MR2 SpyderChat banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
New record on Kortik's 1.8L NA MR2 Spyder this morning - hit 227 WHP (229 uncorrected) on Flex fuel (E80 but we are just saying E85). Video and pics below.

Build is:

DDPR custom short runner intake manifold
DDPR custom header
DDPR custom 3" exhaust

DDPR built motor including:
DDPR ported head
RMR CNC TB - 82mm
Piper Stage 3 cams
Mahle 12.3:1 pistons
Crower rods
Ferrea valvetrain
ACL bearings
ARP head studs
TODA oil pump gear
Hydra EMS 2.7 with full flex fuel support
Injector Dynamics ID1000 injectors
OS Giken super single clutch and ultralight flywheel
C60 trans
DDPR custom short ram intake tube - 3.25"
Stock Crank and block
MWR upgraded rockers
MWR fuel rail

https://youtu.be/uS4M26UhfLw

IMG_9850.JPG IMG_9851.jpg IMG_9852.jpg IMG_9853.jpg IMG_9854.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
802 Posts
New record on Kortik's 1.8L NA MR2 Spyder this morning - hit 227 WHP (229 uncorrected) on Flex fuel (E80 but we are just saying E85). Video and pics below.

Build is:

DDPR custom short runner intake manifold
DDPR custom header
DDPR custom 3" exhaust

DDPR built motor including:
DDPR ported head
RMR CNC TB - 82mm
Piper Stage 3 cams
Mahle 12.3:1 pistons
Crower rods
Ferrea valvetrain
ACL bearings
ARP head studs
TODA oil pump gear
Hydra EMS 2.7 with full flex fuel support
Injector Dynamics ID1000 injectors
OS Giken super single clutch and ultralight flywheel
C60 trans
DDPR custom short ram intake tube - 3.25"
Stock Crank and block
MWR upgraded rockers
MWR fuel rail

https://youtu.be/uS4M26UhfLw

View attachment 46169 View attachment 46177 View attachment 46185 View attachment 46193 View attachment 46201
that is pretty damn impressive!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
1000cc seems a little overkill for an N/A build? Any reason for such high cc or just what was laying around?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
802 Posts
1000cc seems a little overkill for an N/A build? Any reason for such high cc or just what was laying around?
because honestly, there is no reason not to. The drivability is great and the atomization is wonderful. Now he has plenty of headroom for more if need be (Dry shot of nitrous maybe?). There are no downsides.

These aren't RC's


56% duty cycle with E100

2zzduty.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
I swore I would keep my 2ZZ stock because it is pretty good from the factory already but seeing these makes me want to start upgrading...

How much of the extra 5% power do you think is from the fuel vs. the ignition timing adjustment? Looks like it's making ~5% more than a similar engine on 91 gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
802 Posts
I swore I would keep my 2ZZ stock because it is pretty good from the factory already but seeing these makes me want to start upgrading...

How much of the extra 5% power do you think is from the fuel vs. the ignition timing adjustment? Looks like it's making ~5% more than a similar engine on 91 gas.
usually its mostly timing. Im interested as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
because honestly, there is no reason not to. The drivability is great and the atomization is wonderful. Now he has plenty of headroom for more if need be (Dry shot of nitrous maybe?). There are no downsides.

These aren't RC's


56% duty cycle with E100

View attachment 46249
No reason not to? I don't agree. Sure, have room, but you'd have room with a lot less injector size. If the plan is to turbo the car someday then OK I can maybe see going w/a 1kcc injector now. Driveability is fine you're right, but I don't get your atomization argument. Is that from the design of the injector itself? I've only heard of atomization benefits when you increase fuel PRESSURE not the injector size.

The reason to NOT do it is that it costs more $$, just seems way unnecessary to me if the plans are N/A. Thus my question to why they were chosen.

I swore I would keep my 2ZZ stock because it is pretty good from the factory already but seeing these makes me want to start upgrading...

How much of the extra 5% power do you think is from the fuel vs. the ignition timing adjustment? Looks like it's making ~5% more than a similar engine on 91 gas.
Switching to E85 alone can make power without timing adjustments, but you usually see larger gains on setups with a lot more heat like turbo setups.

-G
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Switching to E85 alone can make power without timing adjustments, but you usually see larger gains on setups with a lot more heat like turbo setups.

-G
Yea I'm aware. I recall doing some calculations years ago and concluding that you can gain 3% more gas cycle efficiency from efficiently using the additional heat of vaporization. Spraying extra ethanol in warmer weather should also increase charge density, although in a port injected engine this benefit is not as big as the head conducts a lot of heat to the fuel.

The power increase here is fairly modest so I am guessing the 12.3 compression isn't high enough to fully take advantage of the E85's octane boost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
because honestly, there is no reason not to. The drivability is great and the atomization is wonderful. Now he has plenty of headroom for more if need be (Dry shot of nitrous maybe?). There are no downsides.

These aren't RC's


56% duty cycle with E100

View attachment 46249

My one big mistake, not going with Injector Dynamics. The 900's I got from MW are just slow, 1ms dead time

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
802 Posts
No reason not to? I don't agree. Sure, have room, but you'd have room with a lot less injector size. If the plan is to turbo the car someday then OK I can maybe see going w/a 1kcc injector now. Driveability is fine you're right, but I don't get your atomization argument. Is that from the design of the injector itself? I've only heard of atomization benefits when you increase fuel PRESSURE not the injector size.

The reason to NOT do it is that it costs more $$, just seems way unnecessary to me if the plans are N/A. Thus my question to why they were chosen.
more fuel pressure does not always mean better atomization.

ID1000's will idle like stock. They are lightyears ahead of RC and older style injectors. Hell, I know for a fact that ID1000's idle better than 440cc RC's. No difference I could perceive from using Stock 410cc Acura RDX injectors (which are very good)

There are plenty of guys that ran these ID1000's in NA 4 bangers before the smaller ID's came out that made excellent power.

WHEN I was going to build my NA motor (with a 100 to 125 shot dry N20 setup) this would have been my fuel injector of choice. How do you know he's not doing that or will never do that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
WHEN I was going to build my NA motor (with a 100 to 125 shot dry N20 setup) this would have been my fuel injector of choice. How do you know he's not doing that or will never do that?
I don't know what the plan is, thus my first post/question..like I said, I was asking a question?! I don't see your confusion honestly. I think you misread or misinterpreted my question frankly.

1000cc seems a little overkill for an N/A build? Any reason for such high cc or just what was laying around?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
Amazing numbers!

I died a little bit inside when I saw the nasty weather for this weekend. I was really hopeing to meet some of yall at the DDPR meet on Sat.

01' MR2 K20 swap, crazy mods to come
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
1000cc seems a little overkill for an N/A build? Any reason for such high cc or just what was laying around?
Lots of reasons.

1 - Because the denso 440s are too small.
2 - they cost the same as the smaller ID injectors
3 - the atomization is better than stock and the driveability is just as good as the smaller ones
4 - this is a 10,000 RPM motor. At those revs your maximum on time for an injector is much smaller than at 6,000 rpm. These things are well over 50% duty by 10K RPM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
No reason not to? I don't agree. Sure, have room, but you'd have room with a lot less injector size. If the plan is to turbo the car someday then OK I can maybe see going w/a 1kcc injector now. Driveability is fine you're right, but I don't get your atomization argument. Is that from the design of the injector itself? I've only heard of atomization benefits when you increase fuel PRESSURE not the injector size.

The reason to NOT do it is that it costs more $$, just seems way unnecessary to me if the plans are N/A. Thus my question to why they were chosen.



Switching to E85 alone can make power without timing adjustments, but you usually see larger gains on setups with a lot more heat like turbo setups.

-G
He is absolutely correct G - there is zero reason to run anything smaller, and these things atomize better than stock injectors do. We get smoother operation and less issues. I could go on for days about why Injector Dynamics specifically are the best. Lots of people decide to go turbo or SC later on, so why not get an injector that gives you the headroom to do that. Plus there really isn't a good quality injector for this motor in between the denso 440s and these, and the denso 440s are too small.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Amazing numbers!

I died a little bit inside when I saw the nasty weather for this weekend. I was really hopeing to meet some of yall at the DDPR meet on Sat.

01' MR2 K20 swap, crazy mods to come
I will still be there - I live there ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
My one big mistake, not going with Injector Dynamics. The 900's I got from MW are just slow, 1ms dead time

Steve
Yup - we literally won't sell anything else anymore. IDs are just the best by a huge margin. I got an FRS to idle at 1040 RPM on a set of ID1300s on pump gas :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I swore I would keep my 2ZZ stock because it is pretty good from the factory already but seeing these makes me want to start upgrading...

How much of the extra 5% power do you think is from the fuel vs. the ignition timing adjustment? Looks like it's making ~5% more than a similar engine on 91 gas.
It is all in the timing at these air temps. In the summer the delta would be even greater since we would have to back off the timing on pump gas even further but the E85 don't care : )
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top