new car + supercharged 1zz - Page 2

Vip09 · #16 05-21-2006, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SigmaProjects

lol, I like how you put him down haha. Is it true that hass turbo can get their 1ZZs to 350hp on stock internals?

I doubt it.. the 1zz rods are weak. MonkeyWrench Racing made 365whp on a stock 2zz though with their turbo kit.

SigmaProjects · #17 05-21-2006, 01:38 PM

i mean it kinda explains why with a 100cc more it's getting a little over 20 more tq than their current 2.4L. Right? Or does the V configuration help as well?

91 Celica St · #18 05-22-2006, 09:12 PM

i personally think the V platform is junk, unless its a v-8 .....bleh, id rather have an inline engine than a v for a 6 cyl

SigmaProjects · #19 05-22-2006, 10:22 PM

yea, inlines/flat motors have better harmonics, but I can give some credit for Vs having better weight distribution when set up longitudinally.

91 Celica St · #20 05-23-2006, 12:10 AM

lol tell that to a 06 eclipse

SigmaProjects · #21 05-23-2006, 09:59 PM

bah, that's a dumbass car, lol. Anyone who buys one buys it cuz they think it's "pretty" shame on Mitsu for not just bringing back the way they used to be. Even a GS-T using a detuned Evo motor would have been awsome compared to their very american style POS. I mean when mags compare a car to a V6 camaro you know it sucks.

but what I meant was engines compared longitudinal, like a longitudincal inline 4 or 6 compared to a V6.

91 Celica St · #22 05-25-2006, 06:10 AM

lol new eclipse=crapbox
then again i got to see one in action the other day and they are quick (i said wuick not fast okay)

SigmaProjects · #23 05-25-2006, 08:35 PM

hehe yes quick not fast, was it the GT with a 3.8L cast iron SOHC V6? lol. I guess it's better than GM's 3.9L in the G6, well i'm sure kinda better =P

91 Celica St · #24 05-26-2006, 03:04 PM

yea the gt v6 one, they dont handle as bad as i thoght for a 3400+ pound car, but they arent a clelica

blakscorpion21 · #25 05-26-2006, 05:27 PM

ehh, the new eclipses are allright. couldve been alot better though. they should revert back to the setup of the 90s eclipses.

SigmaProjects · #26 05-27-2006, 03:29 AM

yea seriously I don't see why they couldn't just use a cheaper version of the evo motor.

91 Celica St · #27 05-27-2006, 06:46 PM

because its still expensive to put in a car

SigmaProjects · #28 05-28-2006, 04:05 AM

You think it would go over 25K? I mean you can get an Evo RS for 28K sticker.

blakscorpion21 · #29 05-28-2006, 02:58 PM

i dont think its the engine thats the problem really, 263hp is almost as much as the evo. they should just cut it down to atleast 3k lbs and make it rwd. it is too big and too domestic-ish though.

91 Celica St · #30 05-28-2006, 03:18 PM

you forget they must make a car that appels to the masses as a whole, not just the "tuner" market

and mainly they didnt use the 4g63 is becuase of reliability, the new engine is way more reliable than the 4g, and probably due to emissions as well and the fact taht if they made this car rwd or AWD and put the evo engine in it, who would still buy the evo? expecially if this car was $5000 less

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD