View Single Post
Old 02-21-2011, 01:15 PM   #31 (permalink)
Red__Zed
A True Z Fanatic
 
Red__Zed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: window seat
Posts: 28,940
Drives: Mostly on two wheels
Rep Power: 120
Red__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordo! View Post
If there was a completely different build and ECU -- maybe. But while I could see maybe 10+ horses from better compression and a little more spark advance or whatever on the same build and tune, 35-40 is hard to believe.

Imagine it had a whole extra compression point (unlikely) or a slightly better flowing head (probably not) -- that's just not going to equate to a 20% bump in power.

How much tighter can tolerance be before it's simply a different engine? For that huge a difference (nearly 20% more power!) were talking a totally different build and tune -- there's just no way.

That's like the difference between a 1ZZ and a 2ZZ engine, and although they have the same displacement and bolt up interchangeably,
the 2ZZ has a totally different short block, head, cam and cam mechanism, and ECU to make that power -- they are two completely different engines!

I'm not trying to be a ****, but there's just no way to explain that huge a difference due to tighter tolerances and an aggressive self-corrected ECU without completely different mechancial parts and a totally, radically, different tune. Something else was going on there and that guy wasn't telling the whole tale. but there's no way those were all identical engines and ECUs. Impossible.

If it was a special prototype or whatever, then it had different parts and a different ECU and is not a factory freak (or at least what I think the term implies) -- just a different set up.

To give you another example, sticking with the 2ZZ engine -- early models (introduced end of 1999) had the ECU tuned by Toyotoa to have the second cam profile activate about 200 RPM earlier than the 2000+ models, making it hit peak torque a bit earlier and making it easier to stay in the power band on gear changes -- that could be construed, I suppose as a "factory freak" in that few cars on the road had this feature and it was otherwise the same build and tune -- BUT, some key elements of the tune were clearly different and it wasn't a "freak" per se (implying a fluke or unintentional/unplanned difference), just a difference between the earlier and later factory tune.

And it wasn't no 40 whp difference. That's a huge difference, espeically on a small displacement motor. I just don't buy it.

EDIT: Wait -- these are NA motors right? The above commentary is for NA -- I'd be more willing to believe it for a boosted car, but even then we're talking a different turbine or big, big difference in the tune.
Yes, they're NA. I can't tell you why, I can just echo what I saw.

A lot of the "factory freaks" are either optimistic dyno's, or underrated cars. My WRX dyno'd at about 25x whp on the same dyno that the new STI's are laying 265. Doesn't really account for the difference between 305 and 265, but that's just a function of the WRX being underrated from the factory.
Red__Zed is offline   Reply With Quote