350HP on 2ZZ-GE?

[jdubau55]

Originally Posted by sqcomp

Come on now Jdub...

Do you think technology and tuning only applies to small engines? You'll take your small displacement, high rev engines and I'll slap you with a top fuel NHRA engine with TEN TIMES that much horsepower. Seriously? Are you so ONE SIDED to think that R&D is only performed on smaller powerplants?

The IS NO replacement for displacement. By adding a turbo, a supercharger or nitrous you are in effect increasing displacement of the engine block. When you START with a bigger engine, in most cases, you have the POTENTIAL for more horsepower than a smaller engine especially if like modifications are made (generally speaking). Basic knowledge yes, is it wrong though? Follow with some hard evidence that says a smaller displacement engine will have more potential for power than a larger one? The moment you do...you realize you're going to get smacked right back down.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the F-1 racing engine that you're referring to! It's called efficiency! That is awesome.

And if you're going to point out a rotary for an example, don't use the 757. The 757 was a FAILED platform...not an engine. The 13G rotary is what you're probably referring to. It LOST way back in 195, 86, 87 and even in 88 with the 20G rotary...oh wait! Even in 99 it ate it's own lunch with the 13J rotary. That was on an "improved" 767 Mazda platform.

The first roatry win in LeMans was resulted from the switch from a turbocharged rotary to a N/A rotary that was 3500cc. That in fact did win in the 787B platform. I can post the minor specs of the 787B for everyone to see if you want. It'll show that while being at 700 hp it was "only" producting 448 tq. This is typical of a rotary engine...no torque. If you think that that 787B won solely because of it's engine, you'd be wrong. It only weighed 1831 lbs and used a borrowed tranny.

Anyone want to get the specs for the Audio R10 TDI? Oh wait...that's not a small displacement engine...so it must not have any technology or tuning. What an idiot.

Easy killer. I believe the original statement was this...

His saying that I cant even get close to 240HP with a Turbo/modded 2ZZ-GE with $4grand? is this true???

At which point my post makes perfect sense. You should be able to get 240 NATURALLY ASPIRATED hp out of a 2ZZ easily with the right parts and tune. I was merely saying you don't need that big motor to make big power. Talking about dragsters really doesn't apply because power like that is almost useless when trying to run a road course.

[Biggie™]

The 2ZZ was built NA! If that dumbass SRT4 guy wants to bash on Boosted Toyotas... Tell him to shove an 800 hp 3S-GTE up his hoo-haa!

[ChinoCharles]

Thats how i look when spades comments in my posts

ROFL! Well played!

The 2ZZ was built NA! If that dumbass SRT4 guy wants to bash on Boosted Toyotas... Tell him to shove an 800 hp 3S-GTE up his hoo-haa!

Hoo-haa... is it bad that isn't the first time I've heard that?

[sqcomp]

...which "SRT-4 guy" are we calling out here? Shouldn't be me, cause I own a Yaris.

...regardless, you'll have to do 2x better than 800 hp on a Toyota 4 cylinder to get my attention.

[eTiMaGo]

Originally Posted by elsteverino889

Ive been waiting all week for a comment like that, you made my day. And NOOO i will not be taking the pic of its an excellent portrait of myself. Thats how i look when spades comments in my posts

elshrekerino889... *whistles innocently*

I'm sorry.. couldn't resist

[sqcomp]

oh...that's a good one! Smells like onions!

[Dragonacc]

Originally Posted by sqcomp

The first roatry win in LeMans was resulted from the switch from a turbocharged rotary to a N/A rotary that was 3500cc. That in fact did win in the 787B platform. I can post the minor specs of the 787B for everyone to see if you want. It'll show that while being at 700 hp it was "only" producting 448 tq. This is typical of a rotary engine...no torque. If you think that that 787B won solely because of it's engine, you'd be wrong. It only weighed 1831 lbs and used a borrowed tranny.

I agree with most of your post, but the engine in the 787b was a R26B and it was 2.6L (The way Mazda rates it anyway, which is up for debate whether or not they rate it correctly)

Info, "The most prominent 4-rotor engine from Mazda was used exclusively for various Mazda-built GT cars (including the 767 and 787B) in replacement of the older 13J. In 1991 this engine in a 787B became the first from outside the U.S. or Western Europe and the first (and so far only) car with a rotary engine to win outright the 24 hours of Le Mans race. It displaced 2622 cc and built 700 hp (522 kW) at 9000RPM. The engine design originates as a single 13B with: an additional rotor and housing added at each end, continually variable geometry intakes, and an additional (third) spark plug. The R26B's engine block can be purchased at retail from Mazdaspeed, but no internal parts are available to the general public."

[sqcomp]

Okay. You show me a small displacement rotary and I'll show you a larger displacement engine that can give the same power and more torque with more reliability. You can get more than 700 hp off a cheaper 302 than you can that rotary...with more torque and reliability.

I'm not here to argue that small displacement engines are all that and a bag of chips...what I've been saying is, that there's nothing really that a small displacement engine can do powerwise that a bigger one can't. This isn't to say that I don't think that the rotary engine is an amazing engine...I do! It's just that a lot of people here think that what they have is THE be all and end all to power production (or at least they insinuate that).

Hell, we use small engines...but there is a limit to the output. That top fuel celica 4.6 liter 4 is only running low 5's as I remember. The idea that only small displacement engine have R&D put into them is ludicrous beyond reasoning. I don't know what else there is to say.

[ChinoCharles]

Can a high-displacement engine rev to ridiculous RPMs like small-displacement sportbike engines? This is a question, I'm not being a prick... I actually want to know.

[jdubau55]

This is where the rotary will kill everything. Easily revving to well over 10k. Allows you to hold in gear longer and less shifting. To each his own really. Me, I'll take the high revving low torque option anyday. Other might choose a ridiculously large big block. Meh, point is.....do what you want. Anything can be done with the right amount of $$$

[jdubau55]

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

Can a high-displacement engine rev to ridiculous RPMs like small-displacement sportbike engines? This is a question, I'm not being a prick... I actually want to know.

This is all application specific I say. You could have a high displacement motor but it be say a V12. In which case I see it being able to rev pretty high due to rotating mass. Now a huge say 502 V8??? Never. Not without spending ridonkulus amounts of money in super exotic light weight materials.

[elsteverino889]

Originally Posted by eTiMaGo

elshrekerino889... *whistles innocently*

I'm sorry.. couldn't resist

omg i just laughed when i saw that pic..good one eTiMaGo

[Dragonacc]

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

Can a high-displacement engine rev to ridiculous RPMs like small-displacement sportbike engines? This is a question, I'm not being a prick... I actually want to know.

The engine I'm building for my 70 Mach 1 is a 351c (5.8L for those that don't speak old school). Redline is going to be 8000 rpm. It's no sport bike redline, but still real impressive for a street car.

[sqcomp]

jdub,

I like the way you put that. I completely understand. Honestly, I'm a big fan of ALMS racing, JGTC, DTM, BTC, World Challenge Touring and GT racing. Engine types and sizes vary heavily in those series. I really like the underdog engines...like a rotary or a 6 versus and 8 cylinder. I don't think there's too many things that give me more pleasure than seeing a BMW beat one of those factory backed CTS-V's (although the sound of those CTS's is incredible).

One of the cars I enjoyed seeing most was the Volvo S60R in the Speed World Challenge when it came to PIR a couple years back. The sound of that engine's turbo was spectacular! Driving a boosted car at the time, I was more than happy to be wearing my "Death by PSI" shirt at that race. Oh! The sound of the Porsche cup cars downshifting before the chicanes at PIR...oh man! If I could have that sound in my car when I downshifted...I could die a happy man. To those who have seen a Porsche cup race in person, you know what I mean.

I more than grasp the idea of why there are rotary fans out there. I just don't like the idea of having to rev the engine up to speeds like that just to make horsepower because of the lack of torque. That's just me. Hell, the NHRA engines can't go past 8400 someodd RPM because it's all tire spin at that point. Safety first eh?

[Wenis]

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

Can a high-displacement engine rev to ridiculous RPMs like small-displacement sportbike engines? This is a question, I'm not being a prick... I actually want to know.

Yes and no… Displacement is simply the sum of your bore x stroke. The main restriction in rpm’s that relates to displacement is the engine’s stroke. The reason sport bikes can rev so high is the fact that their bore is larger than their stroke, the reason most diesel engines can’t rev high is because their stroke is much higher than their bore.

Generally an engine with a stroke longer than it’s bore yields higher torque, but requires a lower rev limit. A larger bore than it’s stroke means less torque but higher max revs… In the end we’re all shooting for more horsepower, and since HP is the sum of TQ x Revs, either route works. Take any motor, add more tq by increasing the stroke and you’ll increase it’s power. Or shorten the stoke to add more revs (as long as your tq curve isn’t falling like a rock) you’ll increase it’s power.

The “replacement for displacement” argument really makes me chuckle every time I see it… mainly because both sides of the arguments are correct, it simply depends on the context. For instance if you’re saying modern technology enables smaller engines to make the same or more power than older, larger engines you really don’t have to look far to see that’s very true. Here’s a prime example… the Trans Am featured in Smoky and the Bandit only put out 180hp at the flywheel from 6.5L, while today we’re posting in a thread about a 1.5L engine putting that much to the drive wheels. That’s impressive.

On the other hand, if that same technology was applied to a 6.5L engine it’d be making a s#!t ton more than 180whp, unless someone is REALLY bad at tuning. All else being equal, bigger is better… but things aren’t always equal, and technology *can* make all the difference.

[Wenis]

Originally Posted by forpinks

OK THIS ONE GUY ON TOYOTA NATION WHO LOVES AMERICAN CARS IS PISSING ME OFF WITH HIS SRT-4...

His saying that I cant even get close to 240HP with a Turbo/modded 2ZZ-GE with $4grand? is this true??? he always say a larger displacement is always better and lighter LOL!... "what about the EVO didnt he know its only a 2liter?

also... his saying that a Corvette with "him as a driver" will rule a drifter car in Japan with K. Tsuchiya driving it in the tight zig-zags very easy...

1st off, With a good tune a boosted 2ZZ shouldn't have much trouble putting down about 300whp on stock internals. Kits go for under 4k.

2nd... off... I'm an SRT-4 fanboi (and owner ) and love Toyota, and little their 2ZZ-GE, so PLEASE guys, don't think we're all like the f-tard mentioned above

BTW I just helped my wife's little brother get a Yaris, and now I want one to play with It's a great car, and some of those body kits look sick... I want a turbo Yaris

[ChinoCharles]

Originally Posted by Wenis

Yes and no… Displacement is simply the sum of your bore x stroke. The main restriction in rpm’s that relates to displacement is the engine’s stroke. The reason sport bikes can rev so high is the fact that their bore is larger than their stroke, the reason most diesel engines can’t rev high is because their stroke is much higher than their bore.

Generally an engine with a stroke longer than it’s bore yields higher torque, but requires a lower rev limit. A larger bore than it’s stroke means less torque but higher max revs… In the end we’re all shooting for more horsepower, and since HP is the sum of TQ x Revs, either route works. Take any motor, add more tq by increasing the stroke and you’ll increase it’s power. Or shorten the stoke to add more revs (as long as your tq curve isn’t falling like a rock) you’ll increase it’s power.

The “replacement for displacement” argument really makes me chuckle every time I see it… mainly because both sides of the arguments are correct, it simply depends on the context. For instance if you’re saying modern technology enables smaller engines to make the same or more power than older, larger engines you really don’t have to look far to see that’s very true. Here’s a prime example… the Trans Am featured in Smoky and the Bandit only put out 180hp at the flywheel from 6.5L, while today we’re posting in a thread about a 1.5L engine putting that much to the drive wheels. That’s impressive.

On the other hand, if that same technology was applied to a 6.5L engine it’d be making a s#!t ton more than 180whp, unless someone is REALLY bad at tuning. All else being equal, bigger is better… but things aren’t always equal, and technology *can* make all the difference.

Quoted because it should be.

[sqcomp]

"All else being equal, bigger is better… but things aren’t always equal, and technology *can* make all the difference."

Case in point, ALMS and World Challenge GT racing.

My argument was really not about diplacement but rather the idea and insinuation that small engines are the only ones with R&D put into them these days...which is a completely blind and ignorant.