Gimme torque!

[twum_au]

Hey guys

Dunno if there are any other members ancient enough to remember this stuff but wanted to chat about how motors are changing.

In 1987 I had a 1.3 litre Corolla with carb, 2 valves per cylinder, very soft state of tune, not a sportscar but really flexible and elastic, no wonder so many granny's still drive them, they almost drive themselves LOL.

There is a hill I go up regularly that I use to judge how torquey a motor is, my Corolla would at 60 kays cruise up this hill in fourth no worries.

I now have a 97 Starlet with stock 4efe. Twin cams 16 valves multipoint EFI and the must have computer ECU to keep it humming along and yes it will rev out better than my old Corolla for sure but on my test hill it dies in the ****, requires a change down to third.

The other day I test drove a spanking new 1.3 Yaris on same hill and it was even less keen than the Starlet despite being brand new. This thing was smooth and revvy but had no go at less than a zillion revs, this is progress??

Greg

[Rolla Boy]

Progress these days is more fuel efficient, less pollution and cheaper running costs...

Also, diff and gear ratios will have something to do with it...

[qkslvr]

All the engines you talk of are small capacity engines with the same capacity to do work. If they produce more peek specific horse power then they are bound to produce less torque down low.

Like what rolla boy said; low running cost, less pollution, and fuel efficient is the way of the future. That way we can drive around in cars and still have bunnies and panda bears roaming around at the same time forests with real trees and real fresh air.

[twum_au]

All the engines you talk of are small capacity engines with the same capacity to do work. If they produce more peek specific horse power then they are bound to produce less torque down low.

Like what rolla boy said; low running cost, less pollution, and fuel efficient is the way of the future. That way we can drive around in cars and still have bunnies and panda bears roaming around at the same time forests with real trees and real fresh air.

Very true.

Despite what the advertising says about wizardry like VVTI producing the best of both worlds (low down torque and top end power) the truth is that all these extra gadgets add top end power at the expense of bottom end grunt and that's what makes me think the manufacturers priorities are becoming warped.

By the way I'm not an environmental terrorist either, I like pandas and air too its just that I see a disturbingly narrow minded trend emerging in automotive thinking and I know there is another way, a simpler way......an old saying goes..."There is no substitute for cubic inches"

Some years back I read a road test comparing a couple of hot hatches, namely the then new Seat Ibiza GTI and the Holden Barina GSI.

The Barina used a highly tuned 1.6 twin cam 16 valve efi with as much hi tech gadgetry as they could stuff on it at the time.

The Seat used a mildly tuned, single cam 8 valve 2 litre efi , shoehorned into an engine bay that modern manufacturers would never dream of slotting a two litre into...........

The cars performed about the same but were totally different in character. The GSI had to use lots of revs and frequent cog swapping to keep it in the narrow power band. The Seat used widely spaced gears and gobs of torque to achieve similar results but without the drama. The Seat felt like a much bigger car in that it had a big torquey motor in a small light package and was fast if pushed yet docile if not, hell it would probably pull a bloody caravan if you asked it to........Versatile is the word that comes to mind. The Barina was a fast, demanding buzzbox, if thats all the owner wanted, fine, thats all it did.

Can anybody guess what I'd like to have sitting in my Starlet engine bay?

The latest hi tech Yaris will probably remind you of your business appointments for the next year (if you have an 8 year old handy to show you how to work this function ) and the Yaris replacement that comes along in four years time will be able to tell you the sex of your unplanned offspring.............

But to get back to motors we can be sure whatever disposable gadgetry the marketing department dreams up to come after VVTI will produce more power at ever higher revs, and probably a six speed because it will have an even narrower power band of course........

Greg

[SuperDave]

Weight will also affect how well the cars will tackle your hill. As for your peak power gripe, does the saying "power sells cars, torque moves them" ring a bell.

[twum_au]

Weight will also affect how well the cars will tackle your hill. As for your peak power gripe, does the saying "power sells cars, torque moves them" ring a bell.

Yes I have heard that quote Dave

I was careful to compare cars with very similar cubic capacity and body weights for the reason you stated.

I loved the innovative approach that Seat tried with their Ibiza GTI, pity aussies are scared to try new things which is why Seat vanished from our marketplace.

Imagine if Toyota had decided to go down the same road as Seat instead of the hitech small capacity route all the others have taken???

Imagine that in the late 80's instead of developing multivalve twin cam heads to go on the 1600 4A Toyota had instead gone big and stayed simple????

The non crossflow head the 4A of the mid 80's did need upgrading but it didn't need twin cams or umpteen valves, it needed sound internal gas aerodynamics and thats easily do-able with 2 valves per cylinder.

Efi was bound to appear not so much because its necessary for drivability but mainly because the pollution regulations are easier to meet that way.

The later 1.8 7a-fe showed the 4a block could be stretched in capacity but I'll bet they could have taken it further.

Theoretically the never built 8a-e (my designation) would have had a two litre capacity, a new single cam 8 valve crossflow head with efi. The 8a-e would have been good for around 90kw and 175nm but this motor could have been fitted into any fwd corolla but possibly into even smaller models as well (like my STARLET ) because of its small bore long stroke design.

The go faster brigade could of course bolt on a turbo to my 8a-e if they felt the need but I don't personally need 120kw in my Starlet, I'd be happy with 90kw and stump pulling torque

Greg

[qkslvr]

Imagine that in the late 80's instead of developing multivalve twin cam heads to go on the 1600 4A Toyota had instead gone big and stayed simple????

I disagree. If that is the way we all thought then no progress will ever be made. H3ll, we'll still be driving around in massive push-rod ute engines...oops sorry Holden

I all for R&D and trying new things. Imagine if Toyota never experiment with TVIS in the 80's or Audi never experimented with Quatro?!? beter yet, imagine some bloke never tried sticking a steam engine into an Ox cart 100years ago, we'd all still be walking.

[twum_au]

Imagine that in the late 80's instead of developing multivalve twin cam heads to go on the 1600 4A Toyota had instead gone big and stayed simple????

I disagree. If that is the way we all thought then no progress will ever be made. H3ll, we'll still be driving around in massive push-rod ute engines...oops sorry Holden

I all for R&D and trying new things. Imagine if Toyota never experiment with TVIS in the 80's or Audi never experimented with Quatro?!? beter yet, imagine some bloke never tried sticking a steam engine into an Ox cart 100years ago, we'd all still be walking.

If you look up progress in the dictionary it mentions forward movement, development and improvement, you won't see technology in there.....

I'm in favour of progress, got nothing against horses but no thanks and above all I love practical engineering to meet real needs. I'm NOT in favour of technology for its own sake, (solar powered apple peelers and so on) nor fashion, fads or gimmicks.

I never proposed a return to overhead valves though their only technical limitation is a tendency to float at excessive revs, the sorta revs most normal drivers can't use on the street.

I better not mention that an engineering mate of mine told me that they are taking another look at sidevalve engines.......

The steam engine was a brilliant bit of progress we agree on that at least.

A young apprentice I once knew had a terrible hankering for a 5 litre v8 VK commodore. He said it was all about performance but he knew the insurance companies would crucify him. I told him to get a 3 litre VL instead, vastly more efficient than the old iron V8 thing yet similar performance and the insurance companies wouldn't bother him. He didn't like my suggestion...............

What he was REALLY chasing was fashion.

A 5 litre V8 was the only toy to be seen in at the time, thats what was cool and gave him street cred and so thats what he got.

Nowadays to be somebody you gotta have all the gadgets, hitech rools

Having a two litre SOHC 8 valve Starlet is NOT gonna give anybody street cred, it might go hard and your grandmother could drive it but lacking VVTIXYZ its a dorkmobile, end of story.

[Suprathai]

Toyota did build an 8A, its called the 2s series engine which of course evolved into the more popular 3s series

[qkslvr]

Imagine that in the late 80's instead of developing multivalve twin cam heads to go on the 1600 4A Toyota had instead gone big and stayed simple????

I disagree. If that is the way we all thought then no progress will ever be made. H3ll, we'll still be driving around in massive push-rod ute engines...oops sorry Holden

I all for R&D and trying new things. Imagine if Toyota never experiment with TVIS in the 80's or Audi never experimented with Quatro?!? beter yet, imagine some bloke never tried sticking a steam engine into an Ox cart 100years ago, we'd all still be walking.

If you look up progress in the dictionary it mentions forward movement, development and improvement, you won't see technology in there.....

I'm in favour of progress, got nothing against horses but no thanks and above all I love practical engineering to meet real needs. I'm NOT in favour of technology for its own sake, (solar powered apple peelers and so on) nor fashion, fads or gimmicks.

I never proposed a return to overhead valves though their only technical limitation is a tendency to float at excessive revs, the sorta revs most normal drivers can't use on the street.

I better not mention that an engineering mate of mine told me that they are taking another look at sidevalve engines.......

The steam engine was a brilliant bit of progress we agree on that at least.

A young apprentice I once knew had a terrible hankering for a 5 litre v8 VK commodore. He said it was all about performance but he knew the insurance companies would crucify him. I told him to get a 3 litre VL instead, vastly more efficient than the old iron V8 thing yet similar performance and the insurance companies wouldn't bother him. He didn't like my suggestion...............

What he was REALLY chasing was fashion.

A 5 litre V8 was the only toy to be seen in at the time, thats what was cool and gave him street cred and so thats what he got.

Nowadays to be somebody you gotta have all the gadgets, hitech rools

Having a two litre SOHC 8 valve Starlet is NOT gonna give anybody street cred, it might go hard and your grandmother could drive it but lacking VVTIXYZ its a dorkmobile, end of story.

I'm sure the dictionary wouldn't mention technology in the definition of "progress". But in the context of our discussion i think it's pretty relevant.

I totally agree. I think alot of the so called "advances" in the automotive industry are fads repackaged by marketing. Alot of the times things are done differently just so that marketing has something to say in the TV ads. But once-in-a-while, from a technological - and for the sake of your argument - practical stand-point, there are some true advancements made. For example, Ferrari came up with a very simple and effective valve timing system involving a sliding cam-shaft, then Honda and toyota followed with a dual cam setup which is really a tradeoff between torque/HP but my favourite is BMW's valvetronic system which allows for infinite variability and is an honest "best of both worlds" claim.

[twum_au]

Toyota did build an 8A, its called the 2s series engine which of course evolved into the more popular 3s series

Yes I recall the 2S-E as fitted to the early series front drive Camrys but are you suggesting the S and A series blocks are related?

The two litre variants of the S series block run 86X86 bore and stroke to achieve their two litre capacity and would give me the kinda flexible power I'd dearly love to have in my 97 Starlet but I don't see how those could be made to fit.

The E series blocks are physically smaller than the A series blocks which in turn are smaller than the S series blocks.

The small E series block (with double drive belt pulleys as most have if fitted with air and/or power steer) only just clears the siderails of an EP91 with modest room to spare.

I hinted that Toyota might have been able to shoehorn an A series motor into the Starlet if they had made allowance for the bulkier A series at the design stage, tweaking the siderails for clearance would have been the most obvious change necessary but some attention to drive pulley thickness too perhaps.

"My 8A-E" was to have been a longer stroke (81X97=1999cc) version of the 7A, this block could have been made to fit in the EP91 engine bay and more easily into the larger Corolla bodies.

[Paseo91]

This reminds me of when I used to drive a 1977 Datsun 200B up a mountain I used to climb every day. No worries for the L20B motor, 3rd gear quarter throttle would cruise all the way up the winding road to the top. It was good on fuel too. If I drove a much newer 4 cylinder car up, I would have to make about 200 gear changes, it seemed to me that newer small cars weren't suited to hills.

[RME1]

Hi Greg,

I also drive a 1997 Starlet. I fully understand your pain. An engine swap is your answer :D

EL44 Paseo engine is a direct swap. No need to mod the engine bay. More torque = more fun or a 4efte from a starlet gt (ep82) will also solve your dramas.....or you could mix and match engine bits and gain from there..

[twum_au]

This reminds me of when I used to drive a 1977 Datsun 200B up a mountain I used to climb every day. No worries for the L20B motor, 3rd gear quarter throttle would cruise all the way up the winding road to the top. It was good on fuel too. If I drove a much newer 4 cylinder car up, I would have to make about 200 gear changes, it seemed to me that newer small cars weren't suited to hills.

Yes I imagine your 200B was very easy to live with.

OK this is an extreme example but it illustrates a point. I still have my later father's Toyota Liteace (1.8 2Y motor) and it is astoundingly flexible. It will dribble along at walking pace in 3rd and accelerate away without complaint as well as laugh at hills. If I was forced to crawl long distances in jammed up city raffic I'd rather be in the Liteace than the Starlet. The Starlet is unhappy to run at low revs, hates traffic jams and will shudder and shake if its not given the revs and clutch slip it demands which makes the clutch hot so it tends to get more cranky the longer I'm stuck in the traffic. I do love my Starlet but its not without its flaws.

[Seano]

Go the year long convo!

[twum_au]

Hi Greg,

I also drive a 1997 Starlet. I fully understand your pain. An engine swap is your answer :D

EL44 Paseo engine is a direct swap. No need to mod the engine bay. More torque = more fun or a 4efte from a starlet gt (ep82) will also solve your dramas.....or you could mix and match engine bits and gain from there..

I reckon Toyota Australia screwed up big time in not specifying the 5efe for the Aussie market.

For my needs the 4efe has adequate horsepower at the top end but lacks low end flexibility and mid range torque. If my 4efe was stuffed I would think about a 5efe swap cos its probably quite straighforward BUT I'm not kidding myself that the 5efe would be the answer as it only means a modest increase in capacity, not even 200cc.

If I was not allowed to dream of a motor swap that exceeded 1.5 litres then I'd want a sohc 8 valve 5E with a mild cam linked to a custom turbo setup that kicks in at low revs, the idea being to have strong mid range torque. The simple head design ensures very docile low speed manners but obviously won't breathe too well at high revs but thats OK because like a big lazy engine its intended to be driven on its torque band rather than its horsepower band so I could get the urge I'd like and never need to go over 5 grand.

[Metalcoremarc]

yeah bring back the 80's i say lol

[Hiro]

yeah bring back the 80's i say lol

Well you managed to bring back a topic from over 12 months ago....

[Metalcoremarc]

yeah bring back the 80's i say lol

Well you managed to bring back a topic from over 12 months ago....

hahahaha yeah onlhy joined yesterday

didnt take notice of nthe dates lol

my bad

so you got some 80's gems?

are they all toyota's?

just something bout the 80's and late seventies

jap cars, i love em

it was all down hill from 90's

well in my opinion

like these days all the cars look like soccer balls

or eggs lol

maybe im just weird lol

so newer cars may go better

but they all look and sound the same