porshhhh951

A&A full blown kit with tune, and everything included for 6k is hard to beat. Well see. I got a few things to iron out.

SoloRacer

Things to iron out? Like what? The frilly's on your granny panties?

2bridges

Now that was some funny **** right there!!

JDS968

What, like the 305HP version of the 968 that had a turbo, but had 16 fewer valves? :P

Okay, so when you finally get to the engine that has more valves and TWO turbos, you can get more power...fair enough

I mean if you think the 7M isn't a close enough comparison, you'd compare the 2JZGE, which again comes up short

Why? It has nothing to do with my point of "Toyotas suck"

That, and it's a much newer engine benefiting from much newer technology...and yet it still sucks because it's another Magical Torqueless Engine. It's so gutless that it really doesn't make any sense off the racetrack.

How does a 79 hp/L 4AGE 20v "wipe out" the 79 hp/L 968?

NZ951

#1 Nope, it was just a homologation motor that Im referring to. And the 968 that uses a 944 turbo motor... not the same platform is it.

#2 Same number of cylinders and no turbo F20 has more power and 1 litre less displacement. The number of turbos does nothing for peak power. In fact people delete that part of the 2JZ as par for the course.

#3 My taxi motor 1UZFE makes a LOT more power stock than most of the bigger displacement 928 motors. So Porsches must suck more with your logic?

#4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_....2820-valve.29 enough said? My stock 4age makes over 100HP/L Thats a wipe out. Always good practice to check facts dont you think.

alxdgr8

facts and wikipedia should almost never be in the same sentence.

Rogue_Ant

If it is cited properly, I don't see why not?

NZ951

Its the same value every other source quotes. But sure willing to accept it is not correct, like all other data like on the 968 power figures. I can say I have had a totally stock one on the dyno and did a 132WHP, which still makes it better than the 968/L

JDS968

Homologation motor or not, 267 < 305. And the 944 turbo motor is a 2.5, the 968 turbo motor is a 3.0.

How much power does it make at 6000 RPM?

Or 3000, for that matter?

Tell you what would be fun...get an S2000 and a 968 next to each other, and get them rolling but only at idle speed...then have a drag race from whatever that speed is. Without the chance to launch at 7000 RPM, I think the Honda would be going...nowhere

In terms of a motor in a production car, yes it does something for peak power...a manufacturer building a regular production car with a sequential turbo system will make the second turbo a lot bigger than if the engine only had one turbo. They never want to build a car with a single turbo that's so difficult to spool.

Are you again comparing an engine to a much older Porsche engine?

Because in 1989 the 1UZFE came out and was developing 64 hp/L with 4.0L, and the 928 was developing 64 hp/L with 5.0L.

But no, that's not my logic; you've got it backwards. I'm not saying that Toyota sucks because the 7M and 2JZGE suck. I'm saying the 7M and 2JZGE suck because Toyota sucks.

Oh, so you're saying that you have a rare engine used in Group A racing, and you're making a big deal of it running hotter than a bone stock regular production engine from a civilized luxury sports car? Why don't we just compare your 4AGE to a 500hp Porsche 3.4L MR6 V8?

NZ951

Yes 305 is greater than 267, there were 16 968 Turbo's produced mmmm and the 2JZ turbo made 320HP. So 320>305. And then you can go to the Turbo RS which is supposed to be 327HP and what 4 were made?

So your point is if you dont let the Honda rev past 7,000rpm, the 968 will beat it? Then you do a rolling on the floor laughing icon? Right.

A single turbo is not difficult to spool. Im not sure how you get to a point where you claim it is.

64.51/L for the 1989 1UZ, 63.2/L for the 928 motor (slightly more if you take the GT model)

72.5/L for the 1997 1UZ, 63.99/L for the 1995 GTS 928

A rare engine used in Group A racing? Ummm no, the motor was a stock 4AGE 20v, thats the point, its a ****ter and still whoops your 968 Oddly enough, a friend has a 16v 4AGE turbo making over 500BHP and it would whoop you in every way, even if you limited it to 7,000rpm as you seem to feel that has to be done to make the comparison some how meaningful.

gt37vgt

I think your both miles off Toyota's aren't more powerful then Porsche , Porsche's arn't more powerful .
The impressive thing about a Toyota engine is that it is as good as a Porsche motor at a third the cost .... And thats why there is more under 5.0 lt 500+hp Toyota powered street cars than any other type engine.

Korenwolf

Just check the BMEP figures of each engine, that'll give you a proper comparison of actual engine performance in design terms...

Also don't forget that the 944/968 engines being 4 cylinder make use of power robbing balance shafts to smooth out the power delivery which a 6 cylinder has naturally...

V2Rocket

can i get a length and height measurement off that 7m?

JDS968

The same applies to NA 968s, the entire model line was made in tiny numbers. There's always going to be fewer of a Porsche model than a Toyota.

Like I pointed out already...16 extra valves and another turbo and you only get 15 more horsepower?

My point is that these 9000 RPM, 10,000 RPM, 11,000 RPM engines are just silly for a street car because they have no torque and so they're not making any power at realistic and practical engine speeds. They're great if you're on a racetrack maintaining a narrow speed range and using custom close-spaced gear ratios to keep the revs exactly right, but in the real world they're useless.

I didn't claim any single turbo is difficult to spool. I said that if the engine has a small, fast spooling turbo for low RPMs, it can have a large, slow spooling turbo for high RPMs...but manufacturers don't want to put an equally large turbo on the same engine in a single turbo setup in a regular production street car. If they did, the power would be too on/off, like in the old days with the 930.

Holy crap splitting hairs!

Fine, okay.

For 1989, 256hp/4.0L and 320hp/5.0L both equal 64 hp/L.

For 1995, 261hp/4.0L = 65.25 hp/L and 350hp/5.4L = 64.8 hp/L.

For the imaginary 1997 Porsche 928 GTSRSR, 290hp/4.0L = 72.5 hp/L and 1080ihp/5.4L = 200 ihp/L

(* imaginary horse power)

You linked me to something about a "silver top" TRD engine making the same power as a 968...unless you mean you have the other engine briefly mentioned in there...which is going to "whoop" a 968 despite being 80 horsepower short?

Uhhhhh okay, that's nice. If you feel like paying for it, I'll cast an iron 968 block and turbocharge it to 900 or 1000 horsepower, and that will prove...something?

By the way, just out of curiosity...how many miles does your friend have on this 4AGE since the turbo conversion, and how often does he hit full boost?

LS1Porch

I can't believe we're having a hp/L argument here. Horsepower per liter is a completely useless measurement. It doesn't prove anything, and it doesn't win races.

Anybody who knows anything about cars knows that power under the curve is what's important. Take that ignorant hp/L talk over to Hondatech.com.