| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 12:17
 
|
 |
Your box will be fine. Your atmo 302 will make significantly less torque than a turbo 2JZ or 7M. This is provided you don't abuse it of course (eg flat-changes).
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 12:42
|
|
Ah yes, V8's have lots of torque right? If you're building a high-performance atmo engine, you can wave goodbye to your bottom-end torque. Sorry, that's just how it works with NA mods, you can't have it both ways!
By contrast my turbo engine is developing 5psi boost at less than 2000rpm, and as we all know boost = torque. I hit peak boost at 4000rpm at which point I have more than twice the torque of any atmo 3 litre engine. I don't mean to brag but my turbo 3 litre engine will have a much more peak torque AND a far superior torque curve to any atmo 5 litre engine, yes even a mega-dollar V8 supercar engine. This is why turbos are so good!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 12:50
|
|
He's on the money, turbos make torque, that's their job. The theory that V8's make lots more torque is bull. Sure they do...compared to a NA 2l.
Big undersquare V8's sure make a lot of torque off the line, but this makes them hard to get off the line in most RWD cars, and by design they don't rev hard enough to make the best of the mid-range and top end. Make them rev and they lose their bottom end...
A 2JZGTE makes about 400Nm of torque stock and makes peak torque quite low. It's also very linear (a by-product of its sequential turbos) so it's bound to have been making a lot of torque throughout the rev-range. If you take Norbie's, its got about 100 extra hp over a stock 2JZ with the associated increase in torque. That is something I HIGHLY doubt you will ever reach with your 302, and if you did, you could only match it for peak.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 12:55
|
|
|
if you have the appropriate rocker gear, lifters, camshaft and engine hardware in a v8, it is not difficult to surpass rev ranges of turbo 6's. but i spose you will have to wait and see. As will i anxiously
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 12:58
|
|
| V8_MA61 wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 20:55 |
if you have the appropriate rocker gear, lifters, camshaft and engine hardware in a v8, it is not difficult to surpass rev ranges of turbo 6's. but i spose you will have to wait and see. As will i anxiously
|
Bingo, you've just hit it. But, you'll be pushed to find a camshaft that will make enough power to warrant being used in an all out NA application that won't sacrifice bottom end...as for surpass, what do you mean?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:00
|
|
go higher.
My camshaft was designed as a flat tappet and should come on strong from about 3000 to 8500rpm, which is where ill set my msd rev limiter.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:05
|
|
Valvetrain mods can only move your torque peak around, NOT increase it. On an atmo engine there is very little you can do to increase the peak torque (eg more compression will get you a few percent but that's about it). So you may end up with slightly more peak torque than a stock 302, but not much. And that will be heaps less than a 2JZ-GTE.
As for your valvetrain mods, that's going to push the peak torque to higher rpm (this is the ONLY way to make more power on an atmo engine), which gets back to my earlier point about your engine having relatively weak bottom end torque. Like I said you can't have it both ways, top end power and bottom end torque, unless you start getting into fancy stuff like VVTi and variable inlet tuning etc, none of which is likely to find its way onto your 302!
These are the cold hard facts. I don't care how good your engine builder is, he can't bend the laws of thermodynamics!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:13
|
|
but has overall torque curve been discussed yet? My New engine design will be significantly different than my original, in that, im not going for large flowing 4v ports and ginormous valves now, as i was advised it would be a pig off the line to drive. I have invested in a set of aluminium heads instead.
BTW: Sorry to hijack thread.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:15
|
|
|
As far as torque curves go, methinks you would be hard pressed to match a good turbo six with a NA 5l V8.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:21
|
|
ladies,
whilst i agree generally with the turbo idea...
you cannot simply dismiss out of hand the extra 2L capacity that the 302 boasts. THAT alone creates torque - much like boost works to increase the efective capacity of a smaller motor. i dont get how you can say a blown 3L has more torque than a 5L (all other things equal) at 5 psi...
air + fuel in = torque out
pretty simple.
now of course cam tuning etc will play havoc with the overall curves, and NA is fraught with compromise, but saying a 5L NA will have no go is a bit simplistic. and anyway - who on earth starts a drag, or any other kind of spirited driving from a rolling start at 1200rpm?
thats why god invented the clutch!!
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:24
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 00:15 |
As far as torque curves go, methinks you would be hard pressed to match a good turbo six with a NA 5l V8.
|
yeah, push enough air and fuel into ANY engine, and itd be hard to beat... why? cause its behaving like an 8L entine!! the only advantage is you get to dumb down the intricacies of intake timing cause boost just runs the show.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:27
|
|
|
should we start a different thread or something? I can actually see this conversation constructively going places. And it is about time its not discussed as a one sided affair.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:27
|
|
Yes it is behaving like an 8L engine, which supports the original point that it makes more torque than a 5L engine!
No-one's saying the old 302 is going to be lacking torque, but the notion that it will out-torque a 2JZ running 20psi is a bit rich.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:28
|
|
|
Where along this discussion did i mention i'll expect to get more torque than you?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:31
|
|
|
We weren't originally talking about your engine specifically, we were talking about a high-performance old-school tech V8 compared to a turbo six.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Strength of W58 gearbox
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:33
|
|
|
ill reply to this in the new thread
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:49
|
|
Ok, well the other thread is gone  In response to your last one, the AU Windsor WAS a dinosaur engine! That doesn't make it any better, and referencing domestic product isn't really going to sway our opinions
Just for the record, my next project will be NA UZ, so I'm not wholly biased 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:51
|
|
|
ok then, lets start by not focusing on ford 302's. yes thats what im building, but its not the only thing around. Include all matter of v8s in the discussion, chev, chrysler, ford and anything of interest
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:56
|
|
| V8_MA61 wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 21:51 |
chev, chrysler, ford and anything of interest
|
I don't see anything in particular of interest in that list
How about Toyota, Nissan, BMW? They have all shown NA engines that can make power and torque, more than similar displacement engines of pushrod nature. BUT, as good as they are, not even they usually eclipse the mid-range torque and peak torque of a good medium sized turbo engine.
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:56
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 00:42 |
hmm, 2JZ = 3L?
20psi = 1.36bar
you should be happy if you are making about 700Nm of torque. if you aren't there's something wrong, and you should not be happy..
at 5psi = 400Nm.
302 = 5L you should be happy to make 500Nm and sad if not.
a good 6L race chev motor will make 600Nm...
to settle this torque thing.. a great rough guide is:
100Nm per litre + 100Nm/L x (boost in BAR) = torque you should be making maximum.
as for V8 vs turbo 6. the V8 will have pretty flat torque curve, and instant punch ALL the time, whereas the turbo will have lag and take a small amount of time to make the torque again...
all well and good to have great peak figures, but having it there immediately makes a big difference when driving/racing
different horses etc 
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:57
|
|
|
Haha, I can't believe we quoted and said pretty much the same thing
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 13:58
|
|
Copying over from other thread:
| oldcorollas wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 21:42 |
as for V8 vs turbo 6. the V8 will have pretty flat torque curve, and instant punch ALL the time, whereas the turbo will have lag and take a small amount of time to make the torque again...
all well and good to have great peak figures, but having it there immediately makes a big difference when driving/racing
different horses etc
Cya, Stewart
|
Exactly, and while linear, an all out NA race engine will be a lot peakier than a well-thoughtout turbo setup making similar power.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:02
|
|
*waits for Norbie* 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:03
|
|
oki boys and girls.
to work out about the maximum torque that a motor will produce (if all "good" things are done properly)
for NA motor
Nm = 100Nm per litre = 100Nm/L
for a highyl tuned peaky little bitch, like lamborghini(sp?) and ferrari, make that 105Nm/L
for ANY turbo motor
Nm = 100Nm/L X (Boost +1) where boost is in BAR or atm.
so for a 5L NA motor = 500Nm max
for a 6L chev i know for a fact 600Nm is about it...
for Norbies turbo motor, (it's a 3L??)
5 Psi = 400Nm
20 Psi = 700Nm
if you are not making those figures, there's something wrong, or something yet to be optimised.
if you are making higher torque figures than that (ie more than 3 or 5%) then sell your secrets to F1 and Nascar, or get a mroe accurate dyno 
now to get power:
kw = (Nm x rpm) / 9402
this is EXACT, as long as your Nm figure is correct, and you can also use this equation (and the previous ones) to see who's spinning bullshit when they claim their XX motor made 5 billion HP
for example, if Norbies motor was pushing 700Nm at 8000rpm, he SHOULD, by rights, have....
596kw = 798HP... which is exactly what you would expect from a 7L NA motor.....
so, before any more bickering happens, do a few calculations... these above should give you MAXIMUM figures possibly (with maybe an extra 5% for those with high resources and R&D)
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:05
|
|
Geez, some of you guys need to go for a drive in a decent late-model turbo six (you included Ed). Lag? Never heard of it! Instant torque whenever you want it.
Don't try and tell me a 302 with big cams etc is going to have a flat torque curve all the way to 8500rpm; the torque is going to look pretty ordinary at low rpm if it makes power that high. I've driven my fair share of peaky atmo engines and I know what they're like to drive. As I said earlier my 2JZ gets into the meat of its torque curve at 2000rpm, and it's linear all the way from there to redline... a highly tuned atmo engine simply cannot compete.
And my comments are directed to ANY 5 litre atmo engine, not specifically the 302, although as I said before VVTi and variable inlet tuning etc can sway the argument somewhat.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:09
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 00:03 |
for example, if Norbies motor was pushing 700Nm at 8000rpm, he SHOULD, by rights, have....
596kw = 798HP...
|
I like the way you think! Now how much is that T88 kit again?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:09
|
|
798hp???
Same fellow whos building my engine had a 2jz pushing out a little over 850hp, and it has already had 30,000 spent on it (no computer incl) Aftermarket everything. Pistons, rods, cams,crank. Greddy turbo and accs.
So theres a good $40-$50000 engine for you! id love to know what i could do with $50k with a v8 and old school technology!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:11
|
|
... i recall a conversation with V8-MA61 about this a few weeks back ... the bent8 will have loads of pickup (torque) off the line and at low revs (even with teh cam doing better above 3K) .. sure it won't have the punch that the turbo provides when boost hits ... but there's a particular brutal clench that V8's seem to have when tuned up next to the ragged edge of destruction...
any chance someone could overlay the toque/rpm/kwh curves of some of the turbo6's against a stock and modded bent8? or post some links of separate items so those of use with too much spare time can plot them?
... and i think somone should run a poll on how long his drive train is going to last with the take-off/launch abuse it's going to cop
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:12
|
|
i wish for once people could pull their heads out of the sand and engage in a objective argument...
the issue is NOT which dinosaur is worse than the other, whether pushrods add weight and friction, or whether you like ford/holden/toyota...
the topic is exactly WHY is a turbo small capacity engine 'better' than a larger capacity NA engine. heres a list of things that come to mind that should be on the table for discussion:
- boost vs effective capacity
- the role of cam timing and its influence in FI motors
- throttle response and driving technique
- torque curves - and the validity of WOT dyno graphs
- efficiency of either design
- the role of rpm tuning and other compromises in NA engines
my 2c - FI blurs over a whole lot of the intricacies of engine design, and gives you a dumbed-down large capacity motor, where, if you add enough fuel to the incoming air - will make power. BUT only because it is effectively an 8L
now take a similar 8L NA - and it becomes prone to all the tuning problems that NA bears - ie effective cam timing to 'naturally' fill the 8L of cyl capacity.
cheers
ed
(PS - remember if this gets personal and out of hand - im locking this thread)
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:13
|
|
lag will stillhappen highly tuned turbo motors with big turbos aiming for high boost at high rpm... even with the recent advances in turbos, there is still lag...
i would hardly call the ford XR6 a highyl tuned motor.. although..... at the rpm it pulls, it has high efficiency, for the boost it's making... put some turbos on there capable of 20-30psi boost, and you will start to see lag..
the 2003 WRX i drove had lag.. boost comes in around 3500-4000, but even when you are in that range and plant it from cruise, there is still lag, even if only a second or so... much more like GT2 than GT1
| Quote: |
haha hope this helps!
our race car used to have a 2.5 v6 that we twin turboed. it made 800hp or about 595kw on the engine dyno and could do this all day long as its a circuit track engine but everything starts to happen after about 4500rpm.
with the 6 litre 350 chev nat-asp we make 660hp and 580fp at 3800rpm and it stays as a very flat curve to 7500rpm{rev to 8000rpm gearing.}
on the track the 350chev is the much faster engine as the torque is there to get the car moving from low in the rev range. the twin turbo could be as quick if you spent mega dollars{or had a 10 speed gearbox} on development but we spent 140k+ getting it to be competitive so in the real would of street driving your better of with the most torque down low. drag racing everything is up top, so turbo cars can rev there tits off and be in there power band.
|
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:14
|
|
I think we need to be clear on what you mean by "small capacity" Ed. To me, the 2JZGTE is not a small capacity turbo engine.. 
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:20
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 01:14 |
I think we need to be clear on what you mean by "small capacity" Ed. To me, the 2JZGTE is not a small capacity turbo engine..
|
in the world of hi output engines, 3L is small
yes, its one of the larger factory turbo engines, but its still small on the size scale.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:21
|
|
I think we also have to clarify what we mean by power levels. Of course there comes to a stage where if all out power becomes the issue, the capacity goes up, or the boost goes up. Getting the boost up requires a sacrifice in response or lag.
BUT, lets compare for instance, these two particular engines, a 5l V8 (a 302 for example) vs a 3l six (like a 2JZ...what a coincidence). Worked fairly hard, the 302 could probably make the same peak power as the 2JZGTE. Let peg this at a hypothetical 450hp. This would be a big effort for the 302 and pushing the limits of the 2JZ's factory twins.
here's another BUT, if you compared the torque/power curves of the two, I GUARANTEE that the 2JZ would have the meatier mid-range and probably bottom end, it wouldn't suffer from lag problems that we've discussed in all-out power examples. In short, it would have more streetable power.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:26
|
|
>>the topic is exactly WHY is a turbo small capacity >>engine 'better' than a larger capacity NA engine.
they are and they aren't... many pros and cons.
things like:
weight (turbo)
heat and heat management (usually NA)
throttle response (NA.. turbo is not as crisp, but it's a personal choice)
power band, and usuable torque etc.
heres a list of things that come to mind that should be on the table for discussion:
- boost vs effective capacity
turbo has extra capacity only when the boost is there. high boost at high rpm is a trade off to lag, just as high rpm NA is a trade off too low rpm 'offcam lag'
BUT, with dinosaur V8's, roller rocker and lifter techanology is to the point where they have riduclous lifts, ridulous ramp rates and don't need as much overlap to make torque... you CAN have a 3000-8000 flat torque curve.
- the role of cam timing and its influence in FI motors
as above, high ramp rates mean less overlap is needed.
- throttle response and driving technique
personal choice.. you like a peaky turbo motor (like that 4EFTE with 195fwkw) or a peaky atmo motor? i contest that all out V8's are less peaky than all out small NA motors.
- torque curves - and the validity of WOT dyno graphs
interesting... you need a torque curve really to compare. most ppl only get power curves (but you can back calculate to get T)
for turbo, does the dyno provide more load, so the turbo has more time to spool up?
- efficiency of either design
turbo is more space and weight efficient, but has tradeoffs...
think turbo 20B rotary.. HUGE power, HUGE torque as well, but is effectively turbo 4L motor.
- the role of rpm tuning and other compromises in NA engines
high rpm turbo has similar probs to NA, you need some overlap to get thing shappening. roller techanology for pushrod is in some ways better than direct cam actuation. simply because the cam lobe is not as large due to leverage. try to get an inch lift in an OHC direct actuated motor
for good comparisons, go look at the top sports sedan teams, who have the money to optimise things.
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:26
|
|
| ed_ma61 wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 22:20 |
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 01:14 |
I think we need to be clear on what you mean by "small capacity" Ed. To me, the 2JZGTE is not a small capacity turbo engine..
|
in the world of hi output engines, 3L is small
yes, its one of the larger factory turbo engines, but its still small on the size scale.
|
This is true, but the majority of my arguments are on real-world examples, usable power. The kind of setups afforded by good worked factory engines.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:29
|
|
| V8_MA61 wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 22:24 |
how do you define streetable power? The v8 will still have more low down torqe off the line, and off a set of traffic lights from an idle start, to the next set, id like to gaurentee the v8 would win due to its instantaneous power.
|
We REALLY need to overlay some graphs. The only one I have access to is a lightly modified XR6 turbo versus a lightly modified HSV Clubsport. The XR6 only made a little more PEAK power but it killed through the mid-range.
If you think a good turbo engine doesn't have instantaneous power, then you're living in the dark ages. Long gone are the days of turbo engines with 7:1 compression and mucho lag...I hope you have the money to back up that bet 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:34
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 01:21 |
BUT, lets compare for instance, these two particular engines, a 5l V8 (a 302 for example) vs a 3l six (like a 2JZ...what a coincidence). Worked fairly hard, the 302 could probably make the same peak power as the 2JZGTE. Let peg this at a hypothetical 450hp. This would be a big effort for the 302 and pushing the limits of the 2JZ's factory twins.
.
|
pegged at 450hp, the 302 could make this at a minimum of 6315rpm
the 2JZ will have pretty similar torque curve with 10psi.
since 6300 is pretty low, the 302 will have near max torque after maybe 1500-2000rpm.
since 10psi is pretty low, the 2JZ will have full boost (ie full torque) pretty low in the rpm range..
they would be comparable, except for the snap throttle response of the V8, the turbo would take a little more time to make full torque, so would feel slightly 'softer' upon pedal mashing...
now if we compare Norbies 20Psi 3L with a 7L motor, same thing. but with more lag for the turbo, and more weight for the NA.
thoughts?
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:36
|
|
| Quote: |
Same fellow whos building my engine had a 2jz pushing out a little over 850hp, and it has already had 30,000 spent on it (no computer incl) Aftermarket everything. Pistons, rods, cams,crank. Greddy turbo and accs.
So theres a good $40-$50000 engine for you! id love to know what i could do with $50k with a v8 and old school technology!
|
Now, don't get me wrong here... but even if it's not finished why haven't we heard whispers of this 850hp monster buildup? That's 700hp at the wheels - so it would be a 9 second street car or a 7 second drag car in the works
Now, let's pretend that this is actually real and not in dreamland. The fact that you have said it is all Greddy gear means that it is not money well spent. For example, you can buy an oil cooler kit from companies like Greddy/HKS/Blitz for about $2,000. Or you can get an equally effective one made up locally for far less than half of that amount.
So if it's been done with Greddy accessories.. let's be generous towards your cause and pretend they are only double the cost of something equivalent made locally. Then we're working on a $15,000 budget, not a $30,000 budget.
Find me an 850hp V8 buildup for $15000 and I'll eat my own dick.
[Updated on: Mon, 09 February 2004 14:41]
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:38
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 01:21 |
here's another BUT, if you compared the torque/power curves of the two, I GUARANTEE that the 2JZ would have the meatier mid-range and probably bottom end, it wouldn't suffer from lag problems that we've discussed in all-out power examples. In short, it would have more streetable power.
|
and the reason for this - i postulate - is becasue FI engines dont suffer from the sensitivities of cam timing like an equivalent sized na engine would (which RELIES upon cam timing for its efficiency)...
NA's are restricted b tuned cam timing and intake harmonics
FI's are restricted by turbo size vs pumping efficiency
yes a street trim NA 5L 8 is aweseom to drive (despite horrible losses from archaic design, and the above mentioned cam timing dilemma) - stock cobra v8 an example
yes a street trim FI 3L is aweseom to drive around - and may infact produce 'slightly' healthier figures due to its non reliance on cam timing for efficient cyl filling (assuming sensible turbo choice) - stock 2jzgte an example
take EITHER of them and start to go nuts and what happens...
the 3L trying to be a 5L, suddenly tries to become a 10L engine, and its AINT going to do this without compromising low end torque, and the curve will be VERY spikey - thanks to turbo choice
the 5l NA will STILL be a 5L, and with cam timing, you may be able to tweak a slightly better VE making it a 6L (good luck), but it too will be peaky - thanks to cam choice
BUT if you now replaced the 5L NA with a 10L NA to 'directly ' compare capacities with the now hamstrung 3l FI, keeping it in street trim (as were not trying to increase its VE - we're happy with 10L @ 90% VE), goddamn ill tell you which id prefer to be driving.... HANDS DOWN
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:38
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 01:29 |
and off a set of traffic lights from an idle start, to the next set, id like to gaurentee the v8 would win due to its instantaneous power
I hope you have the money to back up that bet
|
LOL, remember to put them both into 1.7 tonne boat anchors of cars 
so put those graphs up!! do some calcs, see whose lying
oh, and comparing a 5L with a 4L turbo is on par IF boost is set to 3.7psi.
5.7L = 4L with 6Psi
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:39
|
|
I understand what you're saying but unfortunately hardly anyone has an engine that is efficient enough to make those equations relevant.
To make that much power, I doubt the 302 would have its max torque down so low, as it would've had to have been shifted further up with cams. Considering something like a Commodore SS (I don't have any 302 data offhand), something of a fairly similar layout doesn't make peak torque till 4000rpm, I'd say there are some serious flaws in those guesstimates.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:42
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 22:38 |
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 01:29 |
and off a set of traffic lights from an idle start, to the next set, id like to gaurentee the v8 would win due to its instantaneous power
I hope you have the money to back up that bet
|
LOL, remember to put them both into 1.7 tonne boat anchors of cars
so put those graphs up!! do some calcs, see whose lying
oh, and comparing a 5L with a 4L turbo is on par IF boost is set to 3.7psi.
5.7L = 4L with 6Psi
Cya, Stewart
|
Do you know HOW many magazines I've got Gimme a week, I *might* be able to find it
Considering it was on an XR6 Turbo without having the factory boost cut removed (so it was 6psi), it would be an better comparison.
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:43
|
|
| 7M-Brisbane wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 01:36 |
Find me an 850hp V8 buildup for $15000 and I'll eat my own dick.
|
i hear from a reliable source that a 600Hp 6L chev will set you back around $20-25K, and a 700Hp 6L chev will set you back around $75K+ give or take a few thousand...
mind you, this is for a full race setup, dry-sumped etc and can do this HP ALL DAY with no issues.
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:43
|
|
obviously. the other issue youre battling is HOW youre going to construct an NA 10L engine... what kind of bore/stroke is it going to have, how many cyls?... will it behave like a square 86x86 2jzgte?
i dont like FI cause it really is a dumb way of mushing air into a small engine trying to make it bigger, and blurring over the characteristics of cam timing and intake harmonics etc... BUT it does work, and you cant argue with that...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:44
|
|
|
*The mind of 7M-Brisbane* - "Thank GOD I don't have to eat my own dick...phew"
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:46
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 00:38 |
LOL, remember to put them both into 1.7 tonne boat anchors of cars
<snip rest>
|
i wuz just wondering what the end weight of the MA61's going to be? it's impact is going to be mostly 1/4 times and seat-of-pants feeling ... but ...
from memory, dry weght of
MA61 + 5ME is >1300Kg ?
MA61 + 2JZ ?
MA61 + W203 ?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:46
|
|
| ed_ma61 wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 22:43 |
i dont like FI cause it really is a dumb way of mushing air into a small engine trying to make it bigger, and blurring over the characteristics of cam timing and intake harmonics etc... BUT it does work, and you cant argue with that...
|
Take out the word dumb and you've hit the nail on the head To say that it's removed all the intricacies altogether is to simplify it somewhat...it brings its own problems methinks you are neglecting to acknowledge
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:49
|
|
the thing with V8's, is that since the RPM is usually not that high (below 6grand is not high) the tuning band from harmonics and port diamter is quite wide.. so a V8 with small ports will be quite efficent..
but for an F1 motor, running at up to 19000rpm, with a power band of maybe 16000-19000, and a VE of about 120%....
same with small four pots. high rpm needs larger ports, decreases port velocity, decreases filling.
turb wins hands down for this, since the boost causes high port velocity all the time... all comes down to port velocity, cylinder filling, ie VE, and effective VE.
most modern NA motors have pretty high VE's. most 1L bikes have around 100-105Nm.
most high end sports cars have similar.
the new BOSS 290 Ford donk, is 5.4L and has 520Nm.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:53
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 00:46 |
| ed_ma61 wrote on Mon, 09 February 2004 22:43 |
i dont like FI cause it really is a dumb way of mushing air into a small engine trying to make it bigger, and blurring over the characteristics of cam timing and intake harmonics etc... BUT it does work, and you cant argue with that...
|
Take out the word dumb and you've hit the nail on the head To say that it's removed all the intricacies altogether is to simplify it somewhat...it brings its own problems methinks you are neglecting to acknowledge
|
i think you should change it to complicated as your not just playing with the characteristics of the combustion chamber and induction systems...
... the cooling and oil systems need to cope with wider range of heat, pollution and pressure loads, the drive train has to be engineered to cope with massive increases in torsional loadi without adding significant weight to the vehicle that would impact on overall performance, etc
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:54
|
|
|
Who are you quoting, me or Ed?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:57
|
|
|
sorry - i didn't want to leave your comment out of the loop but was reponding to Ed's quote
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Mon, 09 February 2004 14:58
|
|
|
Thats cool, I'm just tired and confused!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: forced inductin 'vs' NA capacity
|
Tue, 10 February 2004 02:10
|
|
| ed_ma61 wrote on Tue, 10 February 2004 00:43 |
obviously. the other issue youre battling is HOW youre going to construct an NA 10L engine... what kind of bore/stroke is it going to have, how many cyls?... will it behave like a square 86x86 2jzgte?
|
Throwing a 10L engine into the mix is going a bit far. Sure it will probably be nicer to drive than a 3L turbo engine at the same power level, but who the hell has room for a 10L engine in their engine bay?? Then let's consider factors like weight, legality, fuel consumption etc. Let's keep it simple and keep to the original 3L FI vs 5L NA discussion.
| Quote: |
i dont like FI cause it really is a dumb way of mushing air into a small engine trying to make it bigger, and blurring over the characteristics of cam timing and intake harmonics etc... BUT it does work, and you cant argue with that...
|
Replace the word "dumb" with "easy" and you see why I like turbo engines so much. Why dick around with inlet tuning, balancing port velocity against maximum flow, choosing a cam which works in your desired rpm range without compromising everything else too much, and all the rest of the crap that goes with NA tuning, when you can use forced induction to make all of that practically irrelevant? You get your power, you get a fat torque curve, and you do it with less fuss and very often at lower cost. You can also use a physically smaller engine which is a major advantage in real-world applications. What's not to like??
|
|
|
