Celica Forums General Discussion General WHY does the Celica have such low torque

I was comparing different car in our class and almost every car kills us in torque, whats up with that

Toyota wanted to reinforce the "looks fast" motto.

correct me someone if I'm wrong, but isn't because its a high revving engine and lower revs = more torque

"in our class"?

what do you mean by that? Relative to cars in OTHER classes, it's just basic automotive technology. What else do you expect from a N/A 1.8 L 4-cylinder?

The problem also lies in the stock ecu programming. Get a PowerFC and you probably won't be complaining about low-end torque. I can attest to this personally, and here is the dyno-testing to back up that statement:

http://monkeywrenchracing.com/mwr_celica_gts.html

I was reading that report, and holy crap, they gained 18 ft.lbs of torque from 2500rpm to 3500rpm?! Wow, and then a solid 12 from 4000-6000rpm.
Damn I wish I could use a Power-FC

To answer the original question is because of displacement. You can't make torque without displacement. Being a 1.8L only, you can only make so much naturally. High HP can be made, but torque will suffer.

Jetta = torque monster hehe

Jetta= "Get off the line then go nowhere"

get's off the line and through 2nd gear it's nice hehe... lol so... i like the races short and sweet lol

had one and hos right... the jetta kicks ass

VW's are good for torque. my sister's cabrio has 115 hp, but 125 torque that kicks in at 2500 or so rpms. but it's still slow. anyway, a light car doesn't need much torque.

because toyota sucked at making an engine for our car

i cant even answer this question.

Below 4K, our engines are set up for economy...I don't have time to look but I'm sure our engines make similar torque below 4K as other economy engines our size...

the question has been answered

or has it?!...

our cars dont really need torque, our cars werent really made for drag, what we got is a sexy suspenstion for nice womenly curves, thats where our true potential is.

we don't need torque? strange statement to me... all performance cars can use more torque whether on the street or track. so what you're saying is all low displacement 4 cylinder sports cars don't need torque because they shouldn't be racing period? well they are racing and they are kicking butt, even on the drag strip. so you say a V8 can do it cheaper? if you just want speed get a 2000 lb 90's civic hatch, drop a GSR motor in etc, turbo, and kick butt.

To V8 guys who say "There is no replacement for displacement":
Sport compact guys say "wrong, F/I."

Thank you everyone for you imput, that Power FC is awesome I think I might have to get that . I was compareing it to other 1.8's and some had more torque like the lancer, sentra, I wish we had the engine of the s2000 that would be sweet

I noticed you have a GT, and actually the GT makes about the same torque as the GTS just lower, so that's our stronger stock candidate for comparison. A GTS with a PowerFC is a different story.

The 1.8 L GT has more torque than the lancer 2.0 (lol) and a little less torque than the sentra 1.8 L.

Lancer 2.0 L (ES or OZ rally):
130 hp
120 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm

http://www.mitsubishimotors.com/MMSA/jsp/lancer/features_specs.jsp?t=all

Sentra 1.8 L
126 hp
129 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm

http://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/ModelSpecifications/0,,120013||,00.html

Celica GT 1.8 L
140 hp
125 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm

the lower "low-end" torque brother for comparison:

Celica GTS 1.8 L w/ PowerFC + Injen CAI
MWR results,
approximate crank numbers:
197 hp
120 lb-ft at 3000 rpm
125 lb-ft at 4000 rpm


--------------------

So in conclusion, the lancer is nothing to worry about, but the sentra is a bit better since the peak torque comes on at 2400 rpm compared to the GT at 4200 rpm. That could be the result of a more aggressively tuned ECU in the sentra, and nothing that probably can't be fixed with a PowerFC for the GT.

note that the Injen CAI at least for the GTS is a relatively bad low-end intake compared to AEM, TPR.

the sentra may have more low end power, but that comes at aprice, and that price is high end horsepower. it's the same deal with VW's. they can get going and can pass in normal driving, but try and get 'em going in the high revs and you're going nowhere fast.

piss on torque.. give me my high revvin gts anyday.

yeah, but dont you need torque to get the vehicle going. HP and torque go hand and hand correct.

cool thread!! and yes the question has been answered!

yea i learnd a bit

https://celicahobby.com/ubbthrea...5052#1953486649

this is the other torque thread currently on this forum page. If you scroll down in that thread, you'll see my torque and hp explanation post.

i actually like the GTS torque line... all the torque pretty much comes out at every rpm...

i think this is a very nice engine that Yamaha has built. a very very good one actually...

the actual torqueless cars are those civics...

ya...i love my GTS...just wish i had a little more torque...

Totally, if you wanna talk torqueless cars, the civic takes the cake. 1.7L of displacement putting out 127HP and 114ft lbs of torque, pushing just over 2500lbs of weight. Or worse with the non-VTEC engine with 110ft lbs of torque

Dude you dumbass. The Lotus Elise uses the 2ZZ, if that doesn't symbolize how fucking bad ass our motor is, than nothing ever will.

^^ the lotus elise engine sucks, bro. its the lotus carbon fiber body & rwd setup that makes the lotus a nice car.

and yamaha makes the 2zz engine, not toyota.

and our engines have such low torque because we have such low-displacement engines. as a rule of thumb, the more displacement you have, the more torque you have...everything else remaining equal.

So how much torque and HP would I gain if I bored the engine out to a 2.0 liter with the 12.1 pistons from MWR and new cams from crower