max b.h.p. without forced induction?

[luthor1]

LOL!!! I think you win mate

that's quite some shopping list you have there.. nice work!
Andy

[SteveM]

One that not many people talk about is the 2zz,i think this would be a great engine for those that like the high revvy characteristics of the 4a but want more reliable power.That would probably be the way id go if i didn't already know how good the other options are.

I've been reading this thread with interest and I have to say I couldn't agree more with Pauls suggestion. The 2zz is quite a common (well relatively) swap in the MK3 Roadster world and was something I was considering when I had my own MK3. I've also had the please of experiencing the conversion in a car Patrick at Rouge converted and it was absolutely brilliant! It's a real screamer of an engine so in many ways a natural successor to the 4-AGE

Has anyone in the UK put a 2zz in a MK1 yet?

[Gersen]

.... in many ways a natural successor to the 4-AGE

Yup that's why Toyota asked Yamaha to design them a replacement for the 4AGE and called it the 2ZZ-GE the conincidence is staggering

The only 2zz's I could find on Ebay were £1500 quid which is hardly the installed and running price in a mk1.

The cost of an entire 3VZ clip is £900 and the installed cost is £3k (from Woodsport) - so lets say the fitting cost is £2100 on top on engine?

That's a not inconsiderable £3600 to get a mk1 MR2 running a 2ZZ-GE or is that somehow being unfair?

Think I could have a car with comparable performance using a tuned 4AG-E for £1800 - so half the cost?

Reasonable point?

/exits stage left to bunker

[JMR_AW11]

What would be nice is if the range of 4AGE mods could be classed in stages.

eg many people would want simple mods for maybe a 10-15bhp increase.


then maybe mods for +20BHP to +30BHP (getting more complicated)


and then die hard mods for a trackday screamer.

[kevin..in]

What would be nice is if the range of 4AGE mods could be classed in stages.

eg many people would want simple mods for maybe a 10-15bhp increase.


then maybe mods for +20BHP to +30BHP (getting more complicated)


and then die hard mods for a trackday screamer.

bit like this then

http://www.billzilla.org/4agmods.htm

[luthor1]

Yeah, I've read that. It's all well and good but makes *ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION* about valve lift, and it's not possible to talk about cam duration without mentioning lift.

andy

EDIT: He mentions at 304 degrees the lift is 9.1mm. That's absolutely appauling. Was probably good 9 years ago, but modern cams are up well over 10mm and on up to 11 at 270 degrees so any BHP figures he quotes will be slaughtered with a modern mappable ECU and modern cam profiles.

[PW@Woodsport]

The cost of an entire 3VZ clip is £900 and the installed cost is £3k (from Woodsport) - so lets say the fitting cost is £2100 on top on engine?

That's a not inconsiderable £3600 to get a mk1 MR2 running a 2ZZ-GE or is that somehow being unfair?

Think I could have a car with comparable performance using a tuned 4AG-E for £1800 - so half the cost?

Reasonable point?

you have included full labour costs with the 3vz v6 swap but no labour costs when tuning the 4a,thats hardly fair is it? also a v6 mk1 is a million miles away from a tuned 4a .....not even in the same league,the v6 is so much more powerful and torquey.

If you are going to draw direct comparisons in cost then you have to match the performance,so to get a 4a to perform to v6 levels is going to require a budget of at least £3-£4k in parts alone,then add your labour.

I think a 2zz mk1 could be done for around £2k plus the donor engine which are coming right down in price these days,hell i can buy a complete smashed up celica for under a grand.Do the conversion yourself and it could cost very little indeed.

The 2zz is the natural successor to the 4a in so many ways,but it still wont compare to the big boy swaps.

[luthor1]

.... in many ways a natural successor to the 4-AGE

Yup that's why Toyota asked Yamaha to design them a replacement for the 4AGE and called it the 2ZZ-GE the conincidence is staggering

The only 2zz's I could find on Ebay were £1500 quid which is hardly the installed and running price in a mk1.

The cost of an entire 3VZ clip is £900 and the installed cost is £3k (from Woodsport) - so lets say the fitting cost is £2100 on top on engine?

That's a not inconsiderable £3600 to get a mk1 MR2 running a 2ZZ-GE or is that somehow being unfair?

Think I could have a car with comparable performance using a tuned 4AG-E for £1800 - so half the cost?

Reasonable point?

/exits stage left to bunker

Yeah that's a good point Tom, because you'd be able to do all that work yourself wouldn't you since you're quite handy with the spanners but not really to the fabrication/transplant level.

The bottom end would take you to 170bhp, I think that's where the 4AGE engine hits its bang-for-buck ratio.

those final 30bhp require the pistons, rods, bolts and throttle bodies!

Good point! Let's get the shopping list going

andy

[Gersen]

you have included full labour costs with the 3vz v6 swap but no labour costs when tuning the 4a,thats hardly fair is it? also a v6 mk1 is a million miles away from a tuned 4a .....not even in the same league,the v6 is so much more powerful and torquey.

I was trying to compare to a 2ZZ swap and the cost was to get fitted comparable perfomance to the 2ZZ - 160 to 189bhp.

And I reconed on labour costs £1400 on parts and £400 (10h) on labour to hit 170bhp with the 4AGE. Realistically the cost starts to get steep after 170bhp.

As it goes I could fit cams etc myself quite happily but not a non standard engine transplant.

I recon an afternoon of my time to get that up and running. An engine conversion would take me a hell of a long time (2 months of weekends mebbe) given what I've read on the mk1.5, 1.6 threads and I don't have a garage to do it in

I think you're forgetting how hard these conversions are for people who are happy changing their oil but not much more.

I would love to do one myself but simply do not have the time or facilities (or the nerve to spend another £3k on my mk1 ).

£1800 is far more palettably personally given that I know I can do the labour (-£400) and I have some of the parts already.

Realistically to hit 170bhp I recon the only bits I would need to get over what I have now would be cams (£400), bit of head work (£350), HC HG (£100?).

[JMR_AW11]

you have included full labour costs with the 3vz v6 swap but no labour costs when tuning the 4a,thats hardly fair is it? also a v6 mk1 is a million miles away from a tuned 4a .....not even in the same league,the v6 is so much more powerful and torquey.

I was trying to compare to a 2ZZ swap and the cost was to get fitted comparable perfomance to the 2ZZ - 160 to 189bhp.

And I reconed on labour costs £1400 on parts and £400 (10h) on labour to hit 170bhp with the 4AGE. Realistically the cost starts to get steep after 170bhp.

As it goes I could fit cams etc myself quite happily but not a non standard engine transplant.

I recon an afternoon of my time to get that up and running. An engine conversion would take me a hell of a long time (2 months of weekends mebbe) given what I've read on the mk1.5, 1.6 threads and I don't have a garage to do it in

I think you're forgetting how hard these conversions are for people who are happy changing their oil but not much more.

I would love to do one myself but simply do not have the time or facilities (or the nerve to spend another £3k on my mk1 ).

£1800 is far more palettably personally given that I know I can do the labour (-£400) and I have some of the parts already.

Realistically to hit 170bhp I recon the only bits I would need to get over what I have now would be cams (£400), bit of head work (£350), HC HG (£100?).

I agree that for many people the big engine swap is way too complicated/expensive/time consuming if you consider the alternative of simply buying a newer/faster car from autotrader.

If you price up the cost of a tidy donor mk1 MR2 (£1k+) and then the cost of engine and labour you end up paying more than it would cost to buy a more modern car like an Impreza.

So if we are looking at a pure numbers game for best A to B per £ the most cost effective solution would be sell the mk1 and buy the Impreza.

The mk1 would still only see the back of the £4.5k? impreza for the first few corners on real twisty country roads, especially on a less than perfect surface.

[dgh.mr2]

you have included full labour costs with the 3vz v6 swap but no labour costs when tuning the 4a,thats hardly fair is it? also a v6 mk1 is a million miles away from a tuned 4a .....not even in the same league,the v6 is so much more powerful and torquey.

I was trying to compare to a 2ZZ swap and the cost was to get fitted comparable perfomance to the 2ZZ - 160 to 189bhp.

And I reconed on labour costs £1400 on parts and £400 (10h) on labour to hit 170bhp with the 4AGE. Realistically the cost starts to get steep after 170bhp.

As it goes I could fit cams etc myself quite happily but not a non standard engine transplant.

I recon an afternoon of my time to get that up and running. An engine conversion would take me a hell of a long time (2 months of weekends mebbe) given what I've read on the mk1.5, 1.6 threads and I don't have a garage to do it in

I think you're forgetting how hard these conversions are for people who are happy changing their oil but not much more.

I would love to do one myself but simply do not have the time or facilities (or the nerve to spend another £3k on my mk1 ).

£1800 is far more palettably personally given that I know I can do the labour (-£400) and I have some of the parts already.

Realistically to hit 170bhp I recon the only bits I would need to get over what I have now would be cams (£400), bit of head work (£350), HC HG (£100?).

I agree that for many people the big engine swap is way too complicated/expensive/time consuming if you consider the alternative of simply buying a newer/faster car from autotrader.

If you price up the cost of a tidy donor mk1 MR2 (£1k+) and then the cost of engine and labour you end up paying more than it would cost to buy a more modern car like an Impreza.

So if we are looking at a pure numbers game for best A to B per £ the most cost effective solution would be sell the mk1 and buy the Impreza.

The mk1 would still only see the back of the £4.5k? impreza for the first few corners on real twisty country roads, especially on a less than perfect surface.

Sorry for what's coming to whoever doesn't like the answer but I can resist no longer!

I have had 6 Mark1s from Mark 1.5 via supercharged, track spec. 4AGE to a totally bog standard n.a. which was a lovely road car - much faster than anyone would expect a to b as it was so confidence inspiring, unless you had to overtake, then it was a different story, get the map out and plot the overtake; revvy, noisy, fun . . but gutless.

It was also an entertaining track car in the wet but rubbish as a dry track car - which it shouldn't have been expected to be, point being the light standard weight of the non sc engine couldn't compensate on track for the lack of power if speed/laptimes were the priority and the weight of the sc/ box not really noticeable on track. So on my next - which was stripped out and put onto Konis/ uprated springs etc. I spent silly money upgrading - over £2000 given I have to pay clever people to do the stuff I can't! - and got a measly 145 BHP which didn't feel fast in terms of acceleration / mph by the end of a straight even when the car was stripped.

Next came a mental amount of money on a fully built 4AGE with head work, cams, throttle bodies, OMEX management and (the best bit as it gained c. 15 BHP straight away and more when re-mapped) a custom made exhaust that took 3 versions to size/ tune to best effect. For c. £6000 I got almost 170 BHP and sleepless nights re. having to rev it so high that I worried about the likelihood of a breakage. Plus it still didn't feel too fast even in the track car weighing less than 900Kg.

I had/ have 2 supercharged cars and even though heavier (one un-stripped, one only semi stripped and both T Bars + with the heavier gearbox) both felt far faster, even the 1st which was standard bar a large pulley kit, and allow much easier/ safer overtaking on road or track. The one I have now has a RR verified (Noble's) 190 BHP /190 ft/lb torque. It is much, much faster in a straight line than any n.a. I have had - the current one feels very little different to the 3SGTE I had that was supposed to be at around 225+ BHP at the boost level I used and certainly accelerates faster from low revs/ initial pushing on the throttle as there is no lag at all. It cost me less to do that, even paying for a Pace Chargecooler, OMEX ECU etc. than to wring the 170- out of the n.a. which I regard as a bad mistake for me.

Handling has NOT been adversely affected but both did have uprated suspension - one on the Koni route and one with a custom LEDA coilover set-up. Why quibble about spending a little extra to get the suspension right when talking about spending (more) money on engine tuning? An Imprezza WRX (set up by a race team) I had tuition in on a trackday was v. quick but nowhere near as nice to drive in corners and I know I was braking later and going through the bends faster in the MR2 I arrived in. So, faster probably but more fun? I'm not convinced.

Anyway, from significant wallet bashing experience I would never again bother to tune the n.a. engine but think the sc can be a very good choice (noise excepted!) for a car that is still pretty quick and very drive-able, but am considering the 3SGTE, or 3litre V6 route for the future - track bias only as it would be in the track prepared car - if I feel the need for more power (or, heresy here perhaps, a turbo, Hyabusa bike engine with sequential gearbox etc. - how would that go!!!)

[luthor1]

£6,000 for 170bhp N/A 4AGE? Oh my god what on earth did you buy? Something is truly amiss there, no wonder you were disappointed that's not good bang-for-bucks is it??

[JMR_AW11]

I was trying to compare to a 2ZZ swap and the cost was to get fitted comparable perfomance to the 2ZZ - 160 to 189bhp.

And I reconed on labour costs £1400 on parts and £400 (10h) on labour to hit 170bhp with the 4AGE. Realistically the cost starts to get steep after 170bhp.

As it goes I could fit cams etc myself quite happily but not a non standard engine transplant.

I recon an afternoon of my time to get that up and running. An engine conversion would take me a hell of a long time (2 months of weekends mebbe) given what I've read on the mk1.5, 1.6 threads and I don't have a garage to do it in

I think you're forgetting how hard these conversions are for people who are happy changing their oil but not much more.

I would love to do one myself but simply do not have the time or facilities (or the nerve to spend another £3k on my mk1 ).

£1800 is far more palettably personally given that I know I can do the labour (-£400) and I have some of the parts already.

Realistically to hit 170bhp I recon the only bits I would need to get over what I have now would be cams (£400), bit of head work (£350), HC HG (£100?).

I agree that for many people the big engine swap is way too complicated/expensive/time consuming if you consider the alternative of simply buying a newer/faster car from autotrader.

If you price up the cost of a tidy donor mk1 MR2 (£1k+) and then the cost of engine and labour you end up paying more than it would cost to buy a more modern car like an Impreza.

So if we are looking at a pure numbers game for best A to B per £ the most cost effective solution would be sell the mk1 and buy the Impreza.

The mk1 would still only see the back of the £4.5k? impreza for the first few corners on real twisty country roads, especially on a less than perfect surface.

Sorry for what's coming to whoever doesn't like the answer but I can resist no longer!
I have had 6 Mark1s from Mark 1.5 via supercharged, track spec. 4AGE to a totally bog standard n.a. which was a lovely road car - much faster than anyone would expect a to b as it was so confidence inspiring, unless you had to overtake, then it was a different story, get the map out and plot the overtake; revvy, noisy, fun . . but gutless.

It was also an entertaining track car in the wet but rubbish as a dry track car - which it shouldn't have been expected to be, point being the light standard weight didn't help handling for the track. So on my next - which was stripped out and put onto Konis/ uprated springs etc. I spent silly money upgrading and got a measly 145 BHP which didn't feel fast even when the car was stripped.

Next came a mental amount of money on a fully built 4AGE with head work, cams, throttle bodies, OMEX management and (the best bit as it gained c. 15 BHP straight away and more when re-mapped) a custom made exhaust that took 3 versions to size/ tune to best effect. For c. £6000 I got almost 170 BHP and sleepless nights re. having to rev it so high that i worried about the likelihood of a breakage. Plus it still didn't feel too fast even in the track car weighing less than 900Kg.

I had/ have 2 supercharged cars and even though heavier (one un-stripped, one only semi stripped and both T Bars + with the heavier gearbox) both felt far faster, even the 1st which was standard bar a large pulley kit, and allow much easier/ safer overtaking on road or track. The one I have now has a RR verified (Noble's) 190 BHP /190 ft/lb torque. It is much, much faster in a straight line than any n.a. I have had - the current one feels very little different to the 3SGTE I had that was supposed to be at around 225+ BHP at the boost level I used and certainly accelerates from low revs/ initial pushing on the throttle as there is no lag at all. It cost me less to do that even paying for a Pace Chargecooler, OMEX ECU etc. than to wring the 170- out of the n.a. which I regard as a bad mistake for me.

Handling has NOT been adversely affected but both did have uprated suspension - one on the Koni route and one with a custom LEDA coilover set-up. Why quibble about spending a little extra to get the suspension right when talking about spending (more) money on engine tuning? An Imprezza WRX (set up by a race team) I had tuition in on a trackday was v. quick but nowhere near as nice to drive in corners and I know I was braking later and going through the bends faster in the MR2 I arrived in. So, faster probably but more fun? I'm not convinced.

Anyway, from significant wallet bashing experience I would never again bother to tune the n.a. engine but think the sc can be a very good choice (noise excepted!) for a car that is still pretty quick and very drive-able, but am considering the 3SGTE, or 3litre V6 route for the future - track bias only as it would be in the track prepared car - if I feel the need for more power (or, heresy here perhaps, a turbo, Hyabusa bike engine with sequential gearbox etc. - how would that go!!!)

Dunno if it's me you are referring to

But you are underlining what I tried to suggest. i.e. if you put LOTS of power into a UK mk1 MR2 then you will have to also spend money on tyres, bigger wheels and better suspension to balance up the package.

How well would a mk1.5 perform on track on standard skinny tyres (not even V rated) and 20 year old shockers and brakes? Especially in the wet.
I would expect it to be a frustrating handful at best.

The SC conversion I drove with a big pulley had lost the appeal of the NA car and it felt unsettled on a bumpy road. This could have been improved with stiffer shocks and maybe wider tyres. The worst thing for me was the engine had lost its soul, replaced by a huge hoover (but that's just my opinion )

Did I misread what you said about the light standard weight being a disadvantage on track? IMO the mk1 is too heavy unless driven at silly speeds on bumpy sweepers where it can feel lively (but as long as the throttle is nailed this skittishness can be ignored in my experience)

I think 140bhp is a sensible target for tuning an NA for keen everyday road use. If more can be achieved then that would be great, as long as it didn't make it too fussy.

Obviously you want more and I can't help thinking you would find what you are looking for in a different car (for track use) eg a Lotus Elise or similar.

I've driven several Elise models and on the right roads it is on a different level to the mk1 MR2.

Having said that I think the mk1 suits my needs better than an Elise 'most of the time' and is a better overall package. i.e. it's fun and rewarding to drive pretty much all the time and no way can the Elise provide this.

[luthor1]

The Mk1 is so much more practical than an elise - getting in it is easy, it even has a boot! But yes, it's in a different league handling and poise-wise. At £6,000, you're desperately close to 2nd hand prices of 1997-1999 year Elises also!!

Also, for £6,000 to only be making 8bhp more than the 5-valve engine in standard trim (with a catalytic convertor!!!!!) I think you've been 'had' somewhere along the line, since a 1.6 16valve engine of cross-flow design is more than capable of 100bhp per litre fairly easily.

[dgh.mr2]

Yes JMR I was thinking mainly of your posts. I accept what you say but without wanting to offend have to say that I think your argument rather redundant as explained below.

My 1st point was that the sc engine does not in my experience spoil the handling, even on the standard (albeit JDM spec and imported MR2) though it was improved by each of the Koni / 30% uprated springs and (much more so) the LEDA suspension modifications.

The 2nd was that, given the discussion was about getting as much power as possible (sane?) from the na, it would be silly to spend lots on the engine and still run on the standard 20 year old tired suspension and 1980s vintage wheels and tyres which to be honest makes me think your point is largely irrelevant - i.e. why would anyone go that route ? Surely if money is set aside to improve the engine then some should also be earmarked (1st ?!) to sort the handling and braking.

My track car was fully stripped out, seam welded, caged, big-braked (310mm x 28 mm 4 pots) and dropped to c.850 Kg, corner weighted etc. before I even touched the engine. In my opinion the money was much better spent there than if I'd just had the engine tuned/ replaced first. To me that was the basics done and then the engine could/will follow in what ever stages money allows.

Even at that weight it wasn't that fast in a straight line but a joy to handle (and even then quicker than most Elises and VX 220s I spent time on track with - including the two VX220 owners/mates who had both had their turbo 220s upgraded by the same company to supposedly 290 ft/lb and came running up to me in the paddock at Cadwell imploring me to tell them the car wasn't standard but had a turbo on. "Sorry, no." was the answer and finding out I had about half their power rather depressed them!)

I.E. an MR2 with or without a heavier engine/ box can be made to handle very, very well - ask Jonny at Book a Track or see his posts on Piston Heads.

Admittedly my mind set is now more towards track use than road but the sc I bought from Alex and Anna, with new Konis, springs, uprated ARBs, polybushes and tyres - at 1/6 of the engine bill I met - was a fantastic, safe, exploitable road car during the time (mostly wet/ cold) that I kept it and the one I have now with LEDAs is better still even though more stiffly sprung it handles bumps, potholes etc. better as the damping quality is so good. Ask Alex and Anna (who also sold this back to me) just what sort of cars they've p1**ed all over on track in it!


Luther I knew as soon as the bill - at nearly twice the estimate - hit that I'd been done over but didn't find any estimate of a c.170 BHP 4 age build coming in at a decent estimated cost despite contacting the likes of RM, BJP and Raw Engineering. At that time the 20V wasn't a well signposted alternative and conversions were pretty new too so - the reason for quoting the cost was just to back up my opinion that I was stupid and wouldn't bother trying to push a n.a. engine that far again but would go for a sc or transplant. It might be interesting for folk to contact well known engine builders/ Toyota specialists and see just how expensive a decent power hike sounds like it would come in at once all the extras are taken into account. Bet it won't be cheap.

[dgh.mr2]

Did I misread what you said about the light standard weight being a disadvantage on track? IMO the mk1 is too heavy unless driven at silly speeds on bumpy sweepers where it can feel lively (but as long as the throttle is nailed this skittishness can be ignored in my experience)

I just re-read, and have now edited, my 1st post and you're right - it didn't make sense; half a sentence missing etc.

No, the lighter the better I reckon. The difference in the car when I 1st cut the 150Kg or so out of it, even though everything else was as it had been, was very, very noticeable. One thing to mention re. the effect of transplant engines and their weight is that my car is already much lighter at the back as it has v. lightweight fibreglass engine lid, boot, rear bumper and no heavy bumper bar - so I guess it could stand a few extra Kgs being added back.

'Was being rushed/ pestered to get back to child minding at the time is my only excuse for writing (even more!) drivel. Apologies.

[PW@Woodsport]

you see chaps Mr dgh here is living in the real world,gone out and spent the money it takes to achieve what you are talking about.Ok he maybe paid over the odds but all this talk of being able to hit 170bhp for £1000 is pure fantasy,quadruple that is much more realistic.

You then end up with a high revving and somewhat unreliable motor that you are scared to use in case it goes bang.

Same old argument ive been preaching since day 1,you can't get the 4a tuned in NA form to any decent level without spending an absolute fortune.Anyone that thinks they can is dreaming im afraid or has visited too many websites written by other keyboard mechanics....sorry if that offends,i speak as i find.

My opinion has always been if its easy to do and cheap and reliable,based on the numbers of 4age's we have in the UK,there should be literally hundreds of high power screaming 4a's out there after 24 years of development ..... but there isn't.... it's time to ask yourself why.

Im all for engine tuning but high power 4age's are as mythical as unicorns as far as im concerned,either that or the people that own them never tell anyone about them.

For £6k Mr dgh could have had a lightweight 3.0ltr TRD Supercharged V6 producing a reliable 280 bhp and about 270 lbs/ft of torque along with a set of shockers/springs and bigger brakes.An absolute weapon of the highest order that will do the same job day in day out without having to thrash it to perform.

If you love your 4age then great,enjoy it,stick a stainless exhaust on it and induction kit,it will sound better and maybe give you 10bhp if you are lucky,if your goals are higher it then becomes a bottomless money pit or you get very little gain for your money.The next step up,Stick a GZE in and enjoy that,big pulley kit,dastec chip and custom cooler is about as far as you can go before that too starts to eats your wallet.

I rest my case

<runs away very quickly>

[JMR_AW11]

Yes JMR I was thinking mainly of your posts. I accept what you say but without wanting to offend have to say that I think your argument rather redundant as explained below.

My 1st point was that the sc engine does not in my experience spoil the handling, even on the standard (albeit JDM spec and imported MR2) though it was improved by each of the Koni / 30% uprated springs and (much more so) the LEDA suspension modifications.

The 2nd was that, given the discussion was about getting as much power as possible (sane?) from the na, it would be silly to spend lots on the engine and still run on the standard 20 year old tired suspension and 1980s vintage wheels and tyres which to be honest makes me think your point is largely irrelevant - i.e. why would anyone go that route ? Surely if money is set aside to improve the engine then some should also be earmarked (1st ?!) to sort the handling and braking.

My track car was fully stripped out, seam welded, caged, big-braked (310mm x 28 mm 4 pots) and dropped to c.850 Kg, corner weighted etc. before I even touched the engine. In my opinion the money was much better spent there than if I'd just had the engine tuned/ replaced first. To me that was the basics done and then the engine could/will follow in what ever stages money allows.

Even at that weight it wasn't that fast in a straight line but a joy to handle (and even then quicker than most Elises and VX 220s I spent time on track with - including the two VX220 owners/mates who had both had their turbo 220s upgraded by the same company to supposedly 290 ft/lb and came running up to me in the paddock at Cadwell imploring me to tell them the car wasn't standard but had a turbo on. "Sorry, no." was the answer and finding out I had about half their power rather depressed them!)

I.E. an MR2 with or without a heavier engine/ box can be made to handle very, very well - ask Jonny at Book a Track or see his posts on Piston Heads.

Admittedly my mind set is now more towards track use than road but the sc I bought from Alex and Anna, with new Konis, springs, uprated ARBs, polybushes and tyres - at 1/6 of the engine bill I met - was a fantastic, safe, exploitable road car during the time (mostly wet/ cold) that I kept it and the one I have now with LEDAs is better still even though more stiffly sprung it handles bumps, potholes etc. better as the damping quality is so good. Ask Alex and Anna (who also sold this back to me) just what sort of cars they've p1**ed all over on track in it!


Luther I knew as soon as the bill - at nearly twice the estimate - hit that I'd been done over but didn't find any estimate of a c.170 BHP 4 age build coming in at a decent estimated cost despite contacting the likes of RM, BJP and Raw Engineering. At that time the 20V wasn't a well signposted alternative and conversions were pretty new too so - the reason for quoting the cost was just to back up my opinion that I was stupid and wouldn't bother trying to push a n.a. engine that far again but would go for a sc or transplant. It might be interesting for folk to contact well known engine builders/ Toyota specialists and see just how expensive a decent power hike sounds like it would come in at once all the extras are taken into account. Bet it won't be cheap.

Maybe I haven't made my argument very clear.

If you read the OP first post it was a request for info on basic mods to the NA engine.

This is a 20 year old car prone to rust with expensive parts prices and most owners will run these cars on a tight budget and any 'tuning' is usually just an intake or exhaust or a superchip/unichip.
I got the impression the OP was looking one stage beyond this eg changing cams etc to get a high revving 140+bhp car.

IMO the realistic bhp limit will probably be quite low before the street drivability of the car suffers and the car becomes a chore in traffic etc.

I offered that the best way to improve the car (cheap and effective) would be to lose weight and go for mild tuning, eg mild cams and maybe +20bhp.

With this in mind there would be no definite need for bigger tyres or brakes. Just replace worn bushes and any worn shocks.

The big engine alternative with LOTS of bhp will require extra dosh on the suspension/wheels/tyres and this package has a serious overall cost implication. I gave an example of how an engine upgrade can make the car worse to drive if the suspension etc isn't up to the new power level. i.e. I drove a big pulley SC put into a UK car on original 15+ year old suspension and it was not good to drive.

The implication being that the owner needed to spend more £££ to put it right.


I didn't say ALL SCs don't handle. However, I also gave an example from a USA mag which didn't like the SC handling. Please can everyone understand I didn't test the USDM SC or write the mag article, I just quoted it.

[JMR_AW11]

Im all for engine tuning but high power 4age's are as mythical as unicorns as far as im concerned,either that or the people that own them never tell anyone about them.

There is a firm near me called Raw Engineering that tunes the 4AGE.

http://www.rawengineering.co.uk/RAW_engines.html


They offer a tuning package

4AGE 16v Trac Pac Performance Upgrade Prices
Cams (L480) £360
Steel head gasket (L481) £60
Vernier wheels (L482) £120
Labour to fit £200
TOTAL £740


Dunno what power this will get though...

Raw specialise in importing low mileage, high performance Toyota 16v 4AGE engines from Japan. The Toyota 4AGE engine's legacy is that of the MK1 Toyota MR2 and Corolla Gti.

These 16V 1600cc engines can produce a power band from 135-175 BHP. They will rev to 8500RPM. They are modern, smooth, efficient and reliable. They are small in size but robust in nature, and above all they look magnificent

I did visit them a few years ago and I was very impressed with what I saw. I have a vague recollection that they offered me a similar mod list for 150BHP at a similar price.[/quote]

[dgh.mr2]

Im all for engine tuning but high power 4age's are as mythical as unicorns as far as im concerned,either that or the people that own them never tell anyone about them.

There is a firm near me called Raw Engineering that tunes the 4AGE.

http://www.rawengineering.co.uk/RAW_engines.html


They offer a tuning package

4AGE 16v Trac Pac Performance Upgrade Prices
Cams (L480) £360
Steel head gasket (L481) £60
Vernier wheels (L482) £120
Labour to fit £200
TOTAL £740


Dunno what power this will get though...

Raw specialise in importing low mileage, high performance Toyota 16v 4AGE engines from Japan. The Toyota 4AGE engine's legacy is that of the MK1 Toyota MR2 and Corolla Gti.

These 16V 1600cc engines can produce a power band from 135-175 BHP. They will rev to 8500RPM. They are modern, smooth, efficient and reliable. They are small in size but robust in nature, and above all they look magnificent

I did visit them a few years ago and I was very impressed with what I saw. I have a vague recollection that they offered me a similar mod list for 150BHP at a similar price.

[/quote]

Of the engines I quoted Raw did the 1st which gave me c. 145 BHP - can't remember how much it cost but it wasn't as low as £740 - some of that work was done by BJP (I think he's called Paul Jackson).

It was BJP and Mech in Cheltenham who did the next ultra expensive job - BJP did the head and supplied various parts like throttle bodies, cams, verniers and the OMEX and Mech set it up and mapped it, part of the cost being add-ons by Mech who claimed they had to do additional machining because BJP didn't quote or take account of piston clearance etc. properly. In fact the owner there was very critical of BJP and others who quote certain cams, lifts, durations etc. and then leave the builder to sort out issues. I was less than impressed by the time taken, delays and promises made/ not kept and the cost. I think quite a few of these people quote figures that sound good but wouldn't be achieved from some of the less comprehensive, quick add-on fixes they suggest - I'd like to see them proved and if they could, then would ask why they didn't achieve the same for me!

By the way, having read your last posts I do fully get your message and see where you were coming from, so stand corrected and don't want to rile you up!

It's just that I think anyone would be mad to spend say £1000 + on, let's assume, a bog standard Mk1 without starting with the chassis before the engine both for value for money and usability. If the suspension etc. is done then fine, just don't make the same mistakes as me

Then, as Paul notes - he didn't pay me, in fact I'll probably end up paying him! - getting a serious hike in power from a 4AGE is expensive and might lead to reliability issues, hence the defence of the sc engine or transplants.