2.4ltr with 160bhp, wtf?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 42
From: London, UK
hehe, yeah its pretty much $2 to every £1, so yer looking at $80k for a R34 skyline 
I like Civic Type R's too, but they are sooo common over here cos you can ge them for like £8000 second hand now!! The worst thing about Civics over here is that they are classed as a grandads car, because they are cheap, reliable and economical! For instance you will be walking down the street and see a mean looking black civic type r drive towards you, you think man that guys lucky, when it gets closer you see that a 80 year old man is driving it!! It ____es me off!
I like Civic Type R's too, but they are sooo common over here cos you can ge them for like £8000 second hand now!! The worst thing about Civics over here is that they are classed as a grandads car, because they are cheap, reliable and economical! For instance you will be walking down the street and see a mean looking black civic type r drive towards you, you think man that guys lucky, when it gets closer you see that a 80 year old man is driving it!! It ____es me off!
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,141
From: Maryland
yes! it sucks, now that i am hooked on top gear, you tube is yanking all their episodes! i can't get my fix anymore!
anyway, why don't you get a vauxhall monaro? which is like our now deceased pontiac gto? or how about that master of the understeer, the opel vectra vxr!
whatelse...what is your view on mini's? or that new volvo hatchback?
but yeah, if you imported a tc, you'd have just about the only one on the island...i remember when i first got my tc and nobody had a clue what i was driving...
anyway, why don't you get a vauxhall monaro? which is like our now deceased pontiac gto? or how about that master of the understeer, the opel vectra vxr!
whatelse...what is your view on mini's? or that new volvo hatchback?
but yeah, if you imported a tc, you'd have just about the only one on the island...i remember when i first got my tc and nobody had a clue what i was driving...
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,120
From: SJSU | Union City, CA
Originally Posted by jpmulcahy
Well, the old mechanics used to say "horsepower doesn't mean all that much." What is really important is how much makes it to the wheels when. The Tc goes 0-60 in 7.4 seconds. So many of those old muscle cars which had twice the HP would kill for that kind of speed. If you want a race car, look elsewhere. But if you want a fast car that corners beautifully that won't beat you up on the highway - then Tc is your car. I've put 3200 miles on mine and have found the speed to be quite nice even though it "only" has 160hp. Of course, I don't go racing every third car that comes along, either. But when I need to make that quick start on the highway, all the power I need is there, in abundance.
If you are importing the tC to the UK, you would definitely have something different from what all of Europe has to offer. I hope you made the right decision.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,167
From: Shreveport, LA
Topic one:
------------------------------------------------------
If this were true, then formula 1 race motors would produce 900+ lb-ft and ~280 horsepower...
Instead of the 900+ horsepower and ~280 lb-ft that they DO produce.
This issue has been beaten to death, but in the end, it's the horsepower figure that truly matters. A strong human being can apply 160 ft-lbs of force to a driveshaft, but can he keep that up as the RPMs start to climb ? Hell no. His "torque" is high enough, but he can't apply that over time, so his ability to do work (power) is severely limited, and therefore, it takes him half an hour to move that car down a quartermile.
Other examples to consider-
-RSX base vs. RSX Type-S... They have the same torque, one completely outclasses the other.
- LT1 V8 vs. LS1 V8. Read up on it. The LS series produce similar torque, but more power.
- VW Golf/GTi... The TDI produces the same torque as a VR6, but one runs 18's, the other runs 15's.
etc. etc.
And before anyone cites the big torque numbers of V8's, please note that a V8 making 280 wheel ft-lbs at 2600 RPM is making the same amount of power as a stock scion tC at full-blast in the meat of its powerband.
-------------------------------------------
Topic two:
Late 60's muscle cars had retarded amounts of power... but ran on comparatively very small tires, unrefined suspension technology, and weighed in the neighborhood of 3600 - 4500 lbs.
I'm glad to see a muscle car era returning, but this one is smarter, and does more with less power. Now, a brand-new V6 camry is about as fast as the largest and baddest V8's of that time... names like GTO and roadrunner come to mind.
Our scion tCs are about as fast as the 289 mustang GT's from that timeframe. Quick, but definitley not the fastest of the bunch, and definitely NOT a boring drive. It's a great car for young buyers who can't afford the big guns, yet want a balance of spirited driving and reliability.
And finally-
160hp was a horsepower target set by engineers who take into account factors such as piston inertial changes, strengths of materials, lengths of service-lives, costs of manufacturing, torque curve characteristics, and more. This motor was designed to haul a 3200lb CAMRY, with additional passengers and payload, reasonably well.
Adapting it for a tC was an easy decision, and an easy task to implement. If they wanted to design a race motor for this car, I'm sure the guys who made the Supra, Celica all-trac, MR2 turbo, 2ZZ (which is pretty remarkable), and several racing-inspired motors could come up with something better than a grocery-hauler.
------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Maverick128
I hate it when cars HP Numbers are much higher than torque. Torque is what counts, not HP. As the great Carol Shelby once said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races."
If this were true, then formula 1 race motors would produce 900+ lb-ft and ~280 horsepower...
Instead of the 900+ horsepower and ~280 lb-ft that they DO produce.
This issue has been beaten to death, but in the end, it's the horsepower figure that truly matters. A strong human being can apply 160 ft-lbs of force to a driveshaft, but can he keep that up as the RPMs start to climb ? Hell no. His "torque" is high enough, but he can't apply that over time, so his ability to do work (power) is severely limited, and therefore, it takes him half an hour to move that car down a quartermile.
Other examples to consider-
-RSX base vs. RSX Type-S... They have the same torque, one completely outclasses the other.
- LT1 V8 vs. LS1 V8. Read up on it. The LS series produce similar torque, but more power.
- VW Golf/GTi... The TDI produces the same torque as a VR6, but one runs 18's, the other runs 15's.
etc. etc.
And before anyone cites the big torque numbers of V8's, please note that a V8 making 280 wheel ft-lbs at 2600 RPM is making the same amount of power as a stock scion tC at full-blast in the meat of its powerband.
-------------------------------------------
Topic two:
Late 60's muscle cars had retarded amounts of power... but ran on comparatively very small tires, unrefined suspension technology, and weighed in the neighborhood of 3600 - 4500 lbs.
I'm glad to see a muscle car era returning, but this one is smarter, and does more with less power. Now, a brand-new V6 camry is about as fast as the largest and baddest V8's of that time... names like GTO and roadrunner come to mind.
Our scion tCs are about as fast as the 289 mustang GT's from that timeframe. Quick, but definitley not the fastest of the bunch, and definitely NOT a boring drive. It's a great car for young buyers who can't afford the big guns, yet want a balance of spirited driving and reliability.
And finally-
160hp was a horsepower target set by engineers who take into account factors such as piston inertial changes, strengths of materials, lengths of service-lives, costs of manufacturing, torque curve characteristics, and more. This motor was designed to haul a 3200lb CAMRY, with additional passengers and payload, reasonably well.
Adapting it for a tC was an easy decision, and an easy task to implement. If they wanted to design a race motor for this car, I'm sure the guys who made the Supra, Celica all-trac, MR2 turbo, 2ZZ (which is pretty remarkable), and several racing-inspired motors could come up with something better than a grocery-hauler.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,520
From: Pittsburgh, PA
I would like to see a 2.4 ltr VVT-iL motor in our tCs. VVT-iL has a rough output of 100 HP per liter. That would be 240HP!!!!! in our tCs and if they did it in the xA/xBs it would be 150HP!!! Lets start a petition to Toyota HAHA
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,520
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by senseiturtle
Topic one:
------------------------------------------------------
If this were true, then formula 1 race motors would produce 900+ lb-ft and ~280 horsepower...
Instead of the 900+ horsepower and ~280 lb-ft that they DO produce.
------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Maverick128
I hate it when cars HP Numbers are much higher than torque. Torque is what counts, not HP. As the great Carol Shelby once said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races."
If this were true, then formula 1 race motors would produce 900+ lb-ft and ~280 horsepower...
Instead of the 900+ horsepower and ~280 lb-ft that they DO produce.
Torque gets you there, HP keeps you there
TORQUE FTW
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,167
From: Shreveport, LA
Originally Posted by tCizzler
I see what you're saying but ima have to agree that torque is more important than HP. You just don't need as much torque as you do HP to get the job done,
Torque gets you there, HP keeps you there
TORQUE FTW
Torque gets you there, HP keeps you there
TORQUE FTW
Huh ?
Again, the stark reality is, for racing purposes, horsepower is the key figure.
Engine size and torque is good for one reason, and that's building power eariler. Since torque and horsepower are related in a formula, you can't have one without the other.
If you're still having trouble believing me, then you should try taking your car down the quartermile, but selecting shift points that maximize your torque... For example, shift at 5000rpm instead of taking it to the indicated 6500. Then you'll directly see that although you're maximizing the engine's FORCE, so to speak, you are severely limiting the amount of WORK it can do.
Here's some reading on the topic, and have fun. Some of these have good specific examples.
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html
http://www.procivic.com/pages-horsep...que/index.html
http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,344
From: Queens, NY
Originally Posted by tCizzler
I would like to see a 2.4 ltr VVT-iL motor in our tCs. VVT-iL has a rough output of 100 HP per liter. That would be 240HP!!!!! in our tCs and if they did it in the xA/xBs it would be 150HP!!! Lets start a petition to Toyota HAHA
Anyway, this thread was pretty ancient.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by PooM
Like what? All the cars we make are poo! ie. Ford = crap, Vauxhall = crap, Fiat = crap, Renault = Crap, Peugeot = crap.
Need I say more, jap is the way to go
Need I say more, jap is the way to go
hate to say it but are you retarted ford is american made not UK made yes ford dose make specitaly cares fo r u guys
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,731
From: Minneapolis, MN
Wow.. talk about reviving from the dead. But I see the old tq vs hp debate was still going. It is an invalid argument guys. The two are part of the same thing. Engines make tq. That tq applied over the power band equates to hp. HP is the measure of how tq is used. So the only real argument would be how the tq needs to be applied for the application at hand. Simple concept, yet people still try to argue which is more important. And most successful straight line cars (which requires a lot of power to be quick at) are pretty close to a 1:1 ratio between peak tq and peak hp.
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 15
It is kind of depressing that I came from an SRT-4 with the same size engine that could accelerate the car from 0-60 in 5.8 seconds.... and close to the same price of my tc as well.
But the quality between Dodge & Scion isn't even comparable, not to mention the looks.
That shi+ was ugly.
But the quality between Dodge & Scion isn't even comparable, not to mention the looks.
That shi+ was ugly.
Member
SL Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by senseiturtle
Topic one:
------------------------------------------------------
If this were true, then formula 1 race motors would produce 900+ lb-ft and ~280 horsepower...
Instead of the 900+ horsepower and ~280 lb-ft that they DO produce.
This issue has been beaten to death, but in the end, it's the horsepower figure that truly matters. A strong human being can apply 160 ft-lbs of force to a driveshaft, but can he keep that up as the RPMs start to climb ? Hell no. His "torque" is high enough, but he can't apply that over time, so his ability to do work (power) is severely limited, and therefore, it takes him half an hour to move that car down a quartermile.
Other examples to consider-
-RSX base vs. RSX Type-S... They have the same torque, one completely outclasses the other.
- LT1 V8 vs. LS1 V8. Read up on it. The LS series produce similar torque, but more power.
- VW Golf/GTi... The TDI produces the same torque as a VR6, but one runs 18's, the other runs 15's.
etc. etc.
And before anyone cites the big torque numbers of V8's, please note that a V8 making 280 wheel ft-lbs at 2600 RPM is making the same amount of power as a stock scion tC at full-blast in the meat of its powerband.
-------------------------------------------
Topic two:
Late 60's muscle cars had retarded amounts of power... but ran on comparatively very small tires, unrefined suspension technology, and weighed in the neighborhood of 3600 - 4500 lbs.
I'm glad to see a muscle car era returning, but this one is smarter, and does more with less power. Now, a brand-new V6 camry is about as fast as the largest and baddest V8's of that time... names like GTO and roadrunner come to mind.
Our scion tCs are about as fast as the 289 mustang GT's from that timeframe. Quick, but definitley not the fastest of the bunch, and definitely NOT a boring drive. It's a great car for young buyers who can't afford the big guns, yet want a balance of spirited driving and reliability.
And finally-
160hp was a horsepower target set by engineers who take into account factors such as piston inertial changes, strengths of materials, lengths of service-lives, costs of manufacturing, torque curve characteristics, and more. This motor was designed to haul a 3200lb CAMRY, with additional passengers and payload, reasonably well.
Adapting it for a tC was an easy decision, and an easy task to implement. If they wanted to design a race motor for this car, I'm sure the guys who made the Supra, Celica all-trac, MR2 turbo, 2ZZ (which is pretty remarkable), and several racing-inspired motors could come up with something better than a grocery-hauler.
------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Maverick128
I hate it when cars HP Numbers are much higher than torque. Torque is what counts, not HP. As the great Carol Shelby once said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races."
If this were true, then formula 1 race motors would produce 900+ lb-ft and ~280 horsepower...
Instead of the 900+ horsepower and ~280 lb-ft that they DO produce.
This issue has been beaten to death, but in the end, it's the horsepower figure that truly matters. A strong human being can apply 160 ft-lbs of force to a driveshaft, but can he keep that up as the RPMs start to climb ? Hell no. His "torque" is high enough, but he can't apply that over time, so his ability to do work (power) is severely limited, and therefore, it takes him half an hour to move that car down a quartermile.
Other examples to consider-
-RSX base vs. RSX Type-S... They have the same torque, one completely outclasses the other.
- LT1 V8 vs. LS1 V8. Read up on it. The LS series produce similar torque, but more power.
- VW Golf/GTi... The TDI produces the same torque as a VR6, but one runs 18's, the other runs 15's.
etc. etc.
And before anyone cites the big torque numbers of V8's, please note that a V8 making 280 wheel ft-lbs at 2600 RPM is making the same amount of power as a stock scion tC at full-blast in the meat of its powerband.
-------------------------------------------
Topic two:
Late 60's muscle cars had retarded amounts of power... but ran on comparatively very small tires, unrefined suspension technology, and weighed in the neighborhood of 3600 - 4500 lbs.
I'm glad to see a muscle car era returning, but this one is smarter, and does more with less power. Now, a brand-new V6 camry is about as fast as the largest and baddest V8's of that time... names like GTO and roadrunner come to mind.
Our scion tCs are about as fast as the 289 mustang GT's from that timeframe. Quick, but definitley not the fastest of the bunch, and definitely NOT a boring drive. It's a great car for young buyers who can't afford the big guns, yet want a balance of spirited driving and reliability.
And finally-
160hp was a horsepower target set by engineers who take into account factors such as piston inertial changes, strengths of materials, lengths of service-lives, costs of manufacturing, torque curve characteristics, and more. This motor was designed to haul a 3200lb CAMRY, with additional passengers and payload, reasonably well.
Adapting it for a tC was an easy decision, and an easy task to implement. If they wanted to design a race motor for this car, I'm sure the guys who made the Supra, Celica all-trac, MR2 turbo, 2ZZ (which is pretty remarkable), and several racing-inspired motors could come up with something better than a grocery-hauler.
torque x rpms/5250 is how you come up with horsepower.
as far as your "human twisting the crankshaft", yes it would be hard to keep that up down the 1/4 mile... that's why there is a transmission that dictates how much torque is used when... which makes it much easier to turn... your comparison would be the same as starting in 4th gear and running the 1/4 mile...
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,731
From: Minneapolis, MN
It was also boosted, so engine size doesnt matter in this case. You can slap a turbo on a tC and make it run fast in a straight line as well. And I agree.. you are MUCH better off quality and style wise in a tC
Member
SL Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 76
o, and by the way, for anyone that is confused on this, i would look up what horse power and torque really is. i can see the misunderstandings here, i thought that way once too. but hp is just a measure of TORQUE. without torque there is no horsepower, not the other way around.
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,731
From: Minneapolis, MN
HP isnt really a measure of tq, but of how tq is applied to a given powerband. That is why I always wince when I see people arguing over which is more important.
There is one force created by the engine in relation to moving the car. That is torque. HP is a unit of power, not force (hence the name). The two are not comparable directly as one effects the other. HP is a good way to determine how a particular setup uses the tq it creates over its powerband.
But I agree this is probably one of the most mis-understood concepts when it comes to cars, even by techs and mechanics at various shops. It really is a good idea for those that have not covered these concepts to pick up a physics textbook or look around online to understand how it all fits together. Most people will completely change thier minds about various mods or concepts after reading up on force, work, power and rotational concepts (moment of inertia, torque, etc).
Put it this way. If any of the following statements make you go "huh?", then you should probably read up (and that is not bashing. If a person hasnt learned it, then it is worth reading up on):
1) Reducing rotational mass does not free up power overall (read up on the flywheel effect)
2) Two cars with identical peak hp and different amount of tq WILL perform differently. And depending on the application, either one may be better.
3) There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Objects do not fly "outward" from a spinning obect. They will move at a tangent to the point they broke free of. (This is more important when you start looking at cornering)
These three things always bring a strange look to peoples faces when they first hear them. They are easy concepts to understand with a little reading and make understanding everyday concepts much easier.
There's the Mr Wizzard info for the day
Your age will be determined on whether you know who Mr Wizzard is :D
There is one force created by the engine in relation to moving the car. That is torque. HP is a unit of power, not force (hence the name). The two are not comparable directly as one effects the other. HP is a good way to determine how a particular setup uses the tq it creates over its powerband.
But I agree this is probably one of the most mis-understood concepts when it comes to cars, even by techs and mechanics at various shops. It really is a good idea for those that have not covered these concepts to pick up a physics textbook or look around online to understand how it all fits together. Most people will completely change thier minds about various mods or concepts after reading up on force, work, power and rotational concepts (moment of inertia, torque, etc).
Put it this way. If any of the following statements make you go "huh?", then you should probably read up (and that is not bashing. If a person hasnt learned it, then it is worth reading up on):
1) Reducing rotational mass does not free up power overall (read up on the flywheel effect)
2) Two cars with identical peak hp and different amount of tq WILL perform differently. And depending on the application, either one may be better.
3) There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Objects do not fly "outward" from a spinning obect. They will move at a tangent to the point they broke free of. (This is more important when you start looking at cornering)
These three things always bring a strange look to peoples faces when they first hear them. They are easy concepts to understand with a little reading and make understanding everyday concepts much easier.
There's the Mr Wizzard info for the day
Your age will be determined on whether you know who Mr Wizzard is :D