YSSMAN's Infinite Crisis: Blackest Night (Post #816)

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 828 comments
  • 47,893 views
Toyota certainly did it for a reason, and as PB and others mentioned, the engine is most likely running quite efficiently with a light load on it. But I do have to say that 4k rpm with a ~6200rpm redline seems a bit much even to me. At 80 my engine is turning about 4200, but it's got 3800 left, not 2200.

I say tune the hell out of the valvetrain with the typical hard springs, titanium bits and pieces, and some more agressive cams. Get a new computer to raise that pesky limiter. Then you won't feel so bad about it :dopey:
 
YSSMAN
- Speaking of 4,000 RPM... I didn't realize it was going to pull that at 80 MPH. Its not the best highway car, it worries me that its turning that much (red line is just after 6,000 RPM), but I can adjust I suppose.

- One minor complaint: Its not a very good "city car." I drove through East Grand Rapids the other night and I felt like I was walking on stilts trying not to hit holes and man hole covers. I'll get used to it, its only 8 miles of city road from home to school... And that won't pick up until August. Otherwise its country highway to work or to Dad's, and that's just fine.
Click to expand...
So it doesn't do highways or cities, fun fun ;)

Great, fun looking car. And the plate is abit more relevant now :D
 
I've had about six people yell at me about the plate... Sure, it was "fine" on the Jetta... But NOOOOOOO on the Celica?

Rubbish I say!
 
4000 rpm at 80? Yikes.

It might be running near peak efficiency at that RPM, but...

How tight IS this thing geared? I can't imagine first being very long at all.
 
Rotary Junkie
4000 rpm at 80? Yikes.

It might be running near peak efficiency at that RPM, but...

How tight IS this thing geared? I can't imagine first being very long at all.
Click to expand...

Thats a very typical ratio for most 90's Toyota's. Hell, my MR-S sits at the same thing when doing 80 mph.
 
Toronado
But the MR-S revs quite a bit higher.
Click to expand...

7200 RPM :p

Yes, thats much higher, really :dopey:

I'm not sure which transmission they paired up with the 5S-FE, but it would not surprise me if its the same one as in the SW21 MR2s
 
Even so, a bigger motor spinning lower RPM at around the same efficiency will probably do better.

How in heck does a little four-cylinder in a reasonably light car manage merely 27-30 mpg freeway when a 4.6L powered Mustang gets 25+?

EDIT: Aimed at Toronado's post, not Cody's.
 
Azuremen
Yes, thats much higher, really
Click to expand...
2200 RPM to redline versus 3200 RPM to redline actually is a big difference, thank you; especially when one engine was lauded for its revability when produced and the other one came out of a Camry.
Rotary Junkie
How in heck does a little four-cylinder in a reasonably light car manage merely 27-30 mpg freeway when a 4.6L powered Mustang gets 25+?
Click to expand...
Because at 80 the Celica probably is running at twice the RPM when the Mustang is geared for something like 200 MPH, despite both cars revving roughly the same. Toyota put a laughably inadequate engine in the Celica before the ZZT231 (remember, the Celica's nearest competitor could be had with 70 more horses and roughly the same weight), so they tried to make up for it by making the gears ridiculously short so it would still accelerate decently.
 
Rotary Junkie
Even so, a bigger motor spinning lower RPM at around the same efficiency will probably do better.

How in heck does a little four-cylinder in a reasonably light car manage merely 27-30 mpg freeway when a 4.6L powered Mustang gets 25+?
Click to expand...
While the Celica engine is running very efficiently, it's still running at 4,000 rpms.

At a lower rpm (a wider gear ratio), the Celica would require more throttle input to maintain the 80mph. Less rpms, but more throttle = still pretty much the same amount of fuel being used.

In the Mustang, despite the large engine size, at 80mph and low rpms, the torque the engine puts out at those rpms makes it possible to maintain 80mph with very little throttle input/very little fuel. (very little for a 4.6L v8.)

 
Toronado
Because at 80 the Celica probably is running at twice the RPM when the Mustang is geared for something like 200 MPH. Toyota put a laughably inadequate engine in the Celica before the ZZT231 (remember, the Celica's nearest competitor could be had with 70 more horses and roughly the same weight), so they tried to make up for it by making the gears ridiculously short so it would still accelerate decently.
Click to expand...

Mhmm...

However... Cody's MR-S is geared about the same, Boz Mon's Preludes are/were around the same, and apparently Slicks is used to it as well.

If you've gotta gear a car like that to get it to move, there ain't enough hiding under the hood. (Or what IS under the hood isn't producing enough).

I'd assume that almost everything on the road today has an overdrive top gear of at least .8. With a 4.00 final and a 25" tall tire, RPM at 80 MPH should be around 34-3500rpm. 4.56: ~39-4000rpm. (Assuming .8 overdrive)

Even if it were to require 100 ft-lbs of torque to keep the vehicle moving at 80mph (which is absurdly high), with a 3.2 overall multiplication (assuming the 4.00 final), we'd need 31 ft-lbs of torque to keep the vehicle moving. (Fine, 31.25) Overgearing much?

EDIT:
Perfect Balance
While the Celica engine is running very efficiently, it's still running at 4,000 rpms.

At a lower rpm (a wider gear ratio), the Celica would require more throttle input to maintain the 80mph. Less rpms, but more throttle = still pretty much the same amount of fuel being used.

In the Mustang, despite the large engine size, at 80mph and low rpms, the torque the engine puts out at those rpms makes it possible to maintain 80mph with very little throttle input/very little fuel. (very little for a 4.6L v8.)
Click to expand...

Right. So why do we use the "little engine that could" so often to supposedly help fuel economy other than in city cars?

EDIT X2: This needs to move... We're way off topic.
 
Rotary Junkie
However... Cody's MR-S is geared about the same, Boz Mon's Preludes are/were around the same, and apparently Slicks is used to it as well.
Click to expand...
All of which are engines with much more revs to play with, and engines that all rev better than the Camry engine in the Celica. Think of the engine Toyota put in the Celica as half of a Mustang GT engine, and not as a revvy Japanese 4. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2000 or so RPM YSSMAN has to play with above 80 ends up being closer to 1500 RPM or so before it runs out of steam.

Rotary Junkie
Even if it were to require 100 ft-lbs of torque to keep the vehicle moving at 80mph (which is absurdly high), with a 3.2 overall multiplication (assuming the 4.00 final), we'd need 31 ft-lbs of torque to keep the vehicle moving. (Fine, 31.25) Overgearing much?
Click to expand...
Once again, it is a vaguely heavy sports coupe that has to make up a 70 hp deficit to its nearest competitor. They can either do it with gearing, or they could add power. They decided to do it with gearing.
 
The thing is, that "nearest competitor" (I'm assuming Prelude?) runs the same gearing or shorter most likely...

And I don't really consider anything below 3000lbs heavy. In fact, that's LIGHT.
 
I'm really not sure of it. It seems to be getting good gas mileage even with spinning the higher RPMs. I've been trying to keep it under 4,000 RPM under most conditions just because its what I'm used to, so I can definitely say that the gears are incredibly short. What would have normally been a 2nd gear corner in the Jetta or the Fox is now a 3rd gear corner in the Celica. Not bad, but certainly different. I let my brother drive it for a bit yesterday, he had to get used to that as well.

I'm trying to remember what exactly the Camry does at 80 MPH (that has a four-speed slushbox), and it just seems like its a bit lower than that of the Celica. I assume that because its a larger car it doesn't need the "hustle" of the short gears, but its on the higher end of the 3000 RPM range... Hmmm...

Pah, I'm sure they designed it to run there, so I won't worry too much. Like I've said before (or at least I think I did?), I'm way too used to German and American cars...

====

I think the Celica is rated at, what, 2800-ish lbs? The Jetta was "heavy" at 2400 in 1996... This is "huge" compared to that. But it certainly doesn't feel like it!
 
Rotary Junkie
Right. So why do we use the "little engine that could" so often to supposedly help fuel economy other than in city cars?

EDIT X2: This needs to move... We're way off topic.
Click to expand...
Lighter, cheaper to produce (I think), less emissions (I think).

A smaller engine is a lot more efficient in the city though. When an engine is idling, the throttle is closed, and there's a big vacuum in the intake manifold. The engine has to work against this vacuum, and in a big engine with lots of big pistons, this takes a good amount of fuel. I'm sure there's other factors, but this is probably part of it.
 
Bingo. But for highway cruising, you want something with two things: Enough balls to pass, and enough low-end to lope along at very low RPM.

In the city, the smaller engine will cause less pollution, but on the open road, whichever is burning less fuel will be the green winner.
 
Toronado
so they tried to make up for it by making the gears ridiculously short so it would still accelerate decently.
Click to expand...

You would think that they would put a taller top gear in there in order to cruise better at high speeds if it really was an issue.

Toronado
I wouldn't be surprised if the 2000 or so RPM YSSMAN has to play with above 80 ends up being closer to 1500 RPM or so before it runs out of steam.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder where the car is going to top out at.

Maybe that's just where the powerband is. You're going to need more power to cruise at 80 than at 70. I don't have any good numbers to compare with, but I've had trip averages of 30.5 at 60 and 2200 RPMs, probably around 28-30 at 70 and 2500 RPMs and then 22 at 80 at 3000 RPMs (also with the windows down and playing with other cars on the highway, or up the pass fully loaded).
 
I was guessing 135-140 MPH, remember the car is pretty aerodynamic for what it was at the time. I seem to recall the GT-Four being able to hit somewhere near 160 MPH...

Someone mentioned idle?

She sits around 900 RPM at a stoplight.
 
I wouldn't have guessed that high, having only 130 horses. Although it does seem to have some pretty slippery lines. Either way, the car is going to have a lot of drag once you get going that fast. Although your top gear is pretty short, so who knows.
 
YSSMAN
I was guessing 135-140 MPH, remember the car is pretty aerodynamic for what it was at the time. I seem to recall the GT-Four being able to hit somewhere near 160 MPH...

Someone mentioned idle?

She sits around 900 RPM at a stoplight.
Click to expand...
That engine is a funny thing. Hm. Anyway, the ol' Si tops out around 130 (Del Sol was rated at 131), and that's way up there in the revs, around 7000 I believe. It sounds to me like our 5th gear ratios are very similar.
 
YSSMAN
I was guessing 135-140 MPH, remember the car is pretty aerodynamic for what it was at the time. I seem to recall the GT-Four being able to hit somewhere near 160 MPH...

Someone mentioned idle?

She sits around 900 RPM at a stoplight.
Click to expand...

That's higher than I expected. My dad's V6 'Stang and mom's I4(5spd) Escape idle at about 600-700.

The Escape turns about 3000 on the highway at 75. It feels like it has some pretty short gearing too...
 
Jim Prower
Ah, yes, It's so easy to spend another man's money, isn't it?
Click to expand...

:lol:

Azuremen
Thats a very typical ratio for most 90's Toyota's. Hell, my MR-S sits at the same thing when doing 80 mph.
Click to expand...

It's typical for small sportscars or small "sporty" cars, period. My car does it, too. Hell, the MX-5 does it, even though it's got six gears.

Perfect Balance
Lighter, cheaper to produce (I think), less emissions (I think).

A smaller engine is a lot more efficient in the city though. When an engine is idling, the throttle is closed, and there's a big vacuum in the intake manifold. The engine has to work against this vacuum, and in a big engine with lots of big pistons, this takes a good amount of fuel. I'm sure there's other factors, but this is probably part of it.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Rotary Junkie
Bingo. But for highway cruising, you want something with two things: Enough balls to pass, and enough low-end to lope along at very low RPM.

In the city, the smaller engine will cause less pollution, but on the open road, whichever is burning less fuel will be the green winner.
Click to expand...

You could try, well... y'know... driving slower.

Fuel efficiency takes an incredible dip once you're past 50 mph. In fact, 45 mph is usually the most efficient, given typical car aerodynamics. 80 mph is just a waste of fuel. If you're really feeling the pinch, you could slow down. 60 mph usually does for about any trip I go on. When I'm going 80-100, or pinging off the rev-limiter (6500 rpm at 130 mph), I'm doing that just for fun.

That's the problem with modern cars. Too much refinement. A Miata sounds like it's going Mach I at just 100 mph... while a damn Camry sounds like it's pedalling along at walking pace. If all cars just felt faster (less wind insulation, more road-feel transmitted through the body...), people would drive slower... :D
 
I'm already tempted to do that (lol). Problem is, its "too easy" to go fast in the Celica.

===

It looks like I've narrowed down the radio issue to it not being hooked up correctly. I don't know how to take it out myself, and with the missing button on it already, I'm probably just going to replace it with an iPod-ready head unit. But not for a while...
 
YSSMAN
I'm already tempted to do that (lol). Problem is, its "too easy" to go fast in the Celica.

===

It looks like I've narrowed down the radio issue to it not being hooked up correctly. I don't know how to take it out myself, and with the missing button on it already, I'm probably just going to replace it with an iPod-ready head unit. But not for a while...
Click to expand...

That could probably be fixed with a visit to one of the many Celica forums.
 
My Integra pushes around 3,500 at 80mph. At 70, it's right around 3,000 give or take a hundred depending on the grade. The car looks great by the way, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Have a chance to take a look under the oil filler cap or valve cover yet to see the status of the engine's varnish condition? The curiosity is killing me :D
 
YSSMAN
I don't know how to take it out myself, and with the missing button on it already, I'm probably just going to replace it with an iPod-ready head unit. But not for a while...
Click to expand...
Just leave it outside at night. People have stolen the radio out of my friends Celica twice, both times ironically after he decided he was going to replace it.
 
Taking radios out shouldn't be to hard, all you need to do is pop off the plastic trim piece around it although I have no idea what the inside of your Celica looks like. Try going to the library and looking in the reference section they typically have a bunch of Chilton's manuals that you can photograph or photocopy and use. It will give you a pretty good idea how to go about doing it.

Also what headunits are you looking at?
 
I recommend just going out and getting a Haynes manual for your car. they're not that expensive, and cover pretty much everything.
 

Latest Posts

Back