A.E.M. in N/A.

[Kirk]

so whats the next step then??

[w41k3r]

I would like to see someone work on the N\A engine its self rather than just adding bolt on`s. We have all done bolt ons and added our own custom parts but yet i see no internal work.

 

The next part of my project will be to lighten the car up as its a fat ba**ard then i will go on to more costly parts im not wanting to brag or make big power just make it shift a little quicker. Surely a supra that ways 1350kg or around with 220bhp will be quicker than the supra with 1450kg at 220bhp just an example

 

What id like to know is whats the best way to make the power on the N\A engine is it wild cams or making the compression higher or another method maybe some help from chris wilson would be good as a guide that will help us

 

Also if anybody has ideas of price of the jobs neede like port and polish, fitting cams internal work things like that just to let people have a clue what there in for [GRIN][/GRIN]

[David P]

m life

 

I don't like that game..... it invites too much "negativity".

 

I would prefer to just get on with the job, and add further completed work to my car album.

 

Nevertheless, modifications so far are giving more power and better economy, I haven't measured these yet because the jobs only half done.

[RobSheffield]

modifications so far are giving more power and better economy

 

Cool

 

Ill bell Toyota R&D up shall i?

 

I haven't measured these yet because the jobs only half done.

 

Oh, maybe not then

[Tricky-Ricky]

I would like to see someone work on the N\A engine its self rather than just adding bolt on`s. We have all done bolt ons and added our own custom parts but yet i see no internal work.

 

The next part of my project will be to lighten the car up as its a fat ba**ard then i will go on to more costly parts im not wanting to brag or make big power just make it shift a little quicker. Surely a supra that ways 1350kg or around with 220bhp will be quicker than the supra with 1450kg at 220bhp just an example

 

What id like to know is whats the best way to make the power on the N\A engine is it wild cams or making the compression higher or another method maybe some help from chris wilson would be good as a guide that will help us

 

Also if anybody has ideas of price of the jobs neede like port and polish, fitting cams internal work things like that just to let people have a clue what there in for [GRIN][/GRIN]

 

 

I think its already been covered, but as with any engine the key to gaining power is to get more air in and out of the engine, its just that with an N/A its relying on it own pumping abilities rather than an external one IE turbo/supercharger.

 

So its a hard won battle, head work, porting, can only accomplish gains depending on the original design, if its already good, you won't achieve much no matter what you spend, on the old cross flow Fords etc you could see much more gain than modern engines, as the design was not good to start with, but most modern engines have already been optimised for flow, so it won't always be worth all the effort and expense.

 

Exhaust design on an N/A is not at all straightforward, you can't just bung on a larger bore and expect instant gains, in fact there are whole books on the subject.

 

Suffice to say its a combination of a lot of small improvements, i think its also been said before but to sum up, head work, bigger valves (if possible) lumpy cams, increased capacity, and increased rev limit will all help achieve more power, you can add to that an improved fuel system,individual throttle bodies, custom made exhausts, BUT none of this will come cheap or easy,

 

When compared to a forced induction engine which makes power gains look a simple and easy, but if you want to tune an N/A you will need most or all of the following, money, time, a lot of expertise, and most of all realistic expectations.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Tricky-Ricky (see edit history)

[Scooter]

Cool

 

Ill bell Toyota R&D up shall i?

 

 

 

Oh, maybe not then

 

Does a TT with a decat get more power?

Does a TT (if driven the same before and after) get more MPG than before?

Will an NA with no Cat's be less powerful?

Will the MPG of an NA with no Cat's increase or decrease?

 

Would you be so sarcastic to a TT owner who, despite "not measuring it yet", was stating they get better MPG on average despite the increase in available power?

 

The guy is struggling to remain enthisastic about posting up his progress, there are some of us interested in that progress. You've made your sceptism and "it's futile" points to him long ago so can you kindly stop posting in a manner that is going to piss the guy off?

[miko_supra]

Interesting read this thread. Needs lots of pics though! I like pictures Stick with it and I look forward to seeing the results. Have you thought at all about loosing some weight in the car aswell? about 80-100kg is easily achievable without spending a fortune.

[Ian C]

Does a TT with a decat get more power?

Does a TT (if driven the same before and after) get more MPG than before?

Will an NA with no Cat's be less powerful?

Will the MPG of an NA with no Cat's increase or decrease?

 

Would you be so sarcastic to a TT owner who, despite "not measuring it yet", was stating they get better MPG on average despite the increase in available power?

 

The guy is struggling to remain enthisastic about posting up his progress, there are some of us interested in that progress. You've made your sceptism and "it's futile" points to him long ago so can you kindly stop posting in a manner that is going to piss the guy off?

 

While a valid comment perhaps on the attitude and method of delivery, it is a proven and well documented fact that BPU gives a TT more power. More economy? Possibly slightly due to VE efficiences.

 

However the project going on here, while laudable in it's "because it's there" aims, is one that's never really been completed before so there is no precedent set and certainly no documentation of the changes. So someone claiming a frankly ridiculous 35mpg is going to get called up - much like someone claiming 600bhp on stock turbos etc.. I'll flatly say now that until I witness a 35mpg Supra of any sort short of a diesel conversion, I refuse to believe they exist.

 

As for 300bhp from an NA, maybe with 300+deg cams and 9000rpm or something yeah. That'd be fantastic and more like a tegger type R to drive. Oh and 87mm pistons make it a 3.1l, so it's not 100bhp per litre

 

-Ian

[David P]

Link to the engine pics.

 

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/vbpicgallery.php?do=view&g=3257

 

As can be seen in these photographs and list below, my focus is "efficiency".

 

Like I said, I will measure the gains when the job is jobbed.

 

However, I have recently driven my half completed project to Russia and back, at a steady 80mph in U.K, 100 across France and Holland, 120 on the German autobahn's, (150 for a short while) 100 on Polish motorways, and stop start driving on their 'A' roads, and 70 across Belarus. (you don't speed there unless you want a new job in the salt mines)

4000 miles in total, all with the air-con blasting and averaged 32mpg.

I expect more when finished.

Edited November 28, 2009 by David P (see edit history)

[miko_supra]

Why not post all the pics up in the thread?

[Ian C]

However, I have recently driven my half completed project to Russia and back, at a steady 80mph in U.K, 100 across France and Holland, 120 on the German autobahn's, (150 for a short while) 100 on Polish motorways, and stop start driving on their 'A' roads, and 70 across Belarus. (you don't speed there unless you want a new job in the salt mines)

4000 miles in total, all with the air-con blasting and averaged 32mpg.

I expect more when finished.

 

I too have fooled myself over the car's efficiency The absolute best I've ever got is a 303 mile round trip at about 70mph on dual carriageways. 27mpg. I've done the same trip twice the same way and gotten the same result.

 

You claim an increase to that of a further 20%, part of which was extended periods at 120mph+. Interestingly, while over 4000rpm, you are out of closed loop so you don't even get stoich mix fuel economy, by the way. If perhaps it does guzzle fuel like all other Supras at that speed, your closed loop economy must be even more ludicrous to pull the average back up to 32mpg.

 

I'm not picking on you strictly, there is at least one other (tt owner) on here who claims 30mpg+ when driven hard and I've yet to see a gram of proof for that claim either. But you're in tech, and it's where I live, so you can expect questions if you want to throw up numbers that go wildy against the grain.

 

Of course if you back them up with numbers, like how many litres of fuel you bought on that 4000 mile trip, or measuring how much fuel you put in after say 200 miles on a full tank, that'd help.

 

-Ian

[David P]

4,021 miles driven, 571 litres of fuel used

[David P]

When fitting the reworked throttle body and inlet manifold, I set the throttle position sensor as per U.K. spec workshop manual.

However, my Jap spec auto has a different throttle body with only 1 vacuum take off, instead of the U.K. 3, and uses MAP, not MAF.

I strongly suspect this is why my gearbox and overdrive is now 'misbehaving' when hot.

Does anyone have the throttle sensor position setting information from a Jap spec workshop manual please?

 

Cheers

 

David

Edited December 6, 2009 by David P (see edit history)

[Scooter]

I Have the info but with my recent computer porblems i've no means to post a picture! (It's pages EG-246&7 if anyone else can help)

 

Basic summary.

Loosen the x2 screws of the sensor

insert 0.5mm feeler gauge between throttle stop screw and stop lever (on top of the throttle body, pretty much directly in line with the sensor, feeler gauge will be horizontal when in position)

Connect ohmmeter to the the bottom two wires coming from the sensor (could be the top two depending on how you read the manual diagram!?)

"Gradually turn the sensor clockwise until the ohmmeter deflects, and secure it with the set screws"

Then check the continuity on the ohmmeter when there is a 0.4mm feeler gauge in the gap (continuity) and when a 0.6mm is in there (no continuity)

 

hope that helps.

[David P]

That's exactly how I set it.

However, this puts it in a completely different position than it was on the previous throttle body.

Are you sure you have a Jap spec manual?

[Tricky-Ricky]

I am sure i have posted these for somebody else a while ago, but cant find them, so here you go again.

[Scooter]

That's exactly how I set it.

However, this puts it in a completely different position than it was on the previous throttle body.

Are you sure you have a Jap spec manual?

 

It's from the manual I have for the NA & TT engines (btw Tricky's info is for a TT) N/A's are all Jap or american........

[David P]

Wow, that's just what I am looking for, except my auto is a Jap import N/A.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to learn that the settings are different.

The (JAP) MAP system is very different from the (U.K./U.S.) MAF sensored N/A engines.

That is why I suspect the Jap version that has a throttle body with different vacuum systems and a MAP sensor set up, will have different settings also.

Edited December 6, 2009 by David P (see edit history)

[Ian C]

4,021 miles driven, 571 litres of fuel used

 

I still don't buy it at all. Maybe, just maybe, at a steady 56mph. With no hills or wind. But certainly not at 120mph for extended periods. You'll need to do better than typing in a couple of numbers to convince cynical ol' me

 

And don't try waving the 'banned' smiley in my direction

[David P]

Like I have said before, the engine and rest of car is mid project and there is a lot more to do.

 

I will present some proven figures when I am finished.

 

Please excuse my sense of humour.

[Ian C]

Like I have said before, the engine and rest of car is mid project and there is a lot more to do.

 

I will present some proven figures when I am finished.

 

Please excuse my sense of humour.

 

Well it's already supposed to be running 20% more efficient than every other Supra in the part finished state. I'd be pleased with that and releasing data to prove it if it was me. Plus then you'd know how much more of an improvement the rest of the work did. And catch any detrimental moves early.

 

This is running the AEM ECU I assume? Maybe a datalog of injector durations at various revs/roadspeed? Knowing the injector size and static fuel pressure would allow a calculation of the engine VE with those numbers.

[David P]

Fitting the AEM ECU is the last job on a long list, and will be installed and dyno'd in one.

There is still a lot to be done and this throttle sensor position problem is holding me up.

Edited December 6, 2009 by David P (see edit history)

[Ian C]

Fitting the AEM ECU is the last job on a long list, and will be installed and dyno'd in one.

There is still a lot to be done and this throttle sensor position problem is holding me up.

 

It's still on stock ECU, sensors, and injectors? 32mpg? Fascinating.

 

The stock ECU can only adjust fuel +/- about 10% y'know And if your mod list in your sig is current I don't think there is enough to get is to using 25% less fuel. Maybe 5%. Hm.

 

Well anyway I hope you finish soon I can harp on for ages about how it's not really possible but I doubt you're listening, and as we're promised evidence once it's finished I'll be watching attentively. And if you have sussed how to beat Toyota at their own game, I'lll be chopping my diesel Ford in for an NA supra with 35mpg as my city commuter car and you can post I Told You So in 128pt font on here I'll quite cheerfully admit I'm wrong on stuff when I'm proven to be wrong (it has happened before I'm sure).

 

Of course, I reserve the right to post the same thing as well

 

-Ian

[Kirk]

so i guess you have stepped away from the idea of a 300hp NA now

[paul mac]

4,021 miles driven, 571 litres of fuel used

 

I have found your claim here somewhat dubious and after a quick google found the European industry standard is litres used per 100km, the best 3.0 liter i could find produced by Toyota at the moment is the Aurion that manages 9.9 litres/100km, bear in mind this is extra urban cycle and you claim to have hit 120 mph and various points in between with the air con full blast and you have managed to do something Mr T could only dream of and hit 8.8 litres/100km , whats more you have managed to do it on a ye olde 3 speed auto box whereas all modern autos use 5 or 6 speeds with variable lock up to keep fuel consumption down.

You have either hit the holy grail or are talking sh*te, sorry mate i feel its the latter as your figures just do not add up