If Toyota did offer more power.......

[Tim Radley 18]

Actually quite a lot of bikes now run cats. Their combustion chambers are more efficient than cars. Smaller capacity means less emissions though

My supersport engines exceeded 240bhp/litre and Rev to 17,000 8 hr rebuilds don't sound too sexy though

[Guest]

Do Bike engines make good torque or is it all just revs??

[Tim Radley 18]

Do Bike engines make good torque or is it all just revs??

 

Typically a 190bhp 1000cc will make about 85ftlb

[Varelco 211]

Its like comparing apples to pears. Totally differently designed engines.

[Dembo 0]

Morning,

 

Coming from an S2000 with 240bhp, this car feels faster with more torque and more usable power, though I miss the instant throttle response of the S2000. The point I'm making is there's a lot more to it than the peak power, and when people say this car should have X amount of horsepower you're only talking about peak power. I'd be worried than any attempt to achieve X bhp, especially if it was N/A, would end up making the car worse in reality and only serves to claim bragging rights on a rolling road day.

 

I would like to get rid of the torque dip, replace the DBW with a cable, make it not so lumpy low down and improve the noise. I wouldn't as it stands want it to go any faster, though if I ended up improving suspension, brakes and tyres perhaps it would then seem like it didn't have enough.

[Nicebiscuit 655]

Funnily enough, I'm quite happy with the torque - I think my expectations were SO lowered my the press I was expecting it to be like a lawnmower or something below 4000rpm (which is all I'm allowed for another 750 miles....grrr). It's actually as torquey as you'd expect a n/a 2.0 litre to be. Ok, nothing special by modern turboed standards, but perfectly in keeping with the old-school feel of the car, and not slow...

[Twigman 93]

Typically a 190bhp 1000cc will make about 85ftlb

And join 2 together and you'll have a nice 2 litre V8 putting out > 300bhp

[Tim Radley 18]

something below 4000rpm (which is all I'm allowed for another 750 miles....grrr).

Give it death.  It'll make more power and last longer.

 

 

I would like to get rid of the torque dip, replace the DBW with a cable

Why remove dbw?  Surely you can just remap the throttle to 1:1 if that is what you desire.  Personally, i hate the throttle response on the stock car.  It has a nasty torque spike almost like it gives yo 60% throttle for 20% initial request.  Makes it hard to drive smoothly off the apex on track.

[Varelco 211]

Give it death.  It'll make more power and last longer.

 

 

Is this true? I get mine soon and unsure whether to thrash it or not.

[Tim Radley 18]

Is this true? I get mine soon and unsure whether to thrash it or not.

I build maybe 100 engines per year and strip a lot of those on regular intervals so get to observe the wear.  My running in procedure consists of 2 heat cycles.  Engines that come in that have been "pussied" generally have excess build up of fuel gunk and glazed bores.  I've never ever ran an engine in and no idea why manufacturers say to do this when they run them hard on the test bench before they go in the car.  My GT86 was on a trackday 3 days after it came out of the showroom and i've pulled it apart twice since.  It's still like new inside

[Dembo 0]

Why remove dbw?  Surely you can just remap the throttle to 1:1 if that is what you desire.  Personally, i hate the throttle response on the stock car.  It has a nasty torque spike almost like it gives yo 60% throttle for 20% initial request.  Makes it hard to drive smoothly off the apex on track.

 

If that works, then fine, but there always seems to be a bit of a delay both going on and off the throttle and I assume that's because of the electronics, though I might be wrong. And on top of that as you say it does seem to go from nothing to quite a lot in one lump. After 2 months I still struggle a little bit pulling out of junctions without looking like a learner.

[Guest]

Morning,

Coming from an S2000 with 240bhp, this car feels faster with more torque and more usable power, though I miss the instant throttle response of the S2000. The point I'm making is there's a lot more to it than the peak power, and when people say this car should have X amount of horsepower you're only talking about peak power. I'd be worried than any attempt to achieve X bhp, especially if it was N/A, would end up making the car worse in reality and only serves to claim bragging rights on a rolling road day.

I would like to get rid of the torque dip, replace the DBW with a cable, make it not so lumpy low down and improve the noise. I wouldn't as it stands want it to go any faster, though if I ended up improving suspension, brakes and tyres perhaps it would then seem like it didn't have enough.

What a great post this is. Totally logical in every way and I agree with every point raised....on a road car to drive every day.

[Tim Radley 18]

If that works, then fine, but there always seems to be a bit of a delay both going on and off the throttle and I assume that's because of the electronics, though I might be wrong. And on top of that as you say it does seem to go from nothing to quite a lot in one lump. After 2 months I still struggle a little bit pulling out of junctions without looking like a learner.

It's definitely a mapping issue with the stock map.  I've got a Motec ecu on my 86 and have changed the throttle translation.  It's massively improved as you said pulling out of junctions and no longer has that gob of torque when you least need it.  Come and have a go in it if you like i'm only in Gloucester.

[Nicebiscuit 655]

I build maybe 100 engines per year and strip a lot of those on regular intervals so get to observe the wear. My running in procedure consists of 2 heat cycles. Engines that come in that have been "pussied" generally have excess build up of fuel gunk and glazed bores. I've never ever ran an engine in and no idea why manufacturers say to do this when they run them hard on the test bench before they go in the car. My GT86 was on a trackday 3 days after it came out of the showroom and i've pulled it apart twice since. It's still like new inside

Arggghhh. Now I have a dilemma. I'm not babying it - am driving enthusiastically and avoiding sitting on a constant throttle but I am generally observing the Rev limit.

I wonder why they do say it? Must be some reason otherwise why bother...

[Lauren 2259]

I wonder why they do say it? Must be some reason otherwise why bother...

 

They say that because people are inherently stupid. 

 

I've done 64K in my car, it uses no oil and makes good power. 

 

Whilst I did limit the rpm to a point, I made sure that even when it only had a few miles on it, that I gave it full throttle in second and lifted off to seal the rings properly. I'd typically go up to 4500rpm or so then lift off and let it slow down under engine braking. 

 

I also varied the revs a lot and built up the rpms until 1000miles. You need to load the engine, but never, ever labour it. 

[Guest]

Is this true? I get mine soon and unsure whether to thrash it or not.

Make your own mind up and ask advice from many many people.

Tim builds race engines that are hand built with measured clearances and every dimension is blueprinted. The engine in your car will be one in many thousand over the years on a production line.

My advice is don't rev the nuts off it, but "drive" it. Limit to, say 3000 rpm for a couple hundred miles and then 4500 for the next 700 miles. Never labour it and don't overrun initially.

But, as I said, take advice from many people and make your own mind up. Both Tim and I have stripped our engines, both had debris in them, both had a damaged bearing and both had a sandy like substance in the water jacket.

Just my 2p

[Nicebiscuit 655]

Ok. Sounds like I'm doing it right then... :-D. It's certainly been treated enthusiastically in the lower gears up to my self imposed rev limit (I've even made the little idiot light come on at 3800 :-D)

Frankly it's too much fun to drive it like a Nissan Micra...

[Guest]

Ok. Sounds like I'm doing it right then... :-D. It's certainly been treated enthusiastically in the lower gears up to my self imposed rev limit (I've even made the little idiot light come on at 3800 :-D)

Frankly it's too much fun to drive it like a Nissan Micra...

That's the biscuit ha ha..

[Varelco 211]

Make your own mind up and ask advice from many many people.

Tim builds race engines that are hand built with measured clearances and every dimension is blueprinted. The engine in your car will be one in many thousand over the years on a production line.

My advice is don't rev the nuts off it, but "drive" it. Limit to, say 3000 rpm for a couple hundred miles and then 4500 for the next 700 miles. Never labour it and don't overrun initially.

But, as I said, take advice from many people and make your own mind up. Both Tim and I have stripped our engines, both had debris in them, both had a damaged bearing and both had a sandy like substance in the water jacket.

Just my 2p

 

Interesting, I think I'm inclined to go for the just drive it approach, it makes the most sense to me. Not quite sure what you and Lauren mean by labour it? As in foot planted at very low revs?

[Tim Radley 18]

I wonder why they do say it? Must be some reason otherwise why bother...

Several reasons:-

You are further into your warranty period and at a granny pace so by the time you thrash it they've reduced their exposure

You have got used to the power and less likely to crash it so they can't get sued for selling dangerous cars

If anything is wrong with the build of the engine or chassis then it's less likely to cause as much damage if you are at 7500rpm or 140mph than 3000 and 60mph

 

Mostly i'd sum that up with 'minimising liability' from the manufacturer

 

The only thing i will say for thrashing them is i've always done it and never had one go bang.  If it was because the manufacturer was concerned it would go bang then i'd argue they weren't very confident in their own build quality.

 

Rings half bed in rotating the engine by hand and fully after the first few minutes of running.  I've stripped fresh built engines before they've run, after 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 1 hr and observed the differences.  After 5 minutes rings look the same as they do at 4 hrs.

[Tim Radley 18]

But i'll add if you are worried in anyway then stick to the book.  It won't go bang most likely but also won't make for a powerful engine later on but at least you'll be steady away.

[Guest]

Interesting, I think I'm inclined to go for the just drive it approach, it makes the most sense to me. Not quite sure what you and Lauren mean by labour it? As in foot planted at very low revs?

 

I class "labouring" as, for example, going up a hill in 4th, when really you should be in 2nd gear.

[Guest]

I dont understand how thrashing from day one will make for a more powerful engine??

[Nicebiscuit 655]

I class "labouring" as, for example, going up a hill in 4th, when really you should be in 2nd gear.

And as members of the GT86 'drivers' club - if anyone is doing that anyway they should be taken outside, shot, and then given the keys to a Yaris (and not that trick sprint one on the other thread either). ;-)

[Tim Radley 18]

I dont understand how thrashing from day one will make for a more powerful engine??

It's down to putting the materials through the stresses they will see at high load from an early stage.  A fresh block hasn't settled.  Or seasoned if you like.  So you work it and the structure changes - it settles in for want of a better expression.  This takes a period of time/heat cycles.  If you run it slowly then the block settles into that environment then all of a sudden the environment changes when you've reached running-in mileage.  This is why some new race engines are sent off for cryo treatment as that effectively shortens that process by aligning the crystalline structure of the block from day one.  Does that make sense?  I had a few too many ciders last night