More New Scrambler Details

or you just didn't get it the first time round...

Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

• * * Matt Macchiarolo
  formatting link
  formatting link
  formatting link

Remember the thread about "low end torque?" I doubt that twin-turbo 2.5 has enough torque below 2000rpm to get out of its own way....

I'll challenge both cars to a race >Don't get your panties in a wad. The OP said "There's no replacement

• * * Matt Macchiarolo
  formatting link
  formatting link
  formatting link

Not just that - I don't think they even did a 2.5 liter. The biggest one I can find was this:

Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out

Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making their engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After all, Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200 miles...

Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: >

: >Dave Milne, Scotland : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara : >

As I said, I don't know the exact size of the engine, but I guessed the absolute largest would have been 2.5L at the high end. Perhaps you need to read more closely. :-)

And I stand by my argument that there are plenty of things you can use to replace diplacement, the definition of "replace" being to take away one thing and add something else instead. In your example, perhaps you could arrange a nitrous oxide setup on your rice burner to compensate for the fact that you are so much smaller than Matt.

Yet again, you're missing the point entirely. Can you get as much low-end torque out of a turbocharged 2.5L four cylinder as you can out of a Ford 427 V8 or a Chevy 454? I think not. Apples oranges!

• * * Matt Macchiarolo
  formatting link
  formatting link
  formatting link

Approximately 10/10/03 06:52, Joshua Nelson uttered for posterity:

Ahh, now we understand. The automotive equivalent of a penis extension is what you suggest. No thanks, I'll take the raw inches, cubic or linear.

Approximately 10/10/03 08:44, Matt Macchiarolo uttered for posterity:

Sure you *could* do that. All you'd need to do is build the block out of Unobtanium and feed it with something like 250 psi of boost that comes on at under 1000 rpm... or use high pressure steam. Of course the guy with the 454 could do the same thing... which of course is what our budding auto genius seems unable to grasp.

Talk to someone that owns/owned on of those Toyota trucks with the turbo 4 banger. You need some god awful gears to make those things pull anything. Turbos don't do s*it for power unless they are spinning fast enough to create boost. I had a Shelby Charger back in the late 80s and it was a blast to drive, but you had to rev the piss out of it to get any power. Lug the engine down at all and bye bye power. The power peak on that thing was higher than anyone here would rev their 258 or 4.0.

Chris

Which is why I stuffed a blower on the 4.0 :) Turbos are good for high RPM boost but superchargers give you low end umph.

I rilly want to stroke it out to 4.7, but that's going to have to wait.

just for the record, awd tsi's and other stock turbo'd with that particular engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's without too much trouble.

the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and maybe an aftermarket fpr.

yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier minivans) is pretty impressive...

It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there (it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)

but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's.. great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.

but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.

i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them) from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications, and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of much greater displacement

-Steve 98 TJ

At least I could be bothered to find out which engine you were talking about, which is more than you could ..

Don't you know that its recommended to keep the NOx button down for max 15 seconds at a time ? Do you think its clever to by a small highly stressed engine and then NOx it ? That lazy Mustang 5.0 engine will last way after the rice engine has melted its pistons, and has another 40% more usable torque for punting around town.

I'm aware you are having extreme problems understanding the "no replacement for displacement" phrase, so let me spell it out for you. It means "its easier and cheaper to have a big lower tuned engine than a small highly tuned engine". Obviously anything you can do to a small engine, you can do to a big engine.

Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: > 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in : > Power 145.4 kw / 195.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm : > Torque 275.23 nm / 203.0 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm : >

: > Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out : > 100bhp/litre engine, and I foolishly decide to challenge Matt to a couple of : > traffic light Grand Prixs. I realise I need a tad more hp - can you : > recommend what I should do to this thing ? : >

: > Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making their : > engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After all, : > Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200 miles... : >

: > Dave Milne, Scotland : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara : >

: > : >

: > : >Dave Milne, Scotland : > : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara : > : >

Oh i agree whole heartedly.. and a lot of turbo'd cars will use n2o (a 34/24 jetting, very small) to help with the spool up times,. Dan (the stang we're building) plans on using the equivalent of a 75 shot for exactly this purpose.. a super 60 running off of just one exhaust bank (he's running one off of each) will take a good bit to spool... the n2o will help with that as well as the added benefit of cooling the intake charge. He just wanted to to not rely on his bottle pressure, capacity etc to be able to make power.. running a large jetting, as the 150 would be, would empty a 15lb bottle in 3-4 passes. On a test and tune day at his track, (open from the AM, no noise ordinances :) he can get in 10 passes easy... the same 15lb bottle will last him all day using the smaller shot, and only until hes sufficiently dipping into the boost.

he's thought about a super charger setup as well, but he's a welder by trade, so in terms of cost, and expertise, it was nothing for him to fab up some flanges and piping... and not have to worry about a drivershaft for the s/c or the added pulleys.

-Steve 98 TJ

if it's not spun up, you are driving a 8:1 low compression engine..