1988 supra build suggestions?
 

I have an 88' supra and threw a rod in cyl. 6 in the stock 7MGE about a year ago so i have just been getting it ready for a heart transplant. i have been looking at a lot of threads and builds out there and think i may go with the 2JZGE block and head. i plan on building the bottom end anyway so i figured there's no point in getting a GTE block. i have also heard the oil squirter delete is popular when getting over a certain HP. i would like about 850hp to the wheels when im done. Any suggestions on how i should attack this build?

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

Let me ask you this to start off. Have you ever driven an 850HP car? What are your plans for it? street or strip use? Manual or auto?

Honestly, a junkyard GE with an NA/T setup and an auto transmission making about 450-475 is going to be an absolute blast to drive. and will cost you way less in the long run

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

Ah, the oil squirter debate. I'd rather have them. It depends on what piston package you're running and whether the extra piston lube and cooling is something you want. People get rid of them because it increases oil pressure with no other modification, which is silly if you can keep the squirters and increase oil pressure through better methods. But, its easy to block them off and say "it'll be fine". If an engine comes with squirters, I'm happy to have them and don't want to get rid of them for any reason because of what they bring for benefits.




Kinda funny that V8 builders often machine the block and add them, and the 4 cylinder people like to get rid of them.

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

I have not driven a 850+HP car before. However I am aiming for this goal because it is what I want, its not just having a fun car to drive, its the build I want to build. I would like to do as much as I can myself, obviously I will need some help with it. But I am going with a manual trans swell. It will just be my weekend car and the one I would drive to shows around the US.

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

Yes as that is all true, the other half of that debate is when you are pushing a lot of HP. It creates more heat and squirting cool oil on a very hot rod/piston could be pretty bad. Its like using a good pan to cook something on the stove and then without letting it cool down first you put cool water on it and next thing you know your cooking pan is warping. If that makes sense. If I wasn't shooting for high HP. Then I don't think it would be much of a problem, just concerned about the parts I plan on spending a lot on. But I do see the benefits of having them, this is why I thought I'd ask.

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

The high HP reason for deleting is because people want extra oil pressure for safety margin, and sometimes a little less windage from the fluid contacting the rotating assembly. Well, sometimes it's because people remove balance shafts or something like that and now have enough engine vibration to fatigue and break off the squirters from the block bosses....

If your pistons are hot enough to warp with oil (even if your engine somehow became very hot before the squirters started flowing...?), your engine is going to die a horrible melty death very soon. There will always be a temperature gradient from one side of the piston crown to the other, especially if there is a squirter installed, and the oil continuously cools the piston (engines make heat continuously, and the squirters flow oil continuously too...) which is one of the reasons that squirters are useful. Cooler pistons mean more power generation (less detonation, more ignition advance, etc.), and a happier engine.

That's why NASCAR and Formula1 say your logic is flawed, they run multiple squirters per cylinder and rely on squirters to make big power and keep the engine alive.

If F1 made frying pans, I wonder if they would be made of titanium or AlSiC..? Maybe carbon/carbon for grilling. Maybe beryllium before the ban..

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

Haha well put. That does make a lot of sense. I have read that f1 does use them still. This is why I needed some good feed back about this because a lot of forums out there that I have read some people make pretty convincing arguments on why to get rid of them and the whole warping thing makes sense in theory, I'll see if I can pull one of the threads I found that made not want to use them. But cooler is generally better for motors as a whole yes, so i t does also make sense to have them. Thank you for the insight on the subject.

I have also seen a few things about the difference in the rod length between the GE and the GTE. The rods are shorter in the GE, and I've read that that is usually better for a motor that is going to be high in the rpm range longer than normal usage. Any thoughts on that debate?

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

Haha those would probably be some pretty boss cooking tools if they did. They probably should

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

They'd be All-Clad.

Re: 1988 supra build suggestions?
 

I don't really know anything about those engines, but engines are engines and the shorter rod debate is about engine geometry. By classic engine theory, the rod-to-stroke ratio (ratio of length of rod to length of stroke) is one of the things that matters a lot for high RPM use, and going to a shorter rod usually goes in the wrong direction of what you want for high RPM. For a given stroke, a longer rod increases piston dwell, reduces piston acceleration and speed, reduces bearing loads, all kinds of things. It's better for high RPM because of that. It's not as good for cylinder filling because of the lower piston velocity, but it's better for combustion because of the higher dwell.
A shorter rod will generally make more power because of the cylinder filling, but combustion will suffer as you go up in RPM because of the high piston speeds, reducing efficiency. So generally speaking the short rod is better at low RPM, and worse at rather high RPM. If you're not going for high RPM, the shorter rod is often the way to go because of the better power output and the fact that you will often run into valvetrain stability problems before you get into the compromised area of the shorter rod.

BUT, there are a lot more geometric considerations that play into things. Rod to stroke ratio doesn't matter at all if there are more important things to optimize in other areas, or if having a better rod to stroke ratio means degrading something else too much. That's when the real world doesn't match up with classic engine theory, because you can't have everything optimized in all areas.

So the shorter rod may be better in one geometric area, and worse in another, and at the end of the day it's all about balancing compromises based on how you want to use the engine. A shorter rod for one person may not be good for another person because of that.

I would find out WHY the shorter rod is reportedly better, and then see if that matches the reasons that you think are important.