The Lotus Cars Community banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
shay2nak
Joined
·
25,134 Posts
no, not seen this yet. Looks pretty damn good. Thanks.
Well, it's the XS engineering kit. I think most of us have seen this for the Celica GTS. But I don't think we've seen a test of it or anything.

Damn this car is about 260hp @ crank!
 

Attachments

·
shay2nak
Joined
·
25,134 Posts
what's FWIW?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
"For What It's Worth".

A few Supra owners tried the XS Engineering intercooler. All reported that craftsmanship and fitment were poor.

After hearing that the engine blew up, I wonder if that dip is the knock detector going off and the ecu retarding the timing...

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
>>> Look at the crazy notch at about 6250 RPMs. I wonder if you can feel that...<<<

Yes that torque valley of the black ( = original) torque profile there has become a deep crevice and I am very sure that this must be felt now.

Perhaps different cam profiles would be helpful to straighten such crevices and also Toyota´s original valley:



If yes than I would like to know why Toyota did not try this upgrade for themselves.

Also the Honda K 20 A shows a similar torque profile but it is not that remarkable as Toyota’s valley:






Ruediger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks for the update guys on the kit and the engine blowing up! I thought the boost they were running was a bit high with the 11.5CR.

Looks like if you want to do this safely, new lower CR pistons are a must!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
>> new lower CR pistons are a must ! <<

Yes I agree but:

Masses of pistons, con rods, crank shaft and also of the flywheel have to be adapted to each other . If they do not comply dangerous engine vibrations may be caused.

I am not sure whether installing other pistons to reduce the CR even in case these are lighter than the original ones will not upset a well balanced engine running at RPM as high as the Toyota or the Honda engine. Perhaps these different pistons will require another crankshaft, too.

Therefore experienced engine builders I hope you can correct me if I am wrong.

Ruediger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Reducing the piston mass and or the rod mass does not change the dynamic balance of 4 cylinders (as long as the individual pistons/rod assemblies are the same weight). Most built 4 cylinders with quality components don't need to be dynamically balanced.

A v-8, inline 6, or v6 all have offset journals and offset counter weights. This offset makes for a wide set of harmonics when the piston rod weight changes. Therefore they should always be dynamicly balanced when reciprocating mass changes.

A 4 cylinder doesn't need to be balanced because the journals and counter weights are all in line with each other. I do reccomend doing it for good meausure but it won't dramitcally increase the engine life as it does in other engine configurations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
For the Celica kit they use the PFC...

Get ready to boost your Toyota Celica GTS to 241 wheel horsepower with XS Engineering's GTS Turbocharger System. Designed by XS Engineering's research and development team, comes the first truly "complete" turbocharger system for the new body Celica GTS. This complete system consists of a ball bearing IHI VF23 Turbocharger, a huge 24"x11"x3" XS Engineering Power IC, durable cast iron manifold, and APEXi Twin chamber blow off valve. If that wasn't enough, the XS Engineering Celica turbocharger system also comes with full stand alone fuel management, consisting of 504cc injectors, 255lph fuel pump, and an XS Engineering tuned APEXi Power FC. With such a complete turbocharger system, there is no question that XS Engineering can help you truly, "Feel feel the power" of your Celica GTS. Only $4995.00
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
LittleRocket said:
Reducing the piston mass and or the rod mass does not change the dynamic balance of 4 cylinders (as long as the individual pistons/rod assemblies are the same weight). Most built 4 cylinders with quality components don't need to be dynamically balanced.

A v-8, inline 6, or v6 all have offset journals and offset counter weights. This offset makes for a wide set of harmonics when the piston rod weight changes. Therefore they should always be dynamicly balanced when reciprocating mass changes.

A 4 cylinder doesn't need to be balanced because the journals and counter weights are all in line with each other. I do reccomend doing it for good meausure but it won't dramitcally increase the engine life as it does in other engine configurations.
As it happens, I have a friend who found that it's pretty critical for the pistons+rods to be balanced properly on the old elise engine (the rover K series) - This engine was originally a 1.4L engine and has no space for proper counterweights on the crankshaft (assuming it's made of steel). The resultant imbalance at 7000rpm is equivalent to about a 1-tonne bending motion, which is enough to cause horrible problems on the block (which wasn't all that stiff to begin with).

Fitment of a crank with tungsten inserts (heavy metal) has eliminated the problem and resulted in a turbine-smooth engine up to about 8600rpm, without the bending motion.

This is of course not dynamic (read: self-balancing) but static balancing.

Craigy
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top