B4Ctom1

This is a hard truth of cost to power our flathead owning fathers and grandfathers were faced with in the 50's and 60's with a little gas mileage thrown in for extra insult. There is no reason to quibble over it.

The only thing that would offset this cost is if any of you are mid project with much already sunk into a nice set of small block performance parts.

Kingtal0n

Yeeeah nobody should use TBI or roots blowers anymore. The best technology for pump-gas daily driver supercars is turbochargers attached to engines with impressive volumetric efficiency across the compressor's board for almost any size engine this will make for an impressive ride so long as the vehicle weight and gearing match the engine's powerband and capability. I've learned quite a bit and there are only a few costower ratio vehicles I would even consider these days.

Thanks to the japanese, we have access to engines in the 122-200 cubic inch range that come prepped for turbochargers from the OEM. So unlike the V8 world where turbocharging requires internal modifications (if any serious bump to VE is to be made) you can just take an OEM 3.0L toyota engine and slap a 600 Horsepower turbocharger on it and drive it daily for years. Now, any upgrade in power means modification, you need bigger injectors and the right fuel pump and all that stuff- but thats any engine that you increase power output from OEM limitations so no surprises there. I Mainly enjoy the fact that they require no Internal modifications you can make as much as 800Rear Wheel horsepower with the stock camshafts in the toyota 2jz-gte engine using the right octane. pump gas limitations is depending on the RPM you stop, for a daily driver I like to see under 8,000 rpm so you basically cut the VE around 7500 for calculations, and pick the right compressor for the job. The cookie cutter model uses the Precision PT6776 turbocharger. good for 800RWHP, and responsive enough to drive set to 550RWHP using pump gas. I like to use a much smaller turbocharger on strict daily drivers, one that will spool around the street easily and top at 550~RWHP. With the automatic transmission, its quite a blast to drive, and inexpensive when compared to building your own V8 600RWHP pump gas monster.

If your goal is 400~ RWHP and you own the 3500~lb vehicle then you can either stick the LSx model engine into it or use the 2jz-gte @ 500RWHP both ways it will be just as fast around the street, because the 2jz will have the delay of small displacement due to the weight of the vehicle. the LSx remedies that, but has trouble with 500~horsepower as a naturally aspirated engine, so it depends on your goal at that point. My opinion is that the 2jz-gte is an amazing engine for vehicles under 3500lbs, with the smallish turbocharger (@500-600RWHP) the lag is not noticeable considering the gearing and RPM capability of the engine....
and the reliability factor is there even with OEM pistons.

Its just cheese. you are a mouse, find the cheese. you need to drive both to understand the major differences but this the end my friends, this is the end of gasoline and fun pump gas vehicles. we are heading into an age where kids will have no idea what a V8 small block is or care about burning fuel to extract power. This is the end of all the burn fun. My goal was to find the cheapest most reliable cookie cutter setup- something that could be replicated 100 times and always provide reliability and performance together on a budget. the road to 500rwhp, 11 second street tire passes and 28MPG Ive been searching for since I made this thread some 10 years ago... I found it, sort of.

My most important observation where considering fuel efficiency was that its all about vehicle weight. Once you maximize the thermal efficiency and direct every possible atom of fuel in the right areas to burn effectively the only thing stopping you from getting good fuel economy is cruising vehicle weight, and rotating mass losses.

Any drag hurts. your wheel bearings and brake pads need to be allowing smooth rotation. the driveshaft and transmission internals need to be allowing smooth rotation. the crankshaft and its components and even the timing of the pressure waves during a hopefully high vacuum cruise situation ALL come into play.... and finally the vehicle weight.. how much fuel do you NEED to keep a smooth rolling 2800lb vehicle going? 3800lb vehicle? I seem to lose about 5MPG going from 3800lbs to 2800lbs. thats just a generic observation from engines Ive tuned in each. Ah, but the 3800lb vehicle has a larger displacement engine, and more rotating mass. So some of that was maybe lost to that-... but wait, it also cruised with a lesser RPM. So which is using more power my 3L @ 2400rpm cruise or my 6L @ 1700rpm cruise? Look, I never measured it exactly, but I DID tune a few 3L 4000lb cars (supra) and those ALSO lost about 5MPG (they get about 25mpg cruise highway with the tight drivetrain)...

Which bring me to my point here it is: the fuel economy part comes with more than just the engine you select:

proper tuning, engine efficiency, proper drivetrain.
[A]proper tuning means you are using a narrowband or even a wideband to control fueling during a cruise and your map has acceptable air fuel values for the VE expected and of course the ignition TIMING is what would be required to extract the most power from each event. This should be tuned on the street mostly with data-logging to compare cruise duty cycle, knock counts, air fuel ratio changes, while modifying timing... and of course EGT temps for the best possible cruise.

[B]Engine efficiency means how well does the combustion chamber extract the power and keep the heat inside? How well was the flame propagation engineered? even the design of the exhaust manifold and valve timing plays a part in this. The point here is use a late model design engine, dont use an engine from 1972 or even 1985 pick a design that has all the quirks of the V8 solved (such as... the LSx)
of course the japanese versions have been using the same efficient design they came up with back in 1990's. it has not gotten much better since then, but they DID make many changes to the valvetrain dynamics (moving camshaft timing or changing lift with selenoid operated valvetrain devices) they basically improve VE for a wider powerband.

[C]And finally drivetrain, you have a converter that never locks you are going to lose plenty of fuel economy. if you have a gearing that keeps your engine at a high RPM all the time you will lose economy to drivetrain losses. If you have a manual transmission (say T-56) and the right gears (say below 4:1) You should be able to squeeze 25+ MPG from a 3800lb vehicle and 30+ from a 2800lb vehicle.

fuel economy in daily street situations (non cruise) is more dependent on how much power you make leaving stoplights. the more power you make the more fuel you use, but you also go faster so it balances out a little, except for the brake specific fuel consumption variable (as you get richer at higher VE) now you are just wasting fuel to keep combustion cool, plus you see higher RPM and drivetrain losses are more, so you see how that can put a damper on fuel economy numbers.


Now we know what we NEED behind an engine, and under it. What engine do we pick though? Like I said under 3500lbs I love the 2jz-gte:
1. Affordable. They can be had for less than $2000 with an automatic transmission.
2. Parts. There are more aftermarket parts than you could possible want. the engine is very popular, like an LSx. There is even a 6-speed transmission for it available, and it is very robust.

For my small displacement engine selection as 25-30mpg daily drivers 500+ RWHP the 2jz-gte takes the win.

Larger displacement engines.. always start with the latest and greatest that would be the LSx. If you can grab an LSx engine and work with the stock computer... you have the making of a great combination possible. Plenty of displacement and power available just tailor the components to the application. I say vehicles around 3000lbs would be plenty fun with a 400RWHP naturally aspirated engine and provide 28+ Mpg. If you must maintain that 3800lbs then I would turbocharge it, lower the compression, pump gas around 10-15PSI and expect about 600+ horsepower. The vehicle weight is going to drag you down a bit in fuel economy but it will move with the right drivetrain!

Hello thirdgen

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

Your kidding about a stock 2jz-gte making as much HP as a GM LQ9? Then sticking a proper turbo on each. Not even close. The 2jz-gte doesn't have a chance.
It is apparent that you know the details of the 2jz-gte, but not much about the GM stuff.
CI and RPM wins, and adding a SC/TC to make more CI just makes it a quicker rig.

Your post sounds like an AD for selling a 2jz-gte engine. If you get any spare time look up the LSx engine design and what is being done with them in stock form.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

.... lmao, are you serious? Japanese engines coming "prepped" for turbochargers highly depends on the amount of boost you are planning to throw at it in factory form. As far as the 122-200 cubic inch range somehow being an advantage, why is that? You have to spin a smaller engine higher, not to mention push more psi to make the same numbers a V8 can at much less, much less, boost and RPM. 2JZ's are overrated. My buddy's TTA will smoke just about any 2JZ on the street, and will do it capped at 6000-RPM, and let us remember that LC2's (80's technology) did not come forged from the factory either, they were all cast, yet capable of ten second 1/4 mile et's in cast form. What is the benefit of having to spin a 2JZ engine very high while shoving in 30 to 40 plus pounds of boost to see that magical 1000-RWHP number, when a properly built V8 can push that much horsepower at half the psi it would take the Supra, and live happily.

Kingtal0n

please quote me where I said a stock 2jz-gte makes whatever, because as far a I know they only make about 400hp tops from the OEM, and I never said that. Whats a LQ9? I didnt use that word either because I dont know what it is. :/

Kingtal0n

Thanks for reading and responding. Japanese engines coming "prepped" for turbochargers, when I said that I was thinking about the properties of them that separate them from High performance N/A larger displacement engines:
1. Low compression (usually 8.5:1)
2. piston ring oil squirters
3. high RPM high VE head
4. All the turbo oil lines are already in place
5. the engine itself is more "robust" the guideline for these 8.5:1 86mm stroke/crank engines is about 150 Horsepower for every 1L so a 2L engine should be safe around 300HP and a 3L engine should be safe around 450HP and that is the SAFE daily driver status WITH OEM PISTONS.

the only thing a N/A V8 has compared to this is sometimes high RPM high VE head components from the OEM, this is a performance attribute though and expected with or without forced induction as you consider performance.

This is just a fact of displacement. Would you have all of the small displacement engines downplayed because of the laws of physics?
My question to you is this: why SHOULDNT we spin our small engines higher? Why SHOULDNT I run more boost? Why NOT spin my 2L to 9,000 RPM. Whats the down side exactly? If the drivetrain and rotating mass and vehicle weight is all mated togther... You will not even notice the engine rpm moving because it will always be in the right powerband for the job.

nobody needs 1000 horsepower. or 800. even 600 is pushing it. with a 3000lb vehicle I like to see about 500 RWHP. This is my favorite number, 500. Its a personal opinion about fast, that is, in a 3000lb car, you should go 11 seconds consistently with the right drivetrain. Now, if we can add to that, simply 28mpg, and reliability factor... we would have a perfect performance daily driver.
from this point, you have to ask yourself, that very question: "what is the benefit..."
the benefit is, reliability, 28mpg, and 500 horsepower. the original post was 500 horsepower and xxmpg so we are still in this trend. When COMPARED to any V8 you will have many more modifications to achieve this power goal, and the fewer modifications you use to achieve it, the less reliability you seem to have.
for instance we can just spray 150 shot. thats at the top of my few mods -> lowest reliability scale.
From there we can change the camshaft and valvetrain for higher VE at higher rpms. But now we are spinning the engine higher also, so reliability takes a hit.
the most reliable means would be to simply bump the VE via forced induction, and this causes the most modifications (oil lines and exhaust plumbing and customs brackets and you know the drill...)

So we are left with many options, but the most reliable method would be forced induction, and the best forced induction IMO is turbochargers. So yes, in a 3,000lb vehicle, an OEM 3L 2jz-gte is a cheaper engine to have at 500 horsepower, and when compared with reliability, remember the engine is OEM. We didnt go inside and screw something up.
oh and if it fails, the engine itself is about $1200. I can have a stack of these things in the corner for what it might cost to properly turbocharge a V8. The v8 would do it with less rpm and less boost, but more modifications and more money. Theres your benefit.



This is not a war between what is better, all engines have applications in the right vehicles. I only used the 2jz because its a great oem platform for a 3L high rpm high ve performance engine that comes ready to turbocharge. I have seen made 800 Rear wheel horsepower on a 120,000 mile used Japanese 2jz-gte that was purchased for $1200 in a Japanese junkyard, with all the oem internals. that says something. they might be overrated, but they are still at the top of the 3L engines gasoline in the world in my opinion when you consider cost/design/availability simply as that.

Kingtal0n

you guys want to talk more about V8s thats fine. My dream is a V8 car, not a 2jz-gte car. the engine is great but like you said, overrated. its also been done and done and done and done. everybody'z got a 2jz these days.

My friend has an RB26 (2.6 L inline 6) at about 1000bhp (850 wheel through a powerglide) its a strict drag car with a chute and transbrake. At least it isnt a 2jz though! it spins about 9000 rpm utilizing a GT42 iirc around 40psi? After about 150 passes it lifted the head that was engine #1 and theres a video of it around somewhere.
(EDIT: FOUND THE VIDEO http://www.streetfire.net/video/niss...ost_737459.htm

Anyways. V8 stuff. My dream would be:
350~ cubic inch engine @ 6500rpm
.499 lift / 22x @ .050 camshaft 112lsa (low lift for valvetrain reliability)
random 190-200cc aluminum head with appropriate flow values
9:1 compression
Twin T04e 50 trim turbochargers 48ar T3 flange (40~lb/min each)

And the drivetrain would make the vehicle
700R4 w/ trans-go components 9.5" lockup around 2800stall
3.5~ gears
3000~lb vehicle

that should just about tear whatever rubber it wears right off while providing quite a fun experience

Kingtal0n

I like how right below the final post when not logged in there is a paid advertisement from Toyota "#1 for a reason!" lol that just made me cry

daverr

iTrader: (1)

If it were me , I would not build anything below 406" sbc and 540"ish bbc. Street car or not .
Your drivetrain setup looks more setup for mpg. The turbo engine setup you have listed would grenade the 700r4. A 4l80e or th400 with gearvendor would be a better overdrive transmissions.
.

Drac0nic

There are actually a few good reasons. The first is that even with things like VVT, variable runner length intakes etc. higher RPM designs can still be "peaky." eg. they do something well and not everything. That being said the above technologies coupled with modern computers make an amazing difference in drivability compared to old engines. In regards to spinning RPM, the reciprocating mass goes up to the square of the RPM. That means that every time you double the RPM you have 4X the force trying to tear the engine apart.

Gearing makes a huge difference in MPG not just displacement. There are a myriad of factors that determine overall MPG. My Contour that I had back in the day (yeah I know, lol) would get about 30mpg on its best day on the highway and at average about 27mpg. My Astro van which weighs more, has no aerdynamics compared to a Contour and has an engine over twice as big consistently got 22mpg and 25 was its all time best. Less than a 20% difference.

That being said if I were going for 500hp, V8 packaging and mpg I would do one of the following builds (probably about in this order)

-4.8L V8 from a truck, mild cam twin 57 trims The twin 57s is a bit overkill but it would run like a beast, have room to grow, and when tuned properly would give great MPG. These have been proven to 500hp with just some ARP bolts, they weigh less than a gen I engine and are stronger stock for stock. Can't hardly lose on that one.

-home built 302. This was done by Hot Rod for the power tour I believe almost identical to what you're talking about. Hell it's probably even in the thread. Use some Eagle SIR rods, a roller block 350 with roller everything, good heads something like IK180s and a vic Jr. conversion.

-Budget option:305. Yeah I realize some people are going to sorta sneer at this one, but hey people virtually give away roller 305 engines all the time. Build something similar to the 302 and you'll probably see slightly less power, slightly more torque and do it for a lot less coin than the 302. Even if you got forged slugs. 17% less displacement than a 350 you'll hardly miss if boosted and you probably won't miss at the gas pump.

-Budget option II:265. The 4.3L V8s in the Caprices etc. take 305 pistons which are available cheap, can push around a tank of a Caprice just fine and are out there. Throw a set of Recon rods in one with a set of slugs, get some Camaro heads to reduce the weight, add a cam and maybe an intake and this would be a tiny engine that you could toss some boost at and come out pretty decently. They made 200hp in stock trim so there is plenty of room to grow. 500HP is about 2HP/CID not out of range for boost in the least.

The other thing is drivetrain for this. Weight reduction is something I'd consider fairly important or starting out in a light weight car. A Vega would be awesome but they are hard to come by.

-Tire choice is probably important. With 500hp you're looking at a compromise here between some steam rollers and something that goes up in smoke if you look at the pedal.

-The transmission should be light weight for efficiency reasons. All out MPG wise I'd do a 200R4, 4L65E or one of the new 6 speeds if you can control it. Yeah it's not a 4L80, but in a lightish car who cares. The converter is also important, as mentioned lock up is a requirement. As with most racing vehicles it's really a spot you want to spend some money. If you're a manual person there are a lot of factors that need to be accounted for. My buddy has the T56 in his truck and it's the early Camaro one. That means that the ratios are so close he may as well have stuck a TKO in instead. He didn't really gain much but a heavy transmission and an extra shift.

-Same deal with the axle. A 9" is out, they suck power. We should be looking at building a 7.5", an 8.5", 9 bolt or a Dana 44. If one can get a 7.5 to hold up and aren't planning on sticky tires then the 7.5 is probably preferred. Gear ratio should be chosen fairly carefully. On the plus side a lot of people's "reject stock" gears would do amazingly well for us. If we're doing a forced induction build we don't NEED to have a ton of gear. Let the turbos do the work.

ED:An oddball I may consider is the Vortec 4200. All aluminum, VVT, good displacement and 285hp stock. Some pistons and some boost in this thing would be a beast and it would be very light weight. It would also bolt up to most GM RWD transmissions too which is a big benefit IMO.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

i already made a suggestion in this thread, but it was an LS with a nitrous kit. heres another-
stock LT1. port the heads, put a cam in it, and a single plane/tb/megasquirt with a nitrous plate. low 9's in a 3100lb car on 275 radials. good for 22ish mpg with a 4l80e trans, i would imagine....


kingtalon- 1 in 20 japanese cars making 800+whp will run that fast. i would also say 1 in 20 supras making 1000rwhp run that fast. lol

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

i would also like to say that its possible to make 440rwhp with an LS1 with a stock cam/shortblock. and it is capable of knocking down 30mpg in a 3900lb. GTO. the heads,intake, and exhaust add to the price, however. a 150 shot of nitrous would have it tickling 600rwhp while still getting 30mpg and driving like a stock car.

articwhiteZ

iTrader: (56)

i would have to detune. and run bad gas

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

How many runs will the stock LT1 rods handle with that setup? What octane fuel?

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

not sure, they have been fine for around 3 years now. im guessing over 100 passes so far, with 1 oil change. 110 octane fuel, but i went pretty much as fast with 93 in the tank and 110 in the nitrous fuel cell.

this is also stock LT1 pistons and crank, btw.

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

It sounds like you have a good tune in the PCM. Those are some good numbers on those parts.

Kingtal0n

Nitrous is not an option for me on the street. B4CTOM made some very good points earlier. I will say that an OEM 2jz I would trust at that same power level, with the oem head, the oem cam, the oem intake, the oem computer, do you see how the level of attention to detail can be reduced dramatically? And you wind up with mostly the OEM doing that attention to detail, so some people can slap these things together in 3 days when they know what parts to buy.

Heres a 3 day build 2jz-gte oem everything except: turbocharger/manifold/exhaust, fuel system, driveshaft, converter, engine mounts, wiring.




and nitrous + drag radials of course to favor the vehicle in an actual drag race at a track. I never said this was not a good idea just a [low cost / higher risk] variable to consider. HP->$$ is strong with nitrous but it adds [risks/effects on combustion that can be dangerous]

The owner of the vehicle behind it, the guy that can assemble this vehicle in three days.



I want to say that I love engines, no matter the displacement. All of them do the same thing. This is strictly about availability, cost, reliability, for street cars as they perform in daily settings on pump gas. we dont use the nitrous on the way to work (usually )

Kingtal0n

heres another 3 day 2jz he put together:


and this was a 15 day rb26 build, same guy put it together:

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

those are indeed pretty, but most of them are turds aside from a roll. what is the 3 day build guy running et-wise? i see some dr's on there, looks like hes at the track.

nitrous is about as safe as turbos if you know what your are doing.

a friend of mine has a '97 z28 that has been 6.41 in the 1/8....
stock LT1 with a comp 503 cam (stock rotating assy, stock heads, stock intake)
th350 trans swap
stock rearend
aftermarket suspension stuff and 26" slicks
nitrous plate

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Not bad for a stock rear Good to see another guy going fast on stock rear


I didnt read much of this thread but going by title alone, i'll post this.

My old n/a 383 was probably close to 500hp on motor and I'd venture to say it would have done 22 mpg on the highway with a good tune. I never logged it for mileage tho so I cant say for sure.

87_TA on here has a 406/6spd car that makes closer to 500 hp at the tires on motor and he's getting close to 20mpg highway. Basic good heads/solid roller/miniram intake type build.

No idea what my twin turbo setup does. I hope to find out in about a month and a half

500hp and 20-22mpg is doable on a well thought out combination of parts on motor alone. Power adders, sky the limit. My bolt on LS1 is probably a 340whp car tuned up. Gets 25mpg right now on a good highway ride. Add a 150 hit and its close to 500whp and would get the same mileage

Drac0nic

I'll troll this thread and point out about the SVO stangs and turbocoupes, the Buick Grand National etc. A decent 454 will live fine under moderate levels of boost and is nowhere near as octane bound as a 2JZ will be. It will also make tons of torque and a very large amount of power.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Cubes make power with pump gas. The fastest pump gas cars (not e85) are all primarily big block motors and most are some sort of turbo setup. We are talking 7 second cars and I think the pump gas drag guys are doing 6's on pump fuel.

ASE doc

Am I actually seeing photos of rice grinders on TGO? I can't believe the Moderator allowed that? Ive seen these rice grinders. Mostly in my rear view mirror when I'm leaving them in my tire smoke. It's like the idiots who swear they make 450HP from their stage 2 turbo Hondas. Then I blow them away like the joke they are. If you like rice so much leave TGO. Thank you very much.

B4Ctom1

Ever since people started putting TPI 350's into Datsun 260z's and turbo LS1's into RX7's we have talked imports. As long as it applies to the conversation at hand it is usually allowed. Here in power adder where all power adder technology sharing applies. In this area we have a long history of reviewing other applicable power adder vehicles. Even... mustangs! No big surprise that the Turbo Mustangs site even has a GM section. Gotta get this info where you can.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

This highly depends on what you consider to be reliable though, as factoring in availability and cost would be completely defeating the purpose. Cubic inches wins when it comes to dyno numbers, there is no escaping that. When comparing track times though, there are way too many variables to say that one is better than the other, there is only one's opinion. Give you a good example about cost, reliability and availability, Ken Crocie did a build for a boosted Pontiac engine not too long ago, starting with a 400 block, and Pontiac engines are still plentiful nowadays for cheap. The results at a mere 8-psi....

537 Horseppower @ 4400-RPM
744 Foot Pounds @ 3400-RPM

.... and that was with a horrible intake manifold, an old fashioned Quadrajet (not an Edelbrock Quadrajet), and crappy exhaust manifolds. Dyno never reached 6000-RPM, and boost never reached 10-psi. Does that not sound more reliable than a 2JZ, not to mention cheaper, and more readily available?



Since we're talking Import's though, and since the post above mentioned Datsun's, I guess I'll throw in a hybrid, as another cheap, reliable and available turbo V8 build that comes to mind is John Lindsay's 280Z....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uhG8RzKFGA

Kingtal0n

1. The engine must have modern EFI to even be considered for a street car daily driver. have you seen gas prices?
2. The engine must be OEM, no assembly is ever considered reliable/cheap especially when you start talking bottom end components. a 2jz-gte is already assembled ready to go with OEM specifications and modern sequential EFI fit for the 500RWHP mark, just add air/fuel. even the oem turbochargers will produce 400horsepower with the oem fuel system including oem injectors.

Now, An LSX can say the same thing, with an extra large bump to low-end torque thanks to the displacement. so off the shelf, it looks like a better swap. Problem now is, fabrication. A $300 ebay manifold and a single custom downpipe is all you need to slap a large turbo on a 2jz... an LSX cannot say the same. It requires a bit more... work. Thats why as you climb the displacement ladder and find better looking swap for boost (LS7 anybody? can you imagine on boost?) you are throwing more baseline cash at the engine. The 2jz is an available common junk yard engine, there are 20 of them sitting not 10 miles away in a shop on the floor, and all around them in a large circle is spare parts, so many that you can build the engine from spare parts. THATS what I call available... full complete junk engines already assembled and weathered sitting on a floor of a shop ready to drop in at a moments notice... not spare engine blocks in junk yards that require dismantling, cleaning, machine work, re-assembly, days of work etc... you dont even need to buy plugs alot of time we just run whatever the engine comes with. This is a numbers game but it is not just torque/horsepower anymore.

Kingtal0n

sup tom!

I dont even feel the import scene anymore. The ricers are all but gone.

these are not n/a honda engines, they rumble and feel like a V8 when they are setup for power. modern technology has allowed the displacement barrier to drop quite a bit, but engine sizing still applies directly to vehicle weight. I am not suggesting anybody swap a 3.0L into anything over 3200~lbs, I dont care if it makes 1000 horsepower. from a street car perspective, it just doesnt make sense, stick to a V8, because the low end torque (even on boost) is unacceptable for street performance, and by that I mean you no longer have a "fun" vehicle when the displacement is low and the vehicle is heavy, it must build significant boost to achieve "fun" status of acceleration and that is the "laggy, peaky, import like" performance that most of us hate about imports in general. i know!

Now give me a 3000lb vehicle with 500ft.lbs of torque quickly- that is fun.
3L, 6L, doesnt matter !

Kingtal0n

rice* is more about how you drive and care for the vehicle you drive. A rice* can be that guy zipping left and right to get ahead of traffic in his N/A 1.8L honda- he almost rear ends each car, which by the way makes plenty of noise, we all hear his slushbox shift from 3-4 and back to 3 as he dips between lanes. He probably has some stickers or neon lights or wheels worth more than the car.


We drive slow, because our car is fast. We drive behind traffic, or far far in front of it. the ricers will all pass us without realizing what they are passing. Our exhaust note is mellow, thanks to the natural muffling effect of the turbocharger. We run on pump gas, we drive it everyday with A/C. And if we want to- at a moments notice, we can shred the tires at any speed in a dramatic display of power, leaving the line of sheep far behind, wondering whats that smell? Was that a fireball? why did that car suddenly get so loud? Where did it go!

rice* <> small displacement engine

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

you can get a 5.3 out of a truck now for 100 bucks. use stock log manifolds, make a y-pipe to the front mounted 80mm turbo. 700+ rwhp... tons of people doing this nowadays.

i was under the impression a 2jz was the holy grail of the import guys and would be worth more than gold, no?

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

To be honest, the 4G63-T and 2JZ are two of the most impressive motors ever designed and built, IMO. There are guys making 1000whp on those evo 4 bangers. As far as i know, I think its the only 4 cylinder pushing a car into the 6 second 1/4 mile so far.

2JZ is one of the top dogs in any competition. Its even won some outlaw radial type events with mid 4 second 1/8 mile times. Its a top contender at the Texas Mile every year. LSx guys have problems hanging with them, and only the lambo guys with 4-6 extra cylinders are really able to beat them. Properly built, those motors are fantastic powerplants. Even in stock form they respond well to mods and the cars are built very solid unlike GM cars where they suffer from weak rears, weak trannies and fairly weak stock internals. Only exception now seems the 4.8/5.3/6.0 truck motors which all have produced 700whp from a turbo setup on stock bottom ends with nothing more than rod bolts on some of them. Some have just stock internals. Its pretty impressive too.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

Here is a dyno of a local 2Jz.


All Stock 2JZ-GTE
V160 6 Speed Trans

Tubular T4 Twin Scroll Manifold
Bullseye Performance S372 turbo, 1.10 A/R
4" Down Pipe and Mid Pipe
4" HKS Ti Exhaust
Tial MVS water cooled Wastegate
Synapse Synchronic BOV
3" Intercooler Piping

2 Walbro 255LPH Fuel Pumps
-6AN Feed Lines
TMS Fuel Rail
RC 1000cc Fuel Injectors
Aeromotive FPR



boost was at 19psi.
the graph shows why they are so dang slow at the drag strip.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

here is a local 04 cobra with kenne bell. running 19# of boost like the supra above. mods:
Kenne Bell 2.2 Polished Blower at 19psi
BBK LT
BBK H Pipe
Magnaflow Exhaust
60Lb Injectors
KB Boost a Pump
Dual Focus Pumps (start to run out of steam at 6k rpms)
Comp Stage 5 clutch
Comp Lightweight Flywheel
Tuned on SCT



notice any torque difference?

ZZ3Astro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgMo7q4EWOo
2JZ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUOi908RLe4
Turbo TPI

Notice any difference in sound?

Kingtal0n

lol @ you finding the crappiest 2jz graph on the internet.
with a peak like that it had better have over 1000 horsepower like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43lrZyYbeXw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwcF0A1zLBU


and here is a 2.6L inline 6 (smaller displacement than a 2jz!) making 1k HP with your drag strip performance

8.76 @ 155
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2VC_bIniHs

ANY size engine can be made to perform well. What matters most is drivetrain, and math. And why did I pick these two particular cars? Because I have seen them first hand, I have done the math. They are not set up perfect, but close enough to be "fast". But this has nothing to do with daily drivers, only math. displacement always wins the math, of course. but at what cost?

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

.... this is getting a little out of hand, don't ya think....?

10.5 Outlaw Class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiyn1BmJq4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi7SB62hbG4

DAVECS1

iTrader: (2)

Here is the finished product in a 383 format. Been running it for about 5 years with a built 200R4. With a Yank soft hit 3400 stall. On Power Tour last year it averaged 21 mpg, but I plan on converitng it over to WB control with my C950like I have done on my bird. I got about 2 more MPG out of the bird.



I would not mind changing the blower over to a M122 with a bypass valve for more efficeincy. The Weiand ain't bad. I have run a 12.09 with a less than stellar 2nd gear and all season radials.

Kingtal0n

The ultimate street car is low maint, daily driver, pump gas, and most of all... affordable and easy to assemble. By "easy" I simply mean that the parts are available quickly with very little custom fabrication required. obviously some mechanic ability is necessary, because we are talking boost and custom installs for the most part.

In my head, I have only two major outlets for this sort of "easy to assemble" daily driver, and I have already elaborated on both of them to some extent.

But here is my final low-cost solution to the eternal question of reliable oem performance daily drivers @ UNDER < $5000
I feel the $5000 bracket is acceptable for us poor broke college kids.

A. Nissan 240sx + sr20det engine ($5,000 baseline cost includes vehicle)
-OEM performance: 110MPH traps 93 octane OEM everything including ECU/Injectors/turbocharger/etc...
-average 28mpg


The reason for the 240sx choice is simply (low cost) + (parts availability and support) + (rear wheel drive platform) + (< 3000lbs) + (rarity, does not depreciate)

The reason for the sr20det choice is that the OEM performance (110MPH traps and 93 octane) is more than acceptable considering the price of the engine (<$2000) and the fact that it drops into a 240sx without any custom fabrication, even utilizes the OEM driveshaft/engine mounts. It can be done in ONE DAY.

and there it is, < $5000, all OEM equipment, considerable performance bracket (12's @ 110), pump gas, 28mpg, rear wheel drive, plenty of aftermarket support... What more can you ask for? there is nothing else to be had!!!! And you can always sell the car right back for at least what you paid.

my current daily driver that fits this example perfectly:





ice cold A/C, OEM wheels, OEM exhaust, OEM injectors, OEM internals, OEM turbo, OEM driveshaft, OEM mounts, nothing custom. Only thing that is not OEM is the $250 ebay front mount intercooler and pretty soon thats going to be replaced with an OEM sidemount. I got it with the carbon hood so that shaves a nice bit of weight off the front. OEM suspension too! 13.4 @ 106 with 7psi, 12.8 @ 110 with 12psi. OEM clutch, 5-speed OEM transmission. The engine is from a 1989 180sx- thats right, 1989 technology, untouched. The newer version of the engine (1995+) make about 50 more horsepower and dip into the 12.2~@114 with the same vehicle. very quiet, remember, OEM exhaust, no rice gauges or stickers or noise. SURPRISE!

If I had an extra $7000~ to play with, it would be LSx powered instead, OF COURSE. And it would be faster, and get about the same fuel economy. <3 the V8!

Drac0nic

A bolt on LS1 can do that, higher initial investment but no engine swapping to do. That being said the K24A2 is supposedly an engine that would be tolerable to those power levels even stock from my understanding. A thirdgen or even an LT1 car these days+an LQ9 fits this bill, the LQ9 will make good power with a few very minor mods and can be had inexpensively.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

$2,000 LT1 camaro, $300 cam/springs, $100 slicks on stock wheels, $1,000 trans rebuild&converter, $200 headers, $500 nitrous kit.
~$4100ish car and everything... lol

6.50's@105 IN THE 1/8. thats mid 10's in the 1/4. i bet 6.70's would easily be had by a 100% bone stock LT1 engine in the same car.

buddy of mine has been doing it for awhile now. its only good for around 21ish mpg though. if you took the time to figure out the 6 speed clutch/launch/suspension you could get it to run nearly the same but pick up mpg to around 25hwy. i think the LT1 cars are the biggest bang for the buck available nowadays. LS1 cars that are in rough shape can get down in the $3500 range and can absolutely fly with just a nitrous kit. i just dont see you getting anywhere near that fast with a 240 for the same amount of money.

project89

iTrader: (1)

lol when it comes to milage ill keep my 2.8 turbocharged 3rdgen

2.8L
t3/60-1 turbo
700r4 4k stall
4:10 rear gears
junkyard intercooler
megasquit

knocking down 36mpg highway at a hefty 3500 pounds

Kingtal0n

even a honda from the factory cant do that.

when you get your speedo working, fill the gas tank to the brim, drive 1XX miles, then fill it to the brim again. Divide gallons and miles, and you will see a maximum of 28mpg average, with a constant driving on the highway @ 60mph giving closer to 30mpg if the engine is as exactly tight as a new modern engine, assuming < .45 BSFC (you should be 14.7:1+ air fuel with a tight seal)

TurboedTPI

Why not rev it to 9,000 rpm? Simple, longevity. The higher and engine is spinning the faster it wears out. Thats Simple. Why do diesel engines run for 500,000? Most dont rev over 2500rpm.

Kingtal0n

So if we are comparing a K20A engine with 200,000 miles that goes to 9,000 rpm every single day, and an LS-1 engine with 200,000 miles that goes to 6,000 rpm every single day... wait, wait, they both have 200,000 miles.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

one of my friends has knocked down 31mpg with a 430rwhp 3900lb. LS1 gto. it also made that much power with a factory cam and ported factory heads.
my 2.2l s-10 gets 31mpg if i drive 65mph. it weighs a tad over 3400 with me in it.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

I think its more of rotating mass.... stuff in K20 doesnt weigh what the stuff in a LS does. Different firing orders and such cause different vibrations and flexing inside that it all can have drastic differences.

Same reason a long stroke motor isnt prefered for high rpm applications. Piston speeds and such become severe and that just hammers bearings/rod bolts, etc.

And overhead cam setups have better valve control than pushrod motors so naturally, higher rpms is better suited for those motors than pushrod stuff. Just the way it is.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

i also watched a '84 dodge d50 (mitsubishi truck) lay down more power on a dyno up to ~4500 rpms than a honda s2000. i found that hillarious, considering the truck peaks out at 50-60hp lol! also, that same truck gets 30mpg with its stock carburetor.

Kingtal0n

We can say this car that car all day long, lets use real physics instead now and clear this up quick

Average power = delta work / delta time. We are talking simply the change in work done per unit time. This can be converted to watts or horsepower or joules/second or whatever. iirc 1horsepower = 550ft-lb/hour or 735 watts or something close to those numbers, it doesnt really matter though because the formula tells us everything we need to know: average power output is based on work per unit time.

Work = Force x Distance, and we all know what time is. Distance is obvious and force being... what? Where is our force requirement?

You have to generate enough force to move:
the rotating assembly/valvetrain/accessories/flywheel/inputshaft/driveshaft/differential/tires/wheels/ and every parasitic thrust washer in the transmission... THEN you can factor in the weight of the vehicle, the rolling resistance of the vehicle, the wind resistance the vehicle puts up with etc...

So flipping the A/C compressor on and off, or changing your tire compound, or utilizing lighter rotors/wheels, or going from auto->manual, or using lighter connecting rods, all makes a difference in the force required, which changes average power output.

And average power output dictates fuel economy BASED ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ENGINE AT THAT TIME. So if our engine is particularly efficient at 2800rpm but not very much so around 3200rpm a cruising difference of 12mph can change our fuel economy from 35mpg to 28mpg.

For simplicity sake, lets say 4000lbs moved 50mph with a BSFC of .5 gives 35mpg. But the same exact vehicle moved 85mph gives 25mpg. So we install taller tires and lighter wheels, giving us a lower cruise rpm and less parasitic loss, now we get 28mpg instead. Then I adjust the exhaust system diameter to improve scavenging around that rpm, and fine tune the intake runners to give a better VE around that rpm, so the engine has to do less work, vacuum improves during cruise, now we get 30mpg. Then I lower the vehicle and change the hood so air resistance at that speed is lower, now I get 32mpg. Then I use a wideband to simulate a narrowband and pull back the air fuel ratio from 14.7 to 15.4, and I activate exhaust gas recirculation to re-use some unburnt hydrocarbons from my exhaust system, now I am back to 35mpg.

But, When you come to the forums and brag about how good your fuel economy is, which numbers do you choose? and which one is correct?

daverr

iTrader: (1)

I have simple answer ,if you want high performance and mpg get a sportbike.

Its alot easier pushing 300lbs than pushing 3000lbs.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

i can tell you anything you want to know about the car, why do you want to put it into a mathematical equation?

stock aero
stock weight (aside from the 19" wheels being a bit heavier)
stock suspension
all the bolton stuff for an LS1
ported stock heads
fast intake
got the same mileage with a/c on as it did with windows down and a/c off
got 31mpg driving 65-70mph

i mentioned the 400+rwhp gto getting 31mpg because you told the v6 guy his car wouldnt get any better than 28. i personally believe you could get mid 30's out of a v6 if you wanted to. the gto is a known fact, not a theoretical calculation i came up with off the top of my head.

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

my answer was to put a fast car in the garage and drive a safe, economical vehicle to work everyday. im putting civic vx engine into my civic hatch right now to serve as the next daily driver. im shooting for mid-upper 50's in the mpg.