I agree, the 4g63 is an awesome motor for what it is, sans crankwalk issues.
But, building ONE solid performing 4cylinder doesn't make it a leader in 4cylinder engines. The B16 was a great engine for it's time. The B18C5 was potent and power (and started the ricer "100hp/l" arguement). The K20R makes solid numbers and has a lot of potential. That's just three solid performing engines, excluding the motorcycle engines Honda makes which are nearly bulletproof.

Point is, Honda is known for making great 4 cylinders. Mitsu is known for making one (albeit better potential for hp due to solid factory engineering)

"meant"... who stuck this theory in your head?
I'm sure in 2001, when the Toyota designers were sitting in the room thinking about the 4cyl Camry engine, they were thinking:
"let's make it 9.6CR so that in four years when we release a yet-to-be-named brand Scion tc, we can supercharge it!"

Sound a bit far-fetched?

The fact that it has a relatively low CR just makes it easier to add forced-induction. Doesn't mean that it was "meant" (aka designed) that way. But, if you can provide quantifiable proof that the 2AZ-FE was designed to be boosted, I'd love to read it.

Two seconds of googling found this:
300whp basic tune at 10psi Now, drop 2psi and it'll make probably (spec.) 270ish to the wheels, on a basic tune with crappy parts.
And the integra is lighter...making it's 270ish whp far more potent then the 300whp in a scion. Not bad for a 2.0L CRV motor...
Not that the B20 is a better engine than the 2az (it's not), but saying it CAN'T be done is stupid, cause it has. But, i wouldn't even consider swapping the 2az for a B-series. K-series, sure... I'd consider it if I had money burning a hole in my pocket, and wanted a challenge.

That's awesome! and I think that's great.

1st, my point was that the NSX has potential to make power with a turbo... not to compare to a 2az. But, for the record, Toyota needed a 2.4L to get the same hp Honda had back in 1989 when it was doing it with a 1.6L.

Toyota made two awesome engines, 3s and 2j... the rest are mediocre. the 2GR is just finally catching up to Nissan's VQ series.

And this is why you fail
hence, "K20R"... the more readily available ITR engine is what's being referenced.

Point? Never once said a Honda engine is the BEST route. In this situation of a tc being the project car, a honda engine is a choice, may not be the BEST choice, but bashing it as a ridiculous choice is just as near-sighted.

Still don't get what you're trying to get at? No one said BUYING a fast car isn't an option. We're talking about modding a tc. stay on topic.

Maybe you missed some of my previous issues with boost.
Boost, in a road racing application, isn't always the best thing when added to an engine that was built for it. This, coming from a guy who has done exactly that.
And I bring up racing cause, if you're turboing or swapping motors, you better be racing it... otherwise, what's the point?
back to the topic...
Heat is the biggest enemy and compressing air does what? Generates heat! Intercoolers help, but they are mounted usually in the grill, blocking what? the radiator, which does what? Cools the engine down! back to issue number one. But, you could do a water-to-air IC, but now you can only run for so long because the ice/water melts and adds more weight to a car that's already stricken with unnecessary weight.
So, do you see the dilema?

Now, turboing a tc for drag racing vs. engine swaps... totally makes sense. Even your reasons for it, make perfect sense.

Nothing is sweeter than outbraking a $100K+ cars and having grip similar to a SR8 in a $6K poopbox

Very true... and it was. The context was in the grand scheme of "performance-minded" engines, the 2az isn't going to be on anyone's top ten list, even when narrowed down to 4 cylinders. The rest of what you said I agree with.

Back to topic... simply bashing the idea isn't helpful. Providing some alternatives or even some ideas why it might be a bad idea...... awesome. but ____ing on his parade cause it's a "honda"... well.

OP, if you want to do it, do it. But, it's gonna cost you a lot of money which could be spent elsewhere and net you more power (if that's your only goal). But, it'd be interesting to see...

 

its post like this that reminds me why i dont come on SL as much as i used too...

 

um re-read what i said. maybe it will make a little more sense. i never said "n/a WITH a S/C"

trust me i know a 89civic si will walk on a tc. Double wishbone suspension was a brilliant thing. i'm not "all about" going in a straight line. but i do like drag racing. i mean hey i guess it gets in your blood when you watch a 67 ford fairlane with a 428 cobra jet run the 1320 since you were 4 years old.

you can call people ricers all you want just because you don't share peoples views. the only reason i got on him was he's slamming a car when what he owns can't even hold it's own against a tC. well atleast stock for stock it can't.

i never said the crx was a bad car i just said i could bash it all night long. nor did i say honda was a terrible company. altho well informed. mr crx has no room to talk on this forum when his car won't stack up to ours.

man that engine has been going for a long time. but there's also the 4g37 and the original 2g wich was in the dodge colt and something else i can't remember, and i've seen that motor handle 600whp so thoese are 3 pretty solid engines. now i do know honda's can also run for over 300k miles BUT since i guess i'm a "ricer" i'm all about WHP. and in my opinion honda AND toyota haven't been able to produce a solid 4 cyl for straight line racing. A 4G also holds the tsukuba track record. and i know thats a short track that awd reigns for. but hks, trust, and others have done wonders to make the evo compete on a whole new level of performance. which you can't deny

 

Syldrin, are you illiterate? I mean, seriously?
Since you want to compare my vehicles to a tc (although retarded, but since you're arguments are asinine it makes sense... i guess).
I own a CRX, G35, a CBR, and a tc.
three of the four will match or seriously spank the poo out of a stock tc... stock for stock.
the crx... well... the crx is a faster car at autox compared to a tc, but that's about it. stock '88crx si run high 15s... on par with a poorly driven tc.

i don't know why YOU keep bringing up my crx. but, since you seem so fascinated by it...I doubt there are many tc's that can compete with my modded crx. how many tcs run 13s, compete in SM and is competitive on a national level, and wins its NASA TT class by +5 seconds? Can/has a tc ran SOW under 1m40s? What about CalSpeedway's roval under 2 mins?

If you're talking about my other vehicles...CBR, no tc is gonna keep up. G35, won't take much... it's pretty slow running mid 14s. tc... well, since i own a tc... a tc with mods would be able to beat me, since mine is stock.

 

hey hondacrx, drop a k20a in it ;)

 

im not talking about the tC, meant his crx.

 

My responses in Blue


1) You replace an engine with NO upgradability with an engine that has upgradability.
2) You replace an engine with low power with an engine of high power. (160 -> 220 isn't enough...the TRD supercharger does that)
3) The cost of the swap is comparatively low.
4) You're a race team looking for maximum performance or to fit into a particular bracket.

Makes sense and completely agree

The tC engine WAS NOT built for boost. They built a supercharger made to work with the tC engine

Thank you

Second... N/A with a supercharger????? Better look up your acronyms there.

He said or with a supercharger.

"the tC was ment to be boosted they built the motor to run N/A or with the super charger. "

I only hate on a company if they continually build crap that wont stay together, but even then, if they come out with a winner I will still be interested in them and give them credit.

Look Hyundai actually makes good cars now.

I'm running on 10 psi, 550 injectors and I still get between 24-28 MPG on the freeway.... in town is a different story. And I should be right around 300 at the wheels... I'm getting ready to revamp my setup which will put me even higher, hopefully.

Now I am not bashing you just using your post as an example. People say 10 psi 16 psi whatever but never list the turbo.

My 9B turbo can boost 15psi before the car throws it self into fuel cut. As where a the 16G can make more power at 7psi. I love hearing I want to run 18psi and make 400 HP. Its just so dumb. (mostly DSM sites) But I am curious as to what turbo?


Nychold does make one point that I appreciate. The K20 swap just doesn't seem to make sense to me. It doesn't seem like a great enough difference to warrant the whole affair. A stroker kit and head work and tuning seems like it'd "correct" a lot of "problems" without introducing spatial problems.

This post makes sense.


I agree, the 4g63 is an awesome motor for what it is, sans crankwalk issues.

Only a select few do it. And if you get past 50,000 miles 95% of the time your golden.


K-series, sure... I'd consider it if I had money burning a hole in my pocket, and wanted a challenge.

Basically my logic.


OP, if you want to do it, do it. But, it's gonna cost you a lot of money which could be spent elsewhere and net you more power (if that's your only goal). But, it'd be interesting to see...

I just bought a front mount for my GT I think I am spending my money wisely. =)

but hks, trust, and others have done wonders to make the evo compete on a whole new level of performance. which you can't deny

The Evo cant really even be compared to the TC. It is a different breed of car. am not saying a TC can't be modded to compete though.



the only reason i got on him was he's slamming a car when what he owns can't even hold it's own against a tC.

I am not sure who this is pointed at or what it is in reference to.

 

Good Job of making sense of it EMC3000GT we have to edit that new year's eve drive video.... mmmmm footage of the Xb keeping pace with the 3000... in the corners that is lol straitaway I could use some binoculars hahaahahahah.

 

x3......


Dumbest idea. There is a reason why we have motor that has more than just girbbles for tQ. The car is heavy, it needs it's tQ to get moving. A k20 doesn't have enough "UMPH" to move this car. Turbo it if you want to move.

 

Your responses in Blue
My responses in Pantone 1805

1) You replace an engine with NO upgradability with an engine that has upgradability.
2) You replace an engine with low power with an engine of high power. (160 -> 220 isn't enough...the TRD supercharger does that)
3) The cost of the swap is comparatively low.
4) You're a race team looking for maximum performance or to fit into a particular bracket.

Makes sense and completely agree
No, it doesn't. This is wrong. The tC aftermarket world might not be as large as the Honda world, but the Honda's also been around for much longer. That being said, the tC aftermarket does exist. Also, power is a relative term. As it's been stated repeatedly, the K20R doesn't develop enough torque to move our cars. You'd have all that horsepower, and no way of getting the car moving. And who ever said that the cost of the swap would be low? You'd have to basically redesign our entire engine bay to accomodate a new engine from a different automaker.

The tC engine WAS NOT built for boost. They built a supercharger made to work with the tC engine

Thank you
Also wrong! I skipped a lot of this thread because it's mindless, but where are you seeing this? Our engine has been repeatedly proven to be boost-capable, and Toyota obviously intended for this to happen by giving us massive space in the engine bay to do so.

OP, if you want to do it, do it. But, it's gonna cost you a lot of money which could be spent elsewhere and net you more power (if that's your only goal). But, it'd be interesting to see...

I just bought a front mount for my GT I think I am spending my money wisely. =)
If you were looking for just a radical engine swap, then yes, this is what you're looking for, and what you should spend money on. Howerver, you've stated that you aren't. You're just looking for more power. Therefore, this is just going to be a massive waste of money and time.

This thread is made of epic lulz. It's a great demonstration of the adage "just because you (think you) can, doesn't mean you should".

 

amongst all the stupid arguments, the only interesting thing brought up in this forum was smacking a six speed in the tC, id love to see some1 put gts 6spd or mr2 6spd in the tC...cant be TOO difficult...its toyota ftw.

 

interesting? maybe. Reasonable? no. Not many modified tC's will have enough power to use the 6th gear to make it an effective modification. It's more of a waste of money than anything else.

This entire thread is retarded. There is so much BS, and wrong information in this... SL has went downhill fast.

 

The 2AZ was not built for boost.. that is not even questionable. Being able to be boosted and being built for boost are WORLDS apart. Built for boost means they specifically design the engine to be boosted to begin with.. which does not equal a 2AZ-FE. People have designed turbo kits (and the SC) to work with this engine, the engine was not designed with boost in mind.

 

It went downhill 4 years ago when "what I wish were true" took over what is actually true, and those that know the difference became the stupid ones for saying so

 

This just in, supercharging is a form of Boost. And a car with 11:1 compression ratio is made for boost? Haha. Have fun trying to find 120 octane.

This thread is the ultimate failure. Go spend $5,000 on your tC to make it slower off the line. I'll go spend $1500 to beat you in all sections of a road course.

 

i dont see how its impossible to bolt a 6speed w/ well tuned gear ratios to a boosted tC on a standalone AEM.

 

The quote and requote thing is getting way out of hand here.

The point made in the original comment (mine) was that the engine is not MADE for boost. They MADE the supercharger to work with a 2AZ (in other words, just because the car has an available supercharger does not make the engine "built for boost").

And no, there is NO honda motor "built for boost" either that I know of. Again, people are confusing what has been done with what something was designed for doing.

 

i never said it was impossible. i said it was a waste of money. you wont see any advantages to this unless you are putting out some serious HP. a standalone system or piggy back by itself wont help much at all w/o the power you will need to use the 6th gear efficiently.

now... if you wanna spend tons of money and get all the gears machined, and get the engine tuned to work well with the new tranny and custom machined gears... thats a whole new story, and cost range. which again... is stupid

 

And the 6 speed thing has been beat to death. I would rather have a 5 speed personally. If the car has enough tq to run 5 gears instead of 6, that just means less shifting for me.. and shifting equals lost time in a race. The only purpose I would see in a 6 speed for this car would be if you wanted one higher gear for highway cruising, which I really dont care about. I like being able to pass in top gear.

For engines with lower tq, that make thier power up high, cramming 6 gears in is better because you want to always be in the upper rev range to produce maximum power.

 

2AZ-FE, please read for all of those think they know what it is, but really don't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_AZ_engine