Reliable gen 1 3sgte at 11psi?

[-=DV=-]

have a chat to chris dattrick over at celica tech, he has done alot of study into the standard ecus i believe.
as far as mine was concerned, i got better economy accelerationg fairly hard at 12 psi than i did driving sedately (just med to hard acc) at stock boost

around 10 ks per liter at 12 psi
and around 8-9 ks per liter at stock boost.
this was under normal driving conditions (which for me is hitting full boost every time i accelerate and such, usually shift at around 4 k, 3/4 throttle, full boost)

[trd-st162]

have a chat to chris dattrick over at celica tech, he has done alot of study into the standard ecus i believe.
as far as mine was concerned, i got better economy accelerationg fairly hard at 12 psi than i did driving sedately (just med to hard acc) at stock boost

around 10 ks per liter at 12 psi
and around 8-9 ks per liter at stock boost.
this was under normal driving conditions (which for me is hitting full boost every time i accelerate and such, usually shift at around 4 k, 3/4 throttle, full boost)

That is pretty good fuel economy for the car 10ks per 100kms,
What fuel do u use? would it run ok on 95 octane at 10psi?
i'm curious. very curious

thats a lot of accelerating with such decent fuel economy, is this common fuel economy for others as well?
this car so far on 6psi is better fuel economy than my 3sge, wierd as..
Seems like strong motors for sure
Thanks again

[-=DV=-]

That is pretty good fuel economy for the car 10ks per 100kms,
What fuel do u use? would it run ok on 95 octane at 10psi?
i'm curious. very curious

thats a lot of accelerating with such decent fuel economy, is this common fuel economy for others as well?
this car so far on 6psi is better fuel economy than my 3sge, wierd as..
Seems like strong motors for sure
Thanks again

they are tuned to run 100 ron fuels from factory, dont run 95, or 91, i only run 98,mine wont even run on stock boost on 91 or 95 without pinging and shit, sometimes she complains on a bad batch of 98 even, even at stock boost.

dont automatically assume that a car is uneconomical because it is turboed, turbos are economy gaining and torque producing devices...its that simple, take the turbo deisel concept for example

[-=DV=-]

as far as the economy, my mate piggy gets around the same in his 165 at higher boost as i do, he gets maybe a little more out of his actually

[GT4Junkie]

So if the st165 is safely capable of around 14-15psi, what would the st185 be capable of?
Im running 12 psi atm, fuel cut isnt an issue as i only realised that i have a piggyback ecu about 2 months ago. So what could i be safely running?
ive always been told dont run more than 12psi, but if the 165 can run more than 12, then im sure the 185 can run even more

[LeeRoy]

As for fuel efficiency Capa claim that their Ls1 blower provides better fuel economy than the srandard N/A Ls1 while making more power. The reasoning for this is that the engine doesn't need to rev as hard to make the same power or in another sense you can get the same power with less throttle.

So here when you take off from the lights you can get to 60 faster which means less fuel burnt, and also to get the same acceleration to 60 as before you don't need as much throttle so less fuel also.

- LeeRoy

[oldcorollas]

power = fuel

throttle does not equal fuel.

if it gets there just as quick, unless you have changed the basic efficiency of the engine, you use just as much fuel.

if this is for the centrifugal blower kit.. they USE power to drive, so they will have poorer fuel economy. simple physics

[trd-st162]

The car has always been driven on 95 octane..
I honestly haven't seen one single problem, doesn't ping or anything,
and has been driven with 95 even on 11psi.

I'm quite curious to just set and leave at 11psi, obviously to just leave it as is i would be driving quite sensibly off boost and not always full throttle,

Thank you very much to everyone,
My only query is related to the actualy fuel i'm runnin!

[oldcorollas]

if the timing is retarded enough, it won't ping

[trd-st162]

power = fuel

throttle does not equal fuel.

if it gets there just as quick, unless you have changed the basic efficiency of the engine, you use just as much fuel.

if this is for the centrifugal blower kit.. they USE power to drive, so they will have poorer fuel economy. simple physics

I'm a bit of a noob and a tiny bit tired from reading a lot of programming uni work, but did you mean basically that if u put ur foot down, u'll use more? thats pretty much it?

But in this case just general acceleration and gettin around, ur only using a bit of fuel, and with the aid of the turbo u'll do less revs..
It seems like most ppl mentioned were gettin decent enough fuel economy to justify the boost increase.

[-=DV=-]

So if the st165 is safely capable of around 14-15psi, what would the st185 be capable of?
Im running 12 psi atm, fuel cut isnt an issue as i only realised that i have a piggyback ecu about 2 months ago. So what could i be safely running?
ive always been told dont run more than 12psi, but if the 165 can run more than 12, then im sure the 185 can run even more

mate i dont know, alot of ppl bag on gen 1s like they are inferior but im seriously starting to doubt that, the gen2 is more powerful, but it is using a revised head, more efficient revised turbocharger,better tuning ect ect ect, and the deal breaker, MORE PSI, and still only making 14kw more than the 165, at the same boost levels as a stock 185 i dont doubt the 165 would come very close to its power output. as for the strength of the engine i have heard of alot of gen2's letting go with less ks on them than gen1s that are copping a similar treatment, i honestly dont know what to think in regard to the 2 engines....but id say it should be capable of alteast the same, the biggest problem with the gen1s is cyl 3 leaning out really bad over 14psi and then going bang...

[RWDboy]

Man this thread sounds so whack to me ... alot of things are being said that are totally opposite to my experiences.

For starters, head gaskets can be an issue even at mild boost levels. Depends on what kind of driving you do and whether you do regular checks of the cooling system. The standard pistons have some simple design issues as well, and hence tuning is quite important. No more than 11psi on the standard ECU (otherwise the fuel cut could kick in making things a little less predictable than they should be). Ring lands often go due to heat build-up, and then subsequent failure.

Modifying the water pump to run constantly does nothing but reduce the life of the water pump itself. If you want to do drag racing then by all means switch the pump to permanently on. But if you are driving day to day, there is really no reason unless you want to do crazy launches off the line (and in a GT2, you would be hard pressed anyway )

As far as Gen 2 motors being 'less reliable' than Gen 1 motors. I can safely say that that myth must be entirely up to poor owners rather than poor design decisions. The crankshaft and oil system is far more robust than the gen 1 counterpart, and the issues with standard pistons were also further reduced. The head was braced and hence more rigid and less culpable to what I reckon is flex issues (with the gen 1 motor) and blowing head gaskets.

Both cylinders 2 and 3 are susceptible to lean-out given the design of the intake manifold in both versions of the engine.

[trd-st162]

Man this thread sounds so whack to me ... alot of things are being said that are totally opposite to my experiences.

For starters, head gaskets can be an issue even at mild boost levels. Depends on what kind of driving you do and whether you do regular checks of the cooling system. The standard pistons have some simple design issues as well, and hence tuning is quite important. No more than 11psi on the standard ECU (otherwise the fuel cut could kick in making things a little less predictable than they should be). Ring lands often go due to heat build-up, and then subsequent failure.

Modifying the water pump to run constantly does nothing but reduce the life of the water pump itself. If you want to do drag racing then by all means switch the pump to permanently on. But if you are driving day to day, there is really no reason unless you want to do crazy launches off the line (and in a GT2, you would be hard pressed anyway )

As far as Gen 2 motors being 'less reliable' than Gen 1 motors. I can safely say that that myth must be entirely up to poor owners rather than poor design decisions. The crankshaft and oil system is far more robust than the gen 1 counterpart, and the issues with standard pistons were also further reduced. The head was braced and hence more rigid and less culpable to what I reckon is flex issues (with the gen 1 motor) and blowing head gaskets.

Both cylinders 2 and 3 are susceptible to lean-out given the design of the intake manifold in both versions of the engine.

So if anything ur saying even on 11psi the motor life could be reduced quite substantially? Headgaskets SHOULD be capable for at least its standard 6psi, another 4psi and things would fail?
Thanx man!

[-=DV=-]

For starters, head gaskets can be an issue even at mild boost levels. Depends on what kind of driving you do and whether you do regular checks of the cooling system. The standard pistons have some simple design issues as well, and hence tuning is quite important. No more than 11psi on the standard ECU (otherwise the fuel cut could kick in making things a little less predictable than they should be). Ring lands often go due to heat build-up, and then subsequent failure.

Modifying the water pump to run constantly does nothing but reduce the life of the water pump itself. If you want to do drag racing then by all means switch the pump to permanently on. But if you are driving day to day, there is really no reason unless you want to do crazy launches off the line (and in a GT2, you would be hard pressed anyway )

.

dude say what u want my 165 has been seeing raised boost as a daily driver for a year with NO problems, and as for the water pump, the standard controlling will only switch the pump on for 30 seconds once every THREE minutes under the hardest driving conditions, if your gonna sit there and tell me that only having the water circulated once every 3 mins under full boost and high revs is going to keep it cool above stock levels then ur on crack, at anything above stock levels the standard i/c cant cool everything enuff running the pump full time, let alone once every 3 mins, like i said, ive had this car and this engine for over a year and these are my experiences with it, 12 psi, 12 months, 50'000+ ks and NO blown head gaskets, no other issues whatsoever, im so sick of hearing people spout off bullshit about these engines.
cheers

[RWDboy]

I didn't say things are gunna blow at 12psi - just make sure you have the fuel cut issue sorted! (ie either by some form of inline modification to the boost signal to ECU, or a SuperAFC, or a new ECU).

-=DV=- I will get to the rest of yer points when I get back from training as I'm out of time I'm not having a huge go at the Gen 1 engine - i'm merely pointing out what are *known* possible issues, and i'm definitely not spouting as much bullshit as you think I am! It's not like every motor is going to blow as soon as you start boosting things up, I'm just saying that these are the KNOWN weak points that are most likely to fail under stress. Even a stock motor blows up eventually.