@@tonymiller6255I bought a brand new 6466 shit was smoking like mofo out of the box, got an e-mail from them saying we fked up a batch of turbos, please send your turbo back, its kinda fked up when it costs a 1000$ to ship it from where I am. never had problems with Gareth or Borg. they can be the fastest but I cant rebuild a turbo every week. so hot garbage.
@@NimaSomeh trust me when I say I've spent 25k on their turbos over the last few years, and they have been flawless. Sorry you had a bad time. Doesn't change the fact that they are in the fastest cars on the planet
Awesome testing, though would have been good to see the EMAP data from the 7275 as well - if anything this kinda makes the NG 6870 seem less appealing than I thought it might be as that EMAP is really taking off before you are even sending it and the amount more power the 7275 made at the same boost target kinda nods to that. I suspect a LOT of people (definitely myself) would be super interested to see the Xona XRE6869S tested against the 6870, the Xonas seem to be awesome at low EMAP and for quite a while have seemed like the only thing that could threaten Precision in the 68mm street turbo world
Could you please kindly show more data from logs? for example not only boost backpressure, but also coolant pressurem, VE and turbo rpm? Also if its not a problem - spark advance and current AFR. cheers from fellow car entusiast lol
Lol everyone is asking for different turbos. This is a mid sized turbo on a mid sized 3.0L i6. It can't get more applicable than that. Scale it down for a smaller motor or up for a larger gen 2vsng
I have the same artec manifold, I see that you have a emap sensor, did you welded a bung or just drill/tap it? Material is pretty thick there. How would u recommend doing egt? Tap or weld?
Appreciate the time put into the test and recap! Would really like to see the new Xona 68mm vs the 6870NG, but in a v-band configuration. The Xona UHF wheel tends to be able to get away with/prefer a smaller than typical AR as well, which could add a variable but maybe worth considering
Thanks guys! awesome content.. 7275 makes 1000hp approximately 250rpm earlier :O, what was the turbine housing a/r of 7275? Waiting for more engine dyno videos.
While the compressor wheel is a great design, I don’t like about this is it absolutely adds more back pressure. Anytime you increase the compressor size and relevant to turbine size. This always happens. Granted it’s still a 68 mm inlet still but you’re still increasing the flow.
I would love to see a twin charged 2JZ setup with a Dart block/wet billet, TVS 1900 blower and something like a 8685 next gen compound setup. Lag-less low end with legendary top end. Modest street cams like some GSC S1 cams, Turbosmart E-gate, Nexus R5, TB in intake for boost by speed, water to air intercooler with interchiller, water injection, vvt-i to get an 2024 ultimate response setup. SP did an ultimate sequential Supra back in 2010, it would be nice to see where we are at now in terms of what can be done with today's tech. OR SKIP all that $#!* and make a rocket anti-lag kit for a PTE 9814 XPR NextGen Turbo and go hunting TT Vipers and TT Hurrican's with it. Maybe a world record or two.
Good test data. But the boost control needs to be fine-tuned. the 40 psi target must be met. Also, the 276 camshaft on the exhaust kills torque after 6600 rpm. 272 with an overlap of 0.9 mm will be much better.
Hey good afternoon. Our main focus of this video in particular was to over lay the 68s, but I agree the 68 and 72 overlay will be a helpful graph to show. We will have that on our website's blog posts in the next few days. You can find all of our written blog posts using the link below: www.realstreetperformance.com/blog/all-content/ Thanks for watching
@@realstreetperformance any eta on when this info will be added to the website? Currently looking to get a turbo and trying to decide between the 6879 vs 7275. Thanks in advance
I think it was a problem in the boost control in the comparasion. Target boost means that the measurement of both turbos are at the same target boost and the boost control adjust the boost.Gen2 has less boost but also less back pressure witch means that the wastegate was more open.
yeah should adjust boost control so that both turbos would run flat 40psi the whole way through. but imo both turbos are maxed out either way since back pressure is nearly double and engines efficiency has gone to shit
It is normal for smal turbos to have double even 3 times more back pressure than the boost. The boost control operates on the hot gases release from wastegate to achive the target boost. Depending on the engine configuration there is more or less negative effect from the back pressure on the engine power. The sure is that less back pressure makes more power. In the video when show the dyno datas gen2 has at 7500-8000 55-58 psi back pressure witch is less than the 65 psi has the next gen at the same rpm. this also efect the final boost between the 2 turbos.
So actually gen 2 failed to maintain 40psi and next gen also. Test would be even better if you could ran boost which these turbos could maintain through all rpm. Like 31psi for both. That would show true difference in efficiency and power since not everyone actually pushes their turbos to "out of breath scenario"
I wanna see how the new next gen 6885 does. Thinking about slapping one on my 3 rotor rx7. I just want to see one of their new turbos with the 85 turbine wheel.
I'd like to see something a little crazy with the 2j platform like maybe back to a twin turbo setup with tubular style turbo manifold. Dividing the front 3 cylinders and the rear 3 cylinders...I'd like to see how it will make the power
People have done twins to single comparisons before, all the tests I've seen a correctly sized big single will outperform correctly sized twins in response and power output.
why dont you show the max power then instead of just saying that the turbos can do more, nearly double back pressure looks to me that the turbos are tapped out anyways
So what we are trying to demonstrate is a reasonable state of hard usage by one of our customers. A turbo manufacturer is functionally giving a “maximum-achievable-airflow” * energy content of fuel = power in perfect circumstances -sort of answer. A 40psi, 1,000hp usage of a 6870 likely envelops probably a good 96% of the people who we expect to buy this turbo. While we are able to drive a system harder, and believe that there are times for that, when we’re trying to compare products, we feel like someone being able to relate the data to their own engines is more important than breaking the internet (or more likely breaking more parts. 😅)
Those two are pretty different not only in turbine sizing, but in compressor sizing as well. I think a good comparison would be in that 7385 next gen vs 7385 next gen r. For sure something we want to try in the future!
