NewCelica.org Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 243 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
in the sticky maybe add how much each part roughly costs (different price for different brand?) and how much whp they produce (approx of course)?

Would stop people asking how much each produces and for what price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Please notice stroker is conspicuously absent. Strokers make sense for turbo or supercharged, but not NA. The rev limitations caused by increasing the rod angle and pistons speeds aren't worth the tradeoff in displacement
This is a good point if your wanting to get peak HP numbers. Although, as you already know, my opinion is ultimatly baised torwards the stroker, but it is for a couple good reasons. Everyone (tuners) has a mind set of what they want out of thier car when they start building. It all is in what the person likes, and desires out of thier celica.

Although the stroker in N/A has its pro's and con's. Some may say the con's outweight the pro's, unless some of the con's don't matter to you much. Like less peak HP, limited rev to a mere 8,300 - 8,500 or so. But I'd LOVE more tourqe, i'd LOVE to not have to wait for lift, or always want to race from a roll. I still get quiet decent max WHP, while i still earn a very nice bump in tourqe. MWR 'qouted' me rougly around 235WHP totally built with PFC and a tune they are willing to help me tweak and somewhere around 200WHP with just the emanage ultimate and stage 2 pipers. I get to keep all the stock fuel system aswell.

I respect a 9k revving 2zz-ge for what it is, but I'd personally rather have a stroker for my daily driver, and a little tourqe in my routine. Each to his oen.

Ultimatly I don't think the stroker should be absent. Its an available mod that may suit some to thier liking, like me.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
This is a good point if your wanting to get peak HP numbers. Although, as you already know, my opinion is ultimatly baised torwards the stroker, but it is for a couple good reasons. Everyone (tuners) has a mind set of what they want out of thier car when they start building. It all is in what the person likes, and desires out of thier celica.

Although the stroker in N/A has its pro's and con's. Some may say the con's outweight the pro's, unless some of the con's don't matter to you much. Like less peak HP, limited rev to a mere 8,300 - 8,500 or so. But I'd LOVE more tourqe, i'd LOVE to not have to wait for lift, or always want to race from a roll. I still get quiet decent max WHP, while i still earn a very nice bump in tourqe. MWR 'qouted' me rougly around 235WHP totally built with PFC and a tune they are willing to help me tweak and somewhere around 200WHP with just the emanage ultimate and stage 2 pipers. I get to keep all the stock fuel system aswell.

I respect a 9k revving 2zz-ge for what it is, but I'd personally rather have a stroker for my daily driver, and a little tourqe in my routine. Each to his oen.

Ultimatly I don't think the stroker should be absent. Its an available mod that may suit some to thier liking, like me.
Peak power and a wider power band at a higher rev range are what NA performance is all about. For drag or road race these are the things that win races. "Good mid range" is something for daily drivers or large displacement V8s, not 1.8L race engines.

If you want more torque above all else then a sub 2.0L NA build is a very bad place to start.

If you think you are going to make 235 WHP on 12.5:1 compression with a 8500 rev limit, stage 2 pipers, stock intake and a stroker then I have a bad feeling you're cruising for dissapointment.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
in the sticky maybe add how much each part roughly costs (different price for different brand?) and how much whp they produce (approx of course)?

Would stop people asking how much each produces and for what price.
I'm not going there. This is about what needs to and can be done at certail levels, not exactly how much it costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Gary @ MWR was meerly telling me that there are more N/A 2zz strokers out there than what meets the eye. They've had a couple on thier dyno's before. I'd tend trust the people that build these strokers on a semi normal basis for some 'basic' WHP estimations.

You give alot of good info Boosted, don't get me wrong. It just amazes me how you and redliner both think that stroking the 2zz is basically thowing the 2zz in the trash. Its only a 500-700 RPM lower limit, and I can't go stage 3's. I'm sure i'll live and I think the extra tourqe is worth it in my opinion.

I'm not going for crazy tourqe, but putting a little touqe into the motor, never hurt i'm sure. I'm not going for pure race. Just a powerfull daily.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,200 Posts
Is there a known possible destroke for the 2zz?
why would you want to destroke the motor?? There is a balance you need to keep...Keep in mind you're moving a car...you need some torque, believe it or not
Keep in mind that this is theoretical, but the 2ZZ like pretty much every street motor is at most square to slightly undersquare, meaning that the bore is less than or equal to the stroke. All extremely high specific output motors, such as motorcycle engines and F1 engines, are massively oversquare. This has a dramatic effect on piston speed at various points in the rotation and basically makes the piston spend much more time at top and bottom dead center. This means essentially that you're keeping a smaller total volume for a greater period of time, which keeps your cylinder pressures up, which means that more of the energy from combustion gets transferred into making power. It also keeps the maximum piston speed down meaning that you can rev the engine higher safely.

The caveat here is that you would want to make the engine as oversquare as possible while keeping the same swept volume. By destroking an engine, you lose power by loss of displacement and any increase in efficiency from piston speed considerations and reduced frictional losses will not equal that displacement loss. The idea is then to rev the engine higher to more than make up power. Same concept as losing power with water injection but then making more than that power back by being able to run more boost. Unfortunately, to make power at higher revs, you now run into head, valve and cam design considerations. You may need to make significant changes there to realize any power gains at a higher rpm.
Entranced said:
and something to note... removing the A/C from the car just removes weight. It's not really a hp stealer unless your compressor is seized. the pully will freewheel as if it were a second idler pulley unless you have the A/C activated and the clutch engaged. Also, Even if it were activated with the A/C on max, It would deactivate on WOT.
Removing the AC dies add power - its been proven on a dyno. You still have to spend energy to spin the pulley on the AC unit even if the A/C is not running. Additionally removing the condenser slightly improves the cooling ability of the radiator
The point of clarification here is the A/C delete falls under the heading "entry level race spec". Removing the A/C pulley from the equation reduces parasitic losses from rotational inertia, the same way that underdrive pulleys do. The power gain from this isn't zero, but it minor. There are several mods in this category that will give very minor increases in power: the A/C delete, the coatings and the underdrive water pump. These are listed in this category because their power gains are minor enough that they're fairly pretty insignificant for a street car (as in your sound system has more of a negative benefit on the speed of your car), which is why you would only bother with them on a race motor. Also, the extra cooling efficiecy of the radiator will only come into play in a race situation where you're running the car at high rpms for extended periods of time.
danGTS said:
All that with the stock clutch!!?? lol! Not that it can't handle N/A power but it grabs so softly ..
I'm talking about power production ONLY - not drivetrain or suspension or anything. If you want to talk abotu putting it to the ground then yes, uprated clutch, LSD, light wheels, better tires, etc would all be good choices.
The stock clutch will technically fairly easily hold any power you're likely to make on an N/A 2ZZ. What matters much more is what you do with the car. Drag racing takes a very hard toll on drivetrain components. In fact, you may notice that far more transmissions have failed on drag raced N/A cars than have ever failed on F/I cars. For a drag racing application, the stock clutch is bound to fail. In a road racing application, the stock clutch very easily could hold up to the abuse. The engine makes little enough torque at low rpm that you're not likely to over-abuse the clutch unless you're subjecting it to drag launches.
AnthyGTS said:
So a lighter flywheel DOES add power then?

There was talk recently on a thread about flywheel being useless (in terms of power and speed)
Id doesn't ADD power - it takes less away. The flywheel is mass that the engine needs to use energy to accelerate. The more mass the engine needs to move the less power is ultimately available from any given power stroke. Lighter flywheels allow faster acceleration. Same holds true for underdriving or eliminating various accessories.
Think of it this way. An engine makes a certain amount of power. Power is lost in various ways before it reaches the ground, such as friction in drivetrain components. Another way power is lost is through rotational inertia. This is fairly easy to control by reducing the inertia of any rotating parts between the engine and the ground. You reduce inertia by reducing mass. The easiest parts to do this on are the accessory pullies on the front of the engine, the flywheel, the wheels and the tires. This makes the car faster. The engine actually isn't making more power, its just putting the power to the ground more efficiently. Dynos like a Dynojet are called "inertia" dynos because they measure horsepower by measuring acceleration. On a Dynojet, you will actually see an increase in reported power by doing these inertia mods. But that increase in reported power didn't come about the same way as say adding a free-flowing exhaust, which actually does increase the amount of power the engine is producing.
The BB mod sucks for making power, but the larger diameter custom or Injen CAI really require a tuneable ECU to avoid bogging.
Correct. The BB mod is actually a restriction in the intake. Its only purpose is to prevent check engine lights. For maximum power production, you want a large, free-flowing intake such as the Injen. In reality, the Injen would probably not produce CEL's if not for its marginal MAFS placement. It would be not hard at all to make a CEL-free Injen intake by using better MAFS placement and using some vanes in front of the sensor to keep turbulence down. All this would require is a non-crook to make them and you could pretty much blow away any intake on the market for the Celica, regardless of stock or aftermarket ECU.
also add a link if there is a before and after dyno available for it???
Probably beyond the scope of this thread. The real point here is that building an engine is not a mystery. There are a pretty small number of parts really available for the Celica and for the most part, there are pretty clear winners in every category. This thread pretty much says what those are. The one area where we could probably expand is on exhausts. Boosted has touched on it, but the real point is that every Celica exhaust follows the same routing and there are only a couple real variables.
Peak power and a wider power band at a higher rev range are what NA performance is all about. For drag or road race these are the things that win races. "Good mid range" is something for daily drivers or large displacement V8s, not 1.8L race engines.
You give alot of good info Boosted, don't get me wrong. It just amazes me how you and redliner both think that stroking the 2zz is basically thowing the 2zz in the trash.
All he's really said is that a stroker does not make a good racemotor. For 99% of the people on this board, who want better power in all situations and greater engine longevity by not revving as high, then by all means a stroker is the way to go. If you're after peak power numbers or a narrow powerband like you would use on a race motor, then the standard stroke is the way to go.
 

·
Ultraviolent
Joined
·
7,921 Posts
For maximum power production, you want a large, free-flowing intake such as the Injen. In reality, the Injen would probably not produce CEL's if not for its marginal MAFS placement. It would be not hard at all to make a CEL-free Injen intake by using better MAFS placement and using some vanes in front of the sensor to keep turbulence down. All this would require is a non-crook to make them and you could pretty much blow away any intake on the market for the Celica, regardless of stock or aftermarket ECU.
you know ive always thought the powerhouse intake looked best, the bends are smoother and the maf seems to be placed better, any thoughts?


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,200 Posts
Its true that the Powerhouse intake has smoother bends, but the Injen, were it properly designed, should yield better real world results. The main reason is that it has a very long section of straight pipe. The MAFS will read the best if it has a good section of straight pipe before and after it. Injen for some stupid reason placed the MAFS in the middle of a bend, which is what screws up everything so badly. The MAFS should be placed dead center in the straight section of the pipe, preceeded by vanes to eliminate turbulence. My upper intercooler pipe is for the most part designed this way (shop didn't completely follow where I told them to place the MAFS boss):





Notice the similarity to the Injen intake?

The other completely overlooked design benefit of the Injen intake is the fact that it bends up where the filter attaches. This does a few things:

1. Locates the filter up in a dead air space behind the bumper. It is better to draw air from a dead air space then it is to try and draw air from a turbulent air stream like the AEM.
2. The location of the filter also keeps it cleaner for a longer period of time than the AEM, which locates the filter right where it can get sprayed with road grime and such.
3. The Injen filter is located several inches higher than the AEM, making the intake much less prone to hydrolock.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
Gary @ MWR was meerly telling me that there are more N/A 2zz strokers out there than what meets the eye. They've had a couple on thier dyno's before. I'd tend trust the people that build these strokers on a semi normal basis for some 'basic' WHP estimations.

You give alot of good info Boosted, don't get me wrong. It just amazes me how you and redliner both think that stroking the 2zz is basically thowing the 2zz in the trash. Its only a 500-700 RPM lower limit, and I can't go stage 3's. I'm sure i'll live and I think the extra tourqe is worth it in my opinion.

I'm not going for crazy tourqe, but putting a little touqe into the motor, never hurt i'm sure. I'm not going for pure race. Just a powerfull daily.
Its not just about what you can make on a dyno today, but keeping the motor together in a race / high performance applications. I will break it down for you.

A stroker is called a stroker because it increases the stroke, or distance a piston travels in order to increase effective displacement. This is done by making the crank throw, or distance between the crank pin centerline and rod pin centerline longer which in turn causes the rod to move farther up and down... and also side to side.

If you start looking into high power to displacement ratio NA motors and you will find a few common things. Namely short stroke and high revs. There is a very good reason for this which Jesse touched on. It comes down to 2 factors - rod angle and pistons speeds. Forgive my MS paint wizardy - but here is a graphical example of the 2 concepts:



Looking at the top graphic you can see the difference in rod angles. The reason this happens is the longer crank throw I mentioned. The issue with this is side load on the rod and bearings. The more the rod moves side to side the more vibration you have, and also the more load on the bearings. the smaller the stroke is the smaller the range the bearings operate in gets, and the speed at which they move decreases.

Looking at the bottom graphic you see the the difference in distance travelled by the piston in a given revolution. Obviously the longer stroke means the piston has farther to travel. What you may not realize is how much of a difference this makes to how fast the piston has to move. The stock 2ZZ geometry is a 3.23" bore and a 3.35" stroke. The stroker kit increases that stroke to 3.6". Ok - now lets think about 8500 RPM. For each revolution the piston moves up and down its full stroke one time. So the stock 2ZZ moves 6.7" and the stroker moves 7.2". Now do that 8500 times in a minute. You are looking at piston speeds of 79 FPS normal versus 85 FPS stroker and total distance traveled of 53.9 miles in an hour stock and 57.9 miles in an hour stroker. You have to spin a non stroker to 9134 RPM to reach those pistons speeds and even so its way easier on the engine because the rod angle is so much lower. So no matter what speed you are running at the non stroked engine is not working nearly as hard as the stroker is at the same speed. The faster you move a piston the higher the inertial load and friction losses become. Also the higher the wear gets. This is why I don't reccomend a stroker for a NA race engine thats going to see abuse.

Another reason is useable power band. Cammed and built right an NA 2ZZ can make GOOD power from probably 5000 - 9500 RPM. When you are road racing or in autocross the ability to stretch a gear from time to time is huge due to the advantages of gear multiplication.
 

·
Bring on the 12's...
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Although the stroker in N/A has its pro's and con's. Some may say the con's outweight the pro's, unless some of the con's don't matter to you much. Like less peak HP, limited rev to a mere 8,300 - 8,500 or so. But I'd LOVE more tourqe, i'd LOVE to not have to wait for lift, or always want to race from a roll. I still get quiet decent max WHP, while i still earn a very nice bump in tourqe. MWR 'qouted' me rougly around 235WHP totally built with PFC and a tune they are willing to help me tweak and somewhere around 200WHP with just the emanage ultimate and stage 2 pipers. I get to keep all the stock fuel system aswell.
C'mon man, seriously, for the purpose of daily driving the 2zz isn't that bad anyway to begin with. It's far from great, but with stage3 pipes a ppe header, pfc tune and higher compression pistons, you're going to make ample torque to make the power on the low cam so much better and yet when you hit the high lift cam, you'll be flying nicely down the road. I'm so glad I didn't stroke mine, eventhough the e-cred would be high...I know jesse might not agree to this but each to their own and im sure the midrange given from those bolt ons would be more than enough 'torque' for my short daily journeys.

This is a nice thread that tlee05 hasn't discovered yet, yay!!!

Boosted, that was a great explanation to the stroker issue :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,169 Posts
Jesse, I have a quick question:

You mentioned that the BB mod is a restriction, and should be deleted, but also suggested that maintaining the turbulence-reducing vanes before the MAF sensor would be desirable (and indeed, it should be)... this advice is a little bit contradictory...

Do you mean that the stock plastic vanes (i.e., BB mod) are unnecessarily large and that much narrower vanes would work just as well to reduce turbulence, while minimizing airflow restriction?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
Yep - you should use thinner vanes and a larger diameter pipe than the stock one. That is of course presuming you have a non-stock ECU.

Remember- the BB mod is a bandage to make cars with aftermarket CAIs run right on the stock ECU, NOT a power increasing mod.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,169 Posts
Yep - you should use thinner vanes and a larger diameter pipe than the stock one. That is of course presuming you have a non-stock ECU.

Remember- the BB mod is a bandage to make cars with aftermarket CAIs run right on the stock ECU, NOT a power increasing mod.
Hmm. I hadn't messed with it as I didn't want to have to recalibrate my MAF at low load, but maybe I'll experiment with this.

Thanks, Boosted :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,620 Posts
8~10lb is comfortable IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,863 Posts
Ok now i have a question and i know those that have a turbo system can answer this for me. I dont know jack about turbo's or S/C's. My motor is bone stock and was going to do the DD set up maybe up to step 6 for the time being until i can afford another motor to fully mod. the question is can i do a turbo set up on stock internals? The engine has about 112k on it. what would i need to do to be able to run turbo on a stock motor safely without seriously damaging the motor? Also what brand of lightweight flywheel or does that mater and what stage clutch to go with the flywheel. Im about do for a new clutch so ill do both at the same time.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
Ok now i have a question and i know those that have a turbo system can answer this for me. I dont know jack about turbo's or S/C's. My motor is bone stock and was going to do the DD set up maybe up to step 6 for the time being until i can afford another motor to fully mod. the question is can i do a turbo set up on stock internals? The engine has about 112k on it. what would i need to do to be able to run turbo on a stock motor safely without seriously damaging the motor? Also what brand of lightweight flywheel or does that mater and what stage clutch to go with the flywheel. Im about do for a new clutch so ill do both at the same time.
read the turbo FAQ in the forced induction section.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,732 Posts
what intake work good in a celica gt ? Ingen or AEM
:eek:
If you have a GT, buy a GTS or swap in a 2ZZ. It will make more power stock than your GT will with $8K in mods
I don't think this is the right thread to post that question buddy .. Go post in the performance section. Better yet, do some search before, this kind of topic is beaten to death!!
 
21 - 40 of 243 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top