1.5jz vs 2jz spool time
- Thread starter rshn117
- Start date
The line I was looking at was the TQ line, it makes 24x TQ @2500 rpms and 34x @ 3000 rpms. its roughly what mine did too when BPU. since then I have done many singles, Ball bearing, Journal bearing and concluded that. Single turbos just wont feel strong on a 71.5mm stroke motor the way factory twins do, this is why I am doing this..http://www.supramania.com/forums/sh...oler-Individual-Throttle-bodies-6-speed-setup Now Im not sure what 1jz's you hav eseen that dont do this but this is typically what I expect.
so, you see nothing off with ~378wtq @ ~3800rpm/stock boost?
my car with: rebuilt twins, TRD ECU with revised timing, AFC neo, FMIC/piping, 3" Trust downpipe, Blitz Nurspec, and BCC managed 340rwhp and 310wtq @ 16psi. My numbers are considered to be on the better side from all I've been told, and the majority of cars I see on the dyno are around 300-320wtq regardless.
I would be far more inclined to believe that graph is from a 2J or 7M. I was actually just perusing some graphs for high power, stock twin, 1J cars, and found that some folks have managed over 400wtq when around the 400whp level (20psi+); this was impressive. I knew of Jostar who managed 422whp, but I don't believe his wtq was all that crazy.
Anyhow, the bottom line is stock twins/stock boost, not believable IMO.
my car with: rebuilt twins, TRD ECU with revised timing, AFC neo, FMIC/piping, 3" Trust downpipe, Blitz Nurspec, and BCC managed 340rwhp and 310wtq @ 16psi. My numbers are considered to be on the better side from all I've been told, and the majority of cars I see on the dyno are around 300-320wtq regardless.
I would be far more inclined to believe that graph is from a 2J or 7M. I was actually just perusing some graphs for high power, stock twin, 1J cars, and found that some folks have managed over 400wtq when around the 400whp level (20psi+); this was impressive. I knew of Jostar who managed 422whp, but I don't believe his wtq was all that crazy.
Anyhow, the bottom line is stock twins/stock boost, not believable IMO.
Last edited:
Dylan JZ;1825752 said:
+1
I'd say something but I didn't want to get chewed out...as usual.
I would be more believable if he said the graph is from a 1.5JZ with twins.
it was a stock rigged 1jz, i admit the crazy tq curve was partly due to my fucked up ecu something went wrong in the right way , theres a lot more to engines then max flow and bolting shit on imo. purpose of the graph is to show what CAN be done and why im interested in comparing the two heads
Thats what happens when you have a healthy motor. I no longer have stock twins but a buddy of mine does and is making 325whp, dont remember the tq but its up there. its at stock boost, 3" exhaust, custom Intake for the turbo FMIC and tuned with a SAFC. here is what you are forgetting. Boost has nothing to do with air flow or volume. Boost is a measure of restriction, when you upgrade all the restrictions in the system the turbo is going to have to move more air to reach "stock boost". if your supra is 100% stock down to the exhaust. I mean completely stock. and you lay down 250/260 hp/tq @ 10.5psi and you do nothing more than upgrade from the DP all the way back, you will pick up power, even without a tune. then you upgrade the filter and piping going to the turbos, you will pick up power, even without a tune. if you then do the charge piping and intercooler and tune the car, you will have boat loads more power and the whole time you are doing this the boost gauge will still read 10.5psi! obviously upping the boost will compound the results. but you will gain substantially even before that.
He is making more hp and tq at the stock boost level because he is currently moving much more air and fuel regardless of what the boost gauge says. now Im sure you know the 7m makes tq better than a 2jz does, this is what a just over 300rwhp 7m does with Tq..
As you can see it makes more tq and makes it almost 1000rpms earlier than the 1jz did. so again, how are the numbers not indicative of a 2.5 Liter?
He is making more hp and tq at the stock boost level because he is currently moving much more air and fuel regardless of what the boost gauge says. now Im sure you know the 7m makes tq better than a 2jz does, this is what a just over 300rwhp 7m does with Tq..
As you can see it makes more tq and makes it almost 1000rpms earlier than the 1jz did. so again, how are the numbers not indicative of a 2.5 Liter?
Attachments
rshn117;1825905 said:
When I did my first 60-1 I had a blitz ecu. Blitz tunes ECU's on a per customer basis. and My ecu had a really aggressive tune. On 14psi I made 43x whicn as far as I have found No 1jz in all of internet land has made that much, its more expected on a 2jz. I only have the graph of the previous pull of 421rwhp.. this is it..
This was 14psi.. on 6psi it made 296rwhp with was nothing more than a blitz ecu and a SAFC II.. when I upgraded to megasuirt I had already hurt the motor. rings were completely gone. but still made 425hp and 388tq on the same boost level.
Honestly, you are not going to convince me.. It's just not feasible, and btw my motor has perfect compression and is beyond healthy.
Those numbers do NOT happen at stock boost. Period. This is nothing personal or anything similar, but I'd also like you to respect the fact that I know more about motors than your posts seem to indicate.
What I will admit to, is that I have never owned a 2J or 7M with mods. I mentioned those because I didn't want to seal off the possibility of either motor doing that level of tq. vs hp.
As for the 60-1 numbers, they are far more believable IMO. That's all I have left to say on this topic (should have left prior, but didn't so here we are).
Those numbers do NOT happen at stock boost. Period. This is nothing personal or anything similar, but I'd also like you to respect the fact that I know more about motors than your posts seem to indicate.
What I will admit to, is that I have never owned a 2J or 7M with mods. I mentioned those because I didn't want to seal off the possibility of either motor doing that level of tq. vs hp.
As for the 60-1 numbers, they are far more believable IMO. That's all I have left to say on this topic (should have left prior, but didn't so here we are).
Last edited:
In regards to the 1jz graph posted by Dennis (rshn117) I can confirm it happened, I was there. That's just the best pull, but all 3 pulls were crazy like that. I can also confirm it was what he says it was, a basically stock 1jz on twins.
To this day it makes no sense to me. The dyno was accurate for my car and the other cars running that day, so I have no reason to doubt it as well.
There are a few factors that could have contributed to the crazy result though: he had just reset his ECU and driven only a couple of miles, and his exhaust was quite...odd. I think it may have choked the flow a bit and caused more TQ down low than normal.
To this day it makes no sense to me. The dyno was accurate for my car and the other cars running that day, so I have no reason to doubt it as well.
There are a few factors that could have contributed to the crazy result though: he had just reset his ECU and driven only a couple of miles, and his exhaust was quite...odd. I think it may have choked the flow a bit and caused more TQ down low than normal.
Interesting. well, it may shock the hell out of me, but if you were there while it happened I can't deny that. To deny that would just be sheer ignorance, dyno sheets on the other hand aren't all that hard to manipulate. Still, those numbers are beyond incredible... In fact, if all 1Js could consistently make numbers like that on stock twins, there might be a far better argument for keeping them. Those numbers are far the exception to the rule though, and he may be the only one (or one of a few worldwide) to have accomplished such.
