Ive done some reasearch on my 1st generation 4afe and this is my idea for a relatively strong budget turbo build.

Stock block
4agze crank, rods, piston. 86-89 mr2
Small port head 89-91 corolla
Big port cams 83-89 celica or 85-88 mr2
Adjustable cam gears with 4age tensioner?
Ls coil packs on a bracket with plug wires
Megasquirt 2, 36-1 crankgear wasted spark.
T28 turbo, custom intake and headers cfm?
Exhaust dump in front of wheel? back pressure?
365cc injectors. Fuel pump?
Performance 4agze thickness headgasket?
Wastegate?
Small intercooler 520x220x60?
Boost management
Guages
Battery relocation
Maybe a thicker oil pan
Umm... all the seals. studs. Spark plugs that work with coil. Arp studs.i know im omitting alot but ill know when i get into it. It might not happen with the motor in my car but ill keep my eyes open for another engine hopefully a stronger one probably a 89-91 corolla small port or a 4agze if i can get a good price. So is there parts of my combination that dont work together? Is it unrealisticly expensive. Anybody from springfield mo thay knows a good tuner. I know i could put a v6 in cheaper but i like the idea of a 1.8 rompin on muscle cars. Dispite my sig. And as always dont hate, educate.

First you need to drop that sig so people don't see how green you really are.

http://mr2oc.com/showthread.php?t=45911 ... horsepower

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... torque.htm

http://www.epi-eng.com/mechanical_engin ... d_work.htm

HP is a measurement of work over time. Acceleration is the effect of work over time on a mass.
Torque is just a measurement of force applied around an axis.

Sorry. It's a big pet peeve of mine.


You need to tell us what your goals are.
If you are looking to run 8 PSI then a lot of your stuff is unnecessary.
If you want to run 20 PSI then you may need to up the game a little bit.
What are your goals? What are you looking for? What is your budget?

4agze crank, rods, piston. 86-89 mr2

88-89 MR2

Small port head 89-91 corolla

Not in the US. I think a 90-92 Geo Prizm is about it for the SP.

Big port cams 83-89 celica or 85-88 mr2

All 4AGEs got the smaller cams after about 87-88. To be sure they were the larger cam I would look pre 86. The difference is quite negligible as well. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Adjustable cam gears

I would get drop in cams long before cam gears. They really aren't going to do much for you on the stock cams.

T28 turbo, custom intake and headers cfm?

No idea what you mean by

CFM?

Exhaust dump in front of wheel? back pressure?

Again, totally confused. If you mean before the turbine then you are talking about a wastegate. Backpressure is never good.

365cc injectors. Fuel pump?

Need to know your power goals.

Performance 4agze thickness headgasket?

I can get HKS in 1.6 and 2mm. I can get Cometic in pretty much the thickness of your choice.

Wastegate?

Yes you will need one. Most T28s have them internal.

Small intercooler 520x220x60?

Depends on your boost level, turbo efficiency, tune, budget etc.

Boost management

Depends on your turbo, wastegate and goals

Guages

Bare minimum for a low boost setup AFR and boost.
Step it up a little and you want to be able to monitor knock and EGTs.
Of course there is all the other stuff like oil pressure, temp, etc but not really relevant to going turbo.

Battery relocation

Again not relevant to going turbo.

Maybe a thicker oil pan

Do you mean larger volume? I don't get what you mean by thicker.
I am waiting on material to come in from the watter jetter to make my first 3 large capacity oil pans.

ill know when i get into it

It's much better to know before you get into it. Plan in advance and have your build fixed and complete before you start ordering parts.
If you order through me I'll cut a discount if you order a bunch at once instead of this here and that there.

but i like the idea of a 1.8 rompin on muscle cars.

The 4A motors are 1.6 liter but I get what you are saying.

Thanx for that.. i aparantly need that. The internet can be missleading thats a quote by shelby. Ig he was sayin the: force applied tobthe axis is more important then work over time. Prolly cuz bigger motors tend to make more torque. Im looking 10 to 15. With some peace of mind that its not gonna blowup easy. By cfm i ment amount of flow
A waste gate and a short exhaust after the turbine. Wrong term i guess. Battery location for room in the bay thats all. Thicker material to lessen the flex on the block. Prolly not neccesary. Thanx for clearin up the years on those parts.

Thanx for that.. i aparantly need that. The internet can be missleading thats a quote by shelby. Ig he was sayin the: force applied tobthe axis is more important then work over time. Prolly cuz bigger motors tend to make more torque. Im looking 10 to 15. With some peace of mind that its not gonna blowup easy. By cfm i ment amount of flow
A waste gate and a short exhaust after the turbine. Wrong term i guess. Battery location for room in the bay thats all. Thicker material to lessen the flex on the block. Prolly not neccesary. Thanx for clearin up the years on those parts. My power goals is whatever i get after im done. Hopefully being a 1.6. Typo. It wont be too much to handle.

Sry bou dat. Budget Whatever it takes i guess. I got time and tryin to buy used parts. What i ment by back pressure? is that if not enough is a bad thing. But im thinkin prolly just raises efficientcy when tuned.

Those links helped out alot.

eh atll do wrote:Thanx for that.. i aparantly need that. The internet can be missleading thats a quote by shelby. Ig he was sayin the: force applied tobthe axis is more important then work over time. Prolly cuz bigger motors tend to make more torque.

It's something that has plagued the automotive world from a time when very few people would have been able to understand the simple physics of the relationship of torque and hp. It is so deeply imbedded that even now that most middle schoolers could understand the hard science behind it car companies, car magazines and serious car people still say torque to describe low RPM horsepower. I feel like it makes car guys look like uneducated goobers to anyone capable of simple math.

eh atll do wrote: Im looking 10 to 15. With some peace of mind that its not gonna blowup easy.

Don't go too far out of your way for a smallport head or early cams. If you happen across either cheap and easy jump on it but the LP and small cams will be fine for your goals for now. If at some point you decide you want it to breath better I would consider some real aftermarket cams.

Adjustable cam gears will be a waste of money till you get aftermarket cams.

MS2 would be a pretty good choice if you are willing to put the time and work into it.

T28 is a pretty good choice for this power level. A T25 would get you quicker spool. A T28 will breath better up top.
Custom intake is not terribly important at this point. It might help a little bit but the stock intake isn't terrible especially if you found a smallport.
If you decide to go that route though I sell flanges for 4AGE intake's and also build custom intake manifolds.
By CFM I knew you meant amount of flow. I just have no idea what it's in reference to, what you are asking or what you want to know about it. Measuring exhaust side CFM is not terribly easy but not something you have to be too concerned with until much more advanced levels of tuning.

Maybe you mean just short piped exhaust that goes in front of the car wheel. If so then I was way off. If this is going to go on the street then take the traditional routing and use a nice free flowing muffler. I love the hooker aerochamber.
If you don't see going much over 15 PSI then 2.5" will be more than enough.
Back pressure is never a good thing in an exhaust system. Velocity and scavenging is important in NA cars but it has been pretty well proven in turbos that after the turbo the biggest most open path for the exhaust to take the better.

A structural oil pan is not needed. Crank ladder caps wouldn't hurt. http://matrixgarage.com/products/tomei- ... oyota-4age

You might also find a little useful information here.
http://www.mr2.com/forums/mk-1-mr2-aw11 ... draft.html

Dont dynos use like 15 differnt variables to calculate horsepower? I guess in a literal torque isnt low rpm horse powet but doesnt a "torqy" engine have alot of grunt on the low end. I think this is where it gets into torqur and power curves. Stuff i dont understand but i am incredibly interested. meant cfm rating for the intake but if a smallport headll work thats cool. T25 or t28 will breath better up top?

An i realize those variable effect torque 2 but im talkin raw. Is there a such thing as raw hp?

eh atll do wrote:Dont dynos use like 15 differnt variables to calculate horsepower?

Nope, all you need is torque and RPM to calculate HP. Everything else is just monitoring equipment like AFRs and such.

I guess in a literal torque isnt low rpm horse powet but doesnt a "torqy" engine have alot of grunt on the low end. I think this is where it gets into torqur and power curves. Stuff i dont understand but i am incredibly interested.

This is where it all comes from.
On a dyno graph for your standard internal combustion engine the torque is much higher than the HP in the lower RPM.
Take a look at this cummins dyno.


Now the first thing people are going to think is OMG 600 lb/ft of torque at 2200 RPM that's just crazy and it is but since the motor isn't spinning very fast it's still not a whole lot of power.
The thing that you have to realize is that Torque means nothing till you correlate it with RPM. Once you do that you are talking about HP or work over time.
If that cummins made 600 lb/ft at 1000 RPM the torque number would look just as pretty on that dyno graph but it would only be making 114 HP. Now that is a whole lot more than a 4AGE makes at 1000 RPM but you don't drive a 4AGE at 1000 RPM. So it really always comes down to HP. Torque means absolutely nothing until you assign an RPM value.

Here is another way to look at it. Internal combustion engines spin to slow to make an extreme example. Now that cummins peaks at 862 lb/ft which is pretty crazy but at that point it's still only making 425ish hp.
Now if we took a gas turbine engine spinning 200k RPM it would only need to make 11.16 lb/ft of torque to make the same amount of HP.
Now here is the part that brings it back full circle. If you use a gear box to reduce the RPM to 2600 RPM where that cummins makes it's peak torque the gear box acts as a torque multiplier. Guess how much torque it makes at 2600 RPM? 862.
Of course in real world there would be slight losses from the gear box but the same applies to the cummins.

So if you put the gas turbine in the same truck and geared it down to hit 200k RPM where the cummins hit 2600 RPM at the same speed they would accelerate at the same rate. Assuming they weighed the same of course.

Another place people use torque is to mean a wide power curve. The wider your power curve is the better up to a point. If you just have OE numbers to look at they usually give you a peak torque and a peak HP. If you are lucky they will give you RPMs for both. If you have a car that has a peak torque of 100 lb/ft at 5000 RPM and Peak HP of 250 at 8000 RPM vs a car that has peak torque of 125 lb/ft at 4000 RPM and peak HP of 250 at 8000 RPM the latter car will walk all over the former but what is important is the power curve.

The first car makes 92 hp at 5000 RPM. The second car makes 92 HP at 4000 RPM. This tells us that the second cars power curve is higher in the lower RPM. Driving through the RPM range this car will have a higher average HP and will accelerate faster over that range.

eh atll do wrote:meant cfm rating for the intake but if a smallport headll work thats cool. T25 or t28 will breath better up top?

T28 will breath better up top.

I think we discuss this in more detail in the turbo thread I linked to.
Running a turbo increases density of air not velocity. A head design that is optimized for X cams, x intake x performance in NA form will be just about as optimized in boosted form. As you up the boost the volume coming into the turbo increases but the turbo compresses it into a denser form. CFM after the turbo will be roughly the same as CFM NA.

Isnt there a difference in how mechanics and machinery torque is calculated. U gave me a link to mechanical. I found a textbook lolz

eh atll do wrote:Isnt there a difference in how mechanics and machinery torque is calculated. U gave me a link to mechanical. I found a textbook lolz

Nope. Torque is torque. The force applied around an axis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
This is the thing. Torque and HP are very simple universal concepts but people have been fooled into thinking there is some magical exception when it comes to cars and motors that makes it much more complicated than it actually is.

Wikapedia vs text book. Im tryin to listen but really?

eh atll do wrote:Wikapedia vs text book. Im tryin to listen but really?

What text book? What does it say?
I know wikipedia isn't respected in high level education but it made the point I was trying to make. If you found more legitimate information that contests anything I have said or anything in WIkipedia then by all means please tell.

My books at home but ill do some schoolin :p. Dont get me wrong ur knowledge on 4ags is priceless. But i belive your wrong on this one

You may want to consider D17 COPs. They are more expensive than LS1 coils, but installation is more compact and will not require any plug wires.

I live in the 'lou and have ms2extra running my 20v. It would be a pretty long drive but if you get stuck setting up the MS I'd probably be able to make a trip out.

Eh. Ill have to check the price. Yea man. I chose mega squirt cuz if my informtions right i can just need one sensor. The crank sensor hooked up. Idk what signal that is. I know ford edis 4 does this. I will definatly keep that in mind. I think im 4 hrs away from "the lou"

School is in session. Im not gonna directly quote the book. (I think theyres laws agaist that). Its a torquose smallish book about aeromotive and automotive science i got from a small engines class. Consider this a lecture.

Mechanical- rotating motion that happens when a mechanism is moved. A hand produces torque when rolling up a window... a manual window. Raise your hand billy! .lol.

Torque in mechanics is somewhat similar to torque in machines but is calculated differently.

Machinery- ability of a rotating motion to produce movement or overcome resistance. In a engine its how much torque the engine can produce in a given moment. It does not refer directly to an engines power.

Torque is also used in optical microscopes. Irrelevant but interesting.

Any questions?
Next week we will be learning about how torque is built and horsepower takes care of its self.

I some how missed that long post on the cummins dyno. Wouldnt that be ideal for hauling heavy loads and be tuned as such? and Deisel works differently and i am brain dead when it comes to them. Also i couldnt correlate the text with the dyno cuz it didnt upload. Maybe cuz im on a phone. It makes since to me that torque would make rpms... so rpms mean nothing without torque also? Its proly pretty logical but i cant wrap my brain around it.

Ok cfm is relevant to the na set up cuz a turbo makes pressure not speed. That makes alot of sense. But performance is a part of that and since the turbos adding performance... bigger cfm's could increase power. but a smaller? or more direct one would increase velocity in turn producing more power. So a custom intake could work wonders but i dont want to pay for one soo.. nm haha

D17 coils it is. good call

eh atll do wrote:School is in session. Im not gonna directly quote the book. (I think theyres laws agaist that). Its a torquose smallish book about aeromotive and automotive science i got from a small engines class. Consider this a lecture.

Mechanical- rotating motion that happens when a mechanism is moved. A hand produces torque when rolling up a window... a manual window. Raise your hand billy! .lol.

Torque in mechanics is somewhat similar to torque in machines but is calculated differently.

Machinery- ability of a rotating motion to produce movement or overcome resistance. In a engine its how much torque the engine can produce in a given moment. It does not refer directly to an engines power.

It's the exact same thing but powered from the opposite end.

If you have a 1 foot lever and apply 100 lbs of force to it you are creating 100 lb/ft of torque.

If an engine is creating 100 lb/ft of torque and you put a 1 foot lever at the end of the crank it will apply 100 lbs of force to that lever.

What you have said here in no way dissagrees with what I have said.

eh atll do wrote:I some how missed that long post on the cummins dyno. Wouldnt that be ideal for hauling heavy loads and be tuned as such?

Yes it would but not for the reasons most people believe. Most people will say it is ideal because it has so much torque. This is not exactly the point.

A turbocharged 4AGE making 425HP would haul heavy loads just as well as long as it had a wide enough power band to cover the gear ratios.
There are two problems though. First off the cummins can drop the clutch at 1600 RPM and have enough horsepower to get moving. The turbo 4AGE would need to rev to about 4k RPM to make the same amount of power. This means the 4AGE would go through clutches about 20 times faster than the diesel.
The second part of the equation is that RPMs kills motors. If the cummins needs to make 200 hp to haul a trailer up a hill it can do it at 2000 RPM. The 4AGE would be closer to 5000 RPM.
So the diesel you rebuild every 200-400k miles the 4AGE you rebuild every 20-40k miles.

You said torque is torque and sent me a link discribing mechanical torque.

2(pi)r x 1 lb-ft of torque = 2 x 3.1416 x 1-foot lever x 1 lb-ft = 6.2832 ft-lb of work

Thats machinery torque... not that i understand it. Can we agree to disagree. This could turn into the longest thread in the history of history. At the end of which i would be right. I just wanna go fast.

eh atll do wrote:You said torque is torque and sent me a link discribing mechanical torque.

2(pi)r x 1 lb-ft of torque = 2 x 3.1416 x 1-foot lever x 1 lb-ft = 6.2832 ft-lb of work

Thats machinery torque... not that i understand it. Can we agree to disagree. This could turn into the longest thread in the history of history. At the end of which i would be right. I just wanna go fast.

If you want to agree to dissagree that's fine but you cannot be so confidant you are right when you don't understand what you are trying to explain.
Do you have anything you can provide like a link, website, anything at all that explains what you are unsuccessfully trying to?
You don't even give the name of the book you are referring to. And no there is nothing wrong with quoting a section of literature or talking about a book as long as you cite your sources and give credit to the author, book and publisher.

Now since I don't know where that equation came from or the explanation behind it I have no idea what it is trying to say. It does concern me that you use lb/ft up till the last piece where you use ft/lb. Ft/lb is not a measurement of torque, it's a measurement of work. In fields like automotive people use these terms interchangeably but it does not mean they are the same thing.

Actually its machinery converted to mechanical maybe i do under stand a little. Different values means that torque isnt torque. Theres 2 kinds and only one applies to an engine... i think

Im talkin #ft. I didnt call you out when you interchanged them

You actually got them mixed up so bad that your whole explaination was of ft# of work... so was the one of the first links you sent me..

eh atll do wrote:Actually its machinery converted to mechanical maybe i do under stand a little. Different values means that torque isnt torque. Theres 2 kinds and only one applies to an engine... i think

Then show me something that backs this up. I cannot find anything discussing this or differentiating different kinds of torque. Torque is twisting force. In physics it is measured in force @ length LB/ft or well all these others. They all have force and distance from axis. Notice there is lb/ft and no ft/lb.

eh atll do wrote:Im talkin #ft. I didnt call you out when you interchanged them

I haven't reread the whole thread so I might have messed one up but from the beginning I have using lb/ft which is the proper way to talk about torque.