Let me throw something out here, there is more to performance than just horsepower.
With all the recent talk of the 2zz swap got me thinking.
From what I have found a 2000+ GTS can do a 0-60 in about 6.6 seconds
2000 mass = 2500 lbs
1994 mass = 2580 lbs
If you swap in the 2ZZ your weight should be down closer to 2500 so you should get a 0-60 around 6.6 seconds. Not bad, but consider this:
2AZ-FE, the replacement for the 3S and 5S
In the 2002 Camry with a 5 speed, 0-60 is 8.0 seconds, and this car weighs 3147 or so.
dropping that engine in a 6gc, your 0-60 should be around:
8.0 / 3147 * 2580 = 6.57 seconds (rough approximation)
note that this does not take into accont the reduced weight in engines and better transmission ratios in the 6gc, and this engine is not tuned runing on 87 octane cat-pee.
this engine may bolt up to the GT tranny, not sure though...
how about this one i said this about a year ago and a lot of people laughed at me... and said it was a big waste of time and money and other stuff like that... but what about droping in another engine like a honda, mitus, etc.... yes toyota does make great engines but so do other car companies...
[TeamNJCT
-macavely+Dec 31, 2003 - 7:53 PM
1994 Celica GT4 WRC Edition@gt4.wrc on Instagram
Hell, Yamaha makes our 6th gen engines...so i dont think it would be too bad to throw in another engine if you had the means to do so. But i personally dont think it gets much better than dropping in a 3s-gte and an MR2 turbo tranny....thats just a killer combination with ungodly results, IMO. >
>
3rd gen ST205 3SGTE - Alive and boosting.
-Silver94CelicaOwner+Jan 1, 2004 - 11:15 AM
New Toyota project coming soon...
-GeEkBoY+Dec 31, 2003 - 9:45 PM
The figures vary wildly depending on who did the test.
I just quoted the lowest one from a magazine
that ratio wouldnt work, weight is a percentage multiplier, not a direct comparison ratio.
it also depends where the weight is located, how and where the weight shifts.
as a comparison, the NA MK2 MR2 weighs in the area of 2600-2800LBS. the GT celica, with the same motor only weighs 2500. yet the NA MR2 is faster. its because all the weight is centrally located over the rear axle, making all the weight drive the wheels against the ground. also all the weight is situated low in the car, and it sits lower... high weight = bad, low weight = not as bad.
Believer, you'll leave her, in leaving them allNo but I don't buy itLike anything you do, as anyone you areCause I'm...Ten Speed, of God's Blood & Burial
-Silver94CelicaOwner+Jan 1, 2004 - 12:15 PM
what I used is a fairly straightforward approximation, but it does use some assumptions. Start off with old faithful:
F = M x A
A = F / M
time to velocity:
V = A x t
t = V / A
add the two:
t = (V x M) / F
where: F = force, M = mass, A = acceleration, t = time, V = Velocity
so as you can see from this, time to a velocity is proportional to mass when the force and velocity are the same.
velocity is 60mph and does not change...
constant force assumption - shifts are neglected and the force is not constant as you reduce the force when you up-shift. but remeber, the celica trans is geared lower than the camry so it should be better and make up for this. traction is assumed the same in both cars, they are both FWD, so with good rubber, the celica should at least match the camry's traction with a good driver.
the mr2 is not a fair comp as going from fwd to rwd is a big change, but fwd to fwd is much closer.
I do believe you can get under 7 seconds with this swap, and would be as fast or faster than a 2ZZ swap.
I'm gonna go thank my Physics teacher after X-mas break ...
I'm gonna be like ... "Physics are cool ... yes ... they are cool. Or wait .. they're toite ... toite like a toiger"
-Wishful3S-GTE+Jan 2, 2004 - 8:31 PM
i am awesome
