FTO AUSTRALIA

hi Guys, ok i know that this question has been asked many times, but im going to ask a a slightly different way this time.

is there a way to get MORE torque by sacrificing high end kW?

just wondering if anyone has gone down this path.

torque and power (KW) are directly related, so if you decrease power (KW) at the high end you'll also decrease torque at the high end too.

You can improve the torque and power of the FTO, but you'll need to choose the rev-range in which you want to do this, keeping in mind that the other rev-ranges will suffer as a result - i.e. if you focus on improving the high-end you'll lose some torque and power down the lower-end.

Supercharging will give you Sh*t loads of low end torque , but will be very harsh on your wallet.

RPW extractors should increase torque also, (well they defetly have on mine)

You wont want to much low end torque though, Just ask Danny.

the CAM's we are working on at the moment (MIVEC) will hopefully provide increased torque on the low speed cams to tackle this issue

the CAM's we are working on at the moment (MIVEC) will hopefully provide increased torque on the low speed cams to tackle this issue

DROOOOLLLSSS the best of both worlds

ooo stephen, u make me wet...when can we expect this? ooo

ruchi wrote:torque and power (KW) are directly related, so if you decrease power (KW) at the high end you'll also decrease torque at the high end too.

You can improve the torque and power of the FTO, but you'll need to choose the rev-range in which you want to do this, keeping in mind that the other rev-ranges will suffer as a result - i.e. if you focus on improving the high-end you'll lose some torque and power down the lower-end.

well, i wish to access the power earlier in the power band. also some mod skewer more towards the high end power while some improve the low end torque, i guess this is what i'd like to focus on.

thanks

huh?

OK, lets get a few things clear:

As stated above torque and power are linked. This means you cannot increase or decrease one without effecting the other.

Second point, there is no magic wand you can wave to increase torque and power over the entire rev-range of the car, rather the car must be tuned to give you the specific results you want, in the specific rev-ranges you want.

The FTO has been tuned to give a reltively flat torque curve across the entire rev-range, the main way in which it does this is to have two cams. One tuned for the lower rev-range and one tuned for the higher-rev range. As it's not possible to have two of everything (intakes, exhausts etc.) you cannot tune everything to two different rev-ranges. You either tune it to provide an average across the entire rev-range or to offer improved performance in one rev-range at the detriment of another.

As an example, to achieve the low-end torque you mention, you would want a fairly standard exhaust system and maybe add the RPW extractors, but this would limit the high-end. Alternatively to achieve the high-end power you've mentioned, you'd want a larger exhaust and the UAS piping but this would then limit the torque you could get down low.

So to simplify this, do you want more torque and power from 0-MIVEC, from MIVEC-redline or half-way before MIVEC to half-way through MIVEC?

my point of view is, since the stock revs are from 0-8000rpm and
mivec comes in ard 5500, then w/o scarificing 'normal-granny style' driving of ard 2500-3000rpm in top gear which would benefit fuel consumption, than the best would be to tune for better torque btw 3000-mivec rpm.

i'm sure most pple would wanna cruise on the freeway at 100kph in top gear w/o 'boosting' and affect fuel economy too rite?
i do 2500rpm in 5th(auto) at 100kph. around 2750rpm in 5th at 110kph.

ruchi wrote:huh?
OK, lets get a few things clear:

As stated above torque and power are linked. This means you cannot increase or decrease one without effecting the other.

Yes and no, I’ve seen lots of cars these days had increased torque, while kw had remain the same or the other way around when they change the generation of model "appearance", at the same time using the same engine.

But then it could be all marketing. No one can really tell you except for those engineers who designed the engine, cause they know exactly how the engine work, while everyone else is sort of guessing by using "trial & error" method.

The key is to tune it for your individual needs as we all drive differently. e.g. if dragging people off at the lights is important, then you want more torque down low and high-end is less important. Alternatively, if you want it for on the track, you'll want most of your power through the mid to high rev-ranges as you'll rarely have the car down in the low rev-ranges.

agreed, ruchi.

what i typed above is what i really really want!,

so, stephen, which area of gains does the new cams perform?

FTO338 wrote:

ruchi wrote:As stated above torque and power are linked. This means you cannot increase or decrease one without effecting the other.

Yes and no, I’ve seen lots of cars these days had increased torque, while kw had remain the same or the other way around

Kev, you are correct, but what you are refering to is the peak values of the engine, not the relationship between torque and power.

The relationship between torque (NM) and power (KW) is:
Power (KW) = Torque (NM) x RPM / 9549

You cannot alter one without effecting the other

wildfaye wrote:my point of view is, since the stock revs are from 0-8000rpm and
mivec comes in ard 5500, then w/o scarificing 'normal-granny style' driving of ard 2500-3000rpm in top gear which would benefit fuel consumption, than the best would be to tune for better torque btw 3000-mivec rpm.

i'm sure most pple would wanna cruise on the freeway at 100kph in top gear w/o 'boosting' and affect fuel economy too rite?
i do 2500rpm in 5th(auto) at 100kph. around 2750rpm in 5th at 110kph.

holy crap, is yours one a tip or mine have a problem? mine is manual and anywhere close to hit 100kms is 3krpm rev ... hella lota petrol gone there

akuma3 wrote: holy crap, is yours one a tip or mine have a problem? mine is manual and anywhere close to hit 100kms is 3krpm rev ... hella lota petrol gone there

man, me driving on highways, is like using more petrol then around town. I do like 130, that's like 3.6k.... grr.... i need a 6th gear god damm it...

akuma3 wrote:

wildfaye wrote:my point of view is, since the stock revs are from 0-8000rpm and
mivec comes in ard 5500, then w/o scarificing 'normal-granny style' driving of ard 2500-3000rpm in top gear which would benefit fuel consumption, than the best would be to tune for better torque btw 3000-mivec rpm.

i'm sure most pple would wanna cruise on the freeway at 100kph in top gear w/o 'boosting' and affect fuel economy too rite?
i do 2500rpm in 5th(auto) at 100kph. around 2750rpm in 5th at 110kph.

holy crap, is yours one a tip or mine have a problem? mine is manual and anywhere close to hit 100kms is 3krpm rev ... hella lota petrol gone there

mines a 5spd tip

efteoh wrote:hi Guys, ok i know that this question has been asked many times, but im going to ask a a slightly different way this time.

is there a way to get MORE torque by sacrificing high end kW?

just wondering if anyone has gone down this path.

how much do you want to spend ?


You can increase the torque in the 6A12 engine by several differant methods. easiest is to use forced induction, or change your diff ratio.

more complicated and can get quite expensive.

also by changing the bore and stroke ratio, If you get a square stroke/bore, (like the 6A13) this will increase your torque. This could be done by getting your crank stroked.

You can also change the position of your maximum torque by changing the length of your intake manifold runners. I think it was renault that actually developed a formula one engine that had variable length intake manifold runners. They would slide in and out depending on the revs and that way they would keep the frequency of the pressure wave matching the revs, this then helps filling the cylinders, thus improved breathing efficiency, and increasing your power output. There is also production cars that have variable intake manifolds, but thes usually have 2 differant sets of runners one short and one long and they will use a valve system to switch between the runners depending on the revs.

you could also build a intake manifold that had 12 intake runners, 2 per cylinder, using a butterfly on 6 intake runners ( 1 per cylinder ) this would remain closed during low revs to increase air flow through the other intake runners giving better air fuel mixing.

enough i am starting to sound like ruchi

danny i love the way you say "the easiest way" ...

ummmm... i'd love variable runners but i just couldn't justify the cost of R&D on that....

CAMs are a month away probably before i start testing them... not sure when they'll be out for public consumption as we have to make sure they don't break or cause other failures...

i'm not an expert on CAMS so i'm really leaving them upto the experts to make decisions on what changes to make... i've got the ideas i just don't have the technical experience with cams to say how to implement them.

anyway there already is a thread on the CAMS we're building

ruchi wrote:huh?

OK, lets get a few things clear:

As stated above torque and power are linked. This means you cannot increase or decrease one without effecting the other.

Second point, there is no magic wand you can wave to increase torque and power over the entire rev-range of the car, rather the car must be tuned to give you the specific results you want, in the specific rev-ranges you want.
As an example, to achieve the low-end torque you mention, you would want a fairly standard exhaust system and maybe add the RPW extractors, but this would limit the high-end. Alternatively to achieve the high-end power you've mentioned, you'd want a larger exhaust and the UAS piping but this would then limit the torque you could get down low.

So to simplify this, do you want more torque and power from 0-MIVEC, from MIVEC-redline or half-way before MIVEC to half-way through MIVEC?

i guess i should also make it clear, i was willing (not want to) to sacrifice HIGH end power in order to gain low end power. i.e. move peak power from 7500 rpm to some where lower in the rev range (eg 6000rm?)

i wasnt after the entire rev range, i was just after the lower end. i was just making an example of how different mods afftect different parts of the rev range. even induction pipe length has an effect on favoring low end torque or high end power. along with the exhaust as ruchi stated.

thanks guys, so the bottom line is the amount money. or get a magic wand

and extractors.. i guess i gotta check them out, ive read lots of mixed reviews on the RPW one... any other recomendations?

dannyboyau wrote:enough i am starting to sound like ruchi

LOL!

efteoh, based on what you've said, I'd improve the air intake, stick with a fairly standard exhaust (do not go large) and go for the RPW extractors. This will improve the performance from around 2,500rpm - 6,000rpm.

Anything beyond that will cost big $$$