Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Supra Topics' started by JT, Apr 3, 2019.
Add a couple more weeks onto that and you're in the ballpark
Figured they could test a euro spec, since it's got the same engine and everything.
I cam hope
The 340i m sport runs in the mid 12’s with more power, but it’s heavier also.
I’m betting the Supra is low 4’s, probably even 3.9, and low 12’s.
Still need a Manual in this SPORTS car...dont care if it's more with a manual, its still going to be more engaging to drive, therefor more fun for the majority
^^ Yep. Unless the MKV goes full hybrid (but even then... a production manual hybrid has already been demonstrated by other manufacturers) or full electric, a manual version using the three-pedal gearbox from the M2 Competition or M3/M4 is in order. The fuel economy will be slightly less but... who in their right mind cares? It's already an impractical two-seater in this generation and it wasn't designed to chase lap times at all costs.
Regarding those 2019 fuel economy figures as a comparison to the past MKIV 6-speed Export models with their long 3.1:1 gears I'm very impressed. The engine is certainly underrated just a bit just like Toyota's old 2JZ-GTE. Maybe a manual version won't crack 30mpg in 6th gear @ 60-70mph but it is still worlds better than the old car's 23mpg highway fuel economy with old fashioned port injection only and no VVT-i (I'm not including the revised JDM VVT-i Supra RZ in this... which may have netted slightly better city fuel economy).
Not a direct comparison but the other day I calculated 15.5-16mpg in the city with normal driving from my stock/unmodified 2JZGTE with a 5-speed manual trans and 3.92:1 gearing (Not quite as low overall gearing as a stock Getrag but getting there for gears 1-3 compared to rpms in each of the first three gears on a stock MKIV TT 6-speed).
15-16mpg(max in the city) was with only moderate application of the first turbo, gentle acceleration and mostly cruising around at 2,000rpm give or take and a small handful of times really getting into boost for brief periods.
24mpg city from the B58 MKV let alone 31mpg highway is amazing for a car like this considering that for all the (trick port &-- correction, no port injection) direct injection, variable valve timing and other modern efficiency tricks it's still a traditional gasoline turbo inline-six engine.
Yeah, the ZF 8HP automatic probably has a big hand in those figures but it also speaks highly of the engine itself.
I too await the manual release and expect slightly lower but still impressive fuel economy figures when comparing new to old Supra Turbos.
I just looked it up and I am mistaken. Apologies. I had thought it came with both direct and port injection like the FA20 in the GT86. Apparently not.
Welcome to the world of walnut blasting lol.
Or just add meth and/or port injection for clean valves!
Not as bad as the first wave of direct injection motors like the n54
I'm still surprised as to how this car hits 0-60 in 4.1 seconds (according to one source) with that power-to-weight ratio. And even more so because it gets better fuel economy than my similarly quick E92.
Now if only I could afford one...
Even if the ZF8 shifts as quick as a DCT it would require a little more than 350hp at the flywheel. With a regular Auto transmission, it is almost impossible to get a 4.1s 0 - 60 with less than 400hp.
According to online calculators (which are unreliable at best) assuming the MKV weighs 3,397lbs it needs somewhere between 440-470hp at the flywheel to run a 4.1s 0-60 with an auto transmission. A DCT would require 370hp. We're missing 35-135hp somewhere to make this 0-60 time logical.
There is also launch control which would help significantly but not by that much IMO. It's either underrated power wise or using "overboost" to gain mid range power.
Here is a dyno chart by AC Schnitzer showing the stock B58 vs their tune:
My assumption is the supra applies more power in the mid range but keeps the top end the same (335hp) making the power curve something like this (green curves):
IMO this along with lunch control and decent tires/traction are enough to get a 4.1s 0-60 times in a 335/3,397 power to weight ratio chassis.
This is of course all my speculations, non of it has any true bases other than the disbelief that the specs we were given are somewhat illogical to produce these times. Not to mention why don't we always get this "overboost" in all RPM ranges. Maybe it's for reliability, better traction/handling in corners to prevent loss of control, or maybe just politics to keep the MKV from undermining the Z4
The Alfa Romeo runs a 8 sp ZF with 505 hp, car is around the 3800 pound range and hits high 3’s.
I still think the Supra weighs less than advertised, I’m guessing in the 3250+ range.
Power, horse power in this case, is a measurement of work being done. Your torque curve, is your vehicles acceleration curve (till higher speeds where drag becomes a bigger factor). Ignore the HP figures and look at the torque curves to get an idea of how a car will accelerate. And that stock torque curve in that dyno chart above can't be trusted. That's impossibly flat.
A 3 second 0 - 60 is actually very possibly with the Alfa's power to weight numbers. Using the same websites I did earlier you get 3.9-4.0 with a "regular" auto and 3.7s with a DCT.
That flat plateau is exactly my point. I have noticed it in multiple BMW sourced engine dynos and they're definitely showing the engine being restricted to produce the numbers they claim even though once the same car is on an actual chassis dyno, this flat area is gone and the car is actually making more power than advertised.
Here are a few other examples:
The base numbers on the dyno chart I got from AC Schnitzer are most likely BMW sourced as they show identical numbers to what BMW claims. It is almost impossible to produce such exact numbers on the same dyno twice let alone on a different one.
We are looking at 370lb/ft of torque