High Revv NA Setup?

[SkAsphalt]

Where do you think you can achieve weight reduction in your current car? panel replacement would be expensive, and they are already quite light (unless the rear fenders were to be cut off and replaced with carbon?) the hood is so feather light...

Back seat delete, battery replacement, lose the spare and maybe cut out some sound deadening and you are probably at a 50lbs or more loss BUT the car would be noticeably louder** and could lose its DD status - however that would be the cheapest options. Changing rims could net a reduction of a few pounds per corner also but is an expensive en devour. I ask this notto shoot you down, but because I too am curious.


**disclaimer: I make this assumption based off previous claims that removing the spare tire and rear seats allows for the exhaust noise to permeate through the cabin much more easily. People were seeing internal DB ratings increase as much a 5-10DB with those deletes AND aftermarket exhausts (DB ratings were limited to 1-3 with just the exhausts)

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

I think what they're doing with the STI BRZ is perfect. 250hp, 8500rpm, and lighter weight. In a few years if that car doesn't materialize I'll try to reach those numbers with my BRZ. I think the key to making this car fast is going to be weight reduction and not big power.

[dabocx]

I cant wait to see if ITBs will be possible, but ill most likely do that after cams/head work.

I wonder how far this car can go on a DDable 93 or e85 setup once its fully setup for N/A

[Turbowned]

Seems like some tuners are able to flirt with the 180-190whp mark with just a full cat-less exhaust and minor intake mods, no tuning. I'm willing to bet that 200whp can be achieved with a full exhaust with hi-flow cats, full intake and ECU tune. Getting to 240-260whp would be a bit of a challenge, no doubt. I'm sure 10-15hp can be had from cams, and more peak power from raising the rev limiter as the engine seems to want to keep making power up top. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think it will be interesting to see what develops in the coming months! Maybe if 240whp can be had N/A on pump gas or with water/meth injection, it might be enough to keep me away from supercharging!

[SkAsphalt]

According to my estimated numbers I will be between 180 (lowest hp gains) to 192 (highest hp) whp in my car with full exhaust, tune, pulley, intake and a tune. who knows if the pulley does anything really but I would still fall within those numbers. I am excited to find a dyno somewhere and figure it all out.

Problem is, if my exhaust makes the 11 whp max, the intake makes its 7 whp max and the tune makes the 14 whp max (all dyno shown maxes on the same make of dyno) it does not mean all 3 combined will net me 32 whp - so I will have to do all the work and find out!! I guess this is a thread I could come back to and post my results once everything is ready!

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Seems like some tuners are able to flirt with the 180-190whp mark with just a full cat-less exhaust and minor intake mods, no tuning. I'm willing to bet that 200whp can be achieved with a full exhaust with hi-flow cats, full intake and ECU tune. Getting to 240-260whp would be a bit of a challenge, no doubt. I'm sure 10-15hp can be had from cams, and more peak power from raising the rev limiter as the engine seems to want to keep making power up top. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think it will be interesting to see what develops in the coming months! Maybe if 240whp can be had N/A on pump gas or with water/meth injection, it might be enough to keep me away from supercharging!

[sw20kosh]

Originally Posted by SkAsphalt

Where do you think you can achieve weight reduction in your current car? panel replacement would be expensive, and they are already quite light (unless the rear fenders were to be cut off and replaced with carbon?) the hood is so feather light...

Back seat delete, battery replacement, lose the spare and maybe cut out some sound deadening and you are probably at a 50lbs or more loss BUT the car would be noticeably louder** and could lose its DD status - however that would be the cheapest options. Changing rims could net a reduction of a few pounds per corner also but is an expensive en devour. I ask this notto shoot you down, but because I too am curious.


**disclaimer: I make this assumption based off previous claims that removing the spare tire and rear seats allows for the exhaust noise to permeate through the cabin much more easily. People were seeing internal DB ratings increase as much a 5-10DB with those deletes AND aftermarket exhausts (DB ratings were limited to 1-3 with just the exhausts)

There are 2 weight reduction threads already on here.
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7881

Conservatively...
Battery: 30 -> 4 lbs
Spare + tools: 30 -> 0 lbs
Rear Seats: 20 -> 0 lbs
Track Pipe: 36 -> 5 lbs

Potential of 106 lbs. It is not bad.

Then I would go for the two front seats as they are HEAVY. I would install lighter bucket seats if I was just tracking the car. I don't know about DD'ing it. I think I would want the safety features of stockers.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

Ill be shooting for 250whp for my n/a build. which is going to be horribly challenging to gain that extra 100whp while retaining good reliable performance. The engine needs to comfortably make 250whp rather than straining at 250whp, so moving the powerband up on the RPM scale might be necessary to achieve that.

Oh dear, that's going to be hard. Do cheat with E85 to get you that extra 10% :P Moving the power peak from 7k to 8k with longer duration cams and a different intake manifold (full exhaust and the rest of the jazz too) can net perhaps 8/7*165?lb-ft/150lb-ft * 200hp=251.4hp, at the crank, with very little room to play with after 8k, and a rather peaky powerband before that. From the exhaust numbers and stuff we're seeing, I think 170lb-ft shouldn't be too hard to hit. But now you are looking to find that last 10-15% "drivetrain loss", that's going to be tough on pump gas! (let's admit it, 9000rpm with a 1.5 rod stroke ratio isn't so good for the cylinder bore or bearings) E85 should get you there though, if you can direct inject all of it. When done right the charge cooling effect on pre-combustion pressures alone should be worth 3% more power, or something like that (I did some calculation a long time ago).

@MattR, I think Crower or someone did post a picture of the EJ rods next to the FA rods, and after I asked what the rod lengths were they did post it. I just remember it was 130+/-1 mm.

Originally Posted by Bonburner

how do you plan on getting 9k rpm AND 34 mpg?

Actually, this should be much easier than you think, given that we're willing to accept slight compromises in cam design. I believe one of the biggest reasons for the poor low end performance of big cams is that the big amount of overlap introduces large amounts of exhaust gas into the charge, completely ruining combustion efficiency. They say direct injection helps to increase the tolerance for internal EGR, but when you're idling and the vacuum is high, any overlap is going to mean a lot of exhaust sucked back in.

Larger cams however will lose volumetric efficiency at low rpm cruising conditions, which will decrease pumping losses and allow a cooler charge which further increases efficiency.

If you see some Toyota diagrams for VVT operation, you'll notice the range of cam movement allows the stock cam to be retarded to the point where it opens several degrees after TDC. So a performance cam that doesn't go too crazy on overlap can likely maintain near stock combustion quality characteristics at low loads. I mean this for both intake and exhaust. We lose a little bit of scavenging like this, but maintain driveability and increase fuel economy.

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Oh dear, that's going to be hard. Do cheat with E85 to get you that extra 10% :P Moving the power peak from 7k to 8k with longer duration cams and a different intake manifold (full exhaust and the rest of the jazz too) can net perhaps 8/7*165?lb-ft/150lb-ft * 200hp=251.4hp, at the crank, with very little room to play with after 8k, and a rather peaky powerband before that. From the exhaust numbers and stuff we're seeing, I think 170lb-ft shouldn't be too hard to hit. But now you are looking to find that last 10-15% "drivetrain loss", that's going to be tough on pump gas! (let's admit it, 9000rpm with a 1.5 rod stroke ratio isn't so good for the cylinder bore or bearings) E85 should get you there though, if you can direct inject all of it. When done right the charge cooling effect on pre-combustion pressures alone should be worth 3% more power, or something like that (I did some calculation a long time ago).

@MattR, I think Crower or someone did post a picture of the EJ rods next to the FA rods, and after I asked what the rod lengths were they did post it. I just remember it was 130+/-1 mm.

I know!!!!
what are your thoughts on Big bore Kits with non-stroke altering characteristics. We might get plenty of headroom if we bore it to a 2.1-2.2 or could just stroke the crank. And just keeping our redline limit around 7500. seeing as how the upper region of the RPM scale is already cut off from the factory.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

I know!!!!
what are your thoughts on Big bore Kits with non-stroke altering characteristics. We might get plenty of headroom if we bore it to a 2.1-2.2 or could just stroke the crank. And just keeping our redline limit around 7500. seeing as how the upper region of the RPM scale is already cut off from the factory.

Isn't increasing bore pretty hard? You have to have a new liner and stuff right? Increasing stroke is probably not a good idea here since we're already so low on rod length.

HomemadeWRX/3MI Racing said he is working on this. I think he hasn't gotten a shortblock yet, but his thoughts were I believe new pistons with higher wrist pins, and longer rods, possibly eating up some deck clearance. We need 9-10mm of rod or so to get into "typical" high rev engine territory, which seems like it won't happen :/ I don't know how much rod length actually matters for durability and friction, but OEMs are clearly not willing to push to 8000rpm on less than 1.6 rod stroke ratio.

[whitejdm]

Has anyone looked into the stock cam profiles? Does it look like they'll make power past the 8000 rpm range?

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by whitejdm

Has anyone looked into the stock cam profiles? Does it look like they'll make power past the 8000 rpm range?

Ah, dug this gem up: http://www.purcellperformance.com/Te...13%20FR-S).pdf

Those are Toyota's specs, which are not the 0.050" lift or whatever, but just compare with known specs for say 1NZs or something and you'll get the idea. I get the feeling that these are pretty conservative cams meant to maintain acceptable low end torque, because the duration is only a tiny bit higher than the 2GR-FSE (assuming their diagrams depicting cam duration are consistently drawn).

Now that I just saw that diagram again and remembered, the stock VVT system lets you open the intake valves 24 degrees ATDC! PLENTY of room for high duration, high overlap cams then

[whitejdm]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Ah, dug this gem up: http://www.purcellperformance.com/Te...13%20FR-S).pdf

Those are Toyota's specs, which are not the 0.050" lift or whatever, but just compare with known specs for say 1NZs or something and you'll get the idea. I get the feeling that these are pretty conservative cams meant to maintain acceptable low end torque, because the duration is only a tiny bit higher than the 2GR-FSE (assuming their diagrams depicting cam duration are consistently drawn).

Now that I just saw that diagram again and remembered, the stock VVT system lets you open the intake valves 24 degrees ATDC! PLENTY of room for high duration, high overlap cams then

Nice! Yup so should be easy to gain some reasonable top end pull while loosing almost nothing down low.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by whitejdm

Nice! Yup so should be easy to gain some reasonable top end pull while loosing almost nothing down low.

Eh dunno about that, increasing high rpm power means the intake valves will need to close later. That'll lose power on the low end, but the upside is that your fuel economy will marginally improve if the VVT is programmed correctly

[d1ck]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

There is something wonderful and challenging about pushing a high performance N/A to its limits. Where as FI cars I found were just completely enjoyable and pretty easy to maintain boost during HPDE when you get use to your own setup. I could never get use to retaining powerband in a N/A during HPDE but that's what made it more fun.

Ill be shooting for 250whp for my n/a build. which is going to be horribly challenging to gain that extra 100whp while retaining good reliable performance. The engine needs to comfortably make 250whp rather than straining at 250whp, so moving the powerband up on the RPM scale might be necessary to achieve that.

I want to guess the limit of this particular engine in N/A form fully built for HPDE is 300whp-350whp. While peakers might achieve 350-400.

I highly doubt this engine will ever see those numbers N/A. I think 280-300 WHP will be the highest we will see on this engine unless we get people running 12,000 RPM.

[TSLRich]

Originally Posted by pcasso87

Maybe per HP gained but id rather have a 260 whp NA monster than a 340whp force induction monster. I like linear power delivery and throttle response which is great in a NA!

This the 2nd or 3rd time I've heard someone mention this.... 340 is not really a big turbo number... I think that will be achieved relatively easily with the small turbos that people are currently testing and those will provide a very linear power delivery.