Notices
Scion tC 1G Drivetrain & Power Engine and transmission discussions...

Emanage Ultimate...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-28-2005, 03:36 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joe_Dezod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 2,912
Default

Originally Posted by JLO26
Dezod you sell the scionspeed kits the stage 2 do you know if it can be upgraded to a ultimate
On the kits we have access to selling, no. But you could try emailing scion speed direct and asking them if they'd substitute the emanage with the ultimate for a credit towards it. Worth a shot.
Joe_Dezod is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 03:57 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joe_Dezod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 2,912
Default

Originally Posted by TurboCustomz
Hell, the Jotech car revved to 8K with nothing more then some aftermarket valves.
They had extensive mods done to that motor, not just springs. It's running a BCE head with a REV valve train system. The motor is also fully sleeved with lightwieght pistons. The head helps for this, and the stainless springs withstand the higher heat and rpms. The Motec stand-alone helps to rev cleanly as well.


Originally Posted by TurboCustomz
Trying to say that the car only rev's to 6200 because of its displacement is obsurd. A 5.7 liter 350 cubic inch LS1 revs to 6200 stock.
Originally Posted by Joe@Dezod
Another main reason why we rev so low is simply because of our displacement. A 2.4L 4-cyl is a large stroke engine. Larger stroke is more stable at lower rpms, not high.
Now you're talking about a V8. Not an In-line 4 cylinder. 4-cylinder motors with larger stroke tend to not rev as high. V8s are a little bit more stible, given their configuration. I don't want to talk about V8s because I'm not as familiar with them. But search around stock cars and you won't find a 2.4L 4 banger that revs that high. If it would work on a safe, daily driven level, then it'd be out there.

Originally Posted by TurboCustomz
The cams are restrictive and the ability to rev higher is not going to make the car faster per say. However, being able to shift only three times instead of 4 in the 8th mile could very easily pick it up a tenth or a mph.
That I completely agree with. The only time I'd rev that high is in 3rd at the track. But I'd be scared to do it on a consistant basis.

I don't want to come off attacking anyone, especially another company. I just wanted to back up why I said what I said earlier so we don't look stupid. I'm very familiar with heads and 4 cylinders so I stand by what I say. I'm glad someone tackled the project of higher revs on a stock valve train. Kudos to you for the innovation and attempt to take this motor farther. I have respect for that. Good luck with everything.
Joe_Dezod is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 05:54 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Marshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 352
Default

Originally Posted by Joe@Dezod
I'm glad someone tackled the project of higher revs on a stock valve train. Kudos to you for the innovation and attempt to take this motor farther. I have respect for that. Good luck with everything.
Props
Marshall is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 06:39 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
OuterHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 627
Default

the problem with comparing the LS1 with our engine (2az-fe) is that the LS1 has a 92mm stroke for each piston while we have a 96mm stroke. since our pistons have to travel a further distance in one cycle in the combustion process, our pistons are actually moving at a faster velocity as they go up and down compared to the LS1 engine. this is why each only goes to 6200 RPM and the sheer fact that it might be possible to hit 7000 rpm on our motors is that much more harder then the 5.7l LS1 engines because our piston speed is not only faster but will increase faster as the RPM's rise. Since people have actually logged times when they have miss shifted and logged 8000+ rpm for a brief moment of time, i believe our engines should reach about 7000 rpm safely. they might be right that our heads need some modification (porting, cams, valve springs, retainers, ect) but untill someone really does it, no one will really know. Good luck to anyone attempting this.
OuterHeaven is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 07:26 PM
  #25  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
matty-tC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,045
Default

if you want an engine to do consistent 8krpm pulls, why not build the engine up to handle that and boost?

i'd love to see some short/longblocks with a BETTER TRANSMISSION SETUP (more gears, gearing, etc.)
matty-tC is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 03:24 AM
  #26  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joe_Dezod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 2,912
Default

Jotech tried the rpm options but ditched it fast. The problems is that the torque to HP distance was much greater. Sure the top end was fun, but it didn't throw you in the seat as much.

Also... Keep in mind, especially in boost, when you rev higher you need a lot more fuel. The stock rail can support no more than 720CC injectors, but only up to 5800rpms if you max out the motor (28psi on a sleeved motor). Yes I'm pulling that info from Jotech but think about it... If you decide you want to rev to 7.5K at only 10psi, those 440cc injectors may not be adequate enough to supply the fuel. So you lose even more fuel efficiency at lower rpms, but without being able to make more torque, just HP. Granted the extra HP will be faster than the same car redlining sooner, it's not as efficient and the risk of damage is greater.

If we had longer gears it'd be much better. The stage 0 and 1 mopar SRTs rev to about 6200 and they can get up to about 145-160. Talk about long gears. The 4th gear on those things can do up to 130 on a stage 2 (chipped to go to 6800rpms).
Joe_Dezod is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 03:28 AM
  #27  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
matty-tC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,045
Default

what do you think about a FPR? I haven't read too much about the OEM fuel setup on this car
matty-tC is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 03:35 AM
  #28  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joe_Dezod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 2,912
Default

stock we have an FPR... better ones obviously help but aren't completely neccessary on most street setups
Joe_Dezod is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 03:38 AM
  #29  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
matty-tC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,045
Default

ok so there's no need as far as running about 1 bar or so? what size injectors are you guys doing for your 1 bar kit?
matty-tC is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TBurleson
Scion tC 1G Forced Induction
2
01-28-2019 12:57 AM
Joe_Dezod
Scion tC 1G Drivetrain & Power
14
11-19-2007 07:11 AM
rcruz2525
Scion tC 1G Forced Induction
5
12-14-2005 07:13 PM
Joe_Dezod
Scion tC 1G Drivetrain & Power
65
12-02-2005 05:44 PM
Joe_Dezod
Scion tC 1G Drivetrain & Power
73
11-01-2005 11:59 PM



Quick Reply: Emanage Ultimate...



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 PM.