The Lotus Cars Community banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
finally came across a dyno chart for the 120 hp Rover motor - here's the two next to each other for comparison:

Rover:


Toyota:


FYI: 100 ft-lbs == 136 Nm; so 160 Nm == 118 ft-lbs

... wow... if those are both corrected & accurate, the Toyota motors SUCKS at low (read: normal, everyday) rpm.

If someone else has a Rover dyno chart, you should post it.

FYI: the celica chart came from http://www.newcelica.org/other/dyno/index.htm
 

·
Forum Founder
Joined
·
29,083 Posts
I am not a fan of engines that only come alive in the upper bands, but the difference with the Elise will be the weight. I think the amount of lowend will be mitigated by the fact it does not need a lot to get off the line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
For the sake of comparison, here's the engine I've been preaching about - K20A2 (from a completely stock US Spec Acura RSX Type-S)




tons more torque available nice and early. ::dreamy sigh::

hehe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,927 Posts
If we had a choice would go with the Honda. The only time the Toyota would hurt you, if your coming off the line in idle. Once your in motion keeping above 3.5k RPM (& the decent part of the torque curve) wouldn't be a problem. As free revving as these motor are that'll be half the fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Just to shed some light on this is the rover Crank HP ? Cause i know the 2zz is wheel HP. Which if you start adding drive train loses in to the rover it will still have an advantage at like maybe 2-4 but its not nearly as much. Also for more perspective here's a dyno of my 2zz with just intake and exhaust. http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/icyjaws/vwp?.dir=/Time+Slips&.src=ph&.dnm=jim-celica-02-01-02-dyno1.jpg&.view=t&.done=http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/icyjaws/lst?&.dir=/Time+Slips&.src=ph&.view=t
Thats SAE corrected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Most elise dyno runs in the UK are done on Dave Walker's coast-down dyno, so they include losses through the transmission. I can't think of anyone I know who cares what power or torque level their engine makes if it's not inside the car: those are pointless numbers (like "my engine makes 200bhp but the tranny is an auto slushbox so I only see 170 at the wheels").

118 to 125bhp bhp is typical for the stock 1.8l Kseries rover motor (they do vary quite a bit from the factory) though simply taking the exhaust manifold and intake manifolds off and deflashing them can add worthwhile gains (flashing being things like plastic injection spoil and welding spoil - they get in the airflow.) free-flowing exhausts can add a few bhp (maybe 3?) and after that you're looking at changing more interesting bits like cams and valves and porting the head to go after more power.

There's a chap over here called steve butts who has what is effectively a blueprinted 1.8l K series rover motor in his elise putting out about 220 to 230bhp (depending on revlimt). Really it comes down to the money and time you're willing to invest.

The elise 135R has a stock 1.8l K series but with a ported head - it feels quite different from the typical motor; much more drivable and torquey.

Craigy
 

·
Forum Founder
Joined
·
29,083 Posts
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top