Originally Posted by asubennett

You misnterpreted what I was getting at. Sorry I should have been more clear.

If the 6466 has made a witnessed 950whp on a dynojet I would think the difference between the 6266 and 6466 would only be 100hp at best for the mechanical difference bewteen the two turbos.

I have yet to see a 850whp 6266 graph. Have you? If there is a 6466 graph at 950whp dyno jet it makes me optimistic that a 6266 could crank out 850whp dynojet on kill in a well equipped set up.

Originally Posted by SmurfZilla

I made more the 735 on a 6265. I would've made over 800 if one of my fuel pumps didn't become an issue.

I'm sure the 6266 can hit 850. It'll be in its upper ranges. but it should be able to achieve it.

Originally Posted by maperformance

The 6466 has a different blade profile, which obviously has proved to be the better over the latter designs. Thus why it can make as much power as the 6766, and be a little smaller.

Originally Posted by JohnBradley

Just got done Etuning a 6466 that is at the track at 37psi dropping to 33 on a 2.4 VIII. 26psi by 4600, ran a 6.7@111 spinning, unknown vehicle weight.

Originally Posted by maperformance

It would be out of its efficiency range and would be dumb to push to that point.

If you want 725+whp turbo, get the 6466. If you want 1000whp get 71HPSHP.

Originally Posted by Svendiesel

DAMN the 64 is like $700 bucks more than the 67.

Originally Posted by SmurfZilla

I'm making 777 at 33 PSI on the 6265 and I'm not pushing the turbo I use now. I don't know how the 6266 would be any less efficient.