NewCelica.org Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I own a 2001 Toyota Celica GTS. My tachometer red line is at 7800 rpm. Today I read the following on Wikipedia:

On the 2001, 2003 and 2004 GT-S models, the rev limiter is set to 8400RPM while the 2002 and 2005 have it set to 7800 (The RHD Celicas did not incur the reduction in the redline RPM). This difference results in a big hit to performance as the 2ZZ is primarily a high-revving engine, and also making it much more difficult to land in the 'lift' (aggressive cam) rev range on an upshift.

On top of that, my friend who also owns a 2001 Toyota Celica GTS claims his redline is at 9k and last I checked he had a stock gauge.

I'm assuming rev limiter is not the same as the redline on the tachometer? I've never actually red lined the car so I've never tested how far it revs before the limiter kicks in, nor do I plan to since I have no desire to destroy my engine.

Second question, I heard of a group of people taking a Scion TC and rotating the engine so the power went to the back wheels instead of the front thus converting it to a RWD car. Any one have an idea if this is possible and roughly how much it would cost to do to a Celica. I love my car, I think it's the perfect car, but the only flaw I have with it is it's FWD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,863 Posts
1. No the rev limiter is not the same as the red line lol. Your friends does have a 9k red line but thats the highest it goes. His starts at 7k just like mine does and mines a 2000 GT-S. Lift in a GT-S is around 6200-6300 rpm's for the 2000-2002 models i think its the same for the 03+ but not positive since they did changes to the 03+. Boosted, Smaay, Lowerdcruzer will prolly chime in on this lol.

2. If you want the rear wheel conversion talk to Lowerdcruzer lol.
 

·
Daddy Daycare
Joined
·
20,305 Posts
Redline on the tach is the same for all the GT-S, the red zone starts at 7800 rpm. On 2002 and some 2005 models the fuel cut (rev limit) coincides with the red line of 7800 rpm. On the other years the fuel cut is at 8350 rpm and people rev that high with no problems.
The tach face shows to 9000 rpm, doesn't mean the car actually revs that high. If your friend says he revs to 9000 and he doesn't have a standalone engine management he's lying ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Second question, I heard of a group of people taking a Scion TC and rotating the engine so the power went to the back wheels instead of the front thus converting it to a RWD car. Any one have an idea if this is possible and roughly how much it would cost to do to a Celica. I love my car, I think it's the perfect car, but the only flaw I have with it is it's FWD.
I would think it would be a lot more stuff needing to be done than just rotating the engine (like I would think the big problem is getting hte power to go to the back wheels instead)?

2. If you want the rear wheel conversion talk to Lowerdcruzer lol.
So it is possible? Or was a joke that you'd have to know what happened to Lowerdcruzer?

Honestly, while I agree with above poster I wish the Celica was RWD (I'm more familiar for one with RWD handling), I don't think I'd do it cause it seems like such a major change it would probably make the car pretty unreliable to do something like that at the best (I would bet it would have to be some sort of hack job to do it).

On that note I read on some Celica site that Toyota was thinking of making the Celica RWD again in 1998 (probably for the 7th gen) but decided since their main buyers of the Celica were female and apparently according to their stats females were afraid of RWD, they kept it FWD (uh huh, blame it on us. I can tell you for sure there are plenty of male drivers who don't know and don't care much about driving as well. Shoot, when I went to college, I knew more females who knew how to drive gearshift than males).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Our car is great looking, and pretty mediocre performing. (02 gt-s auto, so i know slow) lets clear a couple things up. unless your rich as all hell and want to waste money:

1. making the celica into a convertible is not worth it
2. making the celica into rwd is not worth it
3. trying to make a 50 bazillion hp celica is not worth it.

BUT, that's just generalizing, if you have the money to do it, then its up to you whether its worth it or not but you might as well just buy a better (performing) car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Our car is great looking, and pretty mediocre performing. (02 gt-s auto, so i know slow) lets clear a couple things up. unless your rich as all hell and want to waste money:

1. making the celica into a convertible is not worth it
2. making the celica into rwd is not worth it
3. trying to make a 50 bazillion hp celica is not worth it.

BUT, that's just generalizing, if you have the money to do it, then its up to you whether its worth it or not but you might as well just buy a better (performing) car.
Heh, I agree it's not worht it and most likely you'll end up ruining the car to do such a major change (you will almost certainly introduce a lot of problems. Shoot, when my dad introduced a transmission to my 911 that was from a different car it didn't fit quite right so every 6 months the clutch cable broke cause it was rubbing up against something the way it fit).

But, these days it really is hard to find many nice sporty cars that aren't super expensive. Toyota has stopped making them entirely (sorry, the TC is more of a sporty sedan than even a sport compact). Even Acura stopped making theirs (and it was like the TC compromised a lot more by practicality, not all that light for one) and Honda's offering is a sporty version of hte Civic (which replaces the RSX. I don't blame them. From what I understand the Civic si has the same power but is lighter than the RSX which to me says a lot better performer all around but it doesn't look as snazzy/sporty. Oh, and you have to get it in a sedan now if you want a new one). And note, all three of those are FWD.

Mazda I suppose has the RX-8 which compromises body stiffness with the three door design and is more of a moderate priced car (I'm guessing htat is RWD. one reason my dad really wanted me to get the Mazda3 over the Celica is RWD).

Nissan has that ugly 300z (which are really popular here probably because there's not much else competing anymore. But they are butt ugly imho). Not sure if that is FWD or RWD.

IT seems more the performance hatchbacks have replaced sport compacts (Mazda Speed3, that Volvo C30). But no nice small light cars that are cheap and affordable (but maybe not so practical).

Even if you are looking used cars that aren't too old (like 10 years or less), the offerings are slim. I'm glad I more preferred a small and light car than one with a lot of power. I'm honestly happy with the GT's acceleration. I am pretty sure it is a better performer than my BMW 325 though I did have the "slow" version of the 325. I think it may even slightly accelerate better than my old 911 whose excuse is well, it is old, a 1973, and it was the cheapest version of the 911 at the time. I used to call it the poor man's 911.

It still was damned fun, that car told you everything that was going on on the road. If you were paying attention you could tell if the back wheels were about to lose grip and you could really feel the road. It was awesome. When you drove that car you became part of it rather than just driving a car. That's what I want in my car... a car that you really feel what is going on, handles well, and gives you lots of feedback. I like the stiff suspension of hte Celica for that reason. And I think the power steering gives more feedback than the one my BMW had though not having power steering is the ultimate being able to feel the road ;). And nothing beats my Porsche or the Alfa my dad let me drive for clutch and gearshift feel. That's something I do think the Celica lacks though I like the tight shifter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
And nothing beats my Porsche or the Alfa my dad let me drive for clutch and gearshift feel. That's something I do think the Celica lacks though I like the tight shifter.
Wow someone in the US actually had an Alfa Romeo. I thought the only people who liked those were the guys from top gear. I always thought everything but the old alfa spiders looked like crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Wow someone in the US actually had an Alfa Romeo. I thought the only people who liked those were the guys from top gear. I always thought everything but the old alfa spiders looked like crap.
Well my dad has an super guilio for now (he's going to sell it. He finds old cars for cheap and then fixes them up and sells them). I thought it looked like a boring sedan til I drove it (FUN. So fun I didn't care about looks after I drove it, I was in love. And I'm shallow about looks, usually the car has to look good to me for me to like it. Only reason I wouldn't seriously want that one is I need a reliable car ,and it being a 1966 and old in itself rules out reliability).

That car reminded me why I love driving. After the Porsche I had a Pathfinder for a year and then a BMW. The BMW was a nice compromise of cheap car that I could afford and decent to drive. Heh, until the Celica though it had been my 2nd favorite car I ever had. The Celica very very quickly made the BMW the 3rd favorite ;) (and it's actually a pretty close 2nd to the Porsche which says a lot. But more cause it is nicer than the Porsche. the Porsche had major water leaks, carpet had rotted away, leaked oil. But, it was a Porsche *grin*. Only car I'd deal with that much water leaking inside and still love it). But the BMW was too luxurious, smooth a ride, not so much feel in the steering. I pretty much have been bored of driving until recently (got into riding motorcycles though which aren't boring *grin*). I was originally going to just buy an Outback for practicality and let my motorcycles be my fun. That Alfa brought back the driving enthusiust in me. I really think modern cars are lacking a lot that old cars had for being actual driver's cars vs. practical transportation.

He also has a much neater looking one that he has as a race car (or shares with his friend anyways. He races for a hobby). I don't know what type alfa that is. He was working for a friend (who recently sold the shop) who pretty much had an alfa speciality repair shop.

He's also got another alfa he's working on right now to turn into another race car. When I was younger he briefly had a more modern one (I think 80's and very angular) that I hated at the time (I didn't have my license yet) cause the seats were so uncomfortable. I couldn't understand why he liked it so much (I didn't care for the looks either).

So yeah, they're out there (and it isn't just the spiders. I don't think any of those Alfas are spiders honestly).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks for the responses!

So I think need clarification on the redline line itself. My gauge starts at 7800 and goes to 9k, is the entire distance of the red zone considered the red line? Or is the 7800 mark where the red starts considered the red line?

And what happened to lowerdcruzer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Aren't alfa's supposed to be like bmw'esk. except much less reliable (till now)
That Alfa was nothing like my BMW. Partly cause of no power steering. But my BMW for one thing the power steering isn't that great for feel. I think it really doesn't give you much feel (ok, it probably is better than a lot of cars out there, but I'm pretty sure the Celica has a much better balance of helping you steer at stop to no speed while still giving you feel of the road).

It had a lot more power. I mean I got home and my BMW felt sluggish (and it doesn't even feel sluggish after riding my Ninja though I think part of that is that I'm not coming from one car to another). And stiffer suspension, you really could feel the road a lot better and it didn't lean as much.

The BMW was very humdrum compared to at least that Alfa. To be fair my BMW was very stock, didn't have the sport suspension option (though whoever bought it new got every other option which kinda ticked me off that the one they left out actually was the one that enhanced performance), and was the e version which is kinda like the GT vs. the GTS (it being hte GT) except that most mods you can put on the GTS you can put on the GT. There were a lot of mods though you couldn't put on the e that you could put on the i (though anything that related to handling and suspension you could put on either cars but there were a lot of engine performance mods for the i where as the e got practically nothing you could do to enhance the engine).

The clutch was nowhere near the same (ok, you get a little more feel in the BMW than you do in the Celica but the stickshift was not so tight and the guy I bought it from was an e30 enthusiust and thought some one had tightened my gearshift). Really, the Celica can't compete there either though at least the stick is real tight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,864 Posts
Thanks for the responses!

So I think need clarification on the redline line itself. My gauge starts at 7800 and goes to 9k, is the entire distance of the red zone considered the red line? Or is the 7800 mark where the red starts considered the red line?

And what happened to lowerdcruzer?
7800 would be the redline.

Lowredcruzer built a RWD celica.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
don't believe everything you reed on wickipedia use newcelica.org when it comes to celica info.

Red Line = where the red first stats on the tach
Rev Limiter= where the computer will allow the engine to rev to, this is ussually beyond where the red first occurs
It may have been answered, but i didn't read all the replies all the way through,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
and you can hit your rev limiter without destroying your engine.....i promise
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
and you can hit your rev limiter without destroying your engine.....i promise
It should be noted however that it does introduce more wear than normal especially if your going to redline a lot. Which simply means take good care of your engine. If you're like me and basically never take a car to a mechanic until it stops running, then you may want to ease off a bit.
 

·
Daddy Daycare
Joined
·
20,305 Posts
Now lets hold our horses for a few seconds. Rev limiters are in place to keep people from pushing their engines beyond what manufacturers consider a safe rev range.

That being said I'll go ahead and say this: Hitting the revlimiter is bad, you want to avoid doing that as much as possible cuz it's a safety feature with a catch.

Why is it bad? Couple of reasons:
On cars that limit rev by cutting ignition spark only you will be washing cylinders because of all the unburnt fuel dumped into them when there's no spark. On cars that limit rev by cutting fuel you will be running lean momentarily as the engine will still be drawing air in and the AFRs will be out of whack. Other than those two, hitting the rev limit will cause more heat to the bearings because of the vibrations induced.

If you hit fuel cut momentarily once in a while it won't be too bad, but hitting it constantly either with or without load will eventually take its toll on the engine and cut into engine life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Now lets hold our horses for a few seconds. Rev limiters are in place to keep people from pushing their engines beyond what manufacturers consider a safe rev range.

That being said I'll go ahead and say this: Hitting the revlimiter is bad, you want to avoid doing that as much as possible cuz it's a safety feature with a catch.

Why is it bad? Couple of reasons:
On cars that limit rev by cutting ignition spark only you will be washing cylinders because of all the unburnt fuel dumped into them when there's no spark. On cars that limit rev by cutting fuel you will be running lean momentarily as the engine will still be drawing air in and the AFRs will be out of whack. Other than those two, hitting the rev limit will cause more heat to the bearings because of the vibrations induced.

If you hit fuel cut momentarily once in a while it won't be too bad, but hitting it constantly either with or without load will eventually take its toll on the engine and cut into engine life.
I agree 100%. Even if you don't hit the rev limiter, proper engine maintenance shouldn't be ignored.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,355 Posts
Why is it bad? Couple of reasons:
On cars that limit rev by cutting ignition spark only you will be washing cylinders because of all the unburnt fuel dumped into them when there's no spark. On cars that limit rev by cutting fuel you will be running lean momentarily as the engine will still be drawing air in and the AFRs will be out of whack. Other than those two, hitting the rev limit will cause more heat to the bearings because of the vibrations induced.
eh I don't agree with this...how do you think 2 steps work??? They cut ignition at your set RPM, most they do is foul plugs, they do not destroy the engines and cylinder washout takes A LOT more than just sitting on a rev limiter or a two step. Hell even Mistubishi put FACTORY 2 steps in their Evo's. I've ran two steps on BOTH my cars for MANY years with plenty of uses both on and off the street, and still today am said to have had one of the strongest running boosted B's down south
 

·
Daddy Daycare
Joined
·
20,305 Posts
eh I don't agree with this...how do you think 2 steps work??? They cut ignition at your set RPM, most they do is foul plugs, they do not destroy the engines and cylinder washout takes A LOT more than just sitting on a rev limiter or a two step. Hell even Mistubishi put FACTORY 2 steps in their Evo's. I've ran two steps on BOTH my cars for MANY years with plenty of uses both on and off the street, and still today am said to have had one of the strongest running boosted B's down south
Come one man, I don't remember saying anything about destroying engines. All I said was that hitting the rev limiter is cutting into the life of an engine, cutting into the life of an engine is bad. That is to clear the misconception that no harm is done when hitting rev limiters.
Now hitting the limiter occasionally in between shifts is no biggy, but keep at it day in day out or for prolonged periods and you are in fact harming the engine little by little, I don't think that needs contesting.

Factory 2 steps do a great job, but that doesn't change the fact that an engine will still be running lean banging against fuel cut unless you can magically limit it's pumping action and air intake at high rpm. I could see this happening with DBW by dialing back throttle opening, but not on a cable TB. As far as the washing of cylinders I think I made my point clear that it counts for setups that limit spark only. Keep at it for a couple of seconds and you will be washing cylinders.

The additional vibrations induced by the rev limiter will also always be present on bearing surfaces. Most 4-banger ECUs cut out 2 cylinders, the differential tension because of that will affect temperatures on bearings. Again, momentarily it's no biggy and granted the engine will still be fine for miles to come, but it could be the difference between seeing 200K before a rebuild or having to rebuild 20K miles earlier.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top