follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook. Interested in the FT-1? Check out FT1Club
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Kami Speed
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - FT86CLUB > Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 > Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum

Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum The place to start for the Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 | GT86

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-07-2012, 09:52 PM   #1
smbrm
Senior Member
 
smbrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Drives: Scion FRS Ht Lva(AT)
Location: Alberta
Posts: 407
Thanks: 30
Thanked 76 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
The FRS torque curve

How do the engine characteristics of the FRS/BRZ manifest themselves in the dayly driver situation?

Most have seen the information that has been posted regarding the torque curves for the FRS/BRZ. I saw an interesting article in Car & Driver today regarding a test drive of the BRZ in France. What caught my eye was the comment about the noticeable dip(~120 vs. ~150) in the torque curve between 2800 and 4800 rpm(C&D), (3200-4800 rpm according to the Edmunds torque curve). Comment was made about how a 3-2(if I remember correctly) downshift from 6000 rpm put you right in the middle of the dip and resulted in a sluggish response! The other comment was that, operating above 6000 rpm on the 2nd flat part of the torque curve delivered more acceptable performance, but at the expense of fuel economy, more like city than anywhere close to highway fuel consumption.

Now mind you a Boxster has a similar but smaller torque dip.

It makes me wonder what one might be trading in engine performance for the handling benefits of the FRS/BRZ? Example: The Scion TC with 160 ft-lb at 4000 rpm vs. 120 is almost 36% more torque to propel agreeably a heavier weight(but only by 10%) for the TC!

For those switching from a TC(as an example) to an FRS, I would not expect similar perception of engine performance?

I have driven an FRS, but unfortuately not long enough to really assess this observation.

Just wondering if anyone else has made any observations or has any thoughts on this observation?

Is this a track car first and a "potentially" lukewarm in the engine department dayly driver 2nd?

smbrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 09:59 PM   #2
chulooz
Registered you sir
 
chulooz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Drives: 99 impreza coupe
Location: DC / CT
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 257
Thanked 340 Times in 190 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
You mention not noticing the dip, Im not surprised. I suspect you will really have to look for it or isolate the experience to make it anything concerning. The car already has meager TQ figures, so downshifting will solve the issue in less than a second.
chulooz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 10:02 PM   #3
smbrm
Senior Member
 
smbrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Drives: Scion FRS Ht Lva(AT)
Location: Alberta
Posts: 407
Thanks: 30
Thanked 76 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chulooz View Post
You mention not noticing the dip, Im not surprised. I suspect you will really have to look for it or isolate the experience to make it anything concerning. The car already has meager TQ figures, so downshifting will solve the issue in less than a second.
I only went around the block, which isn't really enough time to even get used to the shifting characteristics.
smbrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 10:42 PM   #4
carbonBLUE
Reverse Burnouts
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: 2013 Argento FRS
Location: dallas!!!
Posts: 2,646
Thanks: 630
Thanked 1,083 Times in 496 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by smbrm View Post
It makes me wonder what one might be trading in engine performance for the handling benefits of the FRS/BRZ? Example: The Scion TC with 160 ft-lb at 4000 rpm vs. 120 is almost 36% more torque to propel agreeably a heavier weight(but only by 10%) for the TC!




ohh yeah and the tc has a horrible tq drop off...

173 whp = 200 bhp = 14.5% loss

143 wtq = 165.32 tq

200 hp and 165tq vs 2ar-fe 180hp and 173 tq

2700 lbs car vs 3100 lbs car

tc
First Gear Ratio (:1): 3.54
Second Gear Ratio (:1): 2.05
Third Gear Ratio (:1): 1.38
Fourth Gear Ratio (:1): 1.03
Fifth Gear Ratio (:1): 0.88
Sixth Gear Ratio (:1): 0.73
Reverse Ratio (:1): 3.56
Clutch Size: N/A
Final Drive Axle Ratio (:1): 4.06

frs


4.1 final drive

the frs will def be faster

in first gear the frs puts down around 2458 lbft of tq
in first gear the TC puts down around 2486 lbft of tq

frs weighs 400lbs less, puts down 28lbft/tq less to the ground and get better real world gas mileage, plus its rwd


sorry i got bored and wanted to research and do maths...
__________________

2000 Carbon Blue Toyota Celica GTS 152000 miles
(wont forget you)
2013 Argento Scion FR-S
carbonBLUE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to carbonBLUE For This Useful Post:
Allch Chcar (05-08-2012), Books (12-10-2012), ill86 (07-02-2012), Lasse (05-08-2012), PabloN (12-15-2012), Starscream15 (05-08-2012)
Old 05-07-2012, 11:02 PM   #5
ichitaka05
Site Moderator
 
ichitaka05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Drives: ichi 86 Project
Location: Middle of No where
Posts: 10,986
Thanks: 1,704
Thanked 5,309 Times in 2,417 Posts
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
I have commented in my review of FR-S, but I'll keep it simple for ya.

You won't feel the dip. Only way I kinda, maybe, prob, I think, felt it was 2 ppl in the car max AC. Even w that it was a big question in my head.

I didn't do around the block, but did full course meal. City, freeway, figure 8, autox, & track... Give or take about 5~6 hrs in the car.
__________________

ichitaka05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 11:53 PM   #6
Subie
Seņor Member
 
Subie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Drives: 2013 SSM DZE BRZ
Location: SC
Posts: 946
Thanks: 728
Thanked 392 Times in 195 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
The tC2 is not a willing performer. It's not "rev-happy" and has very poor throttle response. It's not all about the numbers.
Subie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 12:05 AM   #7
carbonBLUE
Reverse Burnouts
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: 2013 Argento FRS
Location: dallas!!!
Posts: 2,646
Thanks: 630
Thanked 1,083 Times in 496 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichitaka05 View Post
I have commented in my review of FR-S, but I'll keep it simple for ya.

You won't feel the dip. Only way I kinda, maybe, prob, I think, felt it was 2 ppl in the car max AC. Even w that it was a big question in my head.

I didn't do around the block, but did full course meal. City, freeway, figure 8, autox, & track... Give or take about 5~6 hrs in the car.
this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subie View Post
The tC2 is not a willing performer. It's not "rev-happy" and has very poor throttle response. It's not all about the numbers.
i know its not about numbers, but i like math, but i dont like putting numbers on the frs/brz/gt86
__________________

2000 Carbon Blue Toyota Celica GTS 152000 miles
(wont forget you)
2013 Argento Scion FR-S
carbonBLUE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 02:01 AM   #8
old greg
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Drives: PSM GGA OMG
Location: FL
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 10
Thanked 137 Times in 82 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by smbrm View Post
Comment was made about how a 3-2(if I remember correctly) downshift from 6000 rpm put you right in the middle of the dip and resulted in a sluggish response!
A downshift from 6000 rpm would put you right in the middle of a dip in your engine block which, I'll admit, probably would have an adverse effect on response.
old greg is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to old greg For This Useful Post:
blu_ (05-08-2012)
Old 05-08-2012, 10:10 AM   #9
demby123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Drives: 86' Toyota Corolla GTSR5
Location: dallas
Posts: 126
Thanks: 9
Thanked 16 Times in 7 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
VVT/or variable lift?...? direct injection also comes in at certain engine speeds, i believe it cuts off in the midrange

Last edited by demby123; 05-08-2012 at 10:36 AM.
demby123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 10:22 AM   #10
DeeezNuuuts83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Drives: 2006 Evo IX SE
Location: Southern California
Posts: 841
Thanks: 97
Thanked 206 Times in 132 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I understand the concern (as it is a big dip), but unless I'm missing something, all of this speculation is based off of ONE dyno (by Inside Line) on ONE FR-S. For those of you who have tuned cars before or even compared dyno graphs, it's very possible for two different examples of the same car to dyno differently even under the same conditions. So other FR-Ss (and BRZs) may not dyno with that kind of a flat spot. And considering how new this car is, this might be an early production hiccup that Toyota/Scion/Subaru might cure with a factory re-tune to smooth it out.

But seeing how both the hp and torque curves have dips in the same rpm range (and the hp curve is practically a rotated version of the torque curve, if you look at it), it might be specific to that one car and not necessarily the exact output that they had intended. They did mention that they wanted the punch to hit as low and as immediate as possible, but I don't think that they inteded a random 20 lb-ft drop from 3300-4600 rpm on an otherwise flat torque curve (for an NA 2.0-liter four-cylinder).
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 11:32 AM   #11
carbonBLUE
Reverse Burnouts
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: 2013 Argento FRS
Location: dallas!!!
Posts: 2,646
Thanks: 630
Thanked 1,083 Times in 496 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
I understand the concern (as it is a big dip), but unless I'm missing something, all of this speculation is based off of ONE dyno (by Inside Line) on ONE FR-S. For those of you who have tuned cars before or even compared dyno graphs, it's very possible for two different examples of the same car to dyno differently even under the same conditions. So other FR-Ss (and BRZs) may not dyno with that kind of a flat spot. And considering how new this car is, this might be an early production hiccup that Toyota/Scion/Subaru might cure with a factory re-tune to smooth it out.

But seeing how both the hp and torque curves have dips in the same rpm range (and the hp curve is practically a rotated version of the torque curve, if you look at it), it might be specific to that one car and not necessarily the exact output that they had intended. They did mention that they wanted the punch to hit as low and as immediate as possible, but I don't think that they inteded a random 20 lb-ft drop from 3300-4600 rpm on an otherwise flat torque curve (for an NA 2.0-liter four-cylinder).

no its multiple graphs





plus other na Subaru's do this, Porsche's, its related to the boxer design... and the angles of the exhaust headers as they leave the engine.. has partially to do with harmonics and a various assortment of other things...
__________________

2000 Carbon Blue Toyota Celica GTS 152000 miles
(wont forget you)
2013 Argento Scion FR-S
carbonBLUE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to carbonBLUE For This Useful Post:
DeeezNuuuts83 (05-08-2012)
Old 05-08-2012, 11:35 AM   #12
DeeezNuuuts83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Drives: 2006 Evo IX SE
Location: Southern California
Posts: 841
Thanks: 97
Thanked 206 Times in 132 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
^ Thanks for the update. I wasn't sure if it was common, but I had only seen it on that one Inside Line dyno.

Since it sounds like you're familiar with that, you mentioned it has to do with the boxer design... what about it causes it? And why can't it be remedied from the factory (or why isn't it)?
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DeeezNuuuts83 For This Useful Post:
carbonBLUE (05-08-2012)
Old 05-08-2012, 11:43 AM   #13
smbrm
Senior Member
 
smbrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Drives: Scion FRS Ht Lva(AT)
Location: Alberta
Posts: 407
Thanks: 30
Thanked 76 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post

But seeing how both the hp and torque curves have dips in the same rpm range (and the hp curve is practically a rotated version of the torque curve, if you look at it), it might be specific to that one car and not necessarily the exact output that they had intended. They did mention that they wanted the punch to hit as low and as immediate as possible, but I don't think that they inteded a random 20 lb-ft drop from 3300-4600 rpm on an otherwise flat torque curve (for an NA 2.0-liter four-cylinder).
Yes I agree something like a 5-10 ft-lb drop would seem more reasonable. And the car tested in the C&D review, as may the torque curve car, may only have been an early prototype.

I did notice the car had a very responsive throttle!


I was just wondering if other new owners or those able to get extended test drives like ichitaka05 would be able to share their experience?
smbrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 11:56 AM   #14
carbonBLUE
Reverse Burnouts
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: 2013 Argento FRS
Location: dallas!!!
Posts: 2,646
Thanks: 630
Thanked 1,083 Times in 496 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
^ Thanks for the update. I wasn't sure if it was common, but I had only seen it on that one Inside Line dyno.

Since it sounds like you're familiar with that, you mentioned it has to do with the boxer design... what about it causes it? And why can't it be remedied from the factory (or why isn't it)?
im pretty sure toyota knew there would be a dip right there from the get go, im pretty sure it was also considered when looking at DD gas mileage.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...200#post204200

this is the first 86 owner in the US and hes getting 27~30 mpgs with spirited driving and fast highway cruising speeds

from reading a lot of different threads I imagine the dip comes form a collection of these things:
1: header design due to boxer shape
2: harmonics
3: cam phasing
4: gas mileage(pretty sure the dip wouldnt look as bad if they didnt tune gas mileage into the equation)

some people say its the direct injection, but i disagree, when the car has the pedal to the ground, Direct Injection is always on
when we can get this car on a dyno and study timing, a/f ratios, duty cycles for port and direct injection, bench flow the heads, ect ect

we wont know for sure what this engine is capable of... but im excited for the first 10 years this car is out.... lots of dif mods, ill probably have 2-3 engines in my garage in 5 years just for tinkering :P
__________________

2000 Carbon Blue Toyota Celica GTS 152000 miles
(wont forget you)
2013 Argento Scion FR-S
carbonBLUE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 12:09 PM   #15
DeeezNuuuts83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Drives: 2006 Evo IX SE
Location: Southern California
Posts: 841
Thanks: 97
Thanked 206 Times in 132 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbonBLUE View Post
im pretty sure toyota knew there would be a dip right there from the get go, im pretty sure it was also considered when looking at DD gas mileage.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...200#post204200

this is the first 86 owner in the US and hes getting 27~30 mpgs with spirited driving and fast highway cruising speeds

from reading a lot of different threads I imagine the dip comes form a collection of these things:
1: header design due to boxer shape
2: harmonics
3: cam phasing
4: gas mileage(pretty sure the dip wouldnt look as bad if they didnt tune gas mileage into the equation)

some people say its the direct injection, but i disagree, when the car has the pedal to the ground, Direct Injection is always on
when we can get this car on a dyno and study timing, a/f ratios, duty cycles for port and direct injection, bench flow the heads, ect ect

we wont know for sure what this engine is capable of... but im excited for the first 10 years this car is out.... lots of dif mods, ill probably have 2-3 engines in my garage in 5 years just for tinkering :P
Thanks for the reply and also for the info. But on the topic of the dyno plot numbers possibly being due to intentions of better gas mileage, with a six-speed and its ratios, does anyone know at what rpms the car would be in when cruising at normal highway speeds (say, 60-80 mph)? And have any automatic FR-Ss been dyno'd yet? I'd assume that given that dip from ~3300 to ~4600 rpm, cruising speeds would put it at a bit below that unless you're going 80+ mph.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 12:26 PM   #16
DarkSunrise
Senior Member
 
DarkSunrise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Drives: 13 FR-S | 11 GTI
Location: USA
Posts: 2,955
Thanks: 351
Thanked 1,462 Times in 799 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
It will depend on what your expectations are.

For instance, even at the dip, the BRZ is putting down more torque than an RSX-S. I posted this graph on a different thread, but I think it helps put the dip into perspective:



The BRZ makes more torque across the board, including at the dip, until 7000+ rpm. So if you think the RSX-S has adequate midrange torque for daily driving, then you'll think the BRZ is fine or even better (they're comparably geared).

If you haven't driven an RSX-S, you can substitute a comparable weight/torque car, like the 8th gen Civic Si, or NC Miata.

I'll also add, I drove an FR-S automatic during a 1st drive event. The dip in the torque curve was not really an issue, at least from what I could tell wringing out the car on a course in mainly 1st and 2nd gears.
DarkSunrise is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 12:27 PM   #17
smbrm
Senior Member
 
smbrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Drives: Scion FRS Ht Lva(AT)
Location: Alberta
Posts: 407
Thanks: 30
Thanked 76 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
Thanks for the reply and also for the info. But on the topic of the dyno plot numbers possibly being due to intentions of better gas mileage, with a six-speed and its ratios, does anyone know at what rpms the car would be in when cruising at normal highway speeds (say, 60-80 mph)? And have any automatic FR-Ss been dyno'd yet? I'd assume that given that dip from ~3300 to ~4600 rpm, cruising speeds would put it at a bit below that unless you're going 80+ mph.
It would be interesting to see the injection map to see when Direct & port are used?
smbrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:36 PM   #18
carbonBLUE
Reverse Burnouts
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: 2013 Argento FRS
Location: dallas!!!
Posts: 2,646
Thanks: 630
Thanked 1,083 Times in 496 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
Thanks for the reply and also for the info. But on the topic of the dyno plot numbers possibly being due to intentions of better gas mileage, with a six-speed and its ratios, does anyone know at what rpms the car would be in when cruising at normal highway speeds (say, 60-80 mph)? And have any automatic FR-Ss been dyno'd yet? I'd assume that given that dip from ~3300 to ~4600 rpm, cruising speeds would put it at a bit below that unless you're going 80+ mph.
i would say its tuned for better gas mileage when driving spiritedly, shifting at 4-5k on public roads, the first frs owner drove spiritedly up to 4k and got 29 mpgs
my current car is like that as well, during the 3-5k rpm range fuel duty cycles are lower than at 2.5k rpms(less fuel is going into the chamber at 4k rpms per revolution vs at 2k) this also has to do with resonance frequency of the metal, in my engine the metals vibrate the least from 3-5k rpms allowing just a bit less friction thus less fuel needed per cycle, there was a big write up about it back in 2007 when someone was doing research and trying to figure out how toyota was able to achieve that, its lost in the newcelica.org threads , i cant find it anymore...
__________________

2000 Carbon Blue Toyota Celica GTS 152000 miles
(wont forget you)
2013 Argento Scion FR-S
carbonBLUE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 09:17 PM   #19
coyote
Senior Member
 
coyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: Slowly
Location: brisbane.qld.au
Posts: 1,038
Thanks: 211
Thanked 496 Times in 223 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkSunrise View Post
It will depend on what your expectations are.

For instance, even at the dip, the BRZ is putting down more torque than an RSX-S. I posted this graph on a different thread, but I think it helps put the dip into perspective:


I think overlaying this plot would better put things into perspective.



That's the engine I want in my BRZ.
__________________
coyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 02:32 AM   #20
smbrm
Senior Member
 
smbrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Drives: Scion FRS Ht Lva(AT)
Location: Alberta
Posts: 407
Thanks: 30
Thanked 76 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
More insight here:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3583
smbrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 07:49 AM   #21
coyote
Senior Member
 
coyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: Slowly
Location: brisbane.qld.au
Posts: 1,038
Thanks: 211
Thanked 496 Times in 223 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Self explanatory, really.
Attached Images
 
__________________
coyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 06:51 AM   #22
SUB-FT86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 06 G35 Coupe Sport
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 2,606
Thanks: 43
Thanked 190 Times in 117 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbonBLUE View Post




ohh yeah and the tc has a horrible tq drop off...

173 whp = 200 bhp = 14.5% loss

143 wtq = 165.32 tq

200 hp and 165tq vs 2ar-fe 180hp and 173 tq

2700 lbs car vs 3100 lbs car

tc
First Gear Ratio (:1): 3.54
Second Gear Ratio (:1): 2.05
Third Gear Ratio (:1): 1.38
Fourth Gear Ratio (:1): 1.03
Fifth Gear Ratio (:1): 0.88
Sixth Gear Ratio (:1): 0.73
Reverse Ratio (:1): 3.56
Clutch Size: N/A
Final Drive Axle Ratio (:1): 4.06

frs


4.1 final drive

the frs will def be faster

in first gear the frs puts down around 2458 lbft of tq
in first gear the TC puts down around 2486 lbft of tq

frs weighs 400lbs less, puts down 28lbft/tq less to the ground and get better real world gas mileage, plus its rwd


sorry i got bored and wanted to research and do maths...
You know you can't really calculate torque from two different dyno's right? IL dyno is notorious for reading high torque output. I would rather multiply first gear x final drive x 151 lb ft instead. I don't think the 2.5L TC-2 engine only makes 8 more lb ft with .5 more liters of engine. Maybe if it was 2.2 liters.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BATHTUB CURVE ON GRAPH alan.chalkley Engine, Exhaust, Transmission 12 06-09-2012 09:58 PM
Increasing torque with out forced induction BigFatFlip Engine, Exhaust, Transmission 54 05-17-2012 07:03 PM
Do dealers re-torque lugs during PDI? Sport-Tech Wheels | Tires | Spacers | Hub 18 05-08-2012 09:54 PM
Torque App ZetaVI Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions 4 12-02-2011 12:22 AM
Guesses about Gear Ratios and Wheel Torque Deslock Subaru BRZ General Forum 4 12-01-2011 06:15 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.