Legalities with engine conversions?

[RObErT_RaTh]

1JZ-GTE VVTi =Single turbo. Easy 200rwKw. Just with a decent cold air intake, aftermarket I/C, and a crappy press bent 2.5" exhaust, my VVTi made 189Kw.
New owner, added a 3"exhaust, and split dump, power went to 213rwKw.

cheers Chuck.

I was thinking 2JZGE then if I feel the need maybe turbo it.

[blacktop]

Go the Holden 202 !!!

He wants to go forwards not backwards, My Dad told me that a 202 is much like an old woman, tempromental, fat and lazy.

Go the 2JZGE thats what i would do, it just seems like the best option for power you want and reliability

[Enchanter]

He wants to go forwards not backwards...

Ahh but not only is the 202 bigger than the 1j, its also bigger than the 7m so it must be better (just pointing out a possible flaw in size matters theory )

[RObErT_RaTh]

I was thinking 1UZ big

[o_man_ra23]

1GZFE FTW!!!

bigger capacity (5Ltr), no twin turbo, and buckets of torque. Plus its got that super smooth V12 lovelyness.

Cheers, Owen

PS, may want to mortgage house for rego costs

[Enchanter]

Ahh yes, now there is a worthy conversion

[brett_celicacoupe]

Also need noise test and idle emissions test that we do for $75v each.

what! its hardly going to take him half an hour to do each of these tests! it literally takes 5mins to do a noise test and the same amount of time to do a idle emissions test.

TSA will want a brake fade test done $375

brake fade test??? $375

if the engineer is an engineer like he says he should be able to calculate the minimum brake size required to avoid brake fade. and besides a half decent engineer should be able to determine this by just driving your car and stopping several times

I can then calculate a theoretical top speed to determine the tyre speed rating needed.

what the fuck!
our speed limits only permit us to maintain a top speed of 110km/h or higher in limited places.

bah.

tell him he's dreaming

[thechuckster]

actually, the new top speed shouldn't change much from the original specs - it's just that you can get to it without the engin soundlign like it's about ready to explode.

What has changed significantly is the acceleration and time taken to reach that top speed - that's why the brakes are so much more important as you add so much more energy to the car by way of the higher delta-velocity.

[o_man_ra23]

What has changed significantly is the acceleration and time taken to reach that top speed - that's why the brakes are so much more important as you add so much more energy to the car by way of the higher delta-velocity.

A higher delta-velocity(rate of change of velocity) wont hamper the effectiveness of the brakes. Momentum or inertia are based on mass and velocity only. If you apply a force to an object creating acceleration in a frictionless environment, the object will not continue to accelerate when the force is removed.

Sorry for the Physics lesson, but the max speed will increase due to the higher force applied to the drivetrain to overcome the increased friction of the road, drivetrain and air due to the higher velocity. How many people have gotten a stock 18RC to redline in top gear?? An 18RG will get higher to the 18RC's topgear redline, and a 3SGTE would more than probably surpass it... so with the same gearing, the more power and higher your motor's power band, the faster you can go.

Engineers cannot assume that the vehicle will be travelling at legal speeds, they must consider the capabilities of the vehicle, and the stopping power required when at the speeds it can get to. But as I said, the engineer should be able to do this by experience/knowledge, and should pass an over-compensation without hesitation.

Cheers, Owen

[thechuckster]

in my case, the engine has improved (markedly) but with the stock gearbox and stock diff (and near-stock redline) the high-speed limit is 'about' the same - however i can get there an arse-load quicker (and i can sustain it with less throttle input to overcome road/air friction and drag) - and it's that higher rate-of-change and greater likelihood of being at higher speeds that the brakes have to deal with.

i understand that when the application of force (accelerating the engine) has ceased, there is no more energy added to the equation - but it's good to remind ourselves of various immutable laws of physics ;-)

[brett_celicacoupe]

i understand that when the application of force (accelerating the engine) has ceased, there is no more energy added to the equation - but it's good to remind ourselves of various immutable laws of physics ;-)

engine doesnt have to be accelerating

the Kinetic Energy of the car is dependant upon
1)mass and velocity of the car
2) the moment of inertia of rotating components and their angular velocity,

but not the forces acting on the vehicle.

however, the forces acting on the car will give an indication of the change in velocity

physics lesson #202

[o_man_ra23]

An 18R-C cant reach redline in 5th... ive tried many times, it doesnt work, as the power is not there to get it. So its practical top speed (which engineers should use, not the theoretical top speed) is much lower than what it would be doing at redline in top gear. By adding a turbo, you have greatly increased the power/torque output of the motor, allowing it to reach closer to redline in top gear, so your high speed limit would have been increased by large amounts.

Cheers, Owen

in my case, the engine has improved (markedly) but with the stock gearbox and stock diff (and near-stock redline) the high-speed limit is 'about' the same - however i can get there an arse-load quicker (and i can sustain it with less throttle input to overcome road/air friction and drag) - and it's that higher rate-of-change and greater likelihood of being at higher speeds that the brakes have to deal with.

i understand that when the application of force (accelerating the engine) has ceased, there is no more energy added to the equation - but it's good to remind ourselves of various immutable laws of physics ;-)

[Norbie]

While the car's increased top speed is certainly a factor, methinks the car's increased acceleration is a bigger factor. For example compare a stock 18R-C and a worked 18R-C turbo on a twisty mountain road; the turbo car will have a higher velocity as you approach each corner (due to its superior acceleration), and there will also be less time between applications of the brakes, all else being equal. This leads to quicker heatsoak, which IMO is a more realistic concern than stopping from the car's theoretical top speed - which most drivers won't even attempt on a public road if it's a reasonably powerful car. I know I'd never even try hitting 300, which I'm pretty sure my car could get pretty close to; I don't want to die just yet.

[Draven]

Norbie - I've heard stories of your driving.. and I'm pretty sure that fear of dying has no influence when you're behind the wheel

[o_man_ra23]

I know I'd never even try hitting 300, which I'm pretty sure my car could get pretty close to; I don't want to die just yet.

Shit, was that 18RG I sold you that good?? haha. I can see your point there Norbs, but this part of the argument came from D-Master's engineer wanting to calculate theoretical top speed so as to work out brake size required... so its more a bagging on the SA engineer than an argument as to why you need to increase brake size.

Oh, and my 18R-C powered RA40 managed to accelerate pretty darn quickly on the twisties of Mt Stuart. Started burning a near new set of Bendix Advance pads onto some freshly machined RT133 disks (sumitomo twin piston calliper upgrade). Mind you, a steep downhill slope will pretty much negate the extra power for accelleration as you dont let go of the brakes for very long anyways. Uphill is a different story, but you have gravity to aid your decelleration then. So I dont know just how valid your argument is.

I would personally want the brakes to work well from top speed after a hard downhill run. So vehicle mass will play even more of a role than top speed.

Cheers, Owen

EDIT: PS, Norbie, I think Draven just shot you down... you been pwned my friend.