All this talk about 3.5L 268hp, but isn't the 3.3L more efficient/quicker? - Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums
Ribbon Banner

Go Back   Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums > CAR SPECIFIC DISCUSSION > OTHER V6 AUTOMOBILE DISCUSSION > TOYOTA and LEXUS
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Insurance
V6Performance.net is the premier Honda Accord Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 16th, 2006, 12:17 PM   #1
Got navi?
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 474
Send a message via ICQ to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via AIM to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via Yahoo to Fuggedaboutid
All this talk about 3.5L 268hp, but isn't the 3.3L more efficient/quicker?

Hopefully Steve/Dizzy or other's technically inclined can answer:

1. If torque and/or hp are linear at any given point, then the lower the rpm they are achieved, the more powerful the model is. That being said, the 3.5L (2GRFE?) has 8 more lb-ft torque at 1100rpms higher and about 43 more hp at 800 rpms higher. Another side note, driving the Solara vs. a V6 Accord where peak hp/tq are at 5000+rpms, I get better fuel economy on the Solara b/c of better get up and go in the city.

Stats:

Camry Solara V6 (2005 Camry 3.3L not listed anymore)
5 speed auto sequential
3.3-liter DOHC
0-60mph in 6.6-7.2 sec
24-valve VVT-i V6
225 hp @ 5600 rpm
240 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm

(on premium, 8% hp/tq loss on regular)
curb weight 3417lbs-3439lbs
21/29mpg (on regular?)
-I get AVG of 28-29mpg combined of moderate driving on premium

Vs.

2007 Camry 3.5L V6
0-60mph in 6.5-6.8 sec
6 speed auto
3.5-liter DOHC 16-valve
Dual VVT-i V6
268 hp @ 6200 rpm
248 lb.-ft. @ 4700 rpm

curb weight 3461-3516lbs
22/31mpg (on regular?)

Last edited by Fuggedaboutid; April 16th, 2006 at 12:20 PM..
Fuggedaboutid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old April 16th, 2006, 01:36 PM   #2
Formerly VTEC-v6!
 
N54TT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Atlanta Georgia
Posts: 5,251
Before you start making judgements, consider that the 3.5L's ratings are in accordance with the new SAE spec, and the old 3.3's ratings (that you posted) are based on premium fuel.

Recheck your specs, then think about it some more

-James
N54TT is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 16th, 2006, 04:14 PM   #3
Got navi?
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 474
Send a message via ICQ to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via AIM to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via Yahoo to Fuggedaboutid
VTEC V6, to be fair I mentioned 3.3L on premium = 225hp/240tq instead of 210hp/225tq?

Thing is the 3.5L doesn't mention in media reports any benefit on premium fuel in terms of numbers.

I should mention that I do have the 3.3L in my hands so I am a little biased even if I don't show it; however the 3.5L is better in terms of fuel economy. I know that the Lexus IS350 version recommends premium for the 306hp/250+tq.

Anyways, that being said, the 1-2mpg diff and no premium fuel = some cost savings, but the downside is trading in current car or replacing it = $5000-15000 difference in payments, so fuel economy alone isn't the biggest reason.
Fuggedaboutid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old April 16th, 2006, 04:28 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Accord_V6_400m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: So Cal (562)
Posts: 7,309
Send a message via AIM to Accord_V6_400m
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuggedaboutid
Hopefully Steve/Dizzy or other's technically inclined can answer:

1. If torque and/or hp are linear at any given point, then the lower the rpm they are achieved, the more powerful the model is. That being said, the 3.5L (2GRFE?) has 8 more lb-ft torque at 1100rpms higher and about 43 more hp at 800 rpms higher. Another side note, driving the Solara vs. a V6 Accord where peak hp/tq are at 5000+rpms, I get better fuel economy on the Solara b/c of better get up and go in the city.

Stats:

Camry Solara V6 (2005 Camry 3.3L not listed anymore)
5 speed auto sequential
3.3-liter DOHC
0-60mph in 6.6-7.2 sec
24-valve VVT-i V6
225 hp @ 5600 rpm
240 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm

(on premium, 8% hp/tq loss on regular)
curb weight 3417lbs-3439lbs
21/29mpg (on regular?)
-I get AVG of 28-29mpg combined of moderate driving on premium

Vs.

2007 Camry 3.5L V6
0-60mph in 6.5-6.8 sec
6 speed auto
3.5-liter DOHC 16-valve
Dual VVT-i V6
268 hp @ 6200 rpm
248 lb.-ft. @ 4700 rpm

curb weight 3461-3516lbs
22/31mpg (on regular?)

The old 3.3 does not compare to the new 3.5 at all. By far the new engine is much more advanced. Direct fuel injection allowing for better control and eficiency is just a part of it.

As for torque and horsepower it doesn't make a certain powertrain more powerful then another if its peak torque is sooner on the contrary for all you now the torque curve on the new engine could be much better overall and just continue for a longer duration of time, ie. its more flat and peaks later. They probably sacrificed peak torque for a flatter beefier torque curve basically. Plus on the new ratings the 3.3 got like 215hp I believe as compared to 268.
Accord_V6_400m is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 16th, 2006, 07:04 PM   #5
Got navi?
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 474
Send a message via ICQ to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via AIM to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via Yahoo to Fuggedaboutid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accord_V6_400m
The old 3.3 does not compare to the new 3.5 at all. By far the new engine is much more advanced. Direct fuel injection allowing for better control and eficiency is just a part of it.

As for torque and horsepower it doesn't make a certain powertrain more powerful then another if its peak torque is sooner on the contrary for all you now the torque curve on the new engine could be much better overall and just continue for a longer duration of time, ie. its more flat and peaks later. They probably sacrificed peak torque for a flatter beefier torque curve basically. Plus on the new ratings the 3.3 got like 215hp I believe as compared to 268.
Actually, the new ratings SAE are 210hp for 3.3L on 87oct. Btw, the 3.3 does have "Ignition Electronic, with Toyota Direct Ignition (TDI)", but obviously not 268hp/6speed auto. I was just pointing out that Toyota is turning into Honda in terms of the 3.5L only b/c they have put more more hp than torque which Honda is known for.

Is it true that the Camry 3.5L is a detuned IS350 motor or is that urban myth... anyways, why do I get the feeling that my posts are really boring
?
Fuggedaboutid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 16th, 2006, 11:41 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Accord_V6_400m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: So Cal (562)
Posts: 7,309
Send a message via AIM to Accord_V6_400m
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuggedaboutid
Actually, the new ratings SAE are 210hp for 3.3L on 87oct. Btw, the 3.3 does have "Ignition Electronic, with Toyota Direct Ignition (TDI)", but obviously not 268hp/6speed auto. I was just pointing out that Toyota is turning into Honda in terms of the 3.5L only b/c they have put more more hp than torque which Honda is known for.

Is it true that the Camry 3.5L is a detuned IS350 motor or is that urban myth... anyways, why do I get the feeling that my posts are really boring
?
Wow 210 theres a big difference. I wasn't refering to DIS (Direct Ignition System) but rather the Direct Fuel Injection as I mentioned in my earlier post. Don't worry Honda will catch up. You should try not to look at it in a more hp, less tq way, it will get you thinking a certain way, just look at the whole picture.

Its basically a detuned version minus some parts here and there. Its the same family of engines but its not "just" detuned.
Accord_V6_400m is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 20th, 2006, 06:43 PM   #7
A turbo says
 
Toysrme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 39
Send a message via ICQ to Toysrme Send a message via AIM to Toysrme Send a message via Yahoo to Toysrme
Cool

No engine from the MZ, and the 2gr-fe are not happy on 87 octane fuels.
The MZ's have notorious timing retard, and pinging issues when running 87. The even higher 10.8:1 compression on the 2GR-fe is not going to lend itself well with 87 octane either. Tho the previous knock sensor issues have been fixed for quite some time.



Keep in mind... The 1mz/3mz topped out with the U151 transmission. The 2gr-fe get's the U161 transmission.
Old Gearing 3.29 * 0.76 * 215/55/17
New gearing 3.685 * 0.609 * 215/55/17
The extra mpg comes from both a more effecient engine, and the fact that the cruising gear is taller.
3000rpm, TC locked = 93mph VS 104 mph

ABout the power output. You're gravely mistaken. The 3mz-fe was *NEVER* quoted as having 268hp.
1) The 3mz-fe + hybrid drivetrain of the rx400h / highlander hybrid makes 268bhp combined
2) The 2GR-FE makes 268bhp. (Previously 272bhp)
1mz-fe w vvt-i (i.e. beams) 210bhp (now ????)
3mz-fe 218bhp. (Previously 225, before that 230 on the old bhp formulas at engine introduction.)

Quote:
I was just pointing out that Toyota is turning into Honda in terms of the 3.5L only b/c they have put more more hp than torque which Honda is known for.
Which I think is a completely inaccurate statement. Even if similar in numbers, Toyota historically shoots for 95% peak torque no later 2500rpm on their "car" (not truck) v6's.
Which histrorically... Honda just doesn't *do* relative torque/horsepower in the first 1/3 of their entire rpm range on *any* of their engines.

So. No... It's not comparible. Nor similar in real-world regards.
Nissan w' Toyota? Ya, been comparible in many aspects for 15-20 years now. Honda w' Nissan / Toyota? No.




The entire GR family is much better than the MZ family. Stronger, bigger, more economical, and more power - in any relative measure.

Unfortuantly anything from either family runs 2,000-4,500usd in the parts chains right now.
Toysrme is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 23rd, 2006, 10:57 PM   #8
Got navi?
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 474
Send a message via ICQ to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via AIM to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via Yahoo to Fuggedaboutid
When I said Toyota is taking the route of Honda with putting out more HP and torque not increased significantly, I was referring to the approach of number boosting. HP is all marketing to me, anything more than 200 is good, whereas torque, one can never have enough, let's just say .

Anyways, the 2GR is a great replacement for the 3mz/1mz, etc... however, I'm not completely sold on the gain of 8lb-ft of tq and raising of rpms . What that means is that the car isn't convincing enough for an existing owner of solidly functioning 1-5yr old 3mz powered vehicle, unless they have leased their car and need an absolute replacement. The MPG gain is however welcomed at any level esp with beautiful gas prices these days.


Btw, what's the biggest flaws or advantages to the 3MZ versus all Toyota or even competitior's engines?

Also, what's the biggest advantage to the 2GR (3.5L) Toyota motor compared to all other Toyota motors of past/present and those of other manufacturer's?

The reason for asking is that, many know that the Lexus/Toyota 3.0L I-6 in the IS300/Supra/etc was absolutely amazing in terms of build quality and handling of absolute abuse/thrashing. I have never owned one of these, but this is what I've heard.
Fuggedaboutid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 24th, 2006, 12:38 AM   #9
Registered User
 
Accord_V6_400m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: So Cal (562)
Posts: 7,309
Send a message via AIM to Accord_V6_400m
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuggedaboutid
When I said Toyota is taking the route of Honda with putting out more HP and torque not increased significantly, I was referring to the approach of number boosting. HP is all marketing to me, anything more than 200 is good, whereas torque, one can never have enough, let's just say .

Anyways, the 2GR is a great replacement for the 3mz/1mz, etc... however, I'm not completely sold on the gain of 8lb-ft of tq and raising of rpms . What that means is that the car isn't convincing enough for an existing owner of solidly functioning 1-5yr old 3mz powered vehicle, unless they have leased their car and need an absolute replacement. The MPG gain is however welcomed at any level esp with beautiful gas prices these days.


Btw, what's the biggest flaws or advantages to the 3MZ versus all Toyota or even competitior's engines?

Also, what's the biggest advantage to the 2GR (3.5L) Toyota motor compared to all other Toyota motors of past/present and those of other manufacturer's?

The reason for asking is that, many know that the Lexus/Toyota 3.0L I-6 in the IS300/Supra/etc was absolutely amazing in terms of build quality and handling of absolute abuse/thrashing. I have never owned one of these, but this is what I've heard.
Keep in mind that the power of their new engine improves torque everywhere in the powerband and has it continue for a longer duration of time which I wish I could say the same for diesels.

That and the 06 Camry with the 3.3L engine under the new ratings that the new engine is rated against only has 210hp @ 5600rpm and 220tq @3600rpm according to their pdf files:
http://www.toyota.com/html/tcuv/brochures/06_camry.pdf

So 58hp and 28lb-ft of peak power isn't a high enough increase not to include the bountiful amounts of technological innovations such as direct fuel injection.

The new engine makes [email protected] and [email protected] If Toyota indeed has the tradition of having torquey engines then one could assume that they increased torque and are producing it for a longer amount of time in the powerband.
Accord_V6_400m is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 24th, 2006, 07:50 PM   #10
Honda/Acura Enthusiast
 
Plumaccordcoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunrise, Florida
Posts: 14,633
Send a message via AIM to Plumaccordcoupe
I love this thread. I'm learning so much about Toyota's older V6 engines .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accord_V6_400m
So 58hp and 28lb-ft of peak power isn't a high enough increase not to include the bountiful amounts of technological innovations such as direct fuel injection.
The 2gr-fe in the 2007 Camry, 2005-2006 Avalon and 2006 RAV4 doesn't have direct injection.



__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Senior Moderator and Florida Co-Moderator
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you have any questions or need to report something, either PM me or if I am online, IM me.

July Calendar:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Plumaccordcoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 24th, 2006, 08:12 PM   #11
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
I should post up a thrust analysis, which would answer most of this in a about 2 seconds. hmm... which one. Has anybody dynoed at FWD automatic 2GR-FE car yet? I did one of a Camry 3.3 SE vs a 7g AV6 awhile ago but never posted it, because I figured it would just get people's pannies in a bunch and start a flame war. Had some pretty interesting results though.

The Toyota 3.3's are definitely tuned for good low-end torque, and have very aggressive gearing. So it may feel extremely responsive and quick around town, but that doesn't make it fast. Once you get wound up, 210-225 hp only accelerates you so quickly, and that's at a rate far slower than 268-280 hp will.
__________________
Steve | Senior Moderator | "Enginerd" | Nazi Mod | Devil's Advocate | Sarcastic Bastid | AHOLE BMW DRIVER SINCE 2011
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2018 GMC Yukon XL Denali (soon) | 2011 BMW 335i convertible (current) | 2007 Toyota RAV4 V6 Sport 4WD (sold to folks) | 1999 Nissan Maxima SE 5MT (sold) | 2001 Accord EX V6 (RIP 2002)



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 25th, 2006, 09:46 PM   #12
Got navi?
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 474
Send a message via ICQ to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via AIM to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via Yahoo to Fuggedaboutid
[QUOTE=SteVTEC]I should post up a thrust analysis, which would answer most of this in a about 2 seconds. hmm... which one. Has anybody dynoed at FWD automatic 2GR-FE car yet? I did one of a Camry 3.3 SE vs a 7g AV6 awhile ago but never posted it, because I figured it would just get people's pannies in a bunch and start a flame war. /{QUOTE]

We are mature adults LOL... anyways, people like me who have both in my household would love to see those results SteVTEC. Please post the 3.3L vs Av6 Gen 7

Steve, maybe we all including myself as underestimating the potential of HP b/c we are awashed with marketers saying "300hp this and 200hp that" while haing 195lb-ft torque or something lousier.

btw, SAE 210hp/220lbft on regular for 3.3L .. I do use premium, not for power reasons, but for better fuel economy and smoother driving which has helped me a lot to gain 4mpg b/c of more linear/less lag.

Last edited by Fuggedaboutid; April 25th, 2006 at 09:51 PM..
Fuggedaboutid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 25th, 2006, 09:59 PM   #13
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
And on that front, my 190 hp Maxima is just as quick as a 300 hp RL.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 25th, 2006, 10:59 PM   #14
Got navi?
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 474
Send a message via ICQ to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via AIM to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via Yahoo to Fuggedaboutid
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
And on that front, my 190 hp Maxima is just as quick as a 300 hp RL.
hi Steve, can you post the 3.3L vs. Accord 7th gen V6?
Fuggedaboutid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 25th, 2006, 11:13 PM   #15
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
yeah i'll get around to it. gimme a few days
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 26th, 2006, 11:05 AM   #16
M62B44tu powaH!
 
Max on This's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 1,334
Steve didn't you post one up before on a Solara 3.3 vs. an Accord J30A4?

I recall last year that alot of people were in a rut because alot of people weren't understanding the concept of 3D acceleration and assumed that the Accord was ahead by 70mph because it posted a quicker time-to-speed.
Max on This is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 26th, 2006, 11:46 AM   #17
constantly in pursuit
 
hammer03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,250
Send a message via AIM to hammer03
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuggedaboutid
I do use premium, not for power reasons, but for better fuel economy and smoother driving which has helped me a lot to gain 4mpg b/c of more linear/less lag.
have you calculated the $/mi instead of mpg to see which is more cost effective?
hammer03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 26th, 2006, 11:52 AM   #18
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
I'm not sure what I posted and got flamed for before.

Anyways, in one file I have an extrapolated dyno/thrust analysis for an Avalon (2GR) raping a TL which got the Acura guys' pannies in a bunch a year ago. And then in another file I have a 3MZ doing the deed on a J30A4, at least at lower speeds. I'll just splice together a new one and put the 2GR 6AT up against the old 3MZ 5AT, which is what the thread is about anyways. I'll get to it this weekend sometime since my wife is on call most of the weekend.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 27th, 2006, 06:52 PM   #19
A turbo says
 
Toysrme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 39
Send a message via ICQ to Toysrme Send a message via AIM to Toysrme Send a message via Yahoo to Toysrme
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuggedaboutid
Btw, what's the biggest flaws or advantages to the 3MZ versus all Toyota or even competitior's engines? Also, what's the biggest advantage to the 2GR (3.5L) Toyota motor compared to all other Toyota motors of past/present and those of other manufacturer's? The reason for asking is that, many know that the Lexus/Toyota 3.0L I-6 in the IS300/Supra/etc was absolutely amazing in terms of build quality and handling of absolute abuse/thrashing. I have never owned one of these, but this is what I've heard.
The 3mz-fe is better than a 1mz-fe. Compaired to other similar configuration engines it depends on what the criteria is.
The 2gr-fe is a great engine. Gobs of torque, good horsepower output, very broad power output. One of it's major strengths will be it's lineage. It will prove equal to the older Toyota v6's in it's power holding ability. 400-550bhp should be where it falls ones people start playing with it.

You're reffering to the 2jz-ge. They are very strong. The differances between a 2jz-ge, and 2jz-gte are well published, and very minor. Realize that previous v6's, stock/stock, and paying careful attention to fueling to not melt a piston, or ring-land, are nearly as strong as "legondary i6's."
With most of the v6's Tapping out for day to day reliability under boost/n2o at 375-550bhp.
That's not shabby...

SteVTEC Dynos are not known to exists outside of the FSM's at this point. If you have one... Post up.
Toysrme is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 28th, 2006, 01:42 PM   #20
constantly in pursuit
 
hammer03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,250
Send a message via AIM to hammer03
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toysrme
You're reffering to the 2jz-ge. They are very strong. The differances between a 2jz-ge, and 2jz-gte are well published, and very minor.
ummm excuse me? are you sure about that?
hammer03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 28th, 2006, 04:58 PM   #21
...
 
streetxdreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 488
sorry to jack the thread but i was always under the impression that premium fuel in a car does not do jack for a car that does not require it. Fuel grade is based on its octane rating, As you should not the octance rating is the fuels ability to not 'auto-detonate'. That is the only thing it does, it does not make more power and it does not get you better mileage.

Please correct me if im wrong
streetxdreamer is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old April 28th, 2006, 06:26 PM   #22
M62B44tu powaH!
 
Max on This's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 1,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetxdreamer
sorry to jack the thread but i was always under the impression that premium fuel in a car does not do jack for a car that does not require it. Fuel grade is based on its octane rating, As you should not the octance rating is the fuels ability to not 'auto-detonate'. That is the only thing it does, it does not make more power and it does not get you better mileage.

Please correct me if im wrong
The 'new' way does make for more power with premium as the ratings are made with regular fuel (GR Camry motor)

In a nut shell: The ECU will slowly advance timing until pinging is determined. The timing is more advanced with premium than regular. This in turn makes for more power so HP and TQ will go up. This won't happen right away, the ECU takes time to advance timing, it mainly does it at steady state cruising.

The 'old' way was to rate the car with premium fuel (1MZ). Regular fuel will cause knocking, so the timing will be retarded. This will make you loose power (lower than the rated HP/TQ).

Cars such as the Accord with the J30A1 is rated at regular, but provides no benefits with premium. There is no knock sensor to determine engine knock so it makes due with very conservative timing that doesn't change regardless of octane.
Max on This is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old May 22nd, 2006, 10:02 PM   #23
A turbo says
 
Toysrme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 39
Send a message via ICQ to Toysrme Send a message via AIM to Toysrme Send a message via Yahoo to Toysrme
Cool

Quote:
ummm excuse me? are you sure about that?
Piston oil squireters & static compression ratios are the only noteable differance between a 2jz-ge and a 2jz-gte.

Excuse yourself for not knowing...


Go spend some time learning Toyota doesn't build **** that falls apart - even tho they don't build anything that leads in power production.
Toysrme is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old May 22nd, 2006, 11:12 PM   #24
constantly in pursuit
 
hammer03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,250
Send a message via AIM to hammer03
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toysrme
Piston oil squireters & static compression ratios are the only noteable differance between a 2jz-ge and a 2jz-gte.

Excuse yourself for not knowing...


Go spend some time learning Toyota doesn't build **** that falls apart - even tho they don't build anything that leads in power production.
so why is it that they dont hold boost even remotely as well as the gte?
and you dont have to be a **** about it.
hammer03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old May 23rd, 2006, 02:14 AM   #25
A turbo says
 
Toysrme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 39
Send a message via ICQ to Toysrme Send a message via AIM to Toysrme Send a message via Yahoo to Toysrme
Cool

The largest starting reason is the effective compression ratio under boost. One runs a 10:1 to 10.5:1 CR, the other runs 8.5:1 CR. Right off the bat the GE is penalized at 1 bar of boost by having a 3.8:1 higher peak effective compression ratio.
Which runs back to the delima alot of people with 2jz-ge powered cars get into:
1) Rebuild the 2jz-ge into a stronger than stock 2jz-gte for the same cost
2) Buy a 1jz-gte, possibly rebuild it
3) Buy a 1uz-fe, rebuild it, turbo that
From the MKIV.com FAQ
Quote:
The NA engine is internally built just as strong as the TT engine, and responds Well to turbocharging. You can increase horsepower levels with a turbo kit To around 600hp reliably. Click Here to see how far an NA has been taken to, 700hp+! And click Here & Here to read about it

I'm not being a ****. If I were being a ****, I would insult someone. I'm just clearing afew things up.
Toysrme is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old May 23rd, 2006, 05:04 PM   #26
Got navi?
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 474
Send a message via ICQ to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via AIM to Fuggedaboutid Send a message via Yahoo to Fuggedaboutid
Guys, c'mon are you trying to get banned!!! lol, an innocent engine question and my V6P people are cursing or cussing? out each other! It's a Toyota engine lol, let's not fight!
Fuggedaboutid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old May 23rd, 2006, 05:44 PM   #27
Formerly VTEC-v6!
 
N54TT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Atlanta Georgia
Posts: 5,251
How about I just ban all of you? Huh? Yeah sounds good
N54TT is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old August 19th, 2006, 10:15 PM   #28
65hemi
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 2
Gas Mileage and octane rating

I recently ran a test on my '05 3.3L V-6 Camry and it got 2 mpg better on 87 octane than on 91 octane.

Bill

[QUOTE=Fuggedaboutid]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
I should post up a thrust analysis, which would answer most of this in a about 2 seconds. hmm... which one. Has anybody dynoed at FWD automatic 2GR-FE car yet? I did one of a Camry 3.3 SE vs a 7g AV6 awhile ago but never posted it, because I figured it would just get people's pannies in a bunch and start a flame war. /{QUOTE]

We are mature adults LOL... anyways, people like me who have both in my household would love to see those results SteVTEC. Please post the 3.3L vs Av6 Gen 7

Steve, maybe we all including myself as underestimating the potential of HP b/c we are awashed with marketers saying "300hp this and 200hp that" while haing 195lb-ft torque or something lousier.

btw, SAE 210hp/220lbft on regular for 3.3L .. I do use premium, not for power reasons, but for better fuel economy and smoother driving which has helped me a lot to gain 4mpg b/c of more linear/less lag.
k5wg is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old August 19th, 2006, 10:29 PM   #29
65hemi
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 2
gas mileage and octane rating

I just ran a test on my '05 Camry 3.3L V-6 and got 2 mpg better on 87 octane than I got on 91 octane.

Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by streetxdreamer
sorry to jack the thread but i was always under the impression that premium fuel in a car does not do jack for a car that does not require it. Fuel grade is based on its octane rating, As you should not the octance rating is the fuels ability to not 'auto-detonate'. That is the only thing it does, it does not make more power and it does not get you better mileage.

Please correct me if im wrong
k5wg is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old August 20th, 2006, 12:34 AM   #30
Formerly VTEC-v6!
 
N54TT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Atlanta Georgia
Posts: 5,251
Under what conditions did you perform the test? I'm a Toyota guy too so I'm not flaming...but I just want to make sure there weren't any extraneous variables that you missed that would have thrown the results
__________________
Garage:
  • 2010 BMW 135i (500hp, JB4 w/ E85)
  • 2017 Chevy Tahoe LT
Gone but not forgotten:
  • 2013 Honda Accord 4dr EX-L
  • 2002 Honda Accord 4dr EX-V6
  • 1999 Honda Accord 4dr LX
N54TT is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Chapter
Choose your AV6 Chapter Location
Ride
What do you drive?
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On