is there a whole lot of difference power wise between the two turbos at relatively low boost , around 8 to 12 psi?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ying_YANGtwin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is there a whole lot of difference power wise between the two turbos at relatively low boost , around 8 to 12 psi?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Would like to know the difference also, but at higher boost 15 to 30psi.

 

Funny you should ask.
I went from the t3/sc61 to the t3/t67 and trapped 2mph faster on 3 psi less boost with the T67. This was at 9 psi. No tune difference except for 1 degree less timing and changing afr slightly.

 

what engine was this on. And how mutch later did it spool

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ying_YANGtwin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is there a whole lot of difference power wise between the two turbos at relatively low boost , around 8 to 12 psi?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Please don't throw on a T3/67 and only push 8-12psi.

 

spool is just about the same, but everyone on here seems to like the sc61s more, so we offer them. the t3/t67 is a better turbo in my opinion

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Finest &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Please don't throw on a T3/67 and only push 8-12psi. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Why not? We dynoed a friends car on 12 psi with a FR T3/T67, and it made over 400 WHP. It makes tons of power at low boost, and you can crank it up at the strip.

 

I asked this same question about 1 month ago, and guess what i just got yesterday in the mail t3t67....

 

T3/T67 = Max flow rate of 75lb/min.
T3/60-1 = flow: 61 lbs/min 781cfm

T3/T67 flows 14lbs/min more than the 60-1 for one thing

the 60-1 turbo uses a stage 3 turbine wheel and a compressor wheel that is capable of making up to 560 whp. It is an excellent turbo and MANY people have had great luck with it.
the t3/t67 is a much larger turbo, and it does lag significantly more, about 1000 rpm later to be exact. It uses the same exact center section as the 60-1, but has different turbine and compressor wheels. The off the shelf t3/t67 uses a stage 5 T3 turbine wheel with the t67 compressor wheel, and the high output t3/t67 uses a p trim T4 turbine wheel. The high output t3/t67 is techincally a t4 turbo, but in a t3 frame.

there are 3 kinds of off-the-shelf t3/t67
1) t3/t67 .63 a/r stage 5 -- 620 whp
2) t3/t67 .82 a/r stage 5 -- 640 whp
3) t3/t67 .82 a/r p trim -- 700 whp


I QUOTED THE GUYS FROM MY POST

 

i remember typing that

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Full-Race Geoff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i remember typing that </TD></TR></TABLE>

YUp i got my turbo yesterday fron you guys,,looks so good cant wait to put it on my car!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Full-Race Geoff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i remember typing that </TD></TR></TABLE>

earlier in the post you said they spool about the same..but in the quoted text, you said it spooled 1000 rpm later. so which one is it?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DefiantGSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

earlier in the post you said they spool about the same..but in the quoted text, you said it spooled 1000 rpm later. so which one is it?</TD></TR></TABLE>

He is comparing an SC61 and t3/t67 at first with the same spool time.

The 2nd comparison is a 60-1 and t3/t67.

 

I was always under the impression than a 60-1 and an SC61 were virtually identical in spool time?

 

the 60-1 being discussed uses a stage 3 wheel whereas the sc61 and the t3/t67 use a stage 5 wheel

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Full-Race Geoff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">spool is just about the same, but everyone on here seems to like the sc61s more, so we offer them. the t3/t67 is a better turbo in my opinion</TD></TR></TABLE>

I just like the SC61 better because of the E housing. Possible to fit the 67wheel in the E housing?

I have about 1" between my compressor housing and my JimFab crossmember.

 

why would you like the e housing??? the s housing works so much better...

if youre tight on clearance that just comes down to the crossmember not being that great of a design

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 93LSivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Funny you should ask.
I went from the t3/sc61 to the t3/t67 and trapped 2mph faster on 3 psi less boost with the T67. This was at 9 psi. No tune difference except for 1 degree less timing and changing afr slightly.</TD></TR></TABLE>
ok he did say a t3t61... not a t3sc61...
not even the same at all...
the sc61 runs a gt40 wheel at 61mm inducer 82mm exducer...
and the t-61 compressor wheel is a 61mm inducer 90mm exducer...
the 61 flows slightly more air, but is slightly less effecient at higher boosts(30+psi)in comparison to the gt40 sc61 wheel.
as far as the t67 compressor is concerned, its prolly the better wheel for you HP junkies... both compressors will support 600wheel... i just like where the surge line is on the t61 vis the t67.


Modified by GT61 this 1.8t at 10:35 PM 12/11/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Full-Race Geoff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
if youre tight on clearance that just comes down to the crossmember not being that great of a design</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thats a pretty broad statement.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rioninja &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Thats a pretty broad statement.</TD></TR></TABLE>
it is, but as far as stuffing a t67 wheel in a .60ar e housing... it would be a waste... it will kill that wheels overall performance...
i mean the .60a/r e hosuing only alows for so much flow, where as the S cover allows lots more flow and wont defeat the purpouse of the t67 wheel

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rioninja &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Thats a pretty broad statement.</TD></TR></TABLE>

the jimfab xmember is 3 inches too far into the engine bay. look at the z10 xmember, ours, etc. there are no clearance issues

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Full-Race Geoff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">why would you like the e housing??? the s housing works so much better...

if youre tight on clearance that just comes down to the crossmember not being that great of a design</TD></TR></TABLE>

What? I know your an extreemly smart person Geoff, but that statment is kinda retarded.

Its the fact that I'm using a mini-me manifold that it sits so low. The Crossmember has nothing to do with it, and infact they look identical to your own.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

 

i wouldnt say that for no reason bryson. Believe me, they are 3 inches too far back. i was the first person to start building these things back in the day man. jim fabs use the 2 stock crossmember mounts, ours use tow hook mounts and 1 crossmember mount

 

Whhhaat? Can ya show me a pic please?

I havn't heard of this, so I'm sorry to talk ****...lol.

 

im in NJ right now, ill have someone back at the shop take a pic for you.