Quote:
On 2002-02-26 22:17, RAAMaudio wrote:
I did not have any exact info to go on, only recommended to me by a highly regarded tuner and I took his word on it. A torque peak at 6,200 RPM of only 130 ft lbs does not translate into a motor with alot of bottom end. Since I am building this into an audio competition/show car I need torque. I was unaware of the "flat torque curve".
As for a high compresion ratio, I agree, produces more power. I my application it will not be normally aspirated, and even though not aware of the exact compresion ratio, I was informed there was a large increase for the 180 HP motor, not a good thing for a boosted motor. I need bottom end and midrange muscle, not screaming 8k RPM power.
Would I like to have the XRS? Sure! Did it make sense for my application? No.
I have already scaled back the weight of my audio system now that I have seen how much fun this thing is to drive! I have to keep a fair amount of gear in it but will do some rather difficult and expensive light weight mods for sound deadening to keep the weight as low a possible.
|
Yes you are correct, 130 lb-ft peak torque is not alot of bottom end, but just looking a car's torque peak is deceiving. I was just trying to point out that a car with a steady torque curve making close to the torque peak throughout the rpm range is better than a car with a high peak torque number but peaky torque curve. So basically my point in that blurb is that looking at an engine's torque peak only doesn't tell you the whole story.
The 2ZZ-GE has an 11.5:1 compression ratio. For boost applications, this would not be an ideal ratio to start with(detonation), but it is not impossible to do with some lower compression pistons, for example (see XS Enginnering's turbo kit for the 2ZZ-GE).
So is the 1zz-fe a better choice? Maybe, probably. But my point here is that it doesn't make THAT much difference if one is bothering to go forced induction (spending time, money, etc)
Anyway, enough blabbering from me today.
Lates.
