Is anyone else on the fence due to the engine choice?

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

OK... I absolutely see this, but the original comment was about fitting few-millimeter longer rods into an engine, not a from-scratch engine design.

I still don't see how longer than stock rods could help - maybe rods and a spacer? But still, seems like a low-impact, high-effort mod.

i believe the point i was trying to make was that the 2JZ has the same bore/stroke as the 3S, but longer rods (every little bit helps...). so i'm not talking necessarily longer-than-stock, just in general.

there is actually a guy who is/was (haven't seen updates for a while) doing basically what you're talking about: he put a spacer on top of his block, bonded/welded it to the block, re-did the oil and coolant passages, sleeved it, and is running rods so his ratio is 2:1. a TON of work, but i'm curious to see his results.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I don't quite follow what you mean by a spacer.

Like I said it's pretty common with the V8 guys. But we're talking about 'get-everything-you-can-out-of-the-motor' builds. But for them it's just a matter of picking a length when changing out stock rods, maybe matching it to the piston and whatever deck height the block is getting milled to when they do their bottom end. No more effort than a standard rebuild.

Also if you look at everything available for small block Chevys they have a bunch of different rod types, materials, lengths and weights available all for a single stroke length. Often from a single manufacturer. It's pretty crazy.

As an import guy, I get rather envious of the VAST selection of parts these guys have available (and usually cheaper for a domestic set of 8 than for an import set of 6!).

More like cheaper than a set of 4. I was working in a yard with a couple guys, one who was a big Mopar guy, and they were discussing a 355 we pulled out of the field and they were saying how much the parts were because it was a built block(prolly spun a bearing on the first run they said) and said forged pistons could be had for somewhere near $300 Ford Duratec/MZR pistons for a set of 4 is closer to $500 from what I have seen.

If I wanted cheap horse power, I would be looking at a V6 or V8 car. Leave the FT-86 alone. If the final car gets a 2.0liter I won't cry but I would be happier with a smaller engine like a 1.6liter. The old Hachi-Roku was a 1.6liter why can't they build a 1.6liter boxer with Direct Injection and get enough BHP to get good acceleration on the base and offer turbo for the go-fast crowd? Ah well, I'm in the go-slow category.

[70NYD]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

More like cheaper than a set of 4. I was working in a yard with a couple guys, one who was a big Mopar guy, and they were discussing a 355 we pulled out of the field and they were saying how much the parts were because it was a built block(prolly spun a bearing on the first run they said) and said forged pistons could be had for somewhere near $300 Ford Duratec/MZR pistons for a set of 4 is closer to $500 from what I have seen.

If I wanted cheap horse power, I would be looking at a V6 or V8 car. Leave the FT-86 alone. If the final car gets a 2.0liter I won't cry but I would be happier with a smaller engine like a 1.6liter. The old Hachi-Roku was a 1.6liter why can't they build a 1.6liter boxer with Direct Injection and get enough BHP to get good acceleration on the base and offer turbo for the go-fast crowd? Ah well, I'm in the go-slow category.

because back in the days when they built the original AE86 there was no such things as mandatory air bags and minimum thicknesses for pillars and members, so cars were a whole heap lighter.. if you want to make something thats as light as a old AE86 (sub 1 tonne) that passes todays regulations then you will need many more parts than just styling parts made out of composites and then the price goes up.. and as for forged parts.. everything that is made is cheaper in bigger bulk. so to make internals for a 8cyl or 4 cyl, you need to make 2 times more sets of 4cyl to have same individual parts as the 8cyl.. thats why they are cheaper. also the length the engine has been out determines mostly how much its parts are gonna cost.. newer hardware has more expensive aftermarket parts
i dont understand why ppl (and this is not directed at just you Allch Chcar) are whinging in regards to wether or not this car will have a tc or sc or not, or how big the engine will be.. as long as it produces plenty of power vs displacement (ie the engines potential has been properly used) you all should be happy.. if you want more power, add a fi.. less power, tune it or take a injector plug out..
and as for converting it to E85 i understand what u mean, the injectors will need to be overhauled and or upgraded to actually carry the ammounts of new fuel, but direct injected ethanol.. man think about it that is awesome in respect to the charge cooling properties the ethanol will give when vapourised

[Allch Chcar]

Whoa there batman. The Old '86 Corolla Ae86 was over a ton. more like 2200-2400lbs with only 110BHP at 7k or something like that. The FT-86 is not the same car but a successor for a different generation, 24 years later. If the new car does turn out to be 2800lbs it would only need a minimum of 140BHp to be as fast as the old one in a straightline. Given that the engine is going to be direct injection, variable valve timing, all aluminum, with a short stroke, it should make 140BHP with a 1.6liter at a low rpm leaving room for more! It might not match the MPG of the old one even with a newer 1.6liter unless the body is very aerodynamic but it would be nice to not get a larger displacement for the successor. 2.0l is 25% bigger for 25% more weight but you would think it could make a lot more HP and even torque for a more modern engine.

Regardless, I am still watching the car. Everything I have seen is saying that Toyota wants this to be big and if 200BHP is big enough they won't settle for anything less.

Are you kidding? DI is going to be a royal pain to convert for E85. You can't just swap injectors :P those are expensive $$$

unplug an injector.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Whoa there batman. The Old '86 Corolla Ae86 was over a ton. more like 2200-2400lbs with only 110BHP at 7k or something like that. The FT-86 is not the same car but a successor for a different generation, 24 years later. If the new car does turn out to be 2800lbs it would only need a minimum of 140BHp to be as fast as the old one in a straightline. Given that the engine is going to be direct injection, variable valve timing, all aluminum, with a short stroke, it should make 140BHP with a 1.6liter at a low rpm leaving room for more! It might not match the MPG of the old one even with a newer 1.6liter unless the body is very aerodynamic but it would be nice to not get a larger displacement for the successor. 2.0l is 25% bigger for 25% more weight but you would think it could make a lot more HP and even torque for a more modern engine.

Regardless, I am still watching the car. Everything I have seen is saying that Toyota wants this to be big and if 200BHP is big enough they won't settle for anything less.

Are you kidding? DI is going to be a royal pain to convert for E85. You can't just swap injectors :P those are expensive $$$

unplug an injector.

He saide tonne that's 1000kg, about 2200 lbs.

Edit: AE92 (? FWD...) GT-S made 130 bhp from 1.6L in the late 80's (small port, non-TVIS 4AGE). This car must drastically outperform that.

[Snaps]

Allch, IMO it would be pointless if Toyota made a 'new' version of the AE86 that was just as fast as the 25 year old one... That's technology almost going backwards. The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities.

One example I can think of is the RX7 vs. RX8. The RX7 is arguably faster in most situations, if not all, so I'm not sure why Mazda brought out the RX8 in the first place, it was supposed to be the succesor to the RX7 and they couldn't even make it faster with more techonoly and research.

It would be like Ferrari bringing out the 458 and it ends up being slower than the previous 430.... Just doesn't make sense.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Snaps

Allch, IMO it would be pointless if Toyota made a 'new' version of the AE86 that was just as fast as the 25 year old one... That's technology almost going backwards. The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities.

One example I can think of is the RX7 vs. RX8. The RX7 is arguably faster in most situations, if not all, so I'm not sure why Mazda brought out the RX8 in the first place, it was supposed to be the succesor to the RX7 and they couldn't even make it faster with more techonoly and research.

It would be like Ferrari bringing out the 458 and it ends up being slower than the previous 430.... Just doesn't make sense.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!

I swear, what the hell would be the point? I wouldn't buy a car today that is slower than my very first car... hell no.

[70NYD]

Originally Posted by Snaps

Allch, IMO it would be pointless if Toyota made a 'new' version of the AE86 that was just as fast as the 25 year old one... That's technology almost going backwards. The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities.

One example I can think of is the RX7 vs. RX8. The RX7 is arguably faster in most situations, if not all, so I'm not sure why Mazda brought out the RX8 in the first place, it was supposed to be the succesor to the RX7 and they couldn't even make it faster with more techonoly and research.

It would be like Ferrari bringing out the 458 and it ends up being slower than the previous 430.... Just doesn't make sense.

where is the like button...

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Snaps

Allch, IMO it would be pointless if Toyota made a 'new' version of the AE86 that was just as fast as the 25 year old one... That's technology almost going backwards. The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities.

One example I can think of is the RX7 vs. RX8. The RX7 is arguably faster in most situations, if not all, so I'm not sure why Mazda brought out the RX8 in the first place, it was supposed to be the succesor to the RX7 and they couldn't even make it faster with more techonoly and research.

It would be like Ferrari bringing out the 458 and it ends up being slower than the previous 430.... Just doesn't make sense.

You didn't get what I said at all...yes I want it to be faster I only listed what I thought it would take to make it faster as a minimum guideline. It doesn't take 200BHP to make a 2800lbs car go faster than a 110BHP 2200lb car.

LoL, you don't get why Mazda built the Renesis yet you used it as an example, and those are my points in bold.

Increasing the displacement or even bolting on a turbocharger when they could increase the power with better technology is not advancement it is called "Progress" a word applied many times to things that do not signify advancement. It has also been considered a technological advancement by auto journalists but that doesn't make it true.

The Mazda Rotary HP did peak when they turbocharged it but it was for a $30k car over 10 years ago. The RX-8 motor is naturally aspirated, lighter, and almost matches the HP but it takes RPM to do what it does and sells for the same $30k base price 10 years later. Success it is/was. It also handles better I hear.

"The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities."

The whole point of what? Many cars are faster than they used to be and they are not even close to as fuel efficient as they were. You can blame safety regulations or you can blame emissions, but that doesn't change the facts that most cars are simply built to be larger than they used to be and no advantage is gained other than space. If we wanted larger cars we would buy them right?

I am just suggesting that it doesn't take a bigger engine to make the car faster than the old one when the only difference is more weight. That's what engine technology is good at doing, worse case there is always turbo/supercharging.

The heavier Subaru engined car isn't going to be more fuel efficient than the original Hachi-Roku's, not by a long shot. And the engine will not just be more powerful but it will also be larger and yet still lighter(aluminum block). For a $20k entry level RWD car you can't ask for everything and get it.

Ferrari is a very bad example, yes they are a "Progressive" company in regards to HP. But they have to resort to hybrid technology like Electric motors and batteries to keep cylinder count up due to Gov't regulations. No applicable points to be made there.

A better example of the effect is the bigger block engines of the US 60's. Engine power was increasing with the OHV engine becoming mainstream after the "Rocket" was introduced in the 50's but after the technology stopped paying off as quickly they resorted to increasing the bores/stroke to keep increasing power. Eventually they had to use leaded gasoline and high compression to get more HP from the then huge displacement engines. Good times those 60s were Gas was cheap and emissions regulations were low. But the increase in power wasn't just technology it was increases in displacement and used higher octane leaded gasoline to keep increasing the compression ratio. And that's my point.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

You didn't get what I said at all...yes I want it to be faster I only listed what I thought it would take to make it faster as a minimum guideline. It doesn't take 200BHP to make a 2800lbs car go faster than a 110BHP 2200lb car.

LoL, you don't get why Mazda built the Renesis yet you used it as an example, and those are my points in bold.

Increasing the displacement or even bolting on a turbocharger when they could increase the power with better technology is not advancement it is called "Progress" a word applied many times to things that do not signify advancement. It has also been considered a technological advancement by auto journalists but that doesn't make it true.

The Mazda Rotary HP did peak when they turbocharged it but it was for a $30k car over 10 years ago. The RX-8 motor is naturally aspirated, lighter, and almost matches the HP but it takes RPM to do what it does and sells for the same $30k base price 10 years later. Success it is/was. It also handles better I hear.

"The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities."

The whole point of what? Many cars are faster than they used to be and they are not even close to as fuel efficient as they were. You can blame safety regulations or you can blame emissions, but that doesn't change the facts that most cars are simply built to be larger than they used to be and no advantage is gained other than space. If we wanted larger cars we would buy them right?

I am just suggesting that it doesn't take a bigger engine to make the car faster than the old one when the only difference is more weight. That's what engine technology is good at doing, worse case there is always turbo/supercharging.

The heavier Subaru engined car isn't going to be more fuel efficient than the original Hachi-Roku's, not by a long shot. And the engine will not just be more powerful but it will also be larger and yet still lighter(aluminum block). For a $20k entry level RWD car you can't ask for everything and get it.

Ferrari is a very bad example, yes they are a "Progressive" company in regards to HP. But they have to resort to hybrid technology like Electric motors and batteries to keep cylinder count up due to Gov't regulations. No applicable points to be made there.

A better example of the effect is the bigger block engines of the US 60's. Engine power was increasing with the OHV engine becoming mainstream after the "Rocket" was introduced in the 50's but after the technology stopped paying off as quickly they resorted to increasing the bores/stroke to keep increasing power. Eventually they had to use leaded gasoline and high compression to get more HP from the then huge displacement engines. Good times those 60s were Gas was cheap and emissions regulations were low. But the increase in power wasn't just technology it was increases in displacement and used higher octane leaded gasoline to keep increasing the compression ratio. And that's my point.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progress

#3 down the list.

(I'm bored...)

RX-8 is not the same class of car as the RX-7, that's why Mazda refused to re-use the '7'. Not a valid comparison.

As for engine displacement to power, true. They are not dependent. But to stab a bit at your argument, neither is displacement a pure indicator of economy.

However torque is related to displacement, and increased vehicle mass is often better dealt with a torque increase, in addition to more power.

I would rather drive a 200 hp 2L car that spins to for example 7k rpm, than a 200 hp 1L car that spins to 14k rpm. Making the same power, there is little difference in fuel consumption. Wear and tear is a whole different story...

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Dimman

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progress

#3 down the list.

(I'm bored...)

RX-8 is not the same class of car as the RX-7, that's why Mazda refused to re-use the '7'. Not a valid comparison.

As for engine displacement to power, true. They are not dependent. But to stab a bit at your argument, neither is displacement a pure indicator of economy.

However torque is related to displacement, and increased vehicle mass is often better dealt with a torque increase, in addition to more power.

I would rather drive a 200 hp 2L car that spins to for example 7k rpm, than a 200 hp 1L car that spins to 14k rpm. Making the same power, there is little difference in fuel consumption. Wear and tear is a whole different story...

It's valid because I say so. lol

Actually it is a pure factor, Displacement is a direct indicator of fuel economy as it is of Torque. You can adjust gearing, cam, and vehicle size. But the displacement determines a large amount of the fuel consumption for cruise and acceleration. Otto cycle ICE is more efficient at greater loads.

Honda has two engines on their Japanese Fit(best example I have) the 1.5liter and the 1.34liter. The 1.34 has been proven to be 20% more fuel efficient in the same car with the same gearbox (CVT 73% efficient).They are not 20% apart in displacement.

Compression ratio also affects torque and fuel economy. DI increases all three.

2liter vs 1liter is a very large difference. What about 2.0liter to a 2.5liter or a 1.8liter to a 1.6liter or even a 2.0liter?

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

It's valid because I say so. lol

Actually it is a pure factor, Displacement is a direct indicator of fuel economy as it is of Torque. You can adjust gearing, cam, and vehicle size. But the displacement determines a large amount of the fuel consumption for cruise and acceleration. Otto cycle ICE is more efficient at greater loads.

Honda has two engines on their Japanese Fit(best example I have) the 1.5liter and the 1.34liter. The 1.34 has been proven to be 20% more fuel efficient in the same car with the same gearbox (CVT 73% efficient).They are not 20% apart in displacement.

Compression ratio also affects torque and fuel economy. DI increases all three.

2liter vs 1liter is a very large difference. What about 2.0liter to a 2.5liter or a 1.8liter to a 1.6liter or even a 2.0liter?

No. (I'm in an argumentative mood today. Not always this much of a ****...)
Air mass and desired mixture ratio determine the engine's output. This is not the same thing as just the size of the motor. Engine is an air-pump analogy, blah... blah...

DI allows the engine to be tuned to run well in a leaner state which can be used to increase output OR reduce fuel requirements for the same output.

It doesn't increase compression ratio. It allows engines to be run with higher compression ratios safely.

I don't quite follow the Otto cycle is more efficient at greater loads statement. Could you expand on this? Because I don't see how this relates to a vehicle's fuel consumption. ie: just because an engine is running at it's most efficient range, does not mean it is using the least amount of fuel.

[Allch Chcar]

Most cars are closed loop or stoichometric for 70% of the load range. They go into open loop at higher load.

DI increases the cooling effect from injecting the fuel. It allows for a higher compression ratio to be utilized.

Our engines(Otto Cycle ICE) are most energy efficient at full throttle. But are more fuel efficient the less RPM with the most throttle for a given speed. The energy efficiency decreases as it leaves the peak efficiency zone which is like an island (BSFC chart:Ecomodder). A smaller displacement engine increases the load for acceleration and cruise.

[70NYD]

Lol ok 1st ur a troll...
2nd rx7 is 100kg lighter and 40kw more powerful than the rx8. The fd was one of the best handling cars in the world when it was released, rx8 doesn't handle around the track better than my 323f ba with coilovers..
3rd fuel economy is not dictated by displacement alone, neither is power, and your comparison using a cvt gearbox is retarded if you know how a cvt works and are sill arguing the point..
The thing that makes direct injection good for antiknock isn't the cooling effect... Cooling the charge once the valves are closed is detrimental to thermodynamic performance..

There is only so much u can learn on wikipedia skippy.. That or u just started a degree in something and u think u know everything..
Still a troll regardless