high powered NA!
- Thread starter PROJECT N00b
- Start date
Well FYI your NA engine comes from the factory with 200 HP and the turbo comes with 220 HP. Yes,it is possible to get 250 + HP out of your NA. My NA has beat stock turbo Supras. I have owned 7 NA 's and just recently purchased my first turbo. I am building the engine right now. If you were trying to reach 185 RHP I guess you were doing something extremely wrong:3d_frown: ...LOL!!!!!!! PS it does not cost lots of cash either if you do it on your own... If you really want more BANG for the buck go turbo... NA-T is a Hassle. You should get you facts straight before you make commets????AGlobalThreat said:Well until I see proof, I don't believe it. I would hope to have 185 rwhp with my mods when I was NA and I had a bit more than him.
Tanya, my hard drive crashed on my server. EVERYTHING was lost, HD shop couldn't repair it. Allllllll my files including my car pics, are gone, all my records, everything, gone.
group a supra
SPAWNING AN INTERCEPTOR
canadianbacon said:
i think he was talkin at the wheels not flywheel and i think you could be a little more pleasent with your comments this is not supraforums we dont do the get your facts straight answer and then ask questions here
Jervis Mcstabby said:
I got a lot of really good deals on things or I just traded things with people and some stuff was on the car when I got it. Out of pocket expense was probably about $1200-$1300 that included all of the MSD pieces, exhuast work, MHG, bearings, bolts piston rings and a good bit of the of the machine work. I did 2 timing belts and waterpumps for the rest of the machine work. I traded a motor for the driveshaft. The HKS SMF intake and the pacesetter header were already there when I got the car.
canadianbacon said:
200HP n/a
turbo motors 235 hp.
now, that is to the crank.
Take away from the driveline, about 15%.
wtf is up with the attitude aswell? lmao
A question guys... in the UK the GE is rated at 200hp in pre-cat models (1989 ish) . With cats it drops to 185hp. Both figures at the crank.
Removing the cat is one of the first mods done typically over here to gain the missing 15hp..
So am i guessing correctly that US models are actually 185bhp due to the cat(s)?
(I'll be putting together an upgraded GE before too long for the hell of it, as I have a GTE anyway...:icon_bigg )
Cheers,
Bryan
Removing the cat is one of the first mods done typically over here to gain the missing 15hp..
So am i guessing correctly that US models are actually 185bhp due to the cat(s)?
(I'll be putting together an upgraded GE before too long for the hell of it, as I have a GTE anyway...:icon_bigg )
Cheers,
Bryan
bryank said:
How would the catalytic converter effect HP at the crank?? Makes no sense.
Also, I've never heard of any engine gaining 15hp by removing the cat.
I dyno'd (mkII remember) 132 stock, with cat... 144whp with exhaust, no cat.
That was only a 12whp gain with a header, 2.25" exhaust and no cat or EGR system.. so I feel that 185 rated crank hp is asinine.
Removing the cat is maybe a 2hp gain at best IMO.
Tanya said:
Hi, Apologies for any confusion. Dyno tested it was proven catted models were considerably down in power vs pre-cat models. Whilst both were 'offically' rated at the 200 bhp, the output to the wheels was considerably different.. Again this might be a UK thing as i suspect you guys never got a n/a without o2 sensor etc.. (permanent open loop ECU) which is why I was asking....
Cheers,
Bryan
Tanya said:
Lots of cars here gained power simply by removing restrictive catalytic converters. They werent even put on cars here until the 1990's - and optional right upto 1992 when the emissions laws changed. Non-US market engines are far less restrictive. For example - the 2.8litre V6 engine that came in the Mustang, Bronco etc (12v OHV), in the US, produced 95hp, over in the UK - same engine was 160hp, simply through removing all the emissions shite
JustAnotherVictim
Supramania Contributor
I just would have went turbo for that much.TRACKMKIII said:
Also a N/a 2j makes a little less than turbo 7m.
220hp vs. ~232hp
Tanya said:
Sure it does. The crank is the first place the power being made in the cylinders is put to work. Anything that reduces power output will have its effect first at the crank. But really, who uses "crank" HP anyway?
Did I misunderstand what your statement was about?
JustAnotherVictim said:
Even if I wanted to go turbo at this time, I really don't think I could have done it. Getting all of the machine work done plus new bearings, piston rings, bolts and mhg with all of the stuff to convert to a turbo. I just don't think I could have done it all for $1300. I guess if I wanted the turbo bad enough I could just find all of the turbo stuff and slap it on there but then the car would not be reliable and I would spend more time pissed with the thing than enjoying it. With my N/A build up I will have a reliable and fairly quick car. That is my goal for this paticular car!! I will get a turbo MKIII once I have a DD Supra that I can get around in when the turbo car decides to shit on itself.
Wow people's opinion of fast really varies. Sooo much benching in this thread. No dyno graphs, videos, slips, anything.
Canadianbacon you have no idea what you're talking about.
Canadianbacon you have no idea what you're talking about.
AGlobalThreat said:
I can throw down dyno sheets if people think I'm talking smack about my whopping 12whp gain :biglaugh:
And yes, I agree, fast does vary in peoples minds. When I first got my car, I though, OMG it's fast! Of course I realise, MkIIs are NOT fast stock, but I would be definitely impressed with the car and myself if one day she could be in the mid 14s to low 14s on n/a power. And yes, that would be "fast" to me cause I'm weird like that