Turbo Charging My 1zzfe 2000 Corolla

A 98' SC400 with decent mileage is about $14000-$18000, still cheaper than a baseline new Mustang. Also the Mustang has had nearly a decade to work on developing more power and fuel economy. You cannot possibly deny American cars in general require more fuel consumption, more size, and more cylinders in order to compare to foreign cars. The sheer fact Ford needs a 4 liter engine to make just 210 HP is crazy. Even a 1992 SC300 used a 3L engine to make 225 HP, and now we are talking about a car 15+ years old!

The Avalon gets 22/31 MPG using 3.5L V6 to make 268 HP

The Crown Vic gets 17/24 MPG uses a 4.6L V8 to make 224 HP

The Tundra gets 16/20 MPG using a 5.7L V8 to make 381 HP

The F150 gets 15/19 MPG using a 5.4L V8 to make 300 HP

The Corolla XRS gets 26/31 MPG using a 1.8L I4 to make 168 HP

The Focus ST gets 22/31 MPG using a 2.3L I4 to make 151 HP

The 08' Highlander gets 19/26 MPG using a 3.5L V6 to make 270 HP

The Edge gets 18/25 MPG using a 3.5L V6 to make 265 HP

I don't know why you are so angry at me gvr in every topic I reply to, trying to pick at every little mistake I make to use to parade across the forum and make yourself feel better. If you are so upset by my SC400-Mustang comparison, then just look at these figures. This isn't even getting into other aspects like resale value, reliability, and durability. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but Toyota beats Ford hands down.

Again, I was suggesting getting a used Mustang for going fast instead of trying to turbo a econobox. I could find a fast 5.0 for as much if not less then the true cost of adding a turbo and tuning a Corolla.

The end result would be two cars, each ment for doing what they were made to do. I didn't bring up fuel economy, compare the mustang to any other car. It was just a suggestion. When people blindly call the Mustang crap because it's a Ford, they are just blowing smoke. Ford knows how to make a V8. Their V8s can get over 300K miles and the police wouldn't buy them if they didn't hold up. I haven't had a single repair on mine since I bought it and I don't always drive it nice. The 5.0s hold up, and the 4.6l can if it's the right year. They used a cheap intake on them that can crack, but it's also a cheap part, so in the long cost of the car, it's still cheaper then many others.

Also, as for power verses engine size. The Mustang GTs have always run on 87 pump. Many cars that get more power out of a smaller engine require premium fuel. Mustangs are also pretty limited from the factory. It takes VERY little to get the new V6 and V8 to scoot pretty good. Also, you gotta understand that some cars numbers are still under rated. The current V6 is really close in the 1/4 that the 96-98 GTs were. If it were a 5sp verse a auto, I'd prolly take the new V6.

A 98' SC400 with decent mileage is about $14000-$18000, still cheaper than a baseline new Mustang. Also the Mustang has had nearly a decade to work on developing more power and fuel economy. You cannot possibly deny American cars in general require more fuel consumption, more size, and more cylinders in order to compare to foreign cars. The sheer fact Ford needs a 4 liter engine to make just 210 HP is crazy. Even a 1992 SC300 used a 3L engine to make 225 HP, and now we are talking about a car 15+ years old!

The Avalon gets 22/31 MPG using 3.5L V6 to make 268 HP

The Crown Vic gets 17/24 MPG uses a 4.6L V8 to make 224 HP

The Tundra gets 16/20 MPG using a 5.7L V8 to make 381 HP

The F150 gets 15/19 MPG using a 5.4L V8 to make 300 HP

The Corolla XRS gets 26/31 MPG using a 1.8L I4 to make 168 HP

The Focus ST gets 22/31 MPG using a 2.3L I4 to make 151 HP

The 08' Highlander gets 19/26 MPG using a 3.5L V6 to make 270 HP

The Edge gets 18/25 MPG using a 3.5L V6 to make 265 HP

I don't know why you are so angry at me gvr in every topic I reply to, trying to pick at every little mistake I make to use to parade across the forum and make yourself feel better. If you are so upset by my SC400-Mustang comparison, then just look at these figures. This isn't even getting into other aspects like resale value, reliability, and durability. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but Toyota beats Ford hands down.

If your going to compare cars, at least compare cars that are in the same class. Compare a focus SVT to a corolla XRS. Also, I'm not angry, you are making assumptions. You also seem to be posting for the sake of posting without putting much thought in to it.

A 98' SC400 with decent mileage is about $14000-$18000, still cheaper than a baseline new Mustang. Also the Mustang has had nearly a decade to work on developing more power and fuel economy. You cannot possibly deny American cars in general require more fuel consumption, more size, and more cylinders in order to compare to foreign cars. The sheer fact Ford needs a 4 liter engine to make just 210 HP is crazy. Even a 1992 SC300 used a 3L engine to make 225 HP, and now we are talking about a car 15+ years old!

I was wondering what the new cost was for a 1998 Lexus. I can't find that information, so here is a new SC

http://www.lexus.com/models/SC/detailed_specifications.html

Base price 65K.

Are you REALLY surprised that it is better then a V6 mustang?!?!?!?!? To keep it simple, I'll just say, you get what you pay for. You are pretty much trying to compare apples to oranges. It's simply not the same thing at all.

I won't deny that a import gets better fuel economy then a American V8, but the American version is cheaper. When you compare the true cost of ownership, well, that is a different topic.

If you want to talk about top end cars (Even though I was talking about a used mustang compared to a turbo kit) a new Shelby GT 500 would kick the snot out of a new Lexus for a lot less money. At my current age, I'd take the new Cobra over a Lexus too, even if money didn't matter.

ummmmmm......I dont just write stangs suck because they are fords. I say stangs suck because I've driven one and they do suck. I suppose American ideology of producing a car is muscle with no handling. A GT500 will ski all over the track because there is so much torque that all it does is just spin the rear tires. Its a good drag car and because it doesnt like to keep traction on turns I suppose its good for drift - the new hot thing now.

When i said that the stangs have no space, I meant the interior. The cabin is tight and small. the back seats have no leg clearance. My head hits the rear windshield. Its just not comfortable. period. I dont know about you, but I hate my head hitting the inside of my car. Its very torquey I'll give you that and I do agree. Its peppy no doubt. But I seriously think my corolla can keep up with an entry level stang v6 210hp.

I'm not assuming that Fords are bad. I think the new stangs look good in the front and sides. Its got a good retro look. I hated the 80s and 90s stang with a passion. But thats why its so hot, it looks good. If ford is producing such pieces of gold to ever set foot on earth, why are they asking toyota for help. Lowest sales ever for ford. And....its calculated 10 years before ford can make a profit again. Ford needs to build its rep. They can make a good car but no one will believe them because they dont have rep anymore. Toyota does and thats what matters. REPUTATION = TRUST/FAITH

ummmmmm......I dont just write stangs suck because they are fords. I say stangs suck because I've driven one and they do suck. I suppose American ideology of producing a car is muscle with no handling. A GT500 will ski all over the track because there is so much torque that all it does is just spin the rear tires. Its a good drag car and because it doesnt like to keep traction on turns I suppose its good for drift - the new hot thing now.

When i said that the stangs have no space, I meant the interior. The cabin is tight and small. the back seats have no leg clearance. My head hits the rear windshield. Its just not comfortable. period. I dont know about you, but I hate my head hitting the inside of my car. Its very torquey I'll give you that and I do agree. Its peppy no doubt. But I seriously think my corolla can keep up with an entry level stang v6 210hp.

I'm not assuming that Fords are bad. I think the new stangs look good in the front and sides. Its got a good retro look. I hated the 80s and 90s stang with a passion. But thats why its so hot, it looks good. If ford is producing such pieces of gold to ever set foot on earth, why are they asking toyota for help. Lowest sales ever for ford. And....its calculated 10 years before ford can make a profit again. Ford needs to build its rep. They can make a good car but no one will believe them because they dont have rep anymore. Toyota does and thats what matters. REPUTATION = TRUST/FAITH

So, you drove the base version of a car and think that it is a fact that Mustangs are bad? The base V6 is just that, the base/starter car. Also, you are dead wrong on American cars and corners. Get your facts straight before you start talking garbage about something you no nothing about. In the past, pony cars with big engines were pretty much only good for going in straight lines, but American car makers have been working against that for some time. The newer top end stangs can do more then go in a straight line. I haven't been behind the wheel of the new Shelby, but the SCed Cobra before that was amazing. The new one is a good performer overall, and a great performer for the price.

Brendon,

Your comparison between your '98 SC400 and any stock Mustang is poor at best, if not irrelevant.

I can make your '98 SC look like a piece of crap compared to my neighbor's '87 Jaguar XJS12 convertible, but that is hardly a fair comparison since his car cost more in 1987 than your car cost in 1998, even if you compare dollar to dollar without adjusting for inflation.

Your Lexus is most comparable to a Jag XK8, a BMW 6 series, or a Mercedes CLK. When you compare your Lexus to those it isn't so easy to denounce the other cars, is it?

Compare a Mustang to it's real competition, a Firebird or a Camaro and then call it a piece of crap. I'll not argue with that, since obviously the mighty 5.7L V8 can whoop the 4.6L V8 in the Mustang anytime. The Firebird has it all over the Mustang in terms of quality, style, performance and reliability.

Actually the Mustang is probably better in reliability. While the GM 5.7L is great, the rest of the Camaro and Firebird didn't hold up that well. That is coming from a GM mechanic too, not me. The GM engines also has more displacement and they run on premium fuel while the Mustang runs on 87. Car magazines have always compared them side by side, but they have never really been in the same power or price class. At least not in any recent years. Mustangs rarely ever go above 5l in displacement. Aside from the new Cobra, and a pretty rare Cobra R, I don't think the Mustang has had anything over a 5l since the old Shelby Mustangs.

They are pretty decent performers for what they are. Also, mustangs have always been pretty limited in power from the factory, but they come with very stout engines that can take on tons of bolt on mods and lots of weekend fun without needing repair. I think the heart of the Mustang GT is to make many owners happy, but for others that need more, they are pretty easy and cheap to mod and they don't break down. Parts are pretty cheap too. I smashed a rim on some busted railroad tracks on mine, and I got a 16" pony rim from Ford Racing delivered for around $170. That isn't bad at all for a factory rim in the size that I got. In fact, that's just down right cheap.

So, back to the turbo thing. If you do turbo your car, why not use a garret t25? They spool like mad and would be perfect for a low boost application. Also, they flow like water used. Maybe even look in to the t25bb. I'd look at smaller quick spooling turbo's no matter what you decide to go with. They shouldn't have any problem holding small amounts of boost till redline.

Whooohoo, top gear, my favorite show ever.

You actually made the Mustang look good compared to a car that was only built to do one thing, take corners.

Jeremy Clarkson also showed a Mitsu EVO out performing a Lamborghini on their test track.

The show is great, I love it, but in the end, it is for entertainment, so don't take the show as gospel.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. I guess I could compare your car to a lotus and call it garbage if it can't keep up with it on a track. That would be fair right?

Whooohoo, top gear, my favorite show ever.

You actually made the Mustang look good compared to a car that was only built to do one thing, take corners.

Jeremy Clarkson also showed a Mitsu EVO out performing a Lamborghini on their test track.

The show is great, I love it, but in the end, it is for entertainment, so don't take the show as gospel.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. I guess I could compare your car to a lotus and call it garbage if it can't keep up with it on a track. That would be fair right?

Yes that would be comparing apples to oranges and yes my car would lose to a lotus, lambos, evo8 lp400's. But top gear thought it was a fair race. They are the same price by the way. I think it depends on what a person wants in a car; handling or speed. I personally prefer handling/acceleration/braking over speed because handling is far more safer than being a rocket car that cant turn for anything. And to think that no other person in the world can turn the way a lotus can makes me all wet!

 

But I wasn't showing how well it could keep up with other cars. My objective was to merely point out the performance of a gt500 and thats all. I mean many cars can beat a gt500 and the gt500 can beat many cars. I just wanted to show that many critics say that the handling of the car is "rubbish", slides everywhere - by that i mean easily able to slide, and the "suspension is something that ford has never heard of before". Its a good muscle car. Muscle cars have always been renowned for going fast but not around corners. Lots of critics also think that the interior is cheap and not much thought was put into it. I'd have to say, the car looks good and goes fast but cant handle.

Whooohoo, top gear, my favorite show ever.

You actually made the Mustang look good compared to a car that was only built to do one thing, take corners.

Jeremy Clarkson also showed a Mitsu EVO out performing a Lamborghini on their test track.

The show is great, I love it, but in the end, it is for entertainment, so don't take the show as gospel.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. I guess I could compare your car to a lotus and call it garbage if it can't keep up with it on a track. That would be fair right?

Yes that would be comparing apples to oranges and yes my car would lose to a lotus, lambos, evo8 lp400's. But top gear thought it was a fair race. They are the same price by the way. I think it depends on what a person wants in a car; handling or speed. I personally prefer handling/acceleration/braking over speed because handling is far more safer than being a rocket car that cant turn for anything. And to think that no other person in the world can turn the way a lotus can makes me all wet!

 

But I wasn't showing how well it could keep up with other cars. My objective was to merely point out the performance of a gt500 and thats all. I mean many cars can beat a gt500 and the gt500 can beat many cars. I just wanted to show that many critics say that the handling of the car is "rubbish", slides everywhere - by that i mean easily able to slide, and the "suspension is something that ford has never heard of before". Its a good muscle car. Muscle cars have always been renowned for going fast but not around corners. Lots of critics also think that the interior is cheap and not much thought was put into it. I'd have to say, the car looks good and goes fast but cant handle.

I'm still not sure what point your trying to make. Or if you are just typing up pointless post just to stir up trouble.

The Mustang GT500 does corner well, and the British don't even like American cars in the first place. They are never going to really have anything nice to say about them. With that said, they also don't care for Japanese cars that much either. Both get bashed for having plastic interiors.

The GT500 does .90 or .93 Gs on the skidpad, depending on who tested it. The Lexus SC, about .85Gs. So, does that mean that the Lexus SC is garbage and that Toyota doesn't know how to do suspension too? Also, they tested the Lotus Exige S and that cost about 20K more then GT500. Not sure why you thought they cost the same, but they don't. Also, you could put just about any car, no matter how much it cost, on a really tight track against that lotus, and it wouldn't look very good. Even if it's a great car, the lotus would probably still take it on that tight of a track. The GT500 is a 45K car, and it is worth what it sells for. Why you would compare it to cars that cost more, and the one car company that is renowned for cars that handle is beyond me. That doesn't prove that the Mustang can't take corners.

Here is my last post on the mustangs cornering abilities.

"Yet even with the far cushier ride, handling has improved. Not even the most recent independent-rear-suspension SVT Cobra can match the new GT's skidpad grip, which now also surpasses a Nissan 350Z Touring's, come to think of it" (source- http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8778...g-gt-page2.html ).

Next time, please get your facts straight before you make crap up, or simply post your opinion as fact. Or simply just post hog for the fun of it.

Sorry twinky, brendon and gvr, but I've come here to ruin your day and set the story straight from a true mustanger who has been there and done that. I've underlined the parts pertaining to each of you:

I used to own a 99' Mustang V6. I bought it my senior year in HS brand new for about $20,000 after saving up all my money. You're right Brendon, the SC400 was a much better car and I came across it when I was searching around for a car, but I couldn't exactly afford the $58k price tag on a part-time retail job after school so I bought what I could afford. Back then all I cared about was having a fast car to impress my friends, and that stang was definately fast. The engine made something like 190hp on a 3000lbs frame and could probably reach 60mph in 7.5 sec or less. 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.

The power isn't what I remember the most about that car. Sorry gvr, but it was a piece of junk hands down. The car was constantly going into the mechanic's shop every season. The 2 problems I remember the most were coolant leakage and engine vibrations, particularly on the pedal when shifting. I also had problems with my a/c compressor and brake pads, which needed constant re-grounding. After I got out of college 4 years later, I finally decided to trade it in for something more reliable. My racing days were over. I did some searches on the internet and found out alot about Corollas, which up to that point I had always bashed as being little junky japanese cars. I ended up buying a pre-owned 01' rolla (the one I'm driving now), and this car has completely blown my nieve thinking away. It is amazing on fuel economy and on reliablity. It really does put that old mustang in perspective

Yeah I bought a Corolla S, so I'm not exactly out of my racer days yet. Every so often, I still get the urge to slap a turbocharger on my car and take me back to my high school days when my friends would race each other down the long island expressway. Yeah I know alot of people are hyping about the new mustangs, but after my experience I would NEVER buy another Mustang again. It just left me with a bad taste in my mouth that isnt gonna go away anytime soon.

The power isn't what I remember the most about that car. Sorry gvr, but it was a piece of junk hands down. The car was constantly going into the mechanic's shop every season. The 2 problems I remember the most were coolant leakage and engine vibrations, particularly on the pedal when shifting. I also had problems with my a/c compressor and brake pads, which needed constant re-grounding. After I got out of college 4 years later, I finally decided to trade it in for something more reliable. My racing days were over. I did some searches on the internet and found out alot about Corollas, which up to that point I had always bashed as being little junky japanese cars. I ended up buying a pre-owned 01' rolla (the one I'm driving now), and this car has completely blown my nieve thinking away. It is amazing on fuel economy and on reliablity. It really does put that old mustang in perspective

That's really strange that you had problems with a 99 mustang. It could have been a lemon, but you should have fought for that if you really had to take the car in every season. It sounds like it was never fixed right. Dealers even half to warranty work for a year when they fix something. Also, you don't regrind pads. The rotors get redone, and if you got them redone all the time, they were probably out of spec. The fact that someone would turn the rotors over and over makes it sound like you went to a hack shop. It is actually illegal for a shop to machine rotors out of spec / as in not being thick enough.

It also sounds like you tried to race the base stang. Even that should not have broken it. Many guys have luck SCing the 3.8s. Many many other happy mustang owners, myself included don't think the Mustang is crap.

Really, if it was total junk, it would not be a automotive icon, it would not have lasted all these years. The mustang is not the most sophisticated car, in fact, it's pretty basic, but it works. I have 5.0 5sp with out 87K miles on it, and I drive it almost every day (I have a few cars to choose from) and I don't have any problems with it. It started every day this winter, no matter how cold it was, it shifts well when frozen, and the only owner cost has been fluids and tires. My car even takes corners rather well with lowered springs, and sub frame connectors and 225s up front and 245s in the rear.

I think the Mustang might be the 2nd longest production car in America behind the Corvette. It's come close to stopping production and the Mustang II almost killed the name, but I don't think Ford has taken a single year off since the Mustang was introduced.

Last, I'm not sure what kind of vibration you had, but it was probably just the engine. The 99-04 V6s actually had some decent torque. It is also a mass produced car. Our 05 corolla has a rattle in the dash that the dealer can't figure out and we are pretty much stuck with it. I don't like it and I wish it would go away, but I'm not going to call the whole car crap because it has a few flaws that many mass produced cars have.

Was it an automatic mustang? I know my 98' corolla often has a problem if annoying vibration when its about to shift and from what I've read, its a probably almost solely experienced by automatic corollas. Its not vibrating bad enough for me to want to rip out the transmission, but it does get annoying at times. Usually what will happen is when I'm going uphill, I'm depressing the pedal about half way and the engine isnt sure to run at the normal cruising speed of 1800 rpm or the higher 2300 rpm.

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.

/Dan H.

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.

/Dan H.

 

If this is you, Dan Hawrylkiw 1999 Toyota Corolla37.610, 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.

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???

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.

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 ). 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 ). 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?

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.

/Dan