Probably Frank AKA Ronin.
The clique barred him from here tho cos of his manner of getting his point across
Ss soon as Frank got banned this forum died a death imo …
Are you not doing a similar thing with a perfectly good Cup 260. What happens if it all goes pair shaped your end? Maybe you’ll get compared to them. Seriously get on with it and don’t get personal.
As far as I’m aware, there are few people who have played with the internals of the Toyota engine, with any massive success and put it out there on the web. Last time I looked at the LOT race series regs, headwork wasn’t allowed, so either people aren’t doing it, or are keeping quiet about doing it, when racing. For most other people, a smaller pulley/different exhaust is good enough, significantly cheaper, quicker and is proven to work. And you’ll still break a standard gearbox at some point, so the last possibly 5% is largely irrelevant for most people.
Want to quantify what’s awful about the ports? Over 100hp/litre NA is a pretty good metric for late 1990’s/early 2000’s.
Thanks for that, I had wondered what the funny numbers were after the month/dates in calenders…The point being that the engine was designed late 1990’s, when DI was rare, small turbo’s were mainly unheard off and Toyota/Yamaha were trying to emulate Honda’s ivtec engines. Try to find me a 2016 OE warrantied production engine, sensibly priced, transverse, 4 cylinder, atmo, 1.8 litre, Euro 5/6 compliant on sale/fitted to a car today with better hp/litre? To be clear no, Millington diamonds, Cosworth, Swindon, home built, etc.
It’s been a long time since I did anything like this, but from memory, ideally the nozzle fires into the lowest pressure area on an NA engine inlet runner - in a pocket out of the main airflow is perfect, the theory being that the high speed, low pressure air pulls the fuel into the engine, plus there is an amount of swirl to help mix fuel and air. Ultimately, If you’re feeling really brave, place them above the trumpets for high revving engines. Plays havoc with emissions though, and you need a second set of injectors for low revs or it gets really exciting, really quickly! Where are your thoughts on placing them? My suspicion is to fill in/relocate will be massively cost prohibitive.
I’m all for pushing the boundaries and love the technical posts on here .
However , for me I reached my limit at 320 bhp … The noise , gearbox temps and associated constraints called time on my project.
Sure there was a long way to go but why not just buy a more suitable car if you aint happy with the Lottie ?
Small car has limits
Not really heard of anyone doing major head work for SC or Turbo 2ZZ engines, if you look on the Celica forums you will find many that have done it for N/A. Possibly would be good for reducing parasitic losses, just was never convinced it was worth the cash when 300hp was easily achieved on a standard engine, change the SC and 340hp not far away, drop in some better pistons and rods and your at best part of 400hp, without going near the head.
How much HP are you really trying to achieve?
Well turbo it is then, still achievable without going near the head, probably need to be 2L though. From what I have seen most change the valves and clean up the ports, not the biggest gains when you have forced induction.
It is nice to see you pushing the envelope of performance of these engines and doing stuff differently from the well regarded manufacturers, would it not be best to test your pistons etc on a nicely cleaned up standard head before you go doing a lot of work on it that might be pointless?