS

    [email protected] Corporal Vendor

    140
    Im not understanding what 2400rpm means but do you have a log?
     
  14. Terry@BMS

    [email protected] Corporal Vendor

    242
    I know it was probably more like 27psi. Maybe it's going to max out at 725whp or something on a good day. But the 6466 can probably max out around 850whp. If you want 700whp no need to put an 850whp turbo on it for that. :)
     
  15. ccbsecu

    ccbsecu Corporal

    129
    135i
    One thing I know - power begets power. It’s always easier to add more power when the car is built to accommodate more power. It’s the owners decision to fully utilize....
     
  16. suspenceful

    suspenceful Corporal

    196
    2008 BMW 135i
    As "cookie cutter" or "not-as-cool-of-a-name-compared-to-6466" it is, you're gonna like the 6266 more.

    I was in the same boat, and you can see what I went with. I know you, and you don't want to blow up your motor. The 6266 is more than enough power for you and your car. For what it's worth, I have a log in 4th gear hitting 17psi (target) at exactly 3000 RPMs. And that's with an off-the-shelf tune and no WGDC adjustment (at 60). It spools very well for a single turbo.
     
  17. Clean WHP

    Clean WHP Specialist

    94
    2010 135i Msport 6MT
    Thanks for your input as always! Those are some very good points. The name isn't going to a play a big role in my decision by its just one of those little things... but on a more realistic topic, Would the 6466 really stress the motor more than the 6266? (if both turned up to 700WHP for example) I would think the 6466 would make that power at slightly lower boost levels, and later in the powerband / hold the power out to redline a little more efficiently. I could be completely wrong but I feel like that would place less stress on the motor esp with the power coming in later.. maybe some more guys who have experience can chime in on this!

    A topic I just thought about that could sway my decision towards the 6266 is the clutch choice. I want to run Spec stage 3+/SMFW rather than a twin disc, and a 6266 might help my keep the power levels a tad more modest for the clutch. Im sure a spec stage3+ and a 6466 would be no problem at all, but with what the 6466 is capable of I feel a twin disc suits it best and Im not really sure if I want to hash out the money on a twin disc or deal with its characteristics

    So the more I think of it, the more a 6266 and Spec stage3+/SMFW set up fits my needs overall. Thanks to everyone for the input
     
  18. The Banshee

    The Banshee Private

    28
    2008 335xi coupe FBO MT
    My Doc Race kit is nearing completion and I changed from the 6266 to the 6466 last minute for the exact reasons you mentioned. I am X-drive so I will need to limit low end torque. That will also reduce stress on the engine particularly the rods. Might as well give up the low-end on the 6266 (which will be tuned out anyway) for the high-end of the 6466 which is power I can utilize. Highway pulls and roll racing is my thing so I made the change.

    I am going Spec stage3+/SMFW and have absolutely no worries. I think the 6266 with its hard hitting low-end would actually cause more chance of slipping. The Spec stage3+/SMFW will get the job done either way unless you go crazy with a built engine crossing the 750 WHP barrier.
     
  19. Torgus

    Torgus Corporal

    While you are on pump gas only you will make more power with the 6466 and a tiny bit less stress on the engine in theory as it will spool slightly later. I really don't think you are going to regret either decision.
     
  20. Clean WHP

    Clean WHP Specialist

    94
    2010 135i Msport 6MT
    Well now Im going back and forth again:tearsofjoy: I dont think I will regret either decision either so that is a good thing. It may come down to which I can get a better deal on
     
Loading...