[jwa276]

holy sh*t... that kinda takes the purpose out of the car: to be a mode of transportation from point A to point B COMFORTABLY... eh thats that guys loss, not ours

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Same with any engine bigger than an i4, and any mods anyone might do those engines

im gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you

maybe comfortable to somebody is knowing they can stomp anyone else's car that they may come in contact with.

no hard feelings, just another view on the topic

jon

 

[Guest]

To me, that would be pushing on the borders of being a luxury instead of comfort

 

[jwa276]

To me, that would be pushing on the borders of being a luxury instead of comfort

yeah i see your point. it all depends on what kind of car you are looking to drive, personal taste etc.

i personally agree with you though, being able to ride comfortably is very important to me. i think what tony has done here is great too- without affecting rideability he has tuned his car to be much more powerful than most stock sport cars. kind of the best of both worlds- grocery getting capabilities coupled with insane acceleration!!

jon

 

[Guest]

Most definitely...

Big ups to the man and men that have done what many said was impossible.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

 

[DrtySthV6SE]

hey tony the tiger
about your BOV, i thought the purpose ofa BOV was to well blow off pressure when you let off the accelorator to shift, but you have an automatic so what is the exact purpose of the BOV??

some ricer in town told me you dont need one if you have an automatic(he was refering to my car when i was asking about turbos), it sounded kind of funny at the time but someone fill me in.

 

[Tony the Tiger]

Hey DrtySthV6SE, I guess that ricer in your town is indeed a ricer. Regardless of being automatic or not, pressure build-up in the turbo will have to be vented off whenever the throttle is let off. Unless I don't ever plan to release my throttle after I accelerate...lol Let's crash into a wall :roll:

 

[DrtySthV6SE]

cool man thanks :thumbup:

 

[2wickedtoyz]

I've looked into the the twin turbo option, but it gets very tight behind the back manifold (the one against the firewall). You can maybe squeeze a tiny T25 in there at most, but you will definitely need a manifold made to maximize the space in there as much as possible. I don't see the benefits of running a twin turbo either -- twice more headaches, twice more work, but not twice the performance. It might spool up a lot quicker, but I am pretty happy where my turbo starts spooling now... I will worry about the lag issue after I get everything built and upgrade to a more powerful turbo or something.

By the way, is there a Gen4 turbocharged 1MZ-FE already? I got to see that! Any links, or even some info on that? I would really like to be known for the first turbocharged 1MZ-FE, but I don't want to start claiming that until I find out for sure if I am the first one or not

i know this is crazy, but then again so is a turbo Gen3 V6...


what about twin charging..?

turbo and supercharging it...

It's going on 10years since this camry was first boosted


Congrats Tony on your progress

 

[toyrolla]

It's going on 10years since this camry was first boosted


Congrats Tony on your progress

Not taking away from Tony's success (always congrats to Tony from me), the twin boosted idea was already done with an MR2. It was by either SCC or Turbo magazine and was done with a 1MZ engine. You might be able to Google it.

 

[Tony the Tiger]

Not taking away from Tony's success (always congrats to Tony from me), the twin boosted idea was already done with an MR2. It was by either SCC or Turbo magazine and was done with a 1MZ engine. You might be able to Google it.

A quick bump to this thread, making it the 11th year since its boosted

By the way, the turbo MR2 from Turbo Mag and SCC was a single T72. There is no twin turbo 1MZ ever documented, except mine back in 2009. I had the twin turbo setup for a few weeks and it didn't work out as I intended. It made too much torque and the power was not linear nor controllable, and the 1MZ engine had trouble working with smaller turbo's compressor and turbine maps, aka mismatch.


Video of twin turbo:

Dyno: 405 WHP and 532 WTQ

Pic of engine bay:

 

[toyrolla]

A quick bump to this thread, making it the 11th year since its boosted

By the way, the turbo MR2 from Turbo Mag and SCC was a single T72. There is no twin turbo 1MZ ever documented, except mine back in 2009. I had the twin turbo setup for a few weeks and it didn't work out as I intended. It made too much torque and the power was not linear nor controllable, and the 1MZ engine had trouble working with smaller turbo's compressor and turbine maps, aka mismatch.


Video of twin turbo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5cRMGMMe04

Dyno: 405 WHP and 532 WTQ

Pic of engine bay:

Nice pics Tony; and (as always) kudos to the great work you do.
And also a correction on my part; because later on after my post last year, I realized that the car I was referring to was actually twincharged MR2 project (turbo and super).

Great hearing from you, it's been a while.

 

[cuttyman9]

So even with issues with the twin turbo setup it still managed to produce a good deal of hp with few modifications to the engine itself?
So port work and forged internals is all? No cams? No intake modifications or different TB's?
Not that 400/500 compares to what you have now but that's impressive from a 1mz standpoint.
So is this still a 10.5:1 compression ratio with the 3.3L stroker setup?

I ask because your videos inspired me to consider the 1mz as an alternative to 3sgte's and 5sfte builds for my 92 GT Celica hatch.
After fishing around for info on the motor is a superior platform for the chassis and California due to the fact I can pass emissions with it.

I hadn't realized your build was well documented until now so I will be digging through your threads to learn more.
Glad to hear it isn't one of those undocumented mythical beasts haha.
Congrats on the new HP figures.

 

[djr48312]

Hi,

I get tagged for bumping these threads. But I see way back in 2002 Tony the tiger building a one off turbo design mocked up his piping using PCV piping, then had it measured and welded using the appropriate materials ( steel/aluminum tubing and elbows ). This is a great idea.

I also see at the time his fueling was simply an SAFC, and an adjustable FPR.

I'm curious why the dual GT25's didn't work for him, because the GT25 is an excellent turbo for a 1.5-2.0L that's wanting to make from 250-340rwhp. The come on into boost around 1500 and full spool certainly under 4000 RPM and allow those 1.5-2.0L to rev out to 7000 before being a bottleneck.

Tony's torque curve of peaking early and falling off quickly show some sort of restriction or limit being hit in the system. Although I know he's a thorough person, I'm curious what it was.

That car should've made the 525-600rwtq and from 500-600rwhp easily.

 

[djr48312]

I'm not sure why the dual GT25 turbos necked down after the torque peak. These things are perfect in the 1.5L-2.0L world where they make from 250-350rwhp and over 300wtq. In the dual configuration it should've made 500-600wtq and over 500whp. On the 1.5L-2.0L these turbos work well up to around 7000 RPM. The reach peak boost at 3000-4000 rpm and hang on until around 6000 rhp. From looking at those graphs I would think there is a restriction on the system causing them to neck down. Perhaps a single exhaust or a single inlet pipe that's not of sufficient cross section? I would have expected Tony to dig into this.

But yeah in todays world those GT25 or similar are go to turbos for a hot street 1.5-2.0L and they make the 250-350whp like i said with over 300wtq, power bands up to around 7000 rpm.