^ Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call BS on that 4th gear 1,000 RPM tire smoke claim. I've driven shitloads of muscle cars (and many far from stock) and that is a ridiculous claim.

You think 1,500 isn't low RPM? Why not look at some Ford and Chevy trucks with V8's and then see what RPM's they develop their maximum torque at. You might be surprised. In the automotive industry, 1,500 RPM is considered very low to get maximum torque at (for a gas engine).


Rich: C'mon, you're smarter than the last couple comments you've made. Did you drink some of what Timpo usually has?

The reason why trucks use a larger displacement engine (like a V8) is because they need to develop torque continuously, like when towing a trailer. The Audi 2.0T may develop 258 lb/ft at 1,500 RPM, but there's no circumstance where this engine would ever be required to develop that much torque for an extended period of time. If it did, then reliability would suffer greatly.

You drive a truck and tow your car, right? So your comment seems a little out of place.

Let me give you some history behind my comments:

I learned to drive in a 600cc Trabant. My first car was a 2.2L Cavalier. My next was a 2.5L 944 turbo. Next is a 3.0L porsche 968. At work, I get to drive everything from a 2L focus, 4.6L mustang, to 6.4L turbo diesel truck. I have autocrossed everything from cavaliers to corvettes, bmws, mustangs, and almost every street porsche under the sun, and even some dedicated race porsches.

Once you have autocrossed a new 6.2L Corvette, you will believe me when I say: displacement is king.

My race car has currently a 2.5L 944 turbo motor, stock 220hp/200trq currently boosted to 15psi making a measly 280hp/270trq. Below 3000rpm is it a gutless pig. Once it spools up, I can pull a stock Viper on the highway easily. (but that is because of gearing, more than Horsepower) My street car (the 3.0L 968) that gobs of low end torque - almost as much as a 4.6L mustang, but it dies off until the varicam kicks in, wheras the mustangs/corvettes keep developing more power as the revs rise.

So back to my race car: The most common mod, beyond upgrading the turbo, is to use a 3L crank and 2.7L head to increase the displacement to 2.8L - because no matter what kind of turbos you put on it, it's still going to be weak coming out of the corners. I can get 360+hp by boosting the shit out of my stock 2.5L and stock turbo, but it's still not going to be as good as if I had another 0.5L displacement + stock boost on the stock turbo.

Now, I will fully concede that there are some BIG motors out there (mostly the older 4.6 and 5.0L ford motors) that are pretty bland in their stock forms.

I'll also admit that some of the new 2.0L turbo audi and scooby engines are totally astonishing. As far as this thread is concerned, these are probably the best ever 2000cc turbos motors.

But I'd still prefer more displacement for motoring pleasure.

^ yes. I would like a 8.4L V10 on the track, but I want a sedate 2.0L turbo for daily drive.


WHY DO YOU NEED MORE TORQUE WHILE IDLING....?

let me show you a DYNO result for example.

A quite new 4-cylinder turbo charged Car:

http://www.sponaugle.com/nasioc/08WRXHPSTock.gif

Look at the WHEEL TORQUE OUTPUT at 2000rpm. It's already 170lb-ft.. I do not think your 2.2L MR2 could get this much torque at any rev range.. [ OF COZ it also depends on the gear ratios..]

How Easy to get it from 800rpm - 2000rpm? Within ONE SECOND or so?

P.S. That car doesn't have like a SUDDEN KICKBACK feeling at certain RPM, it's smooth and felt more like a normal N/A 3.2L V6

I'm calling bs on the 4th gear/1000 RPM smokeout. Unless you happen to be driving a Hennessey Viper, or a Callaway C6. And I'm going to ask what you consider to be idle speed, because 1500RPM is barely a nudge with my pinky toe in most cars. And I don't think that you can keep going up a hill in any car without adding throttle or downshifting - I'd certainly like to see a video of that. Driving in city traffic in 4th gear is certainly possible on many cars, but you're going to make the engine lug pretty badly.

The MR2 is an old car. Very old. Of course the turbo's going to lag and be peaky. It's not meant for around town driving, it's meant for touging/tracking. Drive a modern variable-vane or twin-turbo engined car and then come back and talk, please.

And the Japanese sedans have switched to using bigger engines because they have bigger and heavier models now and need the extra displacement in order to avoid using a turbo or putting the S2k engine into an Accord/Camry/whathaveyou. Sure, they can wring out the power from a smaller engine, but why would you want to do that when it's going to be expensive to make and expensive to maintain? Also, I don't think Mom n Pop C-Lai want to scream to 9000RPM on their way to mahjong night at the Community center, do you?

^
roastpuff, all this time, !LittleDragon was talking about the NA MR2 which uses the 5S-FE motor also found in the Camry amongst other cars, not the 3S-GTE. The 5S-FE has a gob of torque down low readily available and harnesses rather a sufficient amount of torque for a Japanese motor on the bottom end.

As for tire slippage in 4th gear - he's on his own. :D

And what happened to the OP? This thread fucking sucks donkey balls a bunch.

He was referring to the 3S-GTE MR2 as being less driveable around town than his 5S-FE NA MR2, which I will readily admit as being true. However, he was also bashing the modern 2L turbo motors as not having "torque down low" (I'd love to see his definition of down low) and several of us are trying to explain to him that that's just not true.

I'd like for him to give me an example of any N/A engine in a production car that's not a truck diesel (aren't they mostly turbo-diesels now?) produce more torque than the Audi EA888 2.0T at 1500RPM in order to prove his point that displacement is king.

Also, the point about the sedans having bigger engines nowadays is because they'd otherwise have to resort to either the Honda technique of basically wringing out the engine at very high RPM's or adding turbo(s) to the engine, both of which increase manufacturing and maintenance costs and probably doesn't suit the character of the car as it's meant to be driven.

LOL :haha:

It's called reliability. Is someone else logged into your account?

I'm starting to think you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to engines...

Even more when I see you reply with these grandiose comments about how many cars you've driven, on this or that track, name dropping, and telling us how your '220hp car can pull on a viper on the highway due to gearing' all of which has nothing to do with the discussion.... lol End of Story? hahaha




AND who's claiming rolling burnouts in 4th at 1000rpm??? and arguing that 1500rpm isn't considered low end. my clutch isn't even fully engaged at 1500rpm...what the hell are you using as a benchmark, cruise ship engines?? :rofl: LOL

^
This thread is full of gay. It would've been a pretty healthy discussion if people didn't start throwing in all this new technology motor bullshit low-end torque this and that burnout mumbo jumbo.

/fail

4th gear slippage was with an aluminum and fiberglass AC Cobra kit car with a 427 :D Threw it into 4th on Lougheed and the rear tires broke loose. Driving a car with a big motor like that, I would've already shifted by 1500rpm in traffic. You can show me all the numbers and pictures you want but from actual driving experience, I prefer the bigger motor. I can shift lower, don't have to shift as often, no need to downshift a gear unless you're slowing down to a stop...

Also pretty much all the numbers and dyno's out there are most likely based on a WOT run. Most people don't drive at WOT. Show me something at like 1/4 throttle or something. How much torque does it actually make driving around town?

You didn't look into the cars I gave you? The base Corvette LS2 is already at 300ft-lbs by 1500rpm, the current C6 makes more and the Z06 LS7 a lot more. But again, that's at WOT... how much is available at 1/4 throttle? A lot more than any 2.0L Turbo at the same throttle levels no matter how you boost it.

So then what you're saying is that a big engine is more reliable than a smaller boosted engine making the same power? So basically you are agreeing that bigger = better? So WTF are we argueing about?

We are not arguing about me being an arrogant prick, because I already know that.

Nissan is the King of 2L Turbo engines.


The older "holy grail" engine was the FJ20ET in the 1983-1985 DR30 Skyline Coupe. The more "modern" engine would defiantly be the RB20DET over the SR. The RB has more torque and is a 6cyl. It has a lot more potential over the SR, even though the SR has more aftermarket support in North America (in Japan it's different).

And a 20b would be comparable to a 4L engine. The 1.3L 13B-REW is the equivilant to 2.6L engine. *basically double the displacement of a rotary*

Please explain. :)

:confused:

So we're supposed to talk about old crappy motors and all the problems they have (turbo lag, poor power delivery, no power down low)?

SR20DET comes with paper headgasket @_@

The problem with the latest DI turbo motors is for end users who want to use them as crate motors.. making it integrated with other systems are near impossible...aftermarkets like Megasquirt etc don't have enough precision for the job. That's also one of the reasons why Lotus went with Toyota (non DI) instead of the LNF... (even Lotus helped out with the design of the LNF).

With the latest Inconel turbos, there will be virtually no turbo lag, if you are paired with a properly sized motor.

As for EA888, it is mainly due to economy of scale... it is always a good thing for a large company's bottom line like VAG to maximize on parts compatibility rather than clean sheet design on every motor.

Picking a motor especially for a manufacturer is a multivariate optimization.. performance is probably one of the least looked at variable.

^ So you're saying a motor that's advanced and integrated tightly with the vehicle systems (ABS, transmission) through CAN is a bad thing because it makes them a poor choice as a crate motor?

Since you are talking as if you are well-informed as to the inner workings of the automotive industry and what "variables" they use when designing engines, I find this comment ridiculous.

Why should a manufacturer who spends millions on a new engine be concerned with the aftermarket crate engine business?


But maybe they do....

Lotus may use Toyota, but there are a lot of companies (like the KTM X-Bow or Spyker) that rely on VAG sourced engines for their cars. They don't seem to have problems with "integration".

Err no, what I am saying is if you want to use NFR engine as a crate engine, you also have to invest in the knowledge and most importantly the license to understand GM's modelling and ECU code (which I don't think they have even licensed that publicly yet). You can't just buy a NFR crate from KMSTools and expect your hotrod to run.

If you look from the standpoint from ECU people, especially generics (ECU that works on various makes) eg like Megasquirt, Motec etc.. they already have problems integrating electronic throttles (standard on most cars since 2001) etc. DI is just another nail on their coffins.

At this stage, there is no standalone aftermarket ECU that can drive a DI engine (later in 2009 but not today).. let alone the rest of the systems, eg traction which needs throttle control, speedo etc etc.

DI is one of the technologies which make life a lot harder for hot rodders. Basically to understand / code for DI, you need at least need a EE, a Mech degree and have good grasp of Matlab modelling, since the code is model based. eg base on the atmospheric conditions, you might spray fuel (variable) up to 5 times per combustion cycle , that's a lot more feedback cycles than conventional (1 squirt) injection systems.

The only company that manages to use NFR in a car so far is Fisker for the Karma.. because GM is an investor. KTM with VAG (you know they have a long collaborating / ownership relationship right?). Artega does not, so no DI.

Basically besides forking up the $$ to buy an engine, you now also have model your own engine application and compile that into the ECU.. I just can't see that many small volume manufacturers (eg the likes of Boyd Coddington etc) or Tier 2 /3 aftermarket manufacturers going to do that. I would say for companies that have the resource to use / license DI from the big names, you have to generate income comparable to the likes of Hartge etc. or at least you have 1 or 2 EE PhDs on staff.

With DI and Dual clutch gearboxes, the days of "I just weld parts together to build a hotrod" is over.

2 litre engines make no torque?!

Are we talking stock... because I know what can be cranked our of a two liter engine if upgraded properly. And if you really want to get into on demand torque power lets take a look at a 2 litre diesel engine... max power at 1500rpm...

I know I am biased but the 2.0L TFSI and current TSI engines produced by vw can hold their own against any other 2 litre engine especially the engines factory equipped with a BW K04 (TT-S, S3, GTI ED30 etc)...

out of the list that Eastwood provided, I would pick 4G63 as best 2.0L motor due to its potential to push out big hp numbers w/o much modification.

as for new technology stuff, why dun we make a new thread about them?

haha nice to know

+1 4g63 - smooth as woman's underwear (^__^) b

...Chopstick misses 4g63 :crybaby:

godwin

You spent a lot of time talking about how difficult it is to use an advanced DI motor in a hot-rod or custom project.

It doesn't change the fact that the GM and VW 2.0L engines are the best out there right now. That's what this thread is about - the best 2.0L engine, not the engine that's easiest for some backyard tuner with limited skills to integrate into his custom vehicle.

I find it funny that you're criticizing a modern engine because it's "too advanced to be used in a hot rod".

6A12....coz I have one.

no I'm joking V6 is hard to maintain and twice as expensive to make extra power. You need to upgrade 1.5 times the con rods 2 times the turbo 2 times the headgasket to get the same effect as ,,,,

4G63. Mitsu ftw.

Actually if you read my posts in this thread. I have said GM's LNF is actually ahead of EA888 because a few design decisions.. mainly aluminum block and variable valve timing on the exhaust side, not to mention a more square design. While the EA888 is tailored more to the economy of scale of the existing VW manufacturing line.

Yes the LNF's advantages are probably not hugely significant without a Horiba testing suite. However, advantages are cumulative especially when you look into engine design, so they are still a step ahead.

Whether the engine can be dropped into kit cars comes into consideration when other posters bring in things like AC Cobra kits.. and I am pointing out that unless someone really bring out 3rd party DI ECUs there is no way the technologically superior engines can go into kit cars and function at this moment.

Correct. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either inexperienced or handicapped, or both. :haha: