Originally Posted by mavericck

I did drive those cars but forgot that the 2zz engines in the celica is not the same as the the on in the MR2. I was talking about peak horesepower and peak torque, of which the 2.0T produces much more. I was not talking about redlines. BTW when I mentioned applying this engine to the Elise I did mention having the correct gearing but I guess you overlooked that. Also, I never said that it carried it's flat and much more powerful torque curve all way to redline, I said nearly to redline. BTW one of the main praises by everyone who drives a car with the 2.0T is the fact that it doesn't behave like a normal turbo car with turbo lag, it has virtually no turbo lag. So your argument that this cars turbo lag and then abrupt delivery of power is false. This turbo 4 cylinder probably has the smoothest power deliver in it's class.

Here is a Dyno sheet:


As you can see it only loses about 50ft/lbs by the time it hits it's 6800 RPM redline, which verifies my statement earlier about it being flat nearly to redline. Which is still more torque than the 2zz at its' peak.

Take a look at the numbers for yourself: The vehicle was tested on the same Mustang AWD Dynometer at Auto Motion during each session. Prior to each session, the current ambient conditions were measured and entered into the dyno computer. SAE correction methods were held constant.

Originally Posted by spwolf

Of course, you probably dont know it, but there is an Exige S, with SC on 2zz engine that does 0-60 in 4.1 and has more torque... It does faster 1/4 mile runs than Audi RS4.

Originally Posted by mavericck

Enough arguing....We will agree to disagree on which would be a better engine in the Elise and Exige. I will admit though, that you have convinced me that the 2ZZ is not anemic.

BTW I am aware of the Exige S with its' Toyota supplied supercharged and intercooled engine which generates 218 hp (162.5 kW) @ 7800 rpm
158.6 ft·lbf (215 N·m) @ 5500 rpm and the reason it out-accelerates an RS4 is all down to its' weight (it weighs half as much, but thats expected considering they're a completely different class of car...Luxury sedan vs Lt.wt. sports car)....But comparing these cars is one of those apples to oranges scenarios. On a side note the RS4 has a higher top-speed due to about 2x as much hp.

Originally Posted by spwolf

Anyway, I lost the point of this argument - 2zz is light, very light engine, with great power to weight ratio. It also is very revy and goes to 8.4k rpm. It is meant to be in light cars where you can use it fully. As such, it does great job in Elise.

2.0T would be nice engine, but heavier, I would think it is more of an car engine than sports car engine. Why deal with the extra weight of iron block and all the extra strenght you need for turbo engine?

According to Wiki, around 90lbs difference in engine alone... Add to that extra strenght you need everywhere else, such as transmission for example, it will end up being significantly heavier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...hp_2.0_TFSI_I4

And 2zz in Elise is proven track engine, with several Elisetalk owners going over 8,000-9,000 track miles on the engine, without any issues, anyone who tracks their cars knows how good this is.

Thats all I am going to post about this... thanks for reading!

Originally Posted by spwolf

Here is Automotive Mag 2007 GTI test:


Max torque: 193lbs
Torque at 6750rpm: 125lbs
Thats 35% drop. That is HUGE.

So at 6800 rpm, it makes 3-4lbs more torque than 2zz, and 10hp LESS. With 2zz having extra 1,600 rpm to go.

Originally Posted by mavericck

With the weights that you provided 115kg for the 2ZZ (actually I found this information on the 2ZZ engine myself) and 152kg for the 2.0T thats a difference of 80lbs, just a slight correction. Also weight listing on the 2.0T doesn't state whether or not its' are wet or dry weight, (I'm pretty sure that weight listed on Wikipedia about the 2.0T's weight is its' wet weight). Yet, all the information on the 2ZZ only listed its' dry weight and nothing about its' wet weight. Can you confirm whether or not the weight information on the 2.0T is its' dry or wet weight? Also, can you find the wet weight of the 2ZZ engine? I searched myself, but didn't really come up with the answers I was looking for. I'm mostly just curious. I'm not saying the information you posted is incorrect, I just want to clarify those specific things.

Also, I found it interesting that in my search for the 2ZZ's wet weight I read information that Toyota actually used Yamaha to develop this engine. I just thought that was interesting info IMO.

Thanks

Originally Posted by lobuxracer

The weight of the 2ZZ is in the 2003 Celica New Car Features at 120kg (265 lbs) for the automatic version. The 1ZZ is listed in the 2003 Corolla New Car Features at 233.7 lbs installed. That's not too shabby for the class.