Engine Longevity

Comer · February 27, 2004, 16:39

I've noticed recently an increase in threads which discuss the subject of increasing the HP of the standard 1ZZFE engine.

So far you can...

Change the header for one without cats (PPE)
Lose the main cat by adding a custom downpipe (H&S)
Add a turbo (PE, Apexi etc)
Add a piggyback ECU (Unichip)
Or a minor if any change in HP via a different intake and / or exhaust.

But what I'd like to how these modifications will impact the longevity of the engine. Are some more detrimental than others in the long term?

mph · February 27, 2004, 17:16

General rule of thumb is that increasing performance (however so caused) decreases longevity.

However, the issue with the CATs breaking up isn't a performance issue and so changing the header in our case could be a win-win situation (but see next paragraph).

Trust no one that gives you any figures. If they're the likes of a racing team or manufacturer and even, treat any values cautiously; anyone lessor simply won't have any authoritive facts to back their claim.

IMO, modern engines are pretty tough; if I'm knocking a third off it's life (say from 300,000 to 200,000 miles) by the addition of my turbo, do I really care? And this is the most extreme of modifications.

Comer · February 27, 2004, 17:27

If my engine does anywhere near 200k if I modify it then I will be a happy owner. Especially as it will probably take 20 years to get there the way I use it s:oops: :oops: s:oops:

markiii · February 27, 2004, 18:17

turbo will decrease longevity

unichip, less so

exhaust mods I'd say no. your actually allowing the engine to flow better and since your not adding fuel or air, the extra power is more less wasted than more generated.

mph · February 27, 2004, 19:32

Quote from: "markiii"exhaust mods I'd say no. your actually allowing the engine to flow better and since your not adding fuel or air, the extra power is more less wasted than more generated.

Insert brain, mark! "Flowing better".. This means more air; more air means more fuel; more fuel means more power - go figure! s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Anonymous · February 27, 2004, 21:13

Quote from: "mph"IMO, modern engines are pretty tough; if I'm knocking a third off it's life (say from 300,000 to 200,000 miles) by the addition of my turbo, do I really care? And this is the most extreme of modifications.

IMO i dont think engines nowadays are built to last 300,000 miles, the manufacturers want you to buy a new car from them one day. Id say the longevity target would still be around 100,000 - 150,000 miles. Engines nowadays contain quite a lot of aluminium which is hardly the strongest material.
Maybe an engine by mercedes or porsche would last around the 300,000 miles mark

markiii · February 27, 2004, 21:22

so tell me what puts more strain on an engine? a restrictive exhaust?

or one optimised to empty the combustion chamber efficiently and with the least backwash into the inlet valve of the next cylinder in the firing order?

Anonymous · February 28, 2004, 15:18

Actually, Toyota engineers their engines to last around 700,000km.
Most of us change their cars much sooner than that, but this is why Toyota got that high reliability marks from US owners where cars are often driven to excess of 400,000 miles (lots of old cars there).

You will still have to do some "major" maintainance every 200k-250k km, but the engine itself will go on... And keep in mind that pushing too much power will definetly be bad for 1zz... TTE said they found 225 hp flywheel is the max the engine will handle reliably (they probably are thinking loooong, loong time)...

GSB · March 1, 2004, 08:51

Quote from: "Tomr2"Maybe an engine by mercedes or porsche would last around the 300,000 miles mark

Friend of mine went through three 911GT2 engines in less than 15,000 miles. Dont believe everything you hear about these glorified beetles!

aaronjb · March 1, 2004, 10:19

Quote from: "GSB"Friend of mine went through three 911GT2 engines in less than 15,000 miles. Dont believe everything you hear about these glorified beetles!

They might be unreliable, but I'd still give my right eye for a late 80's 911 Turbo.. s;)

s;)

Jap GT300 · March 1, 2004, 12:56

Well my MR-S didn't even reach 8000miles s:shock: :shock: s:shock:

Aaron, how about a Strosek 911 3.6 TT, 0-60 4.7, top speed 202mph. You can have it of me for 20k s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

aaronjb · March 1, 2004, 13:09

Quote from: "Jap GT300"Aaron, how about a Strosek 911 3.6 TT, 0-60 4.7, top speed 202mph. You can have it of me for 20k s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Dribble.. drool.. hubba..

If you accept payment in eyeballs, I'll take it! s;)

s;) s:lol: :lol: s:lol: s:cry: :cry: s:cry: s:cry: :cry: s:cry:

Jap GT300 · March 1, 2004, 14:46

How many eyeballs we talking?

On subject though. We have just had this engine overhauled, it cost more than £3k and it has only done 37,000 miles.

aaronjb · March 1, 2004, 14:59

Quote from: "Jap GT300"How many eyeballs we talking?

Not enough s:(

s:( I could only afford to give up one, afterall, or I'd lose my licence (and be blind!) s:)

s:)