[Myis300t]

how is that R154 holding up? Im thinkin of doing it very very soon.

my junkyard one finally broke after 14k really reall abusive miles at 450 rwhp. My built one is still at Marlin crawler getting repaired. I will be shipping the junkyard one for a rebuild to him in a few weeks.

He does a few mods that make the R154 a bit tougher to break.. should be good to 700Rwhp 650 or so torque.. I am told by the master.. we will see.

 

[Malekreza11]

my junkyard one finally broke after 14k really reall abusive miles at 450 rwhp. My built one is still at Marlin crawler getting repaired. I will be shipping the junkyard one for a rebuild to him in a few weeks.

He does a few mods that make the R154 a bit tougher to break.. should be good to 700Rwhp 650 or so torque.. I am told by the master.. we will see.

Alright Tom.

When the time comes, I will be contacting you for this dudes info. I dont like the idea of the V160 so much anymore.

 

[danny271@aol.com]

wrong.

you try to get the point where you shift you have the majority of power available. generally this will put peak power in the middle of acceleration of a gear. if you shift AT peak power you drop too far out of power and are not utilizing both sides of the slope.

ding ding ding...we've got a winner! You have to shift further enough, typically, past your peak horsepower. This is so that you stay within the realms of your powerband after you shift and your rpm's drop. Often times power does not drop off as drastically after your peak horsepower as it does before it. Unless you have a very low reving torquey motor, if that even makes sense.

Also...why is everyone asking if their internals can handle a higher rev limit. I'm assuming people are refering to their rods, pistons, rod bearings, caps, etc... Where they should be asking about their valvetrain.

The stock head can rev to 7000/7200rpm or so, ie. valves, springs, retainers, and clips, or so the consensus says. If I am wrong please correct me.

-Dan

PS. I will run both marc and tom with my itty bitty 60-1...mwahaha

 

[tsopranoMB]

PS. I will run both marc and tom with my itty bitty 60-1...mwahaha

and you will lose.....

well, it would be interesting either way....from a roll or dig, who has better traction, etc.....

 

[mikefate]

PS. I will run both marc and tom with my itty bitty 60-1...mwahaha

and dont forget me bish.

 

[Malekreza11]

ding ding ding...we've got a winner! You have to shift further enough, typically, past your peak horsepower. This is so that you stay within the realms of your powerband after you shift and your rpm's drop. Often times power does not drop off as drastically after your peak horsepower as it does before it. Unless you have a very low reving torquey motor, if that even makes sense.

Also...why is everyone asking if their internals can handle a higher rev limit. I'm assuming people are refering to their rods, pistons, rod bearings, caps, etc... Where they should be asking about their valvetrain.

The stock head can rev to 7000/7200rpm or so, ie. valves, springs, retainers, and clips, or so the consensus says. If I am wrong please correct me.

-Dan

PS. I will run both marc and tom with my itty bitty 60-1...mwahaha

yea the stock internals can definetely handle a higher rev... Its the valvetrain that matters more. I have had experience with the valvetrain goin up to 7300 conistently without any issues.

 

[mikefate]

I agree.. The 67 spools in the 3's and that bitch FLOWS!! I will put the 67 up against a 35 anyday of the week. It will make MORE power at the same PSI and not to mention its efficiency will eat the 35 alive.

this is one reason i decided to go with the DBB/h20 cooled 67 over the gt35r.

 

[SophieSleeps]

I run my stock head at 7200 max on Mo's recommendation with no issues.

But keep in mind I don't drive the car much.

 

[TeCKis300]

I dont like the idea of the V160 so much anymore.

Hey Malek, care to share your thoughts on this?

 

[Malekreza11]

Hey Malek, care to share your thoughts on this?

Pretty simple actually... the V160 has extremely short gearing mated with the stock 5 speed rear end. People are having issues with the "bulletproof" V160. Its not so bulletproof anymore, now is it?

the R154 you can retain the stock rear end, the gearing works well for NA or boost applications, but for NA the V160 would be more ideal, but I dont see the cost to benefit ratio being worthwhile.

The R154 is much cheaper, is easily availiable and holds enough freakin power.

 

[mikefate]

the gearign factor is also why i liek the r154. from others experience, the r154 3rd gear is closely matched to the w55's 4th gear.(got this from a pull between bran1093 and myis300t)

 

[IS_Dude]

4th gear is 1:1 still so that is incorrect. some r154 somewhere is .75 in 5th, but not the one out of the MKIII supra.

w55
3.566
2.056
1.384
1.000
0.850

r154
3.300
1.950
1.340
1.000
0.860


http://www.oldholden.com/possible/index.php/Toyota_Supra_and_Celica_5_Speed_gear_ratios

 

[MDForceFed]

Pretty simple actually... the V160 has extremely short gearing mated with the stock 5 speed rear end. People are having issues with the "bulletproof" V160. Its not so bulletproof anymore, now is it?

the R154 you can retain the stock rear end, the gearing works well for NA or boost applications, but for NA the V160 would be more ideal, but I dont see the cost to benefit ratio being worthwhile.

The R154 is much cheaper, is easily availiable and holds enough freakin power.

I agree with Malek on one point -- V160 with stock rear is terrible gearing... just ask Wino. I've opted to go V160 with a GS400 rear end.

As for the part I don't agree with ... the part about V160's reliability. It's a damn reliable tranny from everything I continue to read over in the Supra world. So Malek, if you have specific examples please call them out (except for Charles of course).

What is Woon running on his STOCK V160? 8.8 at mach 1? lol...

 

[TeCKis300]

im not telling :taunt:

i am changing my engine management. Im not doing PCS, for many reasons. I will let the cat out as soon as I get the car back.. 5 weeks to go.

I decided it was time to make some real power. 450 daily on pump wasn't enough.

This is interesting. Would really like to hear why you are changing...

Possibly because of the restricted rev limit with turbo and lack of timing adjustments?

I'm really liking the EMU right now. I'm just wary of part throttle tuning capability once I go F/I because the stock ECU still has closed loop tuning capacity.

 

[IS300luver]

This is interesting. Would really like to hear why you are changing...

Possibly because of the restricted rev limit with turbo and lack of timing adjustments?

I'm really liking the EMU right now. I'm just wary of part throttle tuning capability once I go F/I because the stock ECU still has closed loop tuning capacity.

Most of that is taken care when you have the EMU installed (i'm assuming its going to be the TE one). Your partial throttle will be a little rich from what I understand, but that is very safe for that application. -B

 

[Myis300t]

This is interesting. Would really like to hear why you are changing...

Possibly because of the restricted rev limit with turbo and lack of timing adjustments?

I'm really liking the EMU right now. I'm just wary of part throttle tuning capability once I go F/I because the stock ECU still has closed loop tuning capacity.

ding ding ding ding....

 

[TeCKis300]

Hahahaha...figured.

Now if only a tuner will step up and prove that the EMU works well with forced induction, then there would be another solid option for me to go forward with. Wonder what Malek will be doing as well.

 

[kuuligan]

i find myself shifting at 7K with turbo, lets you stay in the powerband much longer. 6.5k is just to short

I use a standalone

 

[IS_Dude]

8k, buwa haaa... haaaa.. haaaaaaa

 

[Myis300t]

Yip thats what im thinkine...8k....lets see .. brings my theoretical top end to 203mph or so..

Are we thinking the same thing ?
EMU?

I may be the first.. and it will be baptism by fire for the EMU.