Discovered!

[gump2000]

Today with my good friend Rob (jaxx) went to THOR racing so he could get his ecu re-mapped.

And low and behold....... a standard looking mk4 supra with a funny engine note sat there ticking over.

After much descusion between rob and myself about this odd noise we came to the conclusion it must be some fancy exhaust stuck on a none turbo'd car.

Anyway as we were about to leave the geezer walked in and announced ''you've just witnessed the first mk4 supra with a 4 ltr v8 (out of the soarer) twin turbo'd'' then told us that there is another 2 being built. be interesting to see what comes of these.

Thought i'd let you guys know if it gives a good point for descusion.

[Karma Supra]

Yup, Thor have been working on this for a while now... I was going to build one for PK on this forum, but the engine never came through :(

However you did not whitness the first mkiv supra TT V8... HKS built one years ago

Nod from THor is also building a monster mkiii supra... for TOTB ;)

[Leeky]

Yep, HKS have already been there and done that. Also i know of at least 3 turbo'd ls400'd in the US.

But why oh why did they bother? the money it costs to make a twin turbo'd UZ would pay for a stupid power 2jz

[Flat Pack]

But why oh why did they bother? the money it costs to make a twin turbo'd UZ would pay for a stupid power 2jz

I was thinking that... its not like the 2JZ is short of tuning potential. I guess the answer must be to see if they can :)

[Karma Supra]

Because the 3uz is lighter and stronger :D It is also shorter, improving the front/rear weight distribution.

Like I say I was going to builda V8 TT but the engine deal fell through... The owner has decided that a 2jz is the route he wants to take as its easier and cheaper!!!

I am still looking forward to seeing their big power 7M supra

[tbourner]

http://www.thor-racing.co.uk/THORThunder-191.asp

[Leeky]

Thor got their engines from Fenland Breakers - place i got my steering column from.

I really dont see the point in this conversion....i agree the alloy v8 will be lighter but the 2uz isnt alloy - its cast.

Which means it isnt going to be lighter - only the 1uz and 3uz were alloy.

Also im not so sure about the strength of the engines......the 2jz is a very very strong engine....i very much doubt one of the uz series can take the abuse a 2jz can.

The 2uz will give lots of low down torque but i cant see it being much (if any) better than a stroked and tuned 2jz.

[jaxx]

Nod from THor is also building a monster mkiii supra... for TOTB ;)

saw that aswell, he was the chap who mapped my ECU, it looks insane and has two massive R1 cans stuck out the back :D

running the 7M aswell charlie

[Ahhhh__Aristo]

I really dont see the point in this conversion....i agree the alloy v8 will be lighter but the 2uz isnt alloy - its cast.

I imagine it's just to do something a bit different, as a modded 2jz is dare I say it. common these days.

[Karma Supra]

Lee you wanted a V8 Mkiii :P

I want a V8 MkII

[IanGT]

thats mad, also seen a rx7 with a v8 under the bonnet.

[Bibbs]

Lee, it's becase a high power 2j will sill be a 1/2 turbo inline 6 ..

and this is a 2u (pair of) turbo(s) v8 .. you instantly have an extra litre, and the V8 will have better harmonics.

No replacement for displacement ..

And when they do the 4.7 TT .. that'll be even better.

[Karma Supra]

Sorry Ben V8s do NOT have better harmonics then straight sixes!!!

Lines of 6s are the best for harmonics, i.e. straight 6, V12.

The V8 configuration does tend to give better torque though!

I would persoanlly go fora 1uz or 3uz, as they have the alloy blocks, mught lighter then the overly heavy straight sixes :(

As for "no replacement for displacement" that is not strictly too either, diminishing returns will always set in!!!

[jaxx]

forced induction.... the displacement replacement

[Bibbs]

forced induction.... the displacement replacement

Doesn't work like that .. Idealy you need BIG displacement, Forced induction and high RPM ..

[Karma Supra]

I disagree, largerish displacement, forced induction, and a mountanous wall of low down torque.....

[Bibbs]

I disagree, largerish displacement, forced induction, and a mountanous wall of low down torque.....

You can't "add torque" to an engine .. Ohh, I'll bolt on another 50 lb/ft ..

For getting more air in and out (which is all we can *really* do for more power, bar better fuel) .. you do three things (after sorting exhaust & intake), have bigger displacement, force more air in, or do more cycles.

We can stroke the engine, or add a bigger engine.

Put on a bigger turbo.

And rev it higher.

[Karma Supra]

By nature though, stroking tends to make an engine les revvy and more torquey, I'd rather have a car that pulls like a train from about 3k and redlines at 6k, then has nothing untill about 6k and redlines at 9k :D

"just flowing more air" is a very narrow minded way of looking at engine performance, yes, more air means more power at peak power, but there is power, and there is power bands, this is why intrinsic ratios are so important, bore vs stroke, air velocity at certain revs..

An engine with a longer stroke will do more work per revolution, due to the "leverage" advantage of the conrod going about the crank, although more fuel tends to be used, and in theory there is more wear as the piston will travel further, which kinda proves that "more cycles" does not always do more work! - To which I am sure you will argue "well make that engine rev more then" unfortunately in reality this is not possible, as with most things, diminishing returns set in. Because the stroke is larger, "rev for rev" with a smaller stroke engine, the piston has to move far faster, stop far faster, then move in the other way... Even with the lightest of pistons and rods this puts an enormous stress on the crank, pins, big ends and con rods them selves...

The same goes for bore, a larger bore means a wider piston, so although you increase the displacement, the piston itself is larger and far heavier... Of course displacement could also be increased by havinga "taller" more, with more space above th piston at TDC, but that would lower compression.. which is not good for drivability!

So its not a case of bigger, more and more (we are not in america). The only reason newer engiens are favouring the less torque more revs aproach is fuel economy/emissions... whch lets face it, aren't going to sell an idea to an enthusiast!

You can always wang on a bigger turbo, more boost, but again bigger turbos have lag as we all know.. its all very well having monsterous power at full boost... but if it takes and eternity to get there, its not much help! I know someone with a scooby that put a big HKS GTturbine turbo on it. nice and big.

-The problem was the first gear they were in long enough from launch to reach full boost in was 4th...

[Bibbs]

By nature though, stroking tends to make an engine les revvy and more torquey, I'd rather have a car that pulls like a train from about 3k and redlines at 6k, then has nothing untill about 6k and redlines at 9k :D

Yeah, the longer the stroke the more torque (hence the rb26 vs 2jz) .. but if you are after power you do both ..

And we'll never agree, as for me an ideal car is a combo of both .. which if I had 5k, mine would be .. low down torque from 2.5k .. all the way to a 9k redline ..

[Karma Supra]

How can you have quoted that before I even finished typing it? lol

I could go on, I have not even mentioned the extra heat generated by more revs, and how manufacturers hav egone about overcomeing some of the problems that can arise with "drivability" (Vtec is one of them lol)

You say we'll never agree... you'd be suprised, tmy entire point is that you have to find a happy medium.. unfortunately the car companys factor in economy, which changes the overal goal dramaticly :(

[Bibbs]

How can you have quoted that before I even finished typing it? lol

I could go on, I have not even mentioned the extra heat generated by more revs, and how manufacturers hav egone about overcomeing some of the problems that can arise with "drivability" (Vtec is one of them lol)

You say we'll never agree... you'd be suprised, tmy entire point is that you have to find a happy medium.. unfortunately the car companys factor in economy, which changes the overal goal dramaticly :(

I'm going from the Australian POV .. but with the experiance of cars I've driven.

The Aussie is get it as big as possible (chevvie V8, and then bore it) .. then slap a charger to it ..

But after racing the s2k round the ring .. a longer rev range is a great advantage .. when compared to quite a few "normal" cars ..

So I'm coming round to the Jap/US/S2k ideas .. get a loverly revvy engine (they now do a 2.4 stroker kit - 320bhp) and then light blow it .. the torque will never be that of a 6/8 cylinder .. but for the room and weight, can't complain.

Also the amount of Caterhams with bike engines .. turbo'ed :)

[Karma Supra]

Stroking is coming more to my way of thinking, forced induction stroking doubly so ;)

As for the longer rev range, I see your point, but a torque moster can take a longer gear range!! (i.e.my old car, with only 4 gears, 80 mph @ 2500 rpm) It works very well that way too!!!

My current car is a high revver.... 9k rev limit, 11 psi as stock... quite short gearing, and not much before about 4500rpm (but hey its built by people that make bike engines). in all honesty I prefered the power delivery and shear bottom end grunt of my old car, for the "same" car, they are very very very different!!!

[Leeky]

Well i've always gone for big engines

One 4ltr V8, three 3ltr straight sixes and lots of 4 bangers of around 2-2.5 litres.

But i have now set my sights on light weight handling and high revs - hence what we have discussed at the pub recently.

Unfortunately you cant 'really' have a bit of everything if you ask me. Smaller engines rev better/provide better economy, bigger engines have the torque and the power.

There is deffo no replacement for displacement , forced induction isnt a replacement - its an optional route to bigger power. Much in the same way as vvti is, its a technique for extracting more out of an engine.

Ferrari V8's will rev high but thats because of their silly high compression ratios, which if you turbo are drasticly dropped and then they dont rev much higher than a normal V8.

Ideally you want a big displacement engine with clever electronics to manage it and forced induction. Problem with that is weight/economy and getting the thing to rev up over 5kish.

Do the same to a small engine and you will get lots of lag(if turbod) reliability issues and not much torque.

So really it comes down to what your gonna use it for. Its applying the correct tools to the job.

You'll never see a monster truck running on a 1.8 4 pot and you'll never see a light weight roadster with a big V8 (not unless they are on a mission to slide off the road and kill themselves).

Just my 2$.

;)

[Karma Supra]

When it comes to little things like caterhams, smarts (!Removed!), torque is not such an issue anyway, which is why as Ben said, many have bike engines...and they work well in them!!! Don't get me wrong I still want a caterham as a plaything (I want a rotory one!)

I was taking "proper" cars, with doors, stereos, aircon bodywork that weight at least a tonne... not track cars :P

I still want to get a hybrid prius and put a dirty big V8 in it, deliberatle (de?)tuned to run rich and pop flames and have environmental stickers all over it..

I would personally not say that Vtec/VVti is a way of extracting more power out of an engine, I would say they are more a way of keeping an engine in tune to get the most out of its current revs for drivability (and argueable economy) Its more like running a silly set of cams, but being able to turn them "off" at lower revs. but getting the benefits of them at higher revs...

Incidently, we talk of large/small engines, I personally consider my engine tiny at 2.0!!!! I just wish I could afford/get my hands on the HKS stroker kit for it (£3k in any shop you are lucky enough to find one in)... 2.4, and more bottom end torque! (where its needed).. plus I could REALLY confuse everyone by sayings its a 2.4 TT supra....

[Bibbs]

We agree in 2 things ;)

2.0 is NOT a big engine .. and VTEC / VVTi is not a power thing (it's an extending the useable rev range thing).

Anything under 2.0 AND under 7k rpm I just don't *get* .. just like 3 cylinder engines ..