How to achieve better low revs performance ??

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:33 am

My experience with turbo setup is you get what you paid for, cheap setup usually aren't well design & less efficient then the more expensive one. And they tend to stuff up in lots of area after a while. I yet to see a good turbo design for FTO that is under 10k, if you after "backyard blitz" then so be it.

As the famous Danny's quote "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys"

Post by **Bennoz** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:39 am

FTO338 wrote: "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys"

lol

Slither · Post by **Slither** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:09 am

I'm with Kev on this one. By the time you purchase the intercooler, turbo, blow off valve, piping, ECU and all your other goodies your already looking at $5-$6K Then you have to get it all installed. As it's a custom job your talking plenty of hours and labour costs. You're probably going to have to relocate the battery to the boot as well which is more cost again, then there's tuning of your aftermarket ECU, dyno time.

It adds up VERY quickly!

SG · Post by SG » Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:38 am

just get a 2.5l or 3l conversion of the same motor for a few k less

than a custom turbo setup

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:36 am

i believe a improperly set up pod filter CAI would actually decrease performance at low revs. Think about it, when your idling there is not cold air going into the engine and CAI. So basically your engine is sucking in hot air from the engine. This in turn would hurt performance at low speeds. Dynos might show a slight increase in performance but this is with a massive fan blowing into the engine all the time.

You cant hide the fact 2.0L is 2.0L!

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:34 am

SG wrote:just get a 2.5l or 3l conversion of the same motor for a few k less than a custom turbo setup

Hmmmm now i wonder where have i seen it from??

Anyway i wouldn't go more then 2.5L or u just kill the balance with so much weight at the front.

Post by **Bennoz** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:54 pm

FTO338 wrote:
SG wrote:just get a 2.5l or 3l conversion of the same motor for a few k less than a custom turbo setup
Hmmmm now i wonder where have i seen it from?? Anyway i wouldn't go more then 2.5L or u just kill the balance with so much weight at the front.

Nothing wrong with creatively offset grinding your crank journals

Or getting the bores expanded a little!! Same block, less metal

BuCkEt · Post by **BuCkEt** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:21 pm

I read that article too, and at the end he only ended up making something like 135ish at the wheels.

That kind of power is achievable without FI.

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:36 pm

Bennoz wrote:Nothing wrong with creatively offset grinding your crank journals
Or getting the bores expanded a little!! Same block, less metal

On a normal car with average compression ratio then I would agree with you, but on a high compression with Variable Cam timing & with a "V shape" type block, you try to bore it out to 2.5L?? itâ€™s basically a slow time bomb waiting for firework

ehehehe.

But if you mean just bore out to like 2.1 or a bit more, that might still work.

scarecrow · Post by **scarecrow** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:35 pm

The FTO's pretty perfectly balanced as it stands (jacking up the car under any wheel will lift that entire side clear off the ground), if your gonna add in something with a bit more torque then I think you'd appreciate having a little more weight over the front tires

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:41 pm

scarecrow wrote:The FTO's pretty perfectly balanced as it stands (jacking up the car under any wheel will lift that entire side clear off the ground),

You lost me there mate, what you try to say??

if your gonna add in something with a bit more torque then I think you'd appreciate having a little more weight over the front tires

To me weight distribution is very important, as that effect how the whole car handles. You might have more torque, but if you can't transfer it to the road then there is no point having it.

Plus there are few more down side to heavier front weight, apart from quicker tyres wear, your suspension would be worn out faster too, along with your brakes.

Well i guess we can always put more amp & sub to balance it hehheehe

Post by **Bennoz** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:20 pm

FTO338 wrote:
Bennoz wrote:Nothing wrong with creatively offset grinding your crank journals
Or getting the bores expanded a little!! Same block, less metal
On a normal car with average compression ratio then I would agree with you, but on a high compression with Variable Cam timing & with a "V shape" type block, you try to bore it out to 2.5L?? itâ€™s basically a slow time bomb waiting for firework ehehehe.

But if you mean just bore out to like 2.1 or a bit more, that might still work.

Mate, I've got a motor in the shop in a million peices. Heads off, pistons out, crank at the machine shop. Gotta remember - I aint playing with a mivec. I've had nothing but problems with variable valve timing, forced induction, reliability & cost effectiviness. I am going to try & get as much capacity out of the 6A12 as is feasible... & if that means re-shaping head chambers & CC'ing them to suit a larger bore, so be it! But I will draw the line at moving valve postions within the head & altering rocker geometry. Its been done on some of my older cars, but alloy heads are a bitch to weld without warping & the like. We'll see!!

Soon as I get some shots of project in action, I'll start a thread.
Hopefully wont turn into 24 pages!

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:02 pm

ehehehe well u didn't mention u talking about your own car & a GR motor. G'luck with your project. If its 24 pages, then its 1 page of success story & 23 pages of talking sh*t.

Post by **Bennoz** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:07 pm

FTO338 wrote:If its 24 pages, then its 1 page of success story & 23 pages of talking sh*t.

lol it'll happen & you know it! I've already said more than I wanted

barfy · Post by **barfy** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:24 pm

Ive bit the bullet and order a few things from RPW that i think will help with flat spots and low rev range probs...

Getting the manifold and TB kit, Manifold insulator and the fuel pressure regulator, along with their extractors, NGK platium plugs and the UAS CAI kit im hoping this will fix everything ill keep you posted ....

Post by **Bennoz** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:33 pm

barfy wrote:Ive bit the bullet and order a few things from RPW that i think will help with flat spots and low rev range probs...

Getting the manifold and TB kit, Manifold insulator and the fuel pressure regulator, along with their extractors, NGK platium plugs and the UAS CAI kit im hoping this will fix everything ill keep you posted ....

I saw your post...

I think you'll be impressed with all those bits added on - she'll go well!!

Jase · Post by **Jase** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:25 pm

I think i 6a13, bored, stroked and supercharged should solve any low down performance probs. That and a 3.5k convertor behind a 5spd tip should do the trick. Wishfull thinking i know but that would be my dream engine/trans setup.

Post by **smorison** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:19 pm

the RPW extractors and engine pipes are tuned for low down torque... if your after straightline street light 1/4 mile type stuff RPW will suit you best...

the UAS kit (all of it) is design for power from 4000rpm ... e.g. track work... the only time my car is below 4000rpm is when i'm waiting to leave the pits... if your after performance once the car is up and going UAS is the way to go.

for example i've noticed that the new Throttle body and intake plenum on my car has made bugger all difference to low down power... mid to high end is a lot better though

also if you guys are considering piggy back computers rob and I use perfect power (available from AVO in Melbourne or UAS in Sydney), bang for buck this is a great piggy back.

barfy · Post by **barfy** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:17 pm

smorison wrote:the RPW extractors and engine pipes are tuned for low down torque... if your after straightline street light 1/4 mile type stuff RPW will suit you best...

the UAS kit (all of it) is design for power from 4000rpm ... e.g. track work... the only time my car is below 4000rpm is when i'm waiting to leave the pits... if your after performance once the car is up and going UAS is the way to go.

for example i've noticed that the new Throttle body and intake plenum on my car has made bugger all difference to low down power... mid to high end is a lot better though

also if you guys are considering piggy back computers rob and I use perfect power (available from AVO in Melbourne or UAS in Sydney), bang for buck this is a great piggy back.

Well hopefully seeing i have the manifold and TB with the RPW extractors with the FPR ill have a balance of low end and high end gain hehe

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:11 pm

People got to understand for a 2.0L short stroke, high rpm engine, its really hard to obtain lower down torque especially when the engine is already so highly tuned.

I myself know low down the FTO sucks, mostly proven on the dragstrip and lights when compared to other cars. Yeah there are way to improve torque but you wont be able to magically turn it into a torque monster.

Just look at the characteristics, 200NW about at high rpms, dont know how flat the torque curves are on the FTO but i dont see much below 3-400 rpms.

You really fill the lazyness at low rpms, eg going up hills etc. Theres no 2 litre out there thats got torque down low or is that responsive bat turbos, supercharges.

Mods help in going quicker but theres no hiding the fact of the 2.0L under the bonnet.

Low down torque depends on capacity period. If you dont have the capacity bascially you can say goodbye to good torque levels.

Just look at even a bog stock 4.0L Falcon. 380NM at like 3k. Even go drive a magna, the difference in low down response is huge!