Next-Gen Seven power plants?

[Alaskossie]

Could this be the next-generation, eco-conscious Seven motive power?

 

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=26365&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=html&utm_campaign=2012-9-18

 

Alaskossie

[Canadian 7]

Soon the motors will be the same as the one in my AZ-1. 660cc turbo.

 

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj527/vipergts-r/th_9273c9da.jpg

[Mondo]

If it's already turbo'd what can you do? Put on a bigger turbo?

[coffee break]

There was turbo craze in the 1980's that didn't last. They had durability problems also. Will it be better this time around?

[Canadian 7]

Yes a bigger turbo, and other things. My daily driver is a 2004 SRT-4. Motor is 2.4l turbo. They were 230 hp from factory - mine is now 360 hp at the wheels, so over 400 at the motor. Still drives like stock until the turbo spools up. Thats one advantage of a turbo over a built n/a motor.

[turboeric]

There was turbo craze in the 1980's that didn't last. They had durability problems also. Will it be better this time around?

It's already better this time around. No-one frets about the durability of turbodiesel motors, so there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept. As with any kind of engineering, it's the details that matter. The 80s turbos were pretty primitive setups. Newer applications work fine. Electronics have been a boon to turbocharging, as you can keep track of the mixture and timing far more accurately than before, so keep the motor from detonating itself into oblivion.

 

A properly engineered turbo motor will last just fine. Most aftermarket kits now are far more sophisticated than the 80s Ford and Chrysler efforts.

[supersportsp]

There was turbo craze in the 1980's that didn't last. They had durability problems also. Will it be better this time around?

 

Comparing the 80's turbo offerings to current turbo cars is like comparing a wagon wheel to a pair of forged and center lock BBS's.

 

There have been massive leaps and bounds in turbo tech, particularly in the last decade. While I am highly partial to normally aspirated motors, particularly in a Seven, of the five cars we currently have, three are turbo charged (Caterham and P1800 are naturally NA).

 

I have driven most of the significant (attainable) turbo cars of the 80's (930, 944 T, RX-7 Turbo II, Supra, etc.). They are all tractor crude compared to the turbo in our '02 GTI.

 

My '05 92x Aero (Saab's version of the WRX wagon) is more like the early cars, with somewhat sluggish low RPM performance capped by a higher RPM hit. The GTI is the opposite with all sorts of instant low-end torque with nary any turbo lag. Then our recently acquired BMW 535 xi wagon utilizes two turbos to make basically instant low-end torque and also top-end power, all completely seamless.

 

I would love to drop a WRC like set-up in a Seven. 1.6 liter turbo four with 300 hp and around 300 ft lbs. With direct injection and anti-lag, throttle response is basically on par with a good normally aspirated engine.

 

Very expensive and loud (anti-lag example below) though. I think what Caterham is experimenting with on their supercharger set-up makes more sense in the short-term.

 

Edited September 19, 2012 by supersportsp

[rikker]

Cossy,

My Dad's Lotus Cortina in 67' had 109 hp, which was a vast improvement over the 105 hp of the 63' Mark 1, ha.

I remember reading , ( hmm not sure when,but a few years ago) in Car and Driver about the possibility of one day breaking the 100hp per liter barrier for non charged or turbo road cars.

Did any see the article in Car and Driver mag current issue about the Motus engine, 130 pounds with up to 185 hp and available for kit car builders as a crate.

[danilo]

Yes a bigger turbo, and other things. My daily driver is a 2004 SRT-4. Motor is 2.4l turbo. They were 230 hp from factory - mine is now 360 hp at the wheels, so over 400 at the motor. Still drives like stock until the turbo spools up. Thats one advantage of a turbo over a built n/a motor.

 

Erm.. I claim: Bullshit.

[WestTexasS2K]

Originally Posted by Canadian 7

Yes a bigger turbo, and other things. My daily driver is a 2004 SRT-4. Motor is 2.4l turbo. They were 230 hp from factory - mine is now 360 hp at the wheels, so over 400 at the motor. Still drives like stock until the turbo spools up. Thats one advantage of a turbo over a built n/a motor.

Erm.. I claim: Bullshit.

 

I think his claims are very reasonable. I have several friends with SRT4s and they are making similiar power. Turbo, tuner and methanol injection will put you a little over 400 hp.

 

 

 

Dodge Neon SRT-4 dyno: 413 hp 388 tq - YouTube

 

There are pages and pages on you tube.

 

 

 

 

Loren

[Canadian 7]

I never post hp numbers of my cars unless they have been verified on a dyno. Bottom end of these 2.4l motors is great right from the factory. Just have to get them to breathe better. Like I said, daily driver, 25 pounds of boost, 60,000 miles now and no issues - except it wears out front bearings often!

 

Ps. I also have a 1998 Viper - Paxton supercharged and a few other goodies - 640 hp and 640 torque at the wheels - but you will probably say bs on that one too?