i think a 3000GT would be a good contender for this (correct me if im wrong though!). im no car techie but thats what i'd go for and then tune it from there, seeing as it has a twin turbo installed as standard (i dont know if these would need to be changed for larger ones etc though)
700bhp for 10k 'spec me' thread!!
- Thread starter turbotoaster
- Start date
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,196
very good engine, one of the best 5 pot engines out there with 1000bhp potential.
But will that engine in stock form be able to flow 700bhp through its head, and if it will, will the pistons and rods take it.
the reason i ask is can you budget the car and a forged bottom end included in your price with all the rest of the things added on.
the turbo chargers are quite small, they would need replacing for gt2871s at least and even then you might need to go bigger, so thats the cost of 2 turbos and probably 2 manifolds.
If you say, ok ill just run one big turbo then you have the same issues that subaru boxer engines run where you have to make a big manifold which costs money.
then you have the issue of what to do with the engine, will it take 700bhp without being opened up, if you can find info that it will then potentially you will be onto something, if not then you need to look at costs of pistons and rods.
Id say for most cars you need £600 for fueling, £300 for cooling(rad/int)......everything else you have free range as that falls down to what each component on a car's level of strength for that application
Personally I've always been really interested in the idea of Turbo charging the NA 2JZGE rather than going full blown GTE. I know that seems crazy at first, but think about it - If you've got plans for much north of 400BHP you are realistically going to have to throw most of the "extras" you get with the GTE in the bin anyway.
The GE is a mighty strong engine in it's own rights. Whip out the paper thin head gasket for something much thicker and it will hold down BIG numbers for a NA lump someone has bolted a massive turbo onto.
Best bit? If you do suffer immense engine failure there is a very real possibility that you can get it running again in a weekend and a few hundred quid. Remember, no expensive engine rebuilding is required, no specialist forged parts or the like simply because almost everything "expensive" is bolt on stuff and can be throw onto any scrap yard 2JZGE worth about 2p (Seriously, the GE's are absoultely worthless).
The idea of possibly needing to replace an engine occasionally might not make much sense to some, by to someone like me it is massively appealing. Taking an engine out and putting another is cheap and easy compared to rebuilding an engine. The prospect of not being required to baby an engine 24/7 means that you can have a bit of fun with it, be liberal with the boost, track days and traffic light Grand Prix's without being massively concerned if something goes "Pop".
Headwork is a slight concern. I do confess that I do not know if a standard Head (Plus reground cams) would be able to reach the 700BHP target. If not, it'll certainly be very close for a fraction of pretty much everything else that has been mentioned so far
.
The GE is a mighty strong engine in it's own rights. Whip out the paper thin head gasket for something much thicker and it will hold down BIG numbers for a NA lump someone has bolted a massive turbo onto.
Best bit? If you do suffer immense engine failure there is a very real possibility that you can get it running again in a weekend and a few hundred quid. Remember, no expensive engine rebuilding is required, no specialist forged parts or the like simply because almost everything "expensive" is bolt on stuff and can be throw onto any scrap yard 2JZGE worth about 2p (Seriously, the GE's are absoultely worthless).
The idea of possibly needing to replace an engine occasionally might not make much sense to some, by to someone like me it is massively appealing. Taking an engine out and putting another is cheap and easy compared to rebuilding an engine. The prospect of not being required to baby an engine 24/7 means that you can have a bit of fun with it, be liberal with the boost, track days and traffic light Grand Prix's without being massively concerned if something goes "Pop".
Headwork is a slight concern. I do confess that I do not know if a standard Head (Plus reground cams) would be able to reach the 700BHP target. If not, it'll certainly be very close for a fraction of pretty much everything else that has been mentioned so far
.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
I dont think, even with £5k to spend, you'll reach 700bhp from a supra reliabley
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,776
- Location
- Leicestershire
this has me a tiny bit curious now....
with the vet is there one transmission better than the other? i.e. manual better than auto or vice versa?
with the vet is there one transmission better than the other? i.e. manual better than auto or vice versa?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
C4 Corvettes come with a choice of 4 transmissions, depending on year.
You have (I think, from memory here):
- The Doug-Nash '4+3' manual overdrive gearbox, rated to about 350/450ft.lb. The actual gearbox is quite strong but the overdrive is the weak link. Bit of a clunky, but fun, gearbox too.
- The ZF 6-speed manual gearbox, available from about 1989 onwards, rated to about 500-700ft.lb depending on where you look (I don't know for sure, but the factory Callaway cars made this on the same box). This is an expensive gearbox to repair though.
- The 700R-4 (4L60) four speed overdrive automatic gearbox - will take about 400/500ft.lb. Most Corvettes come with this and it's not the strongest bit of kit - but it's cheap, and easy, to rebuild and freshen up with good parts. I had mine removed, rebuilt entirely, and refitted for under £1500. Had lasted 160,000 miles though
- The 4L60-E (electronically controlled) four speed overdrive automatic, which came in around 1994 I think - a later version of above. Take about 400-600ft.lb according to the majority, more with a freshen up and a few nice bits.
None of those are dead set limits though (and I stand to be corrected!) - as mentioned, power delivery, torque, traction and the rest of the drivetrain will alter what each transmission will and won't take. All of the autoboxes can be rebuilt easily to handle more power, or swapped out for a TH350 or similar which can be built to take ridiculous power on the cheap.
To some extent as well, if you're just doing top speed runs, you might be able to get away with a weaker box - as you won't necessarily be launching hard off the line or really tearing up the transmission - but obviously if you've got a really strong engine then you're going to be putting a lot of torque through it as you accelerate hard and that could still pose some issues.
Autoboxes are the best if you want to accelerate in a straight line to some degree, as they provide a reliable and repeatable launch and delivery of power each time (hence why the majority of drag racers always use autoboxes). They can be good for top speed runs too, as the final drive tends to be lower allowing for a greater top end - but keeping the trans fluid cool on such a run can be difficult, and the box tends to have to be uprated in order to stop it damaging itself at high RPMs - as you won't necessarily have enough gears to keep on pulling so you'll be revving up instead.
Obviously the 6 speed manual would be the one to have, as with the right rear end you could easily get the correct ratios you need and allow the car to keep accelerating, by changing up at peak torque and keeping it rolling......4+3 would be 'interesting' but I don't know whether you could get the overdrive to handle the power, although once you're moving it might not be an issue.
Here's a C4 Corvette with the LT1 and ZF6 running a naturally aspirated 197MPH in a standing mile, with stock transmission and rear end, a stroker kit, aftermarket heads, nitrous oxide injection and a few other nice bits like an aggressive cam, sports exhaust and ignition system - but what was expensive was the £5000 worth of safety gear to protect him (Cage, harnesses, suit, extinguisher, etc...)!
I mean, a stock LT1 will pull 170-odd in good health anyway, with enough room!
You have (I think, from memory here):
- The Doug-Nash '4+3' manual overdrive gearbox, rated to about 350/450ft.lb. The actual gearbox is quite strong but the overdrive is the weak link. Bit of a clunky, but fun, gearbox too.
- The ZF 6-speed manual gearbox, available from about 1989 onwards, rated to about 500-700ft.lb depending on where you look (I don't know for sure, but the factory Callaway cars made this on the same box). This is an expensive gearbox to repair though.
- The 700R-4 (4L60) four speed overdrive automatic gearbox - will take about 400/500ft.lb. Most Corvettes come with this and it's not the strongest bit of kit - but it's cheap, and easy, to rebuild and freshen up with good parts. I had mine removed, rebuilt entirely, and refitted for under £1500. Had lasted 160,000 miles though
- The 4L60-E (electronically controlled) four speed overdrive automatic, which came in around 1994 I think - a later version of above. Take about 400-600ft.lb according to the majority, more with a freshen up and a few nice bits.
None of those are dead set limits though (and I stand to be corrected!) - as mentioned, power delivery, torque, traction and the rest of the drivetrain will alter what each transmission will and won't take. All of the autoboxes can be rebuilt easily to handle more power, or swapped out for a TH350 or similar which can be built to take ridiculous power on the cheap.
To some extent as well, if you're just doing top speed runs, you might be able to get away with a weaker box - as you won't necessarily be launching hard off the line or really tearing up the transmission - but obviously if you've got a really strong engine then you're going to be putting a lot of torque through it as you accelerate hard and that could still pose some issues.
Autoboxes are the best if you want to accelerate in a straight line to some degree, as they provide a reliable and repeatable launch and delivery of power each time (hence why the majority of drag racers always use autoboxes). They can be good for top speed runs too, as the final drive tends to be lower allowing for a greater top end - but keeping the trans fluid cool on such a run can be difficult, and the box tends to have to be uprated in order to stop it damaging itself at high RPMs - as you won't necessarily have enough gears to keep on pulling so you'll be revving up instead.
Obviously the 6 speed manual would be the one to have, as with the right rear end you could easily get the correct ratios you need and allow the car to keep accelerating, by changing up at peak torque and keeping it rolling......4+3 would be 'interesting' but I don't know whether you could get the overdrive to handle the power, although once you're moving it might not be an issue.
Here's a C4 Corvette with the LT1 and ZF6 running a naturally aspirated 197MPH in a standing mile, with stock transmission and rear end, a stroker kit, aftermarket heads, nitrous oxide injection and a few other nice bits like an aggressive cam, sports exhaust and ignition system - but what was expensive was the £5000 worth of safety gear to protect him (Cage, harnesses, suit, extinguisher, etc...)!
I mean, a stock LT1 will pull 170-odd in good health anyway, with enough room!
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,196
I had a Ford KA
ah ok, maybe we know each other then, it was a few years ago though
Personally I've always been really interested in the idea of Turbo charging the NA 2JZGE rather than going full blown GTE. I know that seems crazy at first, but think about it - If you've got plans for much north of 400BHP you are realistically going to have to throw most of the "extras" you get with the GTE in the bin anyway.
The GE is a mighty strong engine in it's own rights. Whip out the paper thin head gasket for something much thicker and it will hold down BIG numbers for a NA lump someone has bolted a massive turbo onto.
Best bit? If you do suffer immense engine failure there is a very real possibility that you can get it running again in a weekend and a few hundred quid. Remember, no expensive engine rebuilding is required, no specialist forged parts or the like simply because almost everything "expensive" is bolt on stuff and can be throw onto any scrap yard 2JZGE worth about 2p (Seriously, the GE's are absoultely worthless).
The idea of possibly needing to replace an engine occasionally might not make much sense to some, by to someone like me it is massively appealing. Taking an engine out and putting another is cheap and easy compared to rebuilding an engine. The prospect of not being required to baby an engine 24/7 means that you can have a bit of fun with it, be liberal with the boost, track days and traffic light Grand Prix's without being massively concerned if something goes "Pop".
Headwork is a slight concern. I do confess that I do not know if a standard Head (Plus reground cams) would be able to reach the 700BHP target. If not, it'll certainly be very close for a fraction of pretty much everything else that has been mentioned so far
we know the turbo 2jz bottom end is strong enough for 750 all day long, so unless youre pushing more north than that, you dont need to change and that saves a lot of money, do we know if the N/A one is, have you compared the rods, pistons?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I'd refer here to the Top Gear V12 Jag
Lets say 2k for the car and 8k for the nos kit and bits.
Whatever route you go, this much bhp on the cheap will probably most easily come from a massive old engine.
It'll swallow petrol and be pretty crude and heavy but thats far cheaper then a highly tuned more efficient car with expensive parts to go wrong and a lot of labour
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Even a fully installed absolute top top of the line multipoint N2O system, progressive controller and bottles/heaters will only cost about £2000. 8k is a bit of a stretch!
The XJS would probably never do 200MPH though, as I suspect the overall gearing isn't tall enough, or the engine wouldn't be able to handle the additional N2O required to continue pulling up to and over 200MPH - as it'd be going flat out for some time and you'd soon expose a weak link like a piston or rod - or the transmission would overheat and start to slip
The XJS would probably never do 200MPH though, as I suspect the overall gearing isn't tall enough, or the engine wouldn't be able to handle the additional N2O required to continue pulling up to and over 200MPH - as it'd be going flat out for some time and you'd soon expose a weak link like a piston or rod - or the transmission would overheat and start to slip
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,196
do you think it will hold that much nitrous.
the top gear jag was 250bhp with 250bhp of NOS, your wanting to put 500-525bhp of nos though that engine, do you think it can hold that much, if it does ill be very impressed!
the top gear jag was 250bhp with 250bhp of NOS, your wanting to put 500-525bhp of nos though that engine, do you think it can hold that much, if it does ill be very impressed!
Both bottom ends are nearly identical with only the pistons being different (Crankshaft, Rods, etc all the same). The Turbo engine also came with oil squirters for cooling the pistons, but apparently is not that much of an advantage.
I'm not denying that the Turbo engine won't make the target, but there is always that "What if" question, especially when running big power. A 2JZGTE costs well in excess of £1000, while people cannot shift 2JZGEs for £50. I know which I'd rather try and chase big power on a budget with.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,196
that sounds like a good choice, probably get a set of arias or je pistons on the cheap from america and if you find the stock ones arnt taking the combustion pressures.
Have you seen any big power ones running a GE bottom end?
Have you seen any big power ones running a GE bottom end?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
I don't like the Meteor-engined Rover much, it's OK (and I appreciate the engineering and sheer 'because I could' aspect) but at the end of the day, there are engines that are 4.5 times smaller that could deliver as much torque, infinitely more power and considerably better economy.
Even a top-spec 5.2 litre Rover, or any kind of Wildcat engine, will struggle to better 400/500BHP - and it'll cost you £10k in the process, so not really a good starting point You can make serious power out of them but it takes an awful lot of development, boost, or nitrous oxide and at the end of the day any small block American engine will overpower it with ease, whilst costing a fraction of the work required to get the Rover up to any meaningful power output
....Plus, the American engine will still have a lot more potential performance left in it than the Rover, once tuned up....
Even a top-spec 5.2 litre Rover, or any kind of Wildcat engine, will struggle to better 400/500BHP - and it'll cost you £10k in the process, so not really a good starting point
You can make serious power out of them but it takes an awful lot of development, boost, or nitrous oxide and at the end of the day any small block American engine will overpower it with ease, whilst costing a fraction of the work required to get the Rover up to any meaningful power output ....Plus, the American engine will still have a lot more potential performance left in it than the Rover, once tuned up....
No pistons required! The standard headgasket is paper thin, simply sticking in a thicker one is enough to bring the compression ratio down to very boost friendly levels
.I do remember that there was a Ford Probe (I know!) in the states running 4 figure power (or very close to it) on a completely standard GE bottom end. Got him well into the 8s on the 1/4 mile. This is all apparently from a 220K motor he found at a scrapyard. From what I remember, It only blew when he purposely set out to destroy it, and even that took a fair while
.The first Rover was obviously mentioned in jest, but as you said it's hard not to appreciate the effort.
The second was semi serious, but I didn't realise how expensive the Rover V8 is to tune.
Loving the 'vettes everytime you post pics/info. If only I could get past the interior
What year is yours?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
I don't own one at the moment, I sold my last - an '88 - about a year and a half ago. I am considering buying one soon but it'll be a very specific purchase (black 89 with the ZF gearbox, L98, digidash and some factory options) so I'm in no rush.
The later interior on the '90s facelift models isn't too bad - as good as some 'similar' 90s models and no less boring than an equivalent era Porsche for example. At the end of the day on a comparitive scale they were cheap performance, so they won't have the interior fit and finish of an equally-performing Ferrari or Lamborghini - as that's one area they had to compromise in, although part of that was because they had to be ferociously hard wearing....
I had a '95 with the later interior, although it had the less 'sporting' comfort seats with electronically adjustable bolsters, and it was an extremely comfortable, quiet place to be
You can buy upgraded trim packs for them too, if you want to make it your own and a bit more luxurious - things like chromed or metal side-steps, shifter surrounds, replacement heater controls, you get the drift.
They are very much a product of the 90s though
A stock one, for example - same seats as mine:
The empty black space is the OBC panel that shows all the warning lights etc, and if traction control is on or off, amongst other things
Fantastic steering wheel though - bizarre, but it sticks with me - it's the best one I've ever had the pleasure of using out of all the cars I've ever driven or owned!
I still prefer the 'stealth bomber' interior of the early flat-dash digital models though, a bit more 'special' but it does have its drawbacks.
Gotta love a nice LT1 though.
Still the best car I ever owned. Only shame is I never had a decent picture of it!
Mine similar '95 one
These are the seats that I prefer, although obviously these are retrimmed ones from the Ecklers catalogue:
All electrically adjustable too, neat!
The later interior on the '90s facelift models isn't too bad - as good as some 'similar' 90s models and no less boring than an equivalent era Porsche for example. At the end of the day on a comparitive scale they were cheap performance, so they won't have the interior fit and finish of an equally-performing Ferrari or Lamborghini - as that's one area they had to compromise in, although part of that was because they had to be ferociously hard wearing....
I had a '95 with the later interior, although it had the less 'sporting' comfort seats with electronically adjustable bolsters, and it was an extremely comfortable, quiet place to be
You can buy upgraded trim packs for them too, if you want to make it your own and a bit more luxurious - things like chromed or metal side-steps, shifter surrounds, replacement heater controls, you get the drift.
They are very much a product of the 90s though
A stock one, for example - same seats as mine:
The empty black space is the OBC panel that shows all the warning lights etc, and if traction control is on or off, amongst other things
Fantastic steering wheel though - bizarre, but it sticks with me - it's the best one I've ever had the pleasure of using out of all the cars I've ever driven or owned!
I still prefer the 'stealth bomber' interior of the early flat-dash digital models though, a bit more 'special' but it does have its drawbacks.
Gotta love a nice LT1 though.
Still the best car I ever owned. Only shame is I never had a decent picture of it!
Mine similar '95 one
These are the seats that I prefer, although obviously these are retrimmed ones from the Ecklers catalogue:
All electrically adjustable too, neat!
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,196
No pistons required! The standard headgasket is paper thin, simply sticking in a thicker one is enough to bring the compression ratio down to very boost friendly levels
I do remember that there was a Ford Probe (I know!) in the states running 4 figure power (or very close to it) on a completely standard GE bottom end. Got him well into the 8s on the 1/4 mile. This is all apparently from a 220K motor he found at a scrapyard. From what I remember, It only blew when he purposely set out to destroy it, and even that took a fair while
im very impressed then, it wasnt so much the actual compression ratio i wondered about, that can easily be fixed with a thicker gasket or compression plate, i was more wondering about the strength of the pistons taking the pressures of 1.5bar+ of boost
theres 2 options you can go for i think with that engine, you can go for a gt40 sized turbo which will give good spool but if your not gonna work the head you will need to stick a fair bit of boost into it to make the power which then go down to the limit of the pistons.
Or you can go for the bigger gt42/45 sized which will need less boost to make the same power which will give your pistons a bit of a break but increase the boost threshold, but if your only chasing a figure like this thread is about then thats probably the best option.
If you can get them for £50 each its worth buying 4 of them and keeping them in the garage, if they last 3 months then it can just be a service style item!