Celvia - Page 2 - NewCelica.org Forum
  
Install Guides Parts Catalog Gallery Tech Info

Go Back   NewCelica.org Forum > Celica Discussion > Fabrication Forum

Fabrication Forum Welding, metal working, and general engineering of parts

Support NCO
Google
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2013, 11:18 PM   #51
2KGTrd
Turbo 2zz
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 4,674
iTrader: (40)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
In comparison to the tried and true sports cars are celicas not slow?

When you start comparing a car to something out of its class the underclassed are at a huge disadvantage. Most cannot overcome that disadvantage, and on the drag strip the celica is one of them. In corners thats a different story. The celica handles better than most. But its frame isnt made for a quarter mile at a time. Therefore it will never do quite as well as something that was.
Tried and true sports cars are in a completely different class than the celica. You cannot compare a supra or skyline to a celica in terms of speed. You cannot even compare a sw20 to a supra because they are 2 different platforms. The only thing the celica can really be compared to in terms of speed would be other FF applications such as RSX, Integra, Civic, Eclipse GS, Lancer RallyArt, ect other wise its like you are trying to weld steel to alum with a diversion 165
__________________
2KGTrd is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-20-2013, 04:31 AM   #52
GSBoek
Daddy Daycare
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Willemstad, Curaçao
Posts: 20,263
iTrader: (7)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
the amount of stupidity on this thread is ridiculous... god...
No disrespect meant but you have absolutely no room to talk. Here's why:

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
Mav, this is an idea i toyed with myself and i even did a lot of research on it. buttt im only 18 so the money and skills for this were way out of my reach. the SR20det is one of the best I-4s ever made. It can take 400 horse on stock internals (yea, double our shitty toyota zz engines)
It is quite stupid to compare a SR20det that was factory-built for forced induction to a ZZ engine that was never meant to be built for F/I and expect the latter to be any good. However your statement about the SR20det making double the amount of power on stock internals is completely incorrect when compared to both the 1ZZ and 2ZZ. A typical 1ZZ on stock internals will fail around the 250whp mark because of the toothpick rods and pistons. The 2ZZ fails at the 350whp mark on stock internals because of the ring lands. Neither figure is half the 400 horses you state for the SR20det.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
and the trans can take every horse of it. No trans mods needed until 500+. Its an amazing engine that would be in an amazing looking car. I dont car what anyone says CELICAS ARE VERY SLOWWWWWW. Yes they can hold their own put put them up against a cobalt or srt4 with a decent driver and we get butt raped.
The target Toyota set for the Celica was the 3rd generation Integra. That target was set way back in 1995 when development work started on the 7th generation Celica. Right around the time you were born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
a lot of this is because of the engine being about as strong as a cbr, but twice the weight and part is the fwd. But there is unfortunately one other problem: the car itself.

There is a reason there is no such thing as a 10 second celica. Not even the Suprica can do a 10 second quarter simply because of the way they were built. The frames materials are cheap, and designed to save weight. The rigidity is depressing, and the car is what it is: an economy car. It can barely be considered an entry level sports car.
As an engineering student you will hopefully learn soon enough that when your target is supposed to be cheap, fast and good you'll have to make compromises. This applies perfectly to your statement below V

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
If you want to have a one of a kind car, do it. If you want to learn how cars are made and why things are built from the factory the way they are, do it. If you want a fast car that can beat almost anything unmodded that cost less than 6 digits, do it. If you want all that for less money, get something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
I know I'm a few months off but i figured id give you an educated response instead of the geniuses up there saying your supposed to swap toyota engines into nissans and you could get an r34 for $10k less.... hahaha... dumbasses...
Again, you have no room to be calling people that. Specially not when you think you are an engineer at 18.

Take whatever advice you have heard from the more knowledgeable in this thread and make good use of it. The SR20det is a great engine. So is the 2ZZ for a completely different purpose. If Toyota had set out to build it to hold power it would have just like the 2JZ is doing and just like the 4U-GSE is doing, already being past the 500whp mark on stock internals.



To the OP. Good luck with the project if you decide to go for it. Some of us loyalists (yes some of us are) would prefer a Toyota engine in a Toyota but we know to appreciate the works of others if they are well done.
__________________
Links geboren, rechts getogen.


202 CREW ........................... No. 30002

Last edited by GSBoek; 11-20-2013 at 04:46 AM..
GSBoek is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 08:09 AM   #53
forzaforreal
Lurk
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Florence, AL
Posts: 780
iTrader: (1)
Celvia

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post
No disrespect meant but you have absolutely no room to talk. Here's why:
With a start like that, I knew it would be a good post
__________________
You can't buy sincerity.
forzaforreal is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
 
Old 11-20-2013, 09:38 AM   #54
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post

It is quite stupid to compare a SR20det that was factory-built for forced induction to a ZZ engine that was never meant to be built for F/I and expect the latter to be any good. However your statement about the SR20det making double the amount of power on stock internals is completely incorrect when compared to both the 1ZZ and 2ZZ. A typical 1ZZ on stock internals will fail around the 250whp mark because of the toothpick rods and pistons. The 2ZZ fails at the 350whp mark on stock internals because of the ring lands. Neither figure is half the 400 horses you state for the SR20det.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boosted2.0 View Post
2ZZ
Pistons – ring lands seem to crack or fail at the 250 / 275 WHP mark
Rods – No reported failures from over-power
Block – no block failures due to power, but based on the lack of ring strength most people who want over 300 whp get sleeves and aftermarket pistons or Mahle pistons in stock bores if their bores are in good shape.
Bearings – probably best to change these out at or above 300 WHP
Head bolts - Replace with studs if you have to take the head off for any other upgrades. They seem to be fine at most common power levels, but they should not be re-used.

1ZZ
Pistons – ring lands probably will fail at about the 250/275 WHP mark
Rods – have failed below 250 WHP mark
Block – No block failures due to power that I am aware of. Best to stick with close to stock bore size at higher power levels above 300 WHP
Bearings – probably best to change these out at or above 250 WHP
Head bolts - Replace with studs if you have to take the head off for any other upgrades. They seem to be fine at most common power levels, but they should not be re-used.
Obviously there are people that break these marks but i know of 2 240sx's that i found on accident that are running over 500 on stock internals. I said 400 because thats the mark that most people seem to switch. I believe that mark with celicas is 225.

yes, the ZZ series is a good series for what it was designed for. I should have mentioned that i was looking at it from a purely performance perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2KGTrd View Post
Tried and true sports cars are in a completely different class than the celica. You cannot compare a supra or skyline to a celica in terms of speed. You cannot even compare a sw20 to a supra because they are 2 different platforms. The only thing the celica can really be compared to in terms of speed would be other FF applications such as RSX, Integra, Civic, Eclipse GS, Lancer RallyArt, ect other wise its like you are trying to weld steel to alum with a diversion 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post
The target Toyota set for the Celica was the 3rd generation Integra. That target was set way back in 1995 when development work started on the 7th generation Celica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
When you start comparing a car to something out of its class the underclassed are at a huge disadvantage. Most cannot overcome that disadvantage, and on the drag strip the celica is one of them. In corners thats a different story. The celica handles better than most. But its frame isnt made for a quarter mile at a time. Therefore it will never do quite as well as something that was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
but it wont do it as well as something that was made for it in the first place. That is my point. In comparison to others it is typically slower.
Sounds like the same argument to me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post
As an engineering student you will hopefully learn soon enough that when your target is supposed to be cheap, fast and good you'll have to make compromises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
They always make them strong enough to fit the strongest cars needs up to a certain mileage, and cheap enough for the slowest version of the car. The car was never designed to play with the big boys, but pure power can get it there.
????? Thats exactly what i said. They dont build an economy chassis to take the stress that say, the corvette would undergo. But now you are upgrading the celica the that level or at least close to it, and its going to cause problems for both perfomance and reliabilty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post
Again, you have no room to be calling people that. Specially not when you think you are an engineer at 18.

Take whatever advice you have heard from the more knowledgeable in this thread and make good use of it.
I know i am not an acutal engineer but my knowledge about how things work and engineering in general puts me ahead of a majority of my class. There are a lot of sophmores that i know that cant do what i can do. What ive learned in this forum and talking to random people is that most people dont know what theyre talking about. They have a hunch, but no proof. You guys have proof. You guys know what you are saying. But why did no one give the OP a detailed post like this the first time? These posts, mine and all of your rebuttals to mine are educated posts. Many on the forum are capable of this and it is very unfortunate that i had to make an ass out of myself just to get you guys to do this. 2k what you said about first year engineers is correct. We dont know anything. That is why i do my own projects, my own research, and put myself in positions to learn more, so when things come up i can input my knowledge confidently and correctly, rather than ignorantly.

Overall you guys just confirmed what i said, but you arent 18. You have seniority over me and that, especially on a forum will win no matter what argument i make. What you did do for me, however, is tell me once again that my statements were correct, but explained in the wrong ways. Thats 100% my fault.

Lastly i wasnt calling everyone who posted stupid. For the most part it was just 3 posts (2 now because i looked up the cost of a GT-R and it had fallen lower than i thought) that pissed me off. Yet no one refuted them or gave the OP any detailed knowledge about what he was asking about. And as you guys proved, you have that knowledge. Why didnt you use it off the bat? Believe me, I never would have posted my first one if you guys had made posts like these telling the OP about his idea...
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky


Last edited by skylin4; 11-20-2013 at 09:53 AM.. Reason: typo
skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 10:21 AM   #55
GSBoek
Daddy Daycare
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Willemstad, Curaçao
Posts: 20,263
iTrader: (7)
For the sake of completeness, the info on the 2ZZ is what was deemed the safe range when it was posted. Most people who have gone F/I on stock internals have reported actual failures around the 350whp mark. There are obvious deviations on both sides.

We are a couple of years further down the road now and the limits of the stock unsleeved open deck aluminum block of the 2ZZ has not yet been found. The highest power made on the 2ZZ so far with built internals is 823 whp.

I did not address any of your later comments. They probably would not have been necessary if you didn't come out swinging with your opening line. This is a forum and you can expect people to have their preferences and wanting to contribute in their own particular ways. Sometimes threads develop before someone posts useful information to the topic at hand.

The SR20det swap for a rwd Celica conversion makes sense because the engine and tranny can be had fairly cheap and is turboed from the get go, unlike an RS200 BEAMS 3S-GE engine for example. This is important because the bulk of the work will be in modifying the car itself to accept a north-south powertrain so anything saved elsewhere is useful if someone doesn't have deep pockets.

Let's carry on shall we.
__________________
Links geboren, rechts getogen.


202 CREW ........................... No. 30002
GSBoek is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 11:06 AM   #56
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
interesting... we should try to get boosted to change the text to reflect new findings, because i didnt know that. Although im guessing with my luck the 1zz numbers havent changed much...
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 11:13 AM   #57
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
so heres a question for everyone... if the fr-s drivetrain will fit well, what about the boxer engine..? they just came out with a 270 hp version of it for the new WRX so im sure the aftermarket for it is about to explode... would it fit??
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 11:43 AM   #58
jdmravi
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Posts: 2,021
iTrader: (18)
If you think the chassis is weak on the Celica or think they went cheap, then you've never seen the stories about people getting into major car wrecks and coming out with minor injuries. Our cars are strongly built. If you want to see a weak chassis car, youtube dodge neon crash test..
__________________

2000 GTS-Auto - Sold - 8/22/11
Mods- Butterfly removal, Full custom mandrel bend cat-back with HKS Hi-Power muffler, TRD Springs, 190lph Walbro fuel pump

2003 GTS-6sp-
Mods- AEM CAI, BC Coils extreme drop 8k/F 10k/R, Sebion OEM CF hood, PPE header, Custom exhaust with TRD tip
jdmravi is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 12:05 PM   #59
GSBoek
Daddy Daycare
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Willemstad, Curaçao
Posts: 20,263
iTrader: (7)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
so heres a question for everyone... if the fr-s drivetrain will fit well, what about the boxer engine..? they just came out with a 270 hp version of it for the new WRX so im sure the aftermarket for it is about to explode... would it fit??
It would fit with room to spare I believe. At that point though it's better to get the FR-S or BRZ and go from there unless the 4U-GSE can be had cheaply. The good thing about it is aftermarket support though, which is huge compared to what we had for the Celica back then and even now.
__________________
Links geboren, rechts getogen.


202 CREW ........................... No. 30002
GSBoek is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 12:12 PM   #60
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
what are the chances that a salvage fr-s could be used as the donor car? i always see them at low prices but never what they actually sell for.

Do you guys happen to know any threads that i should search for that will have detailed information about an unorthodox engine swap like this and what it needs?
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 12:21 PM   #61
Bitter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago-south
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: (10)
Celvia

I doubt the engine would fit due to width. Yes, we have a thread all about these crazy swaps because they're so common.
__________________
2000 Celica GT-S 'slowest GT-S evar'
1998 Mazda 626 FS-DE/CD4E 'mom-mobile'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCMiller View Post
I'm gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
no, don't even waste your time. if you want a honest sticker, at least get one that says "objects in mirror aren't really racing, so quit trying"...
Bitter is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 12:25 PM   #62
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
oh, and jdmravi, they actually designed that into the frame. That was one of the comprimises they had to make.

When you design a multi member frame like a unibody the overall goal is to dispurse forces coming from the suspension and engine (which are for the most part the only areas of the car that input force on the frame. Most of the drivetrain forces travel through the suspension and into the frame) and convert them into tension forces on a few certain members that are designed to take the stress. Metal likes to give more easily under compression than tension, so the goal of suspension is to take those stresses and send them into the frame, and the frame shifts these forces into the correct members.
When a car crashes there are very large forces entering the car at non-expected entry points, putting compression, and even worse, shear stresses onto the frame members. Because of this many of the frame members are also designed to take these awkward forces and either intentionally buckle to dispel the energy, or shift them over to another member that can take the pressure just like when the car is normally running. Unfortunately many of the members that are designed to deal with crash forces are dead weight in terms of performance. It seems to me that they designed a relatively large amount of these crash-based members into the car and were able to convert many of them to take both crash forces and driving forces by putting them at the correct angle. My guess is this is why sc2jz's frame is holding so well because the members made to take crash forces are picking up some of the new loads, and the multi-tasking members are simply continuing to do their jobs. I didnt think the crash members would carry these forces so well but based of of sc2jz's testimonial on the other page they sure seem to.

Of course there is a hundred thousand other things that goes into frame design but that is the basic idea. Choose a purpose-design to complete purpose-edit design for safety-add in factor of safety to cover the shit happens factor-refine design and repeat steps 2-5 as necessary.

Toyota made sure our cars can take a hit on purpose, and sacrificed some of its performace to do so. Thats probably part of the reason why they went with an independent rear suspension, to make up for that comprimise. Not to mention that for anything but a drag car IRS is better...
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 12:29 PM   #63
GSBoek
Daddy Daycare
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Willemstad, Curaçao
Posts: 20,263
iTrader: (7)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitter View Post
I doubt the engine would fit due to width.
Width is not much of an issue because of the north-south orientation. It's likely as wide as an engine and tranny in transverse configuration would be.
__________________
Links geboren, rechts getogen.


202 CREW ........................... No. 30002
GSBoek is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 05:20 PM   #64
Bitter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago-south
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: (10)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post
Width is not much of an issue because of the north-south orientation. It's likely as wide as an engine and tranny in transverse configuration would be.


You may be right, but it still looks like getting in would suck. I can't imagine mounts.
__________________
2000 Celica GT-S 'slowest GT-S evar'
1998 Mazda 626 FS-DE/CD4E 'mom-mobile'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCMiller View Post
I'm gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
no, don't even waste your time. if you want a honest sticker, at least get one that says "objects in mirror aren't really racing, so quit trying"...
Bitter is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 06:05 PM   #65
sc2jz
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Augusta GA
Posts: 803
iTrader: (1)
It will fit the frame is wider than u think in fact a Celica motor bay is wider than a supra by a few inches
sc2jz is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 06:06 PM   #66
sc2jz
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Augusta GA
Posts: 803
iTrader: (1)
Length is another issue
sc2jz is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 10:27 AM   #67
jdmravi
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Posts: 2,021
iTrader: (18)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
Toyota made sure our cars can take a hit on purpose, and sacrificed some of its performace to do so. Thats probably part of the reason why they went with an independent rear suspension, to make up for that comprimise. Not to mention that for anything but a drag car IRS is better...
What performance was "sacrificed"? Because the Celica is a great handling car in stock form, which it was built for. Put some hotchkis suspension bits on and it was pulling better numbers than most high end sports cars of it time. All from a 25k fully loaded sport compact car.
__________________

2000 GTS-Auto - Sold - 8/22/11
Mods- Butterfly removal, Full custom mandrel bend cat-back with HKS Hi-Power muffler, TRD Springs, 190lph Walbro fuel pump

2003 GTS-6sp-
Mods- AEM CAI, BC Coils extreme drop 8k/F 10k/R, Sebion OEM CF hood, PPE header, Custom exhaust with TRD tip
jdmravi is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 11:09 AM   #68
GSBoek
Daddy Daycare
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Willemstad, Curaçao
Posts: 20,263
iTrader: (7)
Yep. The only thing the Celica gives away in performance is speed. There's only one fwd car that has a slight edge over it and that is the ITR but that one was purpose built to be the best-handling fwd car.
The Hotchkis Celica had a 75.2 mph slalom, 1.04G lateral acceleration and 96ft 60-0mph braking.
__________________
Links geboren, rechts getogen.


202 CREW ........................... No. 30002
GSBoek is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 11:36 AM   #69
Zero
Cartoon Porn Festival
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 18,038
iTrader: (25)
Blog Entries: 1
Someone did this swap years ago. I believe he went with a Bluebird U14 tranny. Not a RWD swap, but definitely possible.
Zero is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 01:13 PM   #70
2KGTrd
Turbo 2zz
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 4,674
iTrader: (40)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmravi View Post
If you think the chassis is weak on the Celica or think they went cheap, then you've never seen the stories about people getting into major car wrecks and coming out with minor injuries. Our cars are strongly built. If you want to see a weak chassis car, youtube dodge neon crash test..
I can testify to this first hand. hit a tree at 45 mph, missed the front crash brace completely, impact went straight into the wheel pushed it back into the door, i got out without a scratch or any soft tissue injuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc2jz View Post
Length is another issue
not only this but there is no tunnel whatsoever to fit a gearbox, the k frame needs a 2" spacer to allow for even the smallest gearboxes to consider fitting without extensive reshaping of the tunnel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post
Yep. The only thing the Celica gives away in performance is speed. There's only one fwd car that has a slight edge over it and that is the ITR but that one was purpose built to be the best-handling fwd car.
And even at that when Road and Track compared the ITR and GTs Celica the celica was so close to performing the same as the ITR the drivers considered it to be of equal in most regards.
__________________
2KGTrd is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 01:45 PM   #71
jdmravi
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Posts: 2,021
iTrader: (18)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBoek View Post
Yep. The only thing the Celica gives away in performance is speed. There's only one fwd car that has a slight edge over it and that is the ITR but that one was purpose built to be the best-handling fwd car.
And that's with the Macpherson front suspension. I wonder what the Super Strut or even the Sports M Celica would compare to the ITR.

I know where someone is selling a whole TRD Sports M suspension converion also if anyone is interested
__________________

2000 GTS-Auto - Sold - 8/22/11
Mods- Butterfly removal, Full custom mandrel bend cat-back with HKS Hi-Power muffler, TRD Springs, 190lph Walbro fuel pump

2003 GTS-6sp-
Mods- AEM CAI, BC Coils extreme drop 8k/F 10k/R, Sebion OEM CF hood, PPE header, Custom exhaust with TRD tip
jdmravi is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 03:29 PM   #72
sc2jz
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Augusta GA
Posts: 803
iTrader: (1)
There is a tunnel that clears all but the bell housing
sc2jz is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 05:15 PM   #73
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
i would love to see the article saying that a not modded to hell celica pulled a 1g turn. New cars are consistantly faster than their previous counterparts. If they havent caught the celica already they will soon.

Nothing is ever perfect. There is always room for improvement. They gave up something to make the celica take a hit. What it was we will never know, maybe it was speed related, maybe handling. Maybe something we dont even realize is a factor. Nothing is built is without comprimise, especially a for an economy fwd car. But personally, im glad they decided to make it able to take a hit from a tree like that. Id give up a second on the quarter mile for that any day.
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 06:02 PM   #74
Bitter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago-south
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: (10)
Shit, I need to get out on a skidpad with a G meter, $1500 in suspension I bet I can pull 1G. I know I've been able to pull .8 on my Ipod meter pretty easily at sane speeds on some gentle roads.
__________________
2000 Celica GT-S 'slowest GT-S evar'
1998 Mazda 626 FS-DE/CD4E 'mom-mobile'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCMiller View Post
I'm gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
no, don't even waste your time. if you want a honest sticker, at least get one that says "objects in mirror aren't really racing, so quit trying"...
Bitter is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 08:19 PM   #75
StrikerFury
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,374
iTrader: (4)
Send a message via AIM to StrikerFury Send a message via MSN to StrikerFury
Back to the topic why not just call it a Celica SX since it was a trim model in Australia
__________________
This forum sucks
StrikerFury is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 09:51 PM   #76
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
the Toyota Celica SX... that actually sounds pretty cool
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 12:27 AM   #77
2KGTrd
Turbo 2zz
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 4,674
iTrader: (40)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
When a car crashes there are very large forces entering the car at non-expected entry points, putting compression, and even worse, shear stresses onto the frame members. Because of this many of the frame members are also designed to take these awkward forces and either intentionally buckle to dispel the energy, or shift them over to another member that can take the pressure just like when the car is normally running.
I'm going to again disagree here. The engineers who designed the unibody took into account impact from all directions to make the car as safe as possible, including impact from the roof. The unibody in its entirely is designer to absorb impact and disperse the energy throughout the entire system to prevent less strain on the driver and passengers bodies. This is why a majority of newer cars that are crashed where airbags deploy are totaled out. Then energy is dispersed through the entire system because it acts as a whole. Every zone in a unibody car is a 'crumple zone.' It is designed to take the impact and spread the energy throughout the entire unibody, not solely the main members so that the energy is not transmitted the seat to the occupant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
Unfortunately many of the members that are designed to deal with crash forces are dead weight in terms of performance. It seems to me that they designed a relatively large amount of these crash-based members into the car and were able to convert many of them to take both crash forces and driving forces by putting them at the correct angle.
This practice sames money, makes the car more rigid for performance, safer and quieter. Every shape, every angle, every spot weld is in an exact spot for a reason; not completely convinced of this on most Ford products. While the unibody may be dead weight in terms of 'performance' continue to explain why companies add all of this extra weight of a roll cage and tubular from end conversions, and tubular crash guards. This is because with every amount of performance there needs to be an equal or greater amount of safety measures taken to prevent the worst case scenario. So that essential 'dead weight' will keep you alive so you can continue to perform.

should really stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
__________________
2KGTrd is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 07:40 AM   #78
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
I'm so confused... that is like the 3rd time you have argued the exact same thing as me and said that i am wrong....

With the exception of 2 small things we agree on everything.. i said frame members, not main members, because all the central unibody members transfer the weight to the skin of the frame that absorbs it until there is too much pressure, then they crumple, because if the frame members themselves crumple they often crumple into the cabin. They don't want that to happen unless it has to to keep people safe. The sub frame in the front and rear is a different story.
I also never said the unibody was dead weight in terms of performance, i said that in many cars that don't have members that multitask, the crash-inspired members are dead weight in terms of performance. Is this a bad thing? Hell no! If it keeps you alive put it on the car! The unibody itself is certainly not dead weight, its fantastic!

So we AGREE that a unibody is designed to take forces and disperse them evenly to keep the occupants safe. We AGREE that the unibody works as one system to disburse the energy onto the frame itself and away from the people inside. We AGREE that designing members correctly so they can take a hit from crashes and take performance stress is a good thing. We AGREE that for every performance measure there should be safety measures to keep a balance for any good car. So what the hell are you arguing about????
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 09:32 AM   #79
Celicasaur
Bring on the 12's...
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,081
iTrader: (23)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmravi View Post
And that's with the Macpherson front suspension. I wonder what the Super Strut or even the Sports M Celica would compare to the ITR.

I know where someone is selling a whole TRD Sports M suspension converion also if anyone is interested
Funny you say that.

I bought a JDM model this week and it puts my Euro model to shame in terms of handling. Could be the fact that my struts are not in good shape, but I don't ever remember my one having so much stability and giving me true confidence to throw it into a corner. The turn in is as sharp as my Euro model but only after I upgraded to ES control arm bushings. lol I can't notice that the Hotchkis bars have done much at all...but then my struts could just actually be that bad.

Just thought I'd share.
__________________
Celicasaur wishlist for 2014:
DDPR manifold
3" exhaust system
Goals for 2014:
12's!


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
While your speaking to your clergy about marriage ceremony, see if he does exorcisms.
Celicasaur is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 09:41 AM   #80
mrfunny107
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,305
iTrader: (9)
Anything can happen with $$$$ and time. I know when I go to the track many people who ride in the car are amazed at the g's the car can pull. That's why Shizuma is going to have alot of fun when his car is done.
__________________

Too much.....
mrfunny107 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 11:55 AM   #81
2KGTrd
Turbo 2zz
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 4,674
iTrader: (40)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
I'm so confused... that is like the 3rd time you have argued the exact same thing as me and said that i am wrong....

With the exception of 2 small things we agree on everything.. i said frame members, not main members, because all the central unibody members transfer the weight to the skin of the frame that absorbs it until there is too much pressure, then they crumple, because if the frame members themselves crumple they often crumple into the cabin. They don't want that to happen unless it has to to keep people safe. The sub frame in the front and rear is a different story.
I also never said the unibody was dead weight in terms of performance, i said that in many cars that don't have members that multitask, the crash-inspired members are dead weight in terms of performance. Is this a bad thing? Hell no! If it keeps you alive put it on the car! The unibody itself is certainly not dead weight, its fantastic!

So we AGREE that a unibody is designed to take forces and disperse them evenly to keep the occupants safe. We AGREE that the unibody works as one system to disburse the energy onto the frame itself and away from the people inside. We AGREE that designing members correctly so they can take a hit from crashes and take performance stress is a good thing. We AGREE that for every performance measure there should be safety measures to keep a balance for any good car. So what the hell are you arguing about????
__________________
Your first mistake was claiming to be an engineer when you have just newly been accepted into the program still taking pre-req classes and have no engineering experience other than extracurricular activities and reading tech articles. Just because you have 'good ideas' and they are taken into conceptual form or actually used does not mean you are in any way creditable or justified in the engineering field.

Secondly the way you word sentences and paragraphs is hogwash. You start with a sentence and follow it with a contradictory statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
When a car crashes there are very large forces entering the car at non-expected entry points, putting compression, and even worse, shear stresses onto the frame members. Because of this many of the frame members are also designed to take these awkward forces and either intentionally buckle to dispel the energy, or shift them over to another member that can take the pressure just like when the car is normally running.
You are saying that large forces are coming in at unexpected areas. This is false. Every part of a car is vulnerable to impact and they design the car around the possibility of it being hit from anywhere. Then you try to qualify your statement by following that statement with something that actually makes sense but the concept doesnt seem fully comprehended before its worded into a pitiful incoherent reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
I also never said the unibody was dead weight in terms of performance,
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
many of the members that are designed to deal with crash forces are dead weight in terms of performance.
.
__________________
2KGTrd is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 12:33 PM   #82
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
So, sounds like someone is angry over the fact that im only 18 and making statements like that... Grow up. Seriously.

Ive taken 3 engineering classes so far, so once again, im ahead of most freshman.

If you want me to write you a pretty MLA format 5 paragraph essay then i will "professor." Sorry i thought i was writing in a way that people could follow, my apologies if you couldnt.

I'm not even going to bother quoting it anymore but remember the post that said when you design something you design it for your goal, then start comprimising for safety and cost? When you are designing it for performance, you are assuming that there is only going to be major forces coming from the suspension and engine (for the most part). Then they take safety into account and compared to the performance load these stresses are from unexpected location.

If what i say doesnt make sense to you then too bad, i no longer give a shit about your opinion. I did before, because you seem to know your stuff, but now you are just trying to make sure I am wrong about everything because I'm a "kid." Lead by example. You want me to learn respect start by treating me with respect. GSBoek did. sc2jz did.

And really? the MEMBERS. MEMBERS!!! the unibody itself, as a frame style, as an engineering concept is great. The members on ANY CHASSIS that are solely there to deal with crash forces to not benefit the performance! what on earth is hard to understand about this...

I think you need to learn perspective. I've noticed that most people I argue with fail to look at things from my perspective and that is something that I am rather good at. I totally get that some of my statements were jibberish. I was just writing as i thought of things and that ends up messy sometimes. But you arent taking into account that anyone can be knowledgable about anything if they put in the time. Ive put in the time and will continue to put in the time. In what is quickly becoming one of my favorite quotes ever is "The only difference between knowledge and experience is the time it took to aquire it."

Have fun bitching me out, because you'll only prove me right.








this ones new.. i think...wtf?? XD
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky


Last edited by skylin4; 11-22-2013 at 12:41 PM.. Reason: because smilies
skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 12:34 PM   #83
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
So on a happier note Maverick have you read any of the useful info on the thread now? (ignore the arguments)

Are you going to try and do this build or stick with what you've got and improve it?
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 12:38 PM   #84
trzebrasky
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poland, Ohio
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: (27)
Send a message via AIM to trzebrasky Send a message via Skype™ to trzebrasky
Well you have offically made every engineer seem like a total fuck tard bud. So let me jump in here and make something clear. It doesnt mater about FEW analyais or yeild strengths - we arent perferming analysis on the strength of the frame here are we? Pretty sure from the mass ammount of stupidity I just ready we arent. Not to sure what kind of engineer you are but I can think of several important reasons to make a slow car go fast.

sc2jz built on hell of a car and if he could strict traction without a dout he can get 10's

so why dont we do some analysis shall we? Power to weight is key, the frame has nothing to do with it. Want to gain time you want to shave weight at the wheels and fit a tire properly to weather temps. To hard of a tire you have no traction and to sticky causes to my much friction between the tire and the road. Motor oil actually has a big play in shaving time off - mobil 1 can actually slow down a drag racers time. Knowing when power band of the car to optimally get the most power out of the engine matched with quick shifting can increase and decrease your time frame on the track. How well is the motor set up? Becuase air temp and humidity has a big play in proper atomization with fuel and air matched with proper temp plugs you can gain time on a track. What fuel you run also has a big play.

So you can run your little FEA analysis and tell me what you find. Becuase these cars are solid through and through and if you look at the history of these cars are arent meant nor built for straight line.

sc2jz did some crazy shit dropping in a 2jz into a celica and engineer or not its a beast. 2KGTrd did more then enough fabrication doing a VMount set up on his celica. While i have designed an intake manifold, cams and turbo set up on my celica and even at 30psi im over 500whp for a 1ZZ.

So dont preach to guys like them and myself who know our shit. An dont try and argue with me either as I am an engineer myself and pretty sure i know quite a but more then you do bud.
trzebrasky is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 12:51 PM   #85
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
ill bet you do know more than me. Not saying i know everything, but i know more than 2k is giving me credit for.

Never thought of the oil one before... Ill remember that thats kinda cool. Makes sense.

Never said the cars were "weak." I said they werent designed for RWD. and i have been looking through sc2jzs build thread and its even more impressive. He took a lot of things into account and i'm sure that's why he has only had one major problem. Or at least that he mentioned in this thread. I haven't made it to the end of his build thread yet. Looks like he added a pretty good chunk of strength to the frame though for that engine from how far I am.

I've seen a lot of the stuff you do zebrasky and its impressive, but we both came to the same conclusion in the end:


Quote:
Originally Posted by trzebrasky View Post
Becuase these cars are solid through and through and if you look at the history of these cars are arent meant nor built for straight line.

Not arguing with you man, just trying to get you guys to understand i am on the same page, and just because i'm a student doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong.
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 12:59 PM   #86
trzebrasky
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poland, Ohio
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: (27)
Send a message via AIM to trzebrasky Send a message via Skype™ to trzebrasky
Celvia

No but don't try an be impressive and think your cool. FEA analysis is an utter waste of time - unless your going to apply stress and strain nodes on the entire car and do a full 3D scale model and run analysis your wasting your time.

Might be on the same page but what your saying is making you look dumb. No offense.

An yes the molecular compound of Mobil one and let's say royal purple have different yields due to temp and friction being the biggest. Royal is proven to cut those yields down but is more of a performance oil then anything else, while Mobil has more of a longevity use.
trzebrasky is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 01:00 PM   #87
GSBoek
Daddy Daycare
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Willemstad, Curaçao
Posts: 20,263
iTrader: (7)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
I'm so confused...
We know...that's why we are addressing your posts.

You came out swinging and dissing the Celica first. People debunked your opening post with factual information. Then you piped down a little while still arguing. You toned it down a little bit more as the exchange of posts continued which is good. You have the right ideas, but they are not entirely coherent in your posts so they usually trigger responses.

Bottom line of what we are explaining is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc2jz View Post
these little cars are far stronger than the average person or a person that deals with them gives them credit for.
The Celica is as strong as it could have been made for the weight target it had, the configuration it was designed with and the price it was sold for and it keeps surprising those that push it beyond what it was designed for.

I think we can lay the arguing to rest. I'm not a mod anymore but hopefully my request will still be honored.
__________________
Links geboren, rechts getogen.


202 CREW ........................... No. 30002
GSBoek is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 01:02 PM   #88
2KGTrd
Turbo 2zz
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 4,674
iTrader: (40)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
i'm a student
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
I totally get that some of my statements were jibberish. I was just writing as i thought of things and that ends up messy sometimes. But you arent taking into account that anyone can be knowledgable about anything if they put in the time
Now I agree with you. We're all students and always will be. Your opinion is less likely to be taken into consideration when it is poorly worded and contradictory in itself.



Quote:
Originally Posted by skylin4 View Post
this ones new.. i think...wtf?? XD
nope been around for a long time. This ones newerish i think
__________________
2KGTrd is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 01:21 PM   #89
skylin4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: All over the Midwest
Posts: 239
iTrader: (2)
i've heard that unless you are still in the design phase FEA analysis is utterly useless. I would've tried to google one of toyotas analysis reports if they published them. No way in hell am i good enough on CAD to recreate the celica's chassis and run a full analysis on it. For in the design phase i hear its fantastic. And this is coming from one of the Agricultural engineering professors helping us with the SAE car.

I love that oil makes a difference... For me its just "duhh, why wouldnt it make a difference??" but its just never something i thought about and realized. Ahh the variables that race teams have to take into account.


And nothings perfect Boek, but i think toyota did a damned good job with the celica. They hit what it was designed for perfectly. My favorite part is that when the sales dropped they didnt get rid of it completely. Has anyone else noticed the insane amount of similarities between the scion tc and the celica? or the fact that the celicas last year in production was the tc's first year? lol


typically i check my arguments before it send them out there because they're always for a paper, but i don't get two days to write a post and before i hit enter look back over it to make sure it makes sense. that would just take too long. lol, so im not suprised it sounded jumbled. Gonna check the contradictory stuff tomorrow though. I want to find them because its a lot harder to find your own mistakes than someone elses.

Im surprised these didnt show up from any bystandards inbetween the previous posts...
__________________
2001 Toyota Celica GT(-S)

Mechanical Engineer Undergrad at University of Kentucky

skylin4 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 02:05 PM   #90
mrfunny107
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,305
iTrader: (9)
Dude I am going through school right now for Mechanical engineering. Tell you what, you and I dont know shit compared to what experienced engineers know. Sure you may think you know how things work, but that just scratches the surface. So many other things are taken to account.

A fabricator may know how to make something but its the engineer who truly knows the ins and outs of what the fabricator, machinist is making.You really dont know anything till a couple years after graduating. But what I have learned from talking to engineers and class is that you will not be doing anything with your discipline after a couple years. Many of the engineers I talked to said engineering is really about thinking critically and solving problems that exist.
__________________

Too much.....
mrfunny107 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 02:53 PM   #91
andreww
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 449
iTrader: (6)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trzebrasky View Post
Well you have offically made every engineer seem like a total fuck tard bud.
As an engineer (civil), I assure that we already took care of that. Also, to you engineering students, while you may wind up knowing more than fabricators regarding the theoretical design of your parts, don't get cocky and think that they don't know what they're talking about. You may find yourself being completely surprised when something you design breaks that a fabricator warned you about and you ignored, because they ultimately are the ones that work with the materials and get a great sense of how they work.
__________________
2001 GT
andreww is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 02:54 PM   #92
andreww
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 449
iTrader: (6)
Or to put it in a different, more general way:

Experience is generally more useful than knowledge
__________________
2001 GT
andreww is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 07:00 PM   #93
mrfunny107
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,305
iTrader: (9)


Thats why companies want interships on resume's
__________________

Too much.....
mrfunny107 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2017, 04:31 PM   #94
Bitter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago-south
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: (10)
Que?
__________________
2000 Celica GT-S 'slowest GT-S evar'
1998 Mazda 626 FS-DE/CD4E 'mom-mobile'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCMiller View Post
I'm gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
no, don't even waste your time. if you want a honest sticker, at least get one that says "objects in mirror aren't really racing, so quit trying"...
Bitter is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:12 AM   #95
2KGTS
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,463
iTrader: (4)
Es de un chiquito malo quien no gusta el Celica. Entonces, no es importante.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitter View Post
It's like sex with your cute but chubby cousin that one time when you had both had too much wine at Christmas dinner. You know it's wrong, you're not stopping, and you really regret it the next morning. That is poutine, Canada does this 24x7x365. Canada are a bunch of sick bi-lingual metric cousin f*ckers.
2KGTS is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Go Back   NewCelica.org Forum > Celica Discussion > Fabrication Forum

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:04 AM.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.