Notices
Scion tC 1G Forced Induction Turbo and supercharger applications...

A little disappointed with the TC engine..

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-17-2006, 02:57 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default A little disappointed with the TC engine..

I don’t know you guys but the 2.4 liter TC engine does not make as much whp as some of the same engines in its class when turbocharged it is a little disappointing. With the amount of money needed to spend the trade off is just not adequate in my opinion. I have been into fast cars since Mikuni and Webber sidedraft days (for those of you who know what I am talking about) and 300hp Is not that much anymore man. Unless you push it to the point of blowing up you are not getting over 400whp with out building the block. Don’t get me wrong I love the car and the car makes good HP and feels strong mine makes 300 so far I know I can get it up to about 330-340 safely but damn man. For example I was going to buy a civic SI but I liked the scion better I just think it is a much better looking car. I paid almost as much as a civic anyway with all the stuff I put on it. Anyway what I am getting at is when I was dynoing my car they had a Integra with a K20 engine same as the civic SI stock internals it just had an intake and a gt35r turbo boosting about 14psi making over 430whp it made 501whp on race C16! Now grant it the engine from the dealer makes 40hp more than our cars but damn 501whp! I guess what I am getting at is the TC engine is a pretty big 4 cylinder, what is holding back this car my guess is the head or intake system maybe cheaper parts that cant handle the load? Maybe you guys could share some insight on the subject.
Rasta is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 03:00 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
318_tC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,534
Default

its the head...just watch ull see
318_tC is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 03:00 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default Re: A little disappointed with the TC engine..

Originally Posted by Rasta
I don’t know you guys but the 2.4 liter TC engine does not make as much whp as some of the same engines in its class when turbocharged it is a little disappointing. With the amount of money needed to spend the trade off is just not adequate in my opinion. I have been into fast cars since Mikuni and Webber sidedraft days (for those of you who know what I am talking about) and 300hp Is not that much anymore man. Unless you push it to the point of blowing up you are not getting over 400whp with out building the block. Don’t get me wrong I love the car and the car makes good HP and feels strong mine makes 300 so far I know I can get it up to about 330-340 safely but damn man. For example I was going to buy a civic SI but I liked the scion better I just think it is a much better looking car. I paid almost as much as a civic anyway with all the stuff I put on it. Anyway what I am getting at is when I was dynoing my car they had a Integra with a K20 engine same as the civic SI stock internals it just had an intake and a gt35r turbo boosting about 14psi making over 430whp it made 501whp on race C16! Now grant it the engine from the dealer makes 40hp more than our cars but damn 501whp! I guess what I am getting at is the TC engine is a pretty big 4 cylinder, what is holding back this car my guess is the head or intake system maybe cheaper parts that cant handle the load? Maybe you guys could share some insight on the subject.


The 501whp by the way was at 17psi on racegas
Rasta is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 03:01 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default

Originally Posted by 318_tC
its the head...just watch ull see
Nice let me know!!
Rasta is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 03:41 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Music City Scions
Scikotics
SL Member
 
rhythmnsmoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 16,747
Default Re: A little disappointed with the TC engine..

Originally Posted by Rasta
The 501whp by the way was at 17psi on racegas


And just how much hp do you think a tC would make on 17 PSI and racegas? We just need more time to push the motor that far. The car has only been out for what 3 years.
rhythmnsmoke is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:07 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
steve_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 183
Default Re: A little disappointed with the TC engine..

Originally Posted by rhythmnsmoke
Originally Posted by Rasta
The 501whp by the way was at 17psi on racegas


And just how much hp do you think a tC would make on 17 PSI and racegas? We just need more time to push the motor that far. The car has only been out for what 3 years.
the si just came out recently too. although the k20 has been out since around... 2001?
But then again, the 2az has been equipped on 2002+ camrys. Although, the camry isnt such a big tuner car.
steve_r is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:26 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default Re: A little disappointed with the TC engine..

Originally Posted by rhythmnsmoke
Originally Posted by Rasta
The 501whp by the way was at 17psi on racegas


And just how much hp do you think a tC would make on 17 PSI and racegas? We just need more time to push the motor that far. The car has only been out for what 3 years.
There is no way it will make 501...ZPI made a little over 400whp with alky injection then I think the motor got roasted if I am not mistaken. Who knows how much boost and if the head was done or not.
Rasta is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:31 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
ZPIracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 993
Default

We ran 121-123mph in the 1/4 on our 8.5.1 pistons stock rods stock valve train with a street port. We estimate the car was in the mid to high 400 range to create such MPH.

We did this on a 1 bar
ZPIracing is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:38 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
ScionERA
SL Member
 
Nu_ERA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: T-Town
Posts: 679
Default

All are right in my book so far. Car is still new and head work is one of major keys to unlocking good power. Along with a built bottom, head is getting major face lift along with titanium goodies and what not. Guy who is building my motor told me that usually Supra owner can spend over thousands on the head alone.
Nu_ERA is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:38 PM
  #10  
Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
DelMarVa
 
tCUZZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 88
Default

its the vtec. every honda dyno graph I have seen, the hp sky rocket after vtec kicks in.
tCUZZ is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:53 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default

Originally Posted by ZPIracing
We ran 121-123mph in the 1/4 on our 8.5.1 pistons stock rods stock valve train with a street port. We estimate the car was in the mid to high 400 range to create such MPH.

We did this on a 1 bar
Was there head work done? I think this the main problem on these rides.
Rasta is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:58 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default

Originally Posted by tCUZZ
its the vtec. every honda dyno graph I have seen, the hp sky rocket after vtec kicks in.
No doubt the v-tec produces more horsepower than the VVT-I but cmon..stock to stock the engine only has 40hp than ours...we have more torque than they do.
Rasta is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:40 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Music City Scions
Scikotics
SL Member
 
rhythmnsmoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 16,747
Default

Originally Posted by Rasta
Originally Posted by tCUZZ
its the vtec. every honda dyno graph I have seen, the hp sky rocket after vtec kicks in.
No doubt the v-tec produces more horsepower than the VVT-I but cmon..stock to stock the engine only has 40hp than ours...we have more torque than they do.


What's your point. Stock for Stock we have less hp than an SRT-4. Put us on 8 PSI of boost, and we put down more power than an SRT-4 (forget what PSI setting they come with from the factory). So, you can't compare totally two different engines.


You should check back on that k20 Teggy from time to time to see how long it last, IF it was stock internals. They come with like 11:5.1 HIGH compression pistons in them. I'm just curious to see how long that motor last like that. All the New 06 Si's in the mags, that have been F/I, 99% of them all had different LOWER compression pistons in them. NONE were using stock pistons.
rhythmnsmoke is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:45 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
ProshopXB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lost in Tranquility
Posts: 3,270
Default

Originally Posted by rhythmnsmoke
Originally Posted by Rasta
Originally Posted by tCUZZ
its the vtec. every honda dyno graph I have seen, the hp sky rocket after vtec kicks in.
No doubt the v-tec produces more horsepower than the VVT-I but cmon..stock to stock the engine only has 40hp than ours...we have more torque than they do.


What's your point. Stock for Stock we have less hp than an SRT-4. Put us on 8 PSI of boost, and we put down more power than an SRT-4 (forget what PSI setting they come with from the factory). So, you can't compare totally two different engines.


You should check back on that k20 Teggy from time to time to see how long it last, IF it was stock internals. They come with like 11:5.1 HIGH compression pistons in them. I'm just curious to see how long that motor last like that. All the New 06 Si's in the mags, that have been F/I, 99% of them all had different LOWER compression pistons in them. NONE were using stock pistons.
20-22 Psi stock for an SRT-4
ProshopXB is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:47 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
TCpete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: WORLD WIDE Flossin
Posts: 13,376
Default

have you tried upgrading the head? remember that the k20's head was designed to produce HP and great flow. our how ever i think was more intended for fuel efficiency. you also have to take into consideration that k20 500 hp might not last as long as a 300 hp 2az.. in the long run $ wise you will be ahead lol... and think about it.. how much fun is 500 HP on a FWD car when your spinning every gear... with 340 with what your putting out would be some what ideal.. HP is not everything some times.. and if all you do is spin tires then how will you win a race??? we can drive on DR all the time lol..

i would look up head packages that zpi offers.. maybe thats the upgrade your looking for to really push your car...the head can make a HUGE difference.
TCpete is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:53 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
tcengel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 879
Default

Don't worry about the head yet. Right now you need pistons. I believe you could easily run 1 bar / 14.7 psi daily with just a piston upgrade and make 400WHP. The motor is stout, the piston's are weak. Most N/A motors are this way.
Don't ever compare an Integra to this car. I had an Integra in 2000 with a Drag turbo kit and let me tell you how quickly these things eat motors. I personally sold the car on the third motor.
tcengel is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:57 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
tcengel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 879
Default Re: A little disappointed with the TC engine..

Originally Posted by Rasta
Anyway what I am getting at is when I was dynoing my car they had a Integra with a K20 engine same as the civic SI stock internals it just had an intake and a gt35r turbo boosting about 14psi making over 430whp it made 501whp on race C16! Now grant it the engine from the dealer makes 40hp more than our cars but damn 501whp!
501 whp and 150 ftlbs.......
tcengel is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:59 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Team No Limitz
SL Member
Team ScioNRG
 
Simplyscion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Smithtown Scion (NY)
Posts: 3,789
Default

I dont really see much gains coming from a full out head job...Toyota is notorious for high flow characteristic heads in the recent years unlike honda...i dunno, someone please help shove my foot in my mouth
Simplyscion is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 07:22 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default

Originally Posted by rhythmnsmoke
Originally Posted by Rasta
Originally Posted by tCUZZ
its the vtec. every honda dyno graph I have seen, the hp sky rocket after vtec kicks in.
No doubt the v-tec produces more horsepower than the VVT-I but cmon..stock to stock the engine only has 40hp than ours...we have more torque than they do.


What's your point. Stock for Stock we have less hp than an SRT-4. Put us on 8 PSI of boost, and we put down more power than an SRT-4 (forget what PSI setting they come with from the factory). So, you can't compare totally two different engines.


You should check back on that k20 Teggy from time to time to see how long it last, IF it was stock internals. They come with like 11:5.1 HIGH compression pistons in them. I'm just curious to see how long that motor last like that. All the New 06 Si's in the mags, that have been F/I, 99% of them all had different LOWER compression pistons in them. NONE were using stock pistons.
I am not comparing turbo engines to turbo engines. If you notice in my post I used two N/A engines that were turbo charged that is my point. An SRT has lower compression pistons so at 8psi compared yea we have more. And regards to the Integ it’s a guy I know real good....lying about what is in your engine is for when you are in high school.
Rasta is offline  
Old 08-17-2006, 07:24 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
 
Rasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 564
Default Re: A little disappointed with the TC engine..

Originally Posted by tcengel
Originally Posted by Rasta
Anyway what I am getting at is when I was dynoing my car they had a Integra with a K20 engine same as the civic SI stock internals it just had an intake and a gt35r turbo boosting about 14psi making over 430whp it made 501whp on race C16! Now grant it the engine from the dealer makes 40hp more than our cars but damn 501whp!
501 whp and 150 ftlbs.......
I would not doubt it
Rasta is offline  


Quick Reply: A little disappointed with the TC engine..



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 AM.