Digsy Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 How about a 3.2 that is about 4/5's the weight of the stock system? The Jun/Cosworth pistons arn't light...but they are a little lighter than stock. That would be: 31kN @ 8500 24kN (same as stock) @ 7466 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Bear in mind you shouldn't need or want to rev a 3.4 stroker very high anyway. A 4088 on a 3.4 with 264 cams should make an awesome street engine, with a decent management system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Bear in mind you shouldn't need or want to rev a 3.4 stroker very high anyway. A 4088 on a 3.4 with 264 cams should make an awesome street engine, with a decent management system. I agree, a 3.4 with a T67DBB would make the best street Supra setup IMO...or maybe I'd try to get away with the T71DBB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 What's the part throttle response & engine pick up like on the 3.4 kit vs stock and vs Jamie's current build? Wouldn't Jamie's spin up faster than the 3.4 stroker, getting into it's stride quicker, offsetting the 3.4's torque advantage? Digsy, can you work out the kenetics of Jamie's engine as it stands now vs stock and vs the strokers, as this was missed earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 What's the part throttle response & engine pick up like on the 3.4 kit vs stock and vs Jamie's current build? Wouldn't Jamie's spin up faster than the 3.4 stroker, getting into it's stride quicker, offsetting the 3.4's torque advantage? Digsy, can you work out the kenetics of Jamie's engine as it stands now vs stock and vs the strokers, as this was missed earlier. I think you're forgetting that these kits feature lighter parts and that the turbo is spooled by the exhaust pulses. If you've got 400cc extra exhaust gas hitting the turbo, it will spin up faster and the the 3.4 itself has a lot less weight and will rotate easier. So in short, the 3.4 would absolutely trounce the 3L in all areas with the same turbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 as a matter of interest, which would be the better choice? The 3.4l or 3.2l? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I think you're forgetting that these kits feature lighter parts and that the turbo is spooled by the exhaust pulses. If you've got 400cc extra exhaust gas hitting the turbo, it will spin up faster and the the 3.4 itself has a lot less weight and will rotate easier. So in short, the 3.4 would absolutely trounce the 3L in all areas with the same turbo. That's vs stock, but Jamie already has lighter pistons and rods, which was the angle I was getting at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Digsy, can you work out the kenetics of Jamie's engine as it stands now vs stock and vs the strokers, as this was missed earlier. If you tell me Jamie's current piston and rod masses, and rev limit then yes. ...or an educated guess, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 That's vs stock, but Jamie already has lighter pistons and rods, which was the angle I was getting at Sorry Dude I understand now....but the reciprocating mass won't change the spool.... But it will be interesting to see what the stock sized reduced mass engine could be capable of. Digsy, I think he's running the CP's and Carillo's so again he'd be 3/5's the weight...or maybe 7/10's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Ok, using 3/5 again that's way on down at 14.5kN @ 7000 You don't hit 24kN until 9000 I'd prefer some more acurate figures for the masses before he goes off and does that, though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Ok, using 3/5 again that's way on down at 14.5kN @ 7000 You don't hit 24kN until 9000 I'd prefer some more acurate figures for the masses before he goes off and does that, though Fairly sure he's got an 8000rpm limit. He did weigh the rods and pistons, can't find the thread at the moment though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted May 10, 2007 Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 Fairly sure he's got an 8000rpm limit. He did weigh the rods and pistons, can't find the thread at the moment though. It was but with the small tubby i felt it was not needed so turned it down to 7500rpm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.