Positive Comments About The Cts

[Blacksheep]

Well I've just given my new T Sport its first thrashing and i'm super stoked I haven't taken it into the "Lift" other than 3rd and 4th gears and I'm pretty impressed it actually pulls longer than I expected and seems pretty quick to me, by the time i came out of 4th I was over a ton, making it perfect for most of the roads around here, and my initial moans about the tyres we perhaps a little premature they seem a lot better now, perhaps I've just got used to them, one super impressed T Sport owner.

The only problem I have is I can see frequent visits to the "Lift" becoming an everyday occurance as its sounds so nice, I took a look under the bonnet tonight just out of curiousity and its a work of art under there, the T Sport Badge on the strut is super cool...

[The Gooner]

When i roadtest the CTS the powerband is so small that even when you hit the limiter in 1st and change in2 2nd you drop below the powerband, and have to wait for it to kick in again! Thus slowing you down

I can rev through to limit and change into second and stay in band. so there is no wait for power to come back in

[PaulT]

When i roadtest the CTS the powerband is so small that even when you hit the limiter in 1st and change in2 2nd you drop below the powerband, and have to wait for it to kick in again! Thus slowing you down

I can rev through to limit and change into second and stay in band. so there is no wait for power to come back in

I agree with the Gooner. You might think it's not possible at first, but you'll get there with practice. Those crafty Toyota engineers have just done enough! :D

Cheers

Paul.

[Treuno]

Ok im not going to argue, but answer me this, why does a Civic Type R have a 0-60 time of 6.8 and the corolla 8.4, but both have the same power output and the civic has a disadvantage of 17" rims where as the corolla has 16"!

I have raced my AE86 against my salesman's T Sport and i stuck on his tail and i wasnt even reving mine above 6000rpm at the time!

And b4 you say it was probably the salesman's driving style, i might add he has competed in the RAC Rally 3 times in an ex works Imprezza!

[thecanadian]

Treuno - I don't work for Toyota. It's just that simple mechanical engineering and the laws of physics apply here.

Without increasing the surface area (cylinder bore size) or pressure, all the extra air and fuel in the world wouldn't make a difference at the low revs. Well OK, it would make one difference - you'd be visiting the petrol station more often. You need to increase the force of the explosion and the only way of doing this is by increasing the pressure, speed and surface area. 6250 RPM is the optimal speed and pressure range in the 1.8 to realise the benefits of the extra fuel and air mixture.

Just to repeat myself. If you want low end torque you either need more pistons - 6, 8, 10 or 12 - , larger displacement - ie. 2.0 litre or more pressure - ie. diesel

CTR and CTS have different power outputs.

CTR - 2.0L and 200bhp - Combined mpg 31.7

CTS - 1.8L and 192bhp - Combined mpg 34

Let me know if you want me to go into more detail.

[SKG]

Without increasing the surface area (cylinder bore size) or pressure, all the extra air and fuel in the world wouldn't make a difference at the low revs.

Adding more oxygen and fuel would increase peak pressure and hence would increase mid-range torque. This is the turbo principle.

[thecanadian]

Yes. but you're forcing the air in. We're talking about NA not forced induction or exhaust. ie. turbo/supercharger.

Without either of those adding more fuel and air by moving the lift in earlier would have little benefit.

[SKG]

thecanadian, unless I understand something totally wrong, the addition of of more air and fuel in the cylinder is the principle to obtain more torque. When you throttle the intake you add little oxygen so you deliver little torque and vice versa. So torque and fuel/oxygen are directly proprtional even for an atmospheric engine.

[thecanadian]

SKG - I think we're talking at cross purposes here. And slightly off topic...

You are sort of correct. There is a maximum amount of fuel and air you can add for a given displacement size....see below

Displacement is more-or-less equal to the volume of combustible air/fuel mixture ingested during one cycle of all the cylinders.

It can be easily seen that engine power is thus dependent on the quantity of air/fuel mixture ingested and the efficiency of its combustion and conversion into power. To increase the quantity of mixture combusted, the engine displacement can be increased, the speed of operation of the engine can be increased, or the mixture can be delivered at a higher pressure, which is the function of such devices as turbochargers

A turbocharger is a device used in internal-combustion engines to increase the power output of the engine by increasing the mass of oxygen and fuel entering the engine. A key advantage of turbochargers is that they offer a considerable increase in engine power with only a slight increase in weight. A key disadvantage in gasoline engines is that the compression ratio must be lowered (so as not to exceed maximum compression pressure) which lowers engine efficiency when operating at low power. This disadvantage does not apply to specifically designed turbocharged diesel engines.

A supercharger (sometimes called a blower) is a gas compressor used to pump a fuel/air mixture, the charge, into the cylinders of an internal combustion engine. This increases the mass of oxygen and fuel in the charge making the engine more powerful. It is similar in purpose to the closely related turbocharger, but differs in that the supercharger is powered by gearing (or belts) off the engine's crankshaft, while the turbocharger is powered by the pressure of exhaust gases driving a turbine.

All other factors being equal, a larger displacement engine is therefore more powerful than a smaller one. It is the easiest method of adding power/torque, since it neither requires higher rotational speeds nor complicated auxiliaries; however, engine weight and bulk increase proportionally. The ease of adding power this way led to the sayings There's no substitute for cubic inches, or alternatively, There's no replacement for displacement, commonly quoted by devotees of large-engined cars.

[Blacksheep]

Canadian you sound like you know what your talking about to me, and Treuno i believe the toyota claimed 0-62 of 8.4sec is quite conservative, from what I've read previously on this forum its more like 7.2 - 7.4 which i also believe is not that far behind the Type R, of course the other consideration is the T Sport is probably 25% heavier and the Type R is slightly more powerfull...

[bzn]

SKG - I think we're talking at cross purposes here. And slightly off topic...

You are sort of correct. There is a maximum amount of fuel and air you can add for a given displacement size....see below

Displacement is more-or-less equal to the volume of combustible air/fuel mixture ingested during one cycle of all the cylinders.

It can be easily seen that engine power is thus dependent on the quantity of air/fuel mixture ingested and the efficiency of its combustion and conversion into power. To increase the quantity of mixture combusted, the engine displacement can be increased, the speed of operation of the engine can be increased, or the mixture can be delivered at a higher pressure, which is the function of such devices as turbochargers

A turbocharger is a device used in internal-combustion engines to increase the power output of the engine by increasing the mass of oxygen and fuel entering the engine. A key advantage of turbochargers is that they offer a considerable increase in engine power with only a slight increase in weight. A key disadvantage in gasoline engines is that the compression ratio must be lowered (so as not to exceed maximum compression pressure) which lowers engine efficiency when operating at low power. This disadvantage does not apply to specifically designed turbocharged diesel engines.

A supercharger (sometimes called a blower) is a gas compressor used to pump a fuel/air mixture, the charge, into the cylinders of an internal combustion engine. This increases the mass of oxygen and fuel in the charge making the engine more powerful. It is similar in purpose to the closely related turbocharger, but differs in that the supercharger is powered by gearing (or belts) off the engine's crankshaft, while the turbocharger is powered by the pressure of exhaust gases driving a turbine.

All other factors being equal, a larger displacement engine is therefore more powerful than a smaller one. It is the easiest method of adding power/torque, since it neither requires higher rotational speeds nor complicated auxiliaries; however, engine weight and bulk increase proportionally. The ease of adding power this way led to the sayings There's no substitute for cubic inches, or alternatively, There's no replacement for displacement, commonly quoted by devotees of large-engined cars.

Great summary.

Tho only thing i would add is that the more oxygen in the air, the better (hence more) the fuel burns out. The only system i know of that uses this isea is the nitros.

[The Gooner]

Ok im not going to argue, but answer me this, why does a Civic Type R have a 0-60 time of 6.8 and the corolla 8.4

I can asure you it aint 8.4 secs, its alot closer to the CTR than that

[SKG]

thecanadian,

Thanks for the summary. However, in an NA engine, the in-cylinder mixture pressure at BDC is not at ambient pressure due to choking of the intake. If you can move that closer to ambient by lifting the choking (i.e. increase the valve clearance) then you may also add more fuel and hence have a more powerful combustion.

There is where I disagree with you: there is always a large benefit even in a NA engines by adding more oxygen and fuel in the cylinder. Do you remember of the ACIS (Acoustic Induction) of the older Supra? They were trying to take use of pressure waves to force more air in the cylinder before the exhaust valve closed. This increased power output.

Not trying to play it clever here, it is just for the sake of the argument, if you don't mind! :) :) :)

[exon16m]

thecanadian,

Thanks for the summary. However, in an NA engine, the in-cylinder mixture pressure at BDC is not at ambient pressure due to choking of the intake. If you can move that closer to ambient by lifting the choking (i.e. increase the valve clearance) then you may also add more fuel and hence have a more powerful combustion.

There is where I disagree with you: there is always a large benefit even in a NA engines by adding more oxygen and fuel in the cylinder. Do you remember of the ACIS (Acoustic Induction) of the older Supra? They were trying to take use of pressure waves to force more air in the cylinder before the exhaust valve closed. This increased power output.

Not trying to play it clever here, it is just for the sake of the argument, if you don't mind! :) :) :)

sound intresting ... can you explain more

[thecanadian]

BZN - yup, that's correct. the CTS at sea level will perform better than a CTS @ 1000m above sea level.

SKG - yes there is a benefit as seen by the lift at 6250 rpm in our CTS. The problem with moving the lift in earlier is that the engine is not spinning fast enough for the extra fuel and oxygen to make as big an impact as at 6250 RPM.

However, even if you start forcing more fuel and oxygen into the cylinder at BDC the pressure will build up too soon...piston cannot make tdc...loosing any gains from the extra fuel and oxygen. You can use fancy techniques like acoustic induction...however, there's still a saturation point for any given volumetric area. Once you reach that saturation point you then get a plateau in the power curve and in extreme cases you don't even get ignition. Without going into the maths, I think we need to agree to disagree.

So, In short yes you could bring the lift in earlier...but, the benefit would hardly be noticeable when compared to the current lift entry point. And, as I stated earlier the fuel economy and emissions would suffer. The best way forward, without turbo, supercharging or other fancy techniques (Acoustic Induction), is to increase the displacement from 1.8 to 2.0.

[thecanadian]

*ACIS Acoustic Control Induction System

This is the variable induction system used on the 7M-GE engine. The pumping movement of the pistons, together with the opening and closing of the intake valves, causes the air flow within the intake manifold to pulsate. If the high pressure wave of the pulse can be generated in the area just above the intake valve as its about to close, it will cause a kind of supercharging effect. To accomplish this, the intake passage needs to be long at low revs, and short at high revs. ACIS accomplishes what amounts to a change of intake passage length according to engine revolutions by opening and closing a strategically placed valve, causing the above mentioned charging effect to take place.

However, this has a detrimental effect on fuel economy!

[Blacksheep]

My Head hurts...

[exon16m]

the 1.8 vvtli engine does not have ACIS Acoustic Control Induction System does it. is this something that needs to be engineered when the engine is produced or can it be added on ?

Also how much gain does it make on the 7M-GE engine over not having it ?

[thecanadian]

Correct. ACIS is not incorporated in the 1.8. It has not been used since the 80's - I think? (someone correct me if I'm wrong) I'm not sure of the exact gains but, they would only be a couple of percentage points across the rev range. At a high level, all ACIS is achieving is compression of the molecules so that there a more of them in the same space. The main problem with this approach is that the benefit is too small when compared to the negative. It wastes more fuel than its worth. Thats why toyota used ACIS in conjunction with a turbo or supercharge - to achieve maximum power.

You are better off increasing displacement...therefore creating more volume in the cylinder, therfore, holding more fuel...and increasing power proportionately.

Forgot to add - ACIS cannot be added after. It is mechanically a fundamental part of that specific engine design. (The pressure within the intake and exhaust chamber is changed (using a strategically placed 'third' valve) - thus changing the pitch of the sound waves accordingly) ((Think of a trombone - you use the slide length to change air pressure, changing the wavelength and in turn, changing sound/pitch)) Some techies have started playing around with sonic resonance to compress the molecules using a device similar to the ultrasound equipment found in hospitals...this could be an add on...not sure how feasable this technique is though.

[Soderdna]

sure the XRS was down tuned for NA....but thats just because of our roads....makes a good winter drifter......i would never..if i had an XRS it would be my child. Maybe after a month id go drifting

[bzn]

Oh, I forgot. There are people here who are using their CTS's in sub-zero winter conditions, like it is here!

Guys, please tell me how the car behaves in the winter!!!

[SKG]

canadian,

I never said that you will have tremendous benefits bringing the lift earlier. All I disagreed with you is whether it makes sense to add more oxygen and fuel into a NA engine. And my point is that yes it does. But there is no meaning to continue this anymore, think the discussion moved on as it should.

But I also need to disagree on the ACIS. In fact, ALL engines today use some kind of acoustic induction to force more air into the cylinder. The point is that without changing the effective length of the intake then you cannot change the flowrate when this will happen. So, manufacturers really try to optimize it, preferably for the max torque RPM. This is a key element in induction.

[thecanadian]

SKG,

Re: ACIS - yes of course all engines use acoustic tuning to some degree. However, you specifically stated 'the older supra'. The older supra used an extra valve to manipulate the pressure waves accordingly. This technique has not been used since - as far as i'm aware.

Besides, there are a million and one ways that you can change the frequencies of an engine to achieve similar outcomes of ACIS - including: polishing the ports, honing the piston chamber, polishing the cams, polishing the load bearings...etc.

Additionaly, acoustic tuning plays a fundemental part in the NVH levels for any engine.

[jjen]

sore head after reading all that!! :D

Just wanted to say getting back to the positives that I love my Tsport not just because it looks good. (inside and out) its comfortable on long journeys, the lift etc but mainly because there arent many of them on the road and people do wonder what they are, you can surprise people and that to me is super cool. :P :P

Its maybe not the quickest car on the road, but then again its certainly not the slowest by any means and as an all round package there arent many cars that come close in my estimation!

Its all down to personal taste and we all have different needs.

I did swither on an evo 6 but when i it came down to it, the reasonably sensible side of me swung into action and there was no better choice than the Tsport.

Yeeha to the T Sport.

[samppa]

Oh, I forgot. There are people here who are using their CTS's in sub-zero winter conditions, like it is here!

Guys, please tell me how the car behaves in the winter!!!

No problems in winter,coldest i´ve driven my cts is -32 celsius and everything works fine.