# Let's talk turbos! (12v vrt)



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

So I began my teardown and im getting ready to continue with my build and have every part figured out except I haven't 100% chosen a turbo yet. There are just so many turbos with so many possibilities out there. My power goal is 350-400 and my goals for spooling is something with a quick spool not a turbo lag feel almost like a supercharged feel. 

Here is the motor build specs. 
ARP Rod Bolt Set
ARP Main Stud Set
OEM Piston Ring Set
OEM Rod Bearing Set
OEM Main Bearing Set
OEM Thrust Bearing Set
OEM Complete Block Gasket Set
Cleaning every part and polt
Honing the block
Undecided about the head/cam *(suggestions welcome!!)*
Schimmel SRI
9:1 head spacer
Megasquirt
42lb or 60lb with walbro *(suggestions welcome!!)*

Here are my top contenders:

Precision billet wheel turbos
5857 .68ar 
5862 .81ar or 96ar 
6262 .68ar or .82ar 

^^ Input with any experience with those turbos or any input on these specific turbos (including ar) or if you have another suggestion for what might be better please chime in!
Garrett
Gt3582r

Pics are always a must

Motor on day one








Motor as of today 10/23/11 getting ready to take the crankshaft/rods out








Motor as of today 10/25/11 Got the crankshaft out and next up is cleaning everything!


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

PTE 6262 with either a .63 or .82 hotside


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

KubotaPowered said:


> PTE 6262 with either a .63 or .82 hotside


You won't even believe me... I was getting ready to edit the post and add the hp6262 which is the billet wheel

http://www.ctsturbo.com/cart/products/Precision_HP6262_Billet-329-11.html

I'm thinking .68ar v-band


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Anyone with more input on spool characteristics and power numbers. Dump charts 1/4mile times just about anything I'm looking for as much input as possible as this turbo (6262 billet wheel) is my top option as of now I would like to know more about it before I spend any more money. :thumbup:


----------



## Prof315 (Jan 5, 2009)

Borg Warner EFR 7064 .83 AR. Spools very quickly, V-band, ball bearing center section, wastegate, DV, and EBC solenoid integral to the turbo. The EFRs are a little pricey but not when you figure in all the stuff you don't need to buy, plus they have an expected life 3 to 5 times that of a comparable GT series garret or similar.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

the 7670 has a much better map for a vr6.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

cabzilla said:


> the 7670 has a much better map for a vr6.


way too big for my power goals....

as of now i have read and read and I will continue to try and find out even more but here are some thoughts please give me your feedback on each / any. I don't want anything that's going to be giving me issues of torque spikes like people have said about the 3076 but I also only want up to about 400hp

5857 .68ar
5862 .81ar or 96ar
6262 .68ar or .82ar

I feel like the 5857 would be a little too much like the gt30r and have a spike and than no top end but maybe i'm wrong the turbo is rated for plenty more power than i am looking for. 
The 5862 is kind of a middle area of these turbos and with the .96ar it could be quite capable but at the same time I might be missing something in between the lines here and that ar might not work well for some reason.. I feel the same way about it with the .81 is it not enough top end or what. The 6262 is a big turbo and a lot of people love it. My only fear is that too big for my modest goals? Maybe the smaller ar will make it spool quick enough to be quite enjoyable or maybe its too much top end vs spool for my liking. I guess my key goal is balance. Something that can spool quick and throw you in your seat but also something that is breathing great up top.

As you see I have been reading too much and I have a ton of thought into this any input would be great!!! :beer:


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

As soon as the box from CTS shows up I will tell you what the 6262 .63AR is like. Shooting for 300whp, nothing too silly


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

KubotaPowered said:


> As soon as the box from CTS shows up I will tell you what the 6262 .63AR is like. Shooting for 300whp, nothing too silly


sounds nice, good luck with your build!! I would definitely appreciate your feedback when its running and all too!! :thumbup:


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Anyone? I'm trying to figure out differences between these turbos or even a similar comparison would be helpful.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

I think I may go with a 5862 billet wheel .96ar. I feel like the combination of the smaller turbine and larger housing should give me the balance I'm looking for... thoughts? :beer:


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

In my opinion the 5857 is too small for a VR6, we have one on our stock engine B6A4 1.8T. The two options from Precision that I would consider for 400WHP/HP are:

HP6262 68ar T4
HP5862 68ar T4

Both will make 400whp easily, if you want the fast spool get the 5862, we have a 6265 on a MK4 R32 up here and it spools very nicely.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

CTS Turbo said:


> In my opinion the 5857 is too small for a VR6, we have one on our stock engine B6A4 1.8T. The two options from Precision that I would consider for 400WHP/HP are:
> 
> HP6262 68ar T4
> HP5862 68ar T4
> ...


Thanks for the input! I agree the 5857 is to small and I THINK for my case a 6262 is too large. I like the 5862 but being the same size turbine as the 5857 with just a larger compressor will I run into any similar issues the 5857 presents? That's why I was thinking about going up in housing size to allow the turbo to have top end as well as the quick spool. Basically whats the difference between a 6262 with a .68 ar vs a 5862 with a .81 or .96 ar. I know the turbine on the 6262 will be larger and the housings will be larger on the 5862 with those sizes previously mentioned. What do you think would be a better match for my goals?


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

I have a .82 35r, looks big on paper but feels great on the street. Spool fast, holds power up top. ~20psi on pump gas. I'd say the 6262 would be very similar. I've also had a 1.06 35r (laggy) and a .58 t4 60-1 (insta-spool, no top end).


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

tdmopar59 said:


> ... and I THINK for my case a 6262 is too large.


I think you're wrong. 

building boost low 3000rpm, hard boost 3500ish. perfect for the street (any smaller sucks)


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

TBT-Syncro said:


> I think you're wrong.
> 
> building boost low 3000rpm, hard boost 3500ish. perfect for the street (any smaller sucks)


Its a pretty simple response and doesn't really answer my question. Do you believe this is the case even with the different housing sizes? A lot of people are quick to say 6262 > 5862 but I believe the comparison being made without factoring in different housings. In other words people are comparing a 5862 with a .68ar and a 6262 with a .68ar. I am trying to figure out if using a different housing with a 5862 might be more beneficial since the turbo is plenty capable of the 400hp mark. I am thinking with a larger housing it will still have a pretty quick spool but the housing should allow more top end with the turbo. A 6262 is a larger turbo so its going to spool slightly slower and push more air but the smaller housing will allow the spool to be slightly quicker. What advantage does the 6262 in the small housing present that a larger housing 5862 doesn't produce.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

if you put a tiny housing on a 900hp turbo, would it spool faster, nope. It would just never be able to get in its efficiency range. Same thing but reversed when you put a too large housing on a smaller turbo. The smaller turbine and compressor can only push so much air, it doesnt matter how much bigger the housing is, as they werent the bottle neck.


if you look at older vr dynos, you'll see lots of 60 trim with .62 t3 housings. they had quick spool and big pointless tq spikes. Once people started going to larger housings and turbos, the spool was changed trivially, but the cars made way more top-end, and became much more fun to drive. Quick spool on a fwd car just leads to wheel spin and broken trannys.

:beer:


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

I thought I would have the opposite of that issue by having a small housing on a big turbo I figured I wasn't using the turbo to its potential vs the 5862 utilizing a larger housing I figured the turbo would be able to be more balanced with the smaller turbine and larger housing. What you are mentioning is very true though about the torque spikes and all and that is something I want to avoid. The 6262 and 5862 have the same size compressor as well so the larger housing should be able to handle a good amount of air. Is the issue with the 5862 simply that the 58mm turbine is too small? The only issue I could think of is its not efficient at the top end which is why I was thinking the larger housing would offset it.


----------



## cstanley19 (Sep 23, 2006)

If your only looking for 400hp these expensive turbos aren't neccessary. I have seen t3/t4's put down 420whp like nothing. I would recommend a gt35r with a 82.ar.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

cstanley19 said:


> If your only looking for 400hp these expensive turbos aren't neccessary. I have seen t3/t4's put down 420whp like nothing. I would recommend a gt35r with a 82.ar.


The gt35r is more expensive than the precision billet turbos...


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

TBT-Syncro said:


> I think you're wrong.
> 
> building boost low 3000rpm, hard boost 3500ish. perfect for the street (any smaller sucks)


Is this journal bearing?


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

tdmopar59 said:


> Is this journal bearing?


you wont notice much of a different on initial spool between journal and ball bearing. It comes more in to play on re-spool.

:beer:


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

TBT-Syncro said:


> you wont notice much of a different on initial spool between journal and ball bearing. It comes more in to play on re-spool.
> 
> :beer:


I see. Basically my question is are the ball bearings worth $540 or will the journal bearing spool quick enough?


----------



## Prof315 (Jan 5, 2009)

tdmopar59 said:


> I see. Basically my question is are the ball bearings worth $540 or will the journal bearing spool quick enough?


Ball bearing center sections are worth it, not so much because of the spool time but because they are much more durable.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Prof315 said:


> Ball bearing center sections are worth it, not so much because of the spool time but because they are much more durable.


Even with modest boost? I plan on boosting 15 psi. MAYBE a bit more here and there...


----------



## Prof315 (Jan 5, 2009)

tdmopar59 said:


> Even with modest boost? I plan on boosting 15 psi. MAYBE a bit more here and there...


Absolutely


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Prof315 said:


> Absolutely


So I take it the general consensus is that between earlier spoiling and increased reliability the ball bearings are worth the $540 kick in the nuts.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

tdmopar59 said:


> So I take it the general consensus is that between earlier spoiling and increased reliability the ball bearings are worth the $540 kick in the nuts.


ball bearing are definitely not more reliable. 

for your goals, i'd definitely go journal.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

TBT-Syncro said:


> ball bearing are definitely not more reliable.
> 
> for your goals, i'd definitely go journal.


This is also what I thought.... But I guess like most things its opinions and pros and cons


The main question I have been trying to figure out still hasn't been answered... There are two turbos I am still debating (although I believe I will be going 6262 at this point). This is the best way I can ask/explain my question.

The 6262 billet wheel t4 .68ar VS the 5862 billet wheel .81ar or .96ar

*This is the debate!!!! 
*​
In my readings I have came to the very simple conclusion that a smaller turbine will spool faster but lack at the top end and vice versa. The subject of turbine housings can be debated in a similar manner. The smaller the A/R the quicker the spool because the exhaust will have a higher velocity going through the housing. The larger A/R will not spool as fast but will be better at the top end because it will have less back-pressure. The 6262 is a 670hp rated turbo, the 5862 is probably well over 500hp. I am looking for a modest 400 and it seems as if both of these turbos are more than capable of doing the job. Why is it that people are so quick to recommend the 6262 which still seems like overkill to me over the 5862 when the larger housing could fix the jerky torque spike issues of the 5862 while capitalizing on the smaller turbine for quick spool. It seems like its the same concept of using a 6262 with a small housing to speed up the spool while allowing the larger turbine to take care of the top end. Basically I see the turbos as very similar why is one better than the other? The only thing I could think of is how in one of the garrett articles it mentions that the larger ar is optimized in low boost applications and vice versa. What would be considered low boost/high boost? I plan on running 15psi MAYBE turn in up once in a blue moon with 9:1 cr.

AS SIMPLE AS I CAN PUT IT
5862 - Large housing (slows spool) small turbine (speeds spool) = moderate spool should be able to make 400hp no problem

6262 - Small housing (speeds spool) large turbine (slows spool) = moderate spool makes 400 easy 

what's the biggest difference if I were to drive the same setup back to back with these two turbos with mentioned housings...


----------



## pimS (Jan 7, 2009)

Will you keep the 02A?

In that case a litlle slower on spool could keep your gearbox in 1 piece
+ a mid-to-high-rpm powerband would be less of a strain on your engine than a low rpm torque monster.


----------



## Fast929 (Nov 13, 2004)

For a 2.8-3.0L, I think no question 6262. Your not going to see any spool difference between the two units as the turbine wheel is the same size.


For your needs and modest goals, Iwould prolly go with the vband T3 .82 housing on that setup. Spool should hardly be affected and as a previous poster mentions, it should build more power higher in the rev range. It's a VR, not like it needs to make a lot more torque down low anyway.....

T4 is great if you want to make 700whp but for your application, it doesn't get any easier. Output on your setup should be great and spool should be good as well. Go/stay with 9.5cr and it'll help you pick up a hundred on spool (vs 8.5). It won't take much pressure to make 400whp so it'll be easy on the entire setup...

:thumbup:


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Fast929 said:


> For a 2.8-3.0L, I think no question 6262. Your not going to see any spool difference between the two units as the turbine wheel is the same size.
> 
> 
> I would prolly go with the .82 housing on that setup. Spool should hardly be affected and as a previous poster mentions, it should build more power higher in the rev range. It's a VR, not like it needs to make a lot more torque down low anyway.....


The turbine wheels aren't the same size the compressor wheels are... On top of that the .68 seems to work pretty well with the 6262 I wouldn't want to delay the boost anymore when the turbo already breathes good enough on the top end and my goal is more about balanced, responsive performance


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

tdmopar59 said:


> On top of that the .68 seems to work pretty well with the 6262


.68 T4 and .82 T3 are basically the same size.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

TBT-Syncro said:


> .68 T4 and .82 T3 are basically the same size.


What's the difference between the two than? Other than the flange sizes... I'm assuming the smaller t3 flange with a .83ar is what makes it similar to the larger t4 flange with a smaller ar? Any advantage or disadvantage?

Still looking for an answer to my main question as well.


----------



## V-dubbulyuh (Nov 13, 2005)

tdmopar59 said:


> What's the difference between the two than? Other than the flange sizes... I'm assuming the smaller t3 flange with a .83ar is what makes it similar to the larger t4 flange with a smaller ar? Any advantage or disadvantage?


It is flexibility from a design stand point. If you have a manifold that will not accept a T4 flanged turbo but need the volumetric capacity of a .68 then a T3 .82/.83 will get you in the ball park. As you stated above, the flanges and therefore cross-sectional opening at the flange itself is significantly different between the two therefore the compensation occurs in the housing size/volume itself (ie .68 vs .82/.83).

Remember that for a lot of other non-VW applications the manifolds are not double drilled/tapped. I personally prefer T4 housings and therefore all of my manifolds are opened up to T4 spec as it allows the use of larger housings when needed (typically not possible with T3, popular exception being 1.06). The reverse is also true, if you had a T4 manifold and wanted the responsiveness usually only seen on a T3 then you could opt for a T4 .68 and it would approximate to the T3 .82/.83. I have not done back to back comparissons on the same car but they are pretty similar in behavior on the different cars I've used them on.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Thanks for the confirmation. Would you happen to have any input on my question a few posts up.


----------



## Fast929 (Nov 13, 2004)

tdmopar59 said:


> The turbine wheels aren't the same size the compressor wheels are... On top of that the .68 seems to work pretty well with the 6262 I wouldn't want to delay the boost anymore when the turbo already breathes good enough on the top end and my goal is more about balanced, responsive performance


The 5862 and 6262 share the same 71mm Ex - 61.9mm Int -- 57 trim turbine wheel which is what will control your spool along with housing size.



While I agree with T4 being a good option specifically for a larger disp motor, my recommendation still stands.... Doesn't get easier than a .82ar vband housing (provided the mani is vband). This is specifically targeted at your 400whp application.


To answer your question what the difference between the 2. About 40whp at the limit (high PR). For you.... Absolutely nothing....


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Fast929 said:


> The 5862 and 6262 share the same 71mm Ex - 61.9mm Int -- 57 trim turbine wheel which is what will control your spool along with housing size.


Where did you get this comparison. I don't see how both turbos would have the same turbine as one is the 58 series and the other is a 62 series. I believe they are both 76 trim but different sizes by roughly 3mm. I believe you are thinking compressor wheels.


----------



## Fast929 (Nov 13, 2004)

Compressor sides are the difference.

58mm vs 62mm (inductor size) while they share the same turbine housing wheels.


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Fast929 said:


> Compressor sides are the difference.
> 
> 58mm vs 62mm (inductor size) while they share the same turbine housing wheels.


You're right I'm reading it backwards (garrett style). Makes sense as far as the difference being a few hp different at the top end. Which I believe is going to draw me to the conclusion that a 6262>5862 regardless of housing size because the turbo's would spool in an extremely similar manor (6262 slightly slower due to inertia) and the advantage of the 6262 is the possibility to do more down the road if I choose without having to change turbos. Also the 6262 would have an easier time making this type of power.... I am also going to assume .58ar is going to cause too much back pressure up high and the .68ar will give me the balance I desire? the t3 flanged turbos don't have the v-band option from cts turbo and to be honest I prefer the t4 connection.


----------



## Fast929 (Nov 13, 2004)

tdmopar59 said:


> You're right I'm reading it backwards (garrett style). Makes sense as far as the difference being a few hp different at the top end. Which I believe is going to draw me to the conclusion that a 6262>5862 regardless of housing size because the turbo's would spool in an extremely similar manor (6262 slightly slower due to inertia) and the advantage of the 6262 is the possibility to do more down the road if I choose without having to change turbos. Also the 6262 would have an easier time making this type of power.... I am also going to assume .58ar is going to cause too much back pressure up high and the .68ar will give me the balance I desire? the t3 flanged turbos don't have the v-band option from cts turbo and to be honest I prefer the t4 connection.


The utterly minimal inertial difference between the 2 would be indistinguishable in practical use. You'll never see/feel the difference except MAYBE transient response on respool and even that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you won't be able to discern.


Remember pressure and volume aren't the same thing. You'll make more power at lower PR with the 6262 taxing the system less.

I'm 100% Clay can get the T3 vband option for you. At 400-500-600whp, I wouldn't even mess with a 4-bolt flange. Once you go vband and eliminate loose bolts, rusted bolts, broken bolts, you'll know what I'm talking about....


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Fast929 said:


> The utterly minimal inertial difference between the 2 would be indistinguishable in practical use. You'll never see/feel the difference except MAYBE transient response on respool and even that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you won't be able to discern.
> 
> 
> Remember pressure and volume aren't the same thing. You'll make more power at lower PR with the 6262 taxing the system less.
> ...


why do you say t3>t4? Because you can get the t4 with the v-band for the downpipe


----------



## Fast929 (Nov 13, 2004)

If you can get T4 with a vband that's ideal. Vband is the way to go. :thumbup:


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

TBT-Syncro said:


> .68 T4 and .82 T3 are basically the same size.


except a T3 82ar is harder for turbine gas to enter because the inlet is smaller = compromise that you don't need to have if you get the right manifold.


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

Fast929 said:


> If you can get T4 with a vband that's ideal. Vband is the way to go. :thumbup:


They make 68ar in vband



Fast929 said:


> If you can get T4 with a vband that's ideal. Vband is the way to go. :thumbup:


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::beer:


----------



## V-dubbulyuh (Nov 13, 2005)

V-dubbulyuh said:


> the flanges and therefore *cross-sectional opening at the flange itself *is significantly different between the two therefore the compensation occurs in the housing size/volume itself (ie .68 vs .82/.83).





CTS Turbo said:


> except a T3 82ar is harder for turbine gas to enter because the inlet is smaller = compromise that you don't need to have if you get the right manifold.


My point exactly. :thumbup:
T4 will always tend to have better flow characteristics (assuming the rest of your setup can take advantage of it).


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

CTS Turbo said:


> except a T3 82ar is harder for turbine gas to enter because the inlet is smaller = compromise that you don't need to have if you get the right manifold.


This is what I was thinking as well... Looks like I'm going 6262 .68ar t4 flange. Final debate is bearings as the price difference is painful Haha

To all of you that provided some input I do appreciate it and feel free to chime in on bearings!! :thumbup:


----------



## Fast929 (Nov 13, 2004)

CBB without question. Journal's on PTE's have a rep for being unreliable....


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Fast929 said:


> CBB without question. Journal's on PTE's have a rep for being unreliable....


Seems to be the general consensus although a few people have said the journal bearing would be fine but if I'm gonna spend the money I might as well spend it right and if bb is worth every bit of 540 I'd be willing to do it... The build is going to take time anyway so addidng a week or two for saving up could be tolerable lol


----------



## Fast929 (Nov 13, 2004)

From right above this thread.


6265 VR. For reference....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA56wbojmQI&feature=player_embedded


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

Fast929 said:


> From right above this thread.
> 
> 
> 6265 VR. For reference....
> ...


yeah that thing is nuts!


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

CTS Turbo said:


> except a T3 82ar is harder for turbine gas to enter because the inlet is smaller = compromise that you don't need to have if you get the right manifold.


nick? you guys ever dyno'd the two back to back to compare?


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

TBT-Syncro said:


> nick? you guys ever dyno'd the two back to back to compare?


No need, its a better setup hands down. You should try it with your car though.


Clay


----------



## tdmopar59 (Jun 22, 2008)

CTS Turbo said:


> No need, its a better setup hands down. You should try it with your car though.
> 
> 
> Clay



Now that's confidence! Haha


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

:wave:


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

OP: 6262 T3 .63AR sees full 10psi at 3300rpms.


----------



## festurbo (Sep 24, 2008)

Not to highjack this thread but since we are talking about VRT(2.8 12v assumed),what about a 
T66/T4 P trim .69a/r on center turbine housing(ceramic ball bearing)? Is this streetable?


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

festurbo said:


> Not to highjack this thread but since we are talking about VRT(2.8 12v assumed),what about a
> T66/T4 P trim .69a/r on center turbine housing(ceramic ball bearing)? Is this streetable?


on center = suck


----------

