Jump to content

Registered users (members) don’t see this ad!

Sign in to follow this  
jboogs1zzfe

Turbo Charging My 1zzfe 2000 Corolla

Recommended Posts

Sorry to have to break it to you Twinky, but a Mustang could beat a Corolla in a race hands down, even a baseline V6 stang.

 

Oh, I *HAVE* to chime in on this!

Drag race-- sure I'll bet on the Mustang. If lots of turns are involved, I'll usually bet against the Mustang. A heavy V-8 placed high above the front wheels doesn't lend to good cornering. Never underestimate a ligh car on a tight track.

 

Don't believe me? Check out 2-10-07 Autocross Results. Search for Corolla. Note the fast time. Then search for Mustang... I outran EVERY Mustang there with a stock Corolla. It isn't a great statistical sample, but it definitely disagrees with "a Mustang could beat a Corolla in a race hands down". Oh yeah. My Corolla has a 3 speed Ought-Tow-matic. :ph34r:

 

/Dan H.

 

 

If this is you, Dan Hawrylkiw 1999 Toyota Corolla 37.610, then congrats. You also beat a S2000. Is your car really stock?

 

BTW, the mustang v8 is not placed high above the front wheels. It's sits pretty low. The intake and valve covers might make it look like it is sitting high, but it's placed in pretty low. If my engine was any lower, I would be scraping the oil pan on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contributors don’t see ads — including in-image ads!

As much as I hate muscle cars, even I will agree with Andrej that a stock Corolla could never beat a base Mustang in a straight out 0-60 race or even the 1/4 mile. The Corolla's 0-60 time is something like 10 seconds in auto and 9 in manual. The V6 Mustang is rated today at about 6.9 seconds. Can the XRS even match that number???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As much as I hate muscle cars, even I will agree with Andrej that a stock Corolla could never beat a base Mustang in a straight out 0-60 race or even the 1/4 mile. The Corolla's 0-60 time is something like 10 seconds in auto and 9 in manual. The V6 Mustang is rated today at about 6.9 seconds. Can the XRS even match that number???

 

The current V6 could beat the XRS in the 1/4 mile, but the V6 mustang is rated at .79Gs on the skidpad and the XRS is rated at .83Gs.

 

The tires that come on the V6 mustang are a joke though, and the tires that come on the XRS are better performers. The XRS was ment to be more of a sports sedan while the base mustang is catered to everyone from people who just like the way it looks, to people who want a Mustang, but can only afford the base one. It makes a good rental car.

 

They don't take much to break 14s 1/4 miles and suspension parts are widely available. The V6 can be as much of a tuner car as the V8. The Mustang has been a tooooner car WAY before it was widely popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XRS - sure, with some simple bolt ones, there are a few running mid 6s to 60MPH, and some are trapping at [email protected] in the quarter, bone stock. Car and Driver had a short take on one in late 2004 - they got it to run 7.1 to 60MPH and trap around [email protected], if memory serves me correctly.

 

Between the Corolla XRS and V6 Stang - probably a drivers race at the track. With a slight advantage to the Stang - because RWD generally hook up much better and easier to launch due to the natural tendancy for the car to have a rearward weight shift on hard acceleration. Easy way to tell is the 0-60 foot times on the track - I've seen them run almost identical ETs in the 1/4, but the Corolla generally runs a ~2.5sec 0-60 foot time vs the Mustang's 2.0sec 0-60 foot time. Stang is hooked up, while the Corolla is still scrabbling for traction. As mentioned before - installing LSD would help some, but running in a FWD configuration is already having you run uphill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is your car really stock?

 

BTW, the mustang v8 is not placed high above the front wheels. It's sits pretty low. The intake and valve covers might make it look like it is sitting high, but it's placed in pretty low. If my engine was any lower, I would be scraping the oil pan on the road.

 

The 'rolla is usually equipped with a short ram intake and strut bar, but I take those off before competing since it would bump it into a class where it wouldn't stand a chance (too many WRXs and EVOs :o ). Corolla getting exercise (pic)

 

I was thinking engine height in comparison to something like a Corvette. I had a fox body Mustang and a C4 Corvette in years past. Corvettes practically carry the engine between the front wheels in comparison to a Mustang. However, the Mustang's engine height is probably a bit lower than a typical V-8 passenger car.

 

Let's face it, we're comparing apples and oranges (the opinionated might say lemons B) ). The Corolla is designed to be a practical, efficient, and reasonably priced car. Mustangs are designed to look good, be fun to drive, and go fast.

 

Now-----what was this thread about? :rolleyes: :unsure:

I agree with Fish that boosting a corolla without upgrading internals wouldn't be worth it. It would be too expensive to upgrade the internals and tune. Lightweight wheels won't help you as much as a 12PSI turbo, but they do make a difference (and won't blow out your engine). 0-60s average 0.6 sec faster when using alloy wheels vs. stock steel wheels on my 99 VE. Of course we're still talking about the high vs low 11 sec range as measured by an accelerometer. :unsure:

 

/Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pic Dan_H :D I take it you can only run an OEM suspension with sticky tires only in this class? Yeah, even simple mods tend to bump you into a class with some mean cars. Still - I've seen a bunch of H Stock cars bumped to a FSF class and still do pretty well. Last one I went to - had I car that I figured would be interesting to watch - was a guy driving a Toyota Prius in the FSF class. Did pretty well, as I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What type of alloy wheels are you using? To get over 1/2 second better performance, they must be REALLY lightweight (10 lbs or less). The stock steel wheels, at least on my 8th gen, weigh in at about 20 lbs each. I bought OEM alloy wheels for my Corolla and they are almost the same weight (something like 18 lbs), so I don't even notice a difference in performance.

 

Going back to my original reply:

Lightweight wheels = about 40-44 lbs drop (going from 20lbs steel OEMs to 9-10 lightweights)

Lightweight Battery = about 40 lbs drop (going from a 50lbs battery to a 10lbs one)

Remove jack+spare (use descretion on this one!) = about 35 lbs drop

Remove windshield wash fluid (advise not doing in winter) = about 14 lbs drop

Drive on 1/4 gas = about 50 lbs drop

I've done all these things except lightweight wheels and it has improved my 0-60 time by almost 1.5 seconds. I'm not lying to you when I say I really do feel a difference, going from 11 seconds to 9.5 seconds. Couple that will lightweight aluminum wheels and you could probably get your 0-60 time down to 9 seconds or less (8 seconds or less if its manual transmission). In all, it will probably cost you about $80 for the battery and $150-200 for the wheels. These things combined will definately beat your brother's Celica, while not unneccessarily wearing down your engine prematurely or running up a $1000 bill.

 

I'm always telling people to drop weight on their cars. I guess its my Lotus thinking "Performance through light weight".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What type of alloy wheels are you using? To get over 1/2 second better performance, they must be REALLY lightweight (10 lbs or less). The stock steel wheels, at least on my 8th gen, weigh in at about 20 lbs each. I bought OEM alloy wheels for my Corolla and they are almost the same weight (something like 18 lbs), so I don't even notice a difference in performance.

 

Going back to my original reply:

Lightweight wheels = about 40-44 lbs drop (going from 20lbs steel OEMs to 9-10 lightweights)

Lightweight Battery = about 40 lbs drop (going from a 50lbs battery to a 10lbs one)

Remove jack+spare (use descretion on this one!) = about 35 lbs drop

Remove windshield wash fluid (advise not doing in winter) = about 14 lbs drop

Drive on 1/4 gas = about 50 lbs drop

I've done all these things except lightweight wheels and it has improved my 0-60 time by almost 1.5 seconds. I'm not lying to you when I say I really do feel a difference, going from 11 seconds to 9.5 seconds. Couple that will lightweight aluminum wheels and you could probably get your 0-60 time down to 9 seconds or less (8 seconds or less if its manual transmission). In all, it will probably cost you about $80 for the battery and $150-200 for the wheels. These things combined will definately beat your brother's Celica, while not unneccessarily wearing down your engine prematurely or running up a $1000 bill.

 

I'm always telling people to drop weight on their cars. I guess its my Lotus thinking "Performance through light weight".

I agree. I should think about lessening my corolla's weight. Along with lowering weight, I'd lower the car .75". The reason being is that you get:

 

1) better handling

2) better fuel economy (so I've heard) by lowering the frontal surface area (ie. smaller silhouette) and lessening the the high pressure from underneath the car.

 

Seems to be a win - win situation

I'm all for fast acceleration, fast braking and cornering. In so. cal. there's so much traffic you cannot drive fast. Not to mention the ever growing "nothing to do so I'll collect money from drivers" cops ideology down here. Which is why I favor the Lotus greatly. In so. cal. you need to maneuver quickly.

IMO I think that the corolla looks better than 98% of civics out there.

Edited by twinky64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What type of alloy wheels are you using? To get over 1/2 second better performance, they must be REALLY lightweight (10 lbs or less).

I haven't weighed the wheels, but they aren't that much lighter. They are just stock Geo Prizm wheels (not sure about year). I'd expect the Falken Azenis tires on them are also a bit lighter than the Nankang EX-601s on my steel wheels. The difference is more from the reduced rotational inertia than the reduced mass you have to lug down the road. I don't know if it is this much, but according to Centerline Wheels, every rotating pound is equivalent to 8 pounds on the chassis.

 

I laugh every time someone with way oversized 'bling' wheels tells me how fast their car/truck/SUV is suposed to be, based on XYZ magazine or website. Not with those wheels!!

Here's a funny article about improving the acceleration of an '01 Sentra without sepnding any money. 0-60 improved from 8.6sec to 5.8 sec with *a few* modifications :P . Note that removing the bling wheels in step 1 yielded a 1/2 sec in the 0-60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that formula constant? I'm not trying to question the validity, but it sort of doesn't make sense. If I went to ultralight 10 lbs wheels (from 20 lbs stock steel), it would mean a 40 lbs reduction. 40x8 means 320 lbs by your calculation. If I dropped 320 lbs on my car, it would be accelerating like an XRS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a funny article about improving the acceleration of an '01 Sentra without sepnding any money. 0-60 improved from 8.6sec to 5.8 sec with *a few* modifications :P . Note that removing the bling wheels in step 1 yielded a 1/2 sec in the 0-60.

 

Sweet :D - thanks for the link. I've been looking for that article for some time. Hilarious on what those guys end up doing to the Sentra. Pretty destructive and a waste of the vehicle - but proves how much weight reduction can have on ETs with these smaller displacement engines, especially. Amazing that they could strip almost 1000lbs from the curbweight at the end - a considerable amount of material. Plus it was kind of nice to see what minimal stuff you can do can have a significant impact on 1/4 trap speed and ET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that formula constant? I'm not trying to question the validity, but it sort of doesn't make sense. If I went to ultralight 10 lbs wheels (from 20 lbs stock steel), it would mean a 40 lbs reduction. 40x8 means 320 lbs by your calculation. If I dropped 320 lbs on my car, it would be accelerating like an XRS!

The Centerline guesstimate of 1 pound of rotating mass equaling 8 pounds of static weight is only an approximation. They also specifically mentioned rotating mass - you can reduce the overall weight of the wheel, but what you are really interested is in the final moment of inertia of the system (think distribution of the weight of the wheel). Mass is only one component in that function. Also, don't knock the heavyweight wheels - sometimes the extra weight can give you a smoother ride or better highway speed behavior. Depends on what you are after - performance wise and how the wheels are constructed. My alloys (14" run about 10lbs a piece) - haven't noticed much difference in a straight line, but quick transient response characteristis are considerably better than with the 16" alloys I ran before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it "my formula". The ratio seemed too high, hence the "I don't know if it is this much" disclaimer. :ph34r: I'd only expect the 8:1 ratio to hold up for weight at the tread of a typical tire. Taking a closer look at the article, I see that a 13lb per wheel reduction resulted in a 0.5 sec 0-60 improvement (0.3 in 1/4mi). Pulling 273lbs out of the interior netted another 0.6 sec in the 0-60 (0.5 in 1/4mi). Given that example, I'd expect a generic ratio to be something more like 3 or 4 to 1. There is a lot more to rotational inertia than weight, so these are half-baked estimates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should have just put a seat on the engine and tested it that way?

No extra weight and just power.

Edited by Bikeman982

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at that website. I think by about step 5, you can't even call that thing a car anymore. A little excessive if you ask me, especially with removing the plastic paneling. I've known of idiots who have done that (its not legal here in Mass) and their performance doesn't improve at all because its PLASTIC! The plastic panelling probably weighs maybe 20 lbs at most. If you are serious about dropping weight, just remove the air conditioning unit. Now that thing has got to weigh 100+ lbs. That's what BMW did back in the mid-90s when they were trying to make a light production car of the M3 E36 called the "CSL".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3#E36_M3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...