Current forum: sconz You are: not logged in

W58 versus R154 strength..   2003-11-05 20:52:00 <Stuart> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:27, you wrote: > Well I was putting out 580nm of torque on the dyno with my 4.7:1 diff > not really much to go by as rear wheel torque is irrelevant...... That is quite impressive, at 303 ft.lbs A stock Mk.3 7M-GTE is around 247 ft.lbs, and supras tend to sit around 1:1 ration of torque (in ft.lbs) to HP. They put the R154 behind the 7MGTE for a reason - the 7MGE only has the W box of course, but toyota didn't think it was up to the job of the turbos. I would put the reliable torque capacity of a W box to somewhere below 300 ft.lbs, although it could be a reasonable amount less.. the R154 is a VERY different box, and people have run it begine cars with over 600 ft.lbs with little trouble (excepting maybe the stock clutch ;) Regards, Stuart.

Re: W58 versus R154 strength..   2003-11-05 20:57:00 <Hunt M> 2 questions: 1: What is the conversion rate for nm to ft.lbs?? 2: The 7M torque of 247 ft lbs is at the engine. I very much doubt I have 300 ft lbs at the engine !!!! Hunt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stuart" <stuartw@kcbbs.gen.nz> To: "Supra Club of NZ Mailing List" <sconz@supras.org.nz> Sent: 05 November, 2003 8:49 PM Subject: [sconz] W58 versus R154 strength.. > On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:27, you wrote: > > Well I was putting out 580nm of torque on the dyno with my 4.7:1 diff > > not really much to go by as rear wheel torque is irrelevant...... > > That is quite impressive, at 303 ft.lbs > > A stock Mk.3 7M-GTE is around 247 ft.lbs, and supras tend to sit around 1:1 > ration of torque (in ft.lbs) to HP. > > They put the R154 behind the 7MGTE for a reason - the 7MGE only has the W box > of course, but toyota didn't think it was up to the job of the turbos. I > would put the reliable torque capacity of a W box to somewhere below 300 > ft.lbs, although it could be a reasonable amount less.. the R154 is a VERY > different box, and people have run it begine cars with over 600 ft.lbs with > little trouble (excepting maybe the stock clutch ;) > > Regards, > Stuart. > > --- > Supra Club of New Zealand > http://www.supras.org.nz/ >

Re: W58 versus R154 strength..   2003-11-05 22:20:00 <Stuart> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:58, you wrote: > 2 questions: > > 1: What is the conversion rate for nm to ft.lbs?? > > 2: The 7M torque of 247 ft lbs is at the engine. I very much doubt I have > 300 ft lbs at the engine !!!! 1: 1.356 (I'll leave it as an excercise to guess which was around ;) 2: yes true, I didn't allow for that, 7MGTE is 247 at the engine. Remember your rear wheel torque is affected by both gearing ratio and drive train losses, and therefore only really comparible if you are running at a 1:1 gearing (ie: 4th gear on a toyota 5speed manual from memory? or 3rd on an auto with the torque converter locked up) Regards, Stuart.

Lyris - Email Marketing Software