Pardon my ignorance: why is the 7M-GE so much less efficient?

finaltable · 05-31-2007, 01:07 AM

The 3.0 V-6 in the '07 Honda Accord make 244 HP, 211 ft-lbs of torque and gets 21/30 MPG. The 3.0 7M-GE makes 200 HP, ~190 ft-lbs of torque and does about 18/23 MPG. I understand that the 7M has a longer crankshaft being a straight engine instead of a V but this doesn't seem to me to be enough of a difference to make such a disparity between the two.

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

(I'd like to point out that I am aware there is a roughly two decade difference in the technology of these engines. Were we just that much less knowledgable about what could be done with an engine in 1987? It just seems to me that given that the Porsche 959 came out around that time we (as people in general) couldn't be THAT primitive compared to today.)

Kuban · 05-31-2007, 03:12 AM

You answered your own question. 17 years of difference between the two. And this really probably isnt the place to knock on a SUPRA ENGINE. Thats not even comparing apples to apples.

You wanna compare apples to apples, take a look at a 94 supra with a 2jz-ge.

Makes 220hp and its still 13 years older than ur honda engine. And an I6.

And again theres another honda making 30 less torque than it does hp. The torque of the 2jz-ge is even still more than the honda v6 13 years newer than the 2jz.

I think my point is proven.

finaltable · 05-31-2007, 03:24 AM

I'm not knocking the Supra engine; just this evening I handed over a stack of $100 bills for a Supra and I am thrilled that I did. I've waited 18 years for this day. I'm just trying to understand a little about engine technology.

Maybe a good followup would be "why can't the 7M make numbers like that?" Let's compare apples to apples: the 2002 BMW straight 6 3 liter makes 225 HP and 214 ft-lbs of torque. The Honda is tuned to be a Honda; I imagine that even if I could put that engine in my Supra it wouldn't perform like my Supra does now. Could today's technology be applied to the 7M to make numbers like the 330i or is the block all wrong for what we now know?

BTW...the mpg numbers on the beemer are 19/27, much more in-line with the 7M. I expect that the 7M probably has a much broader power band than the Honda powerplant. No engine is both efficient and powerful otherwise they all would be.

supramacist · 05-31-2007, 04:05 AM

This is a simple case of you being clueless.

Ya there's a good 15 year difference.
I have a 91. 200hp n/a.
With minor mods 250 is obtainable with no real work but if I were to buy a new block and build big. Do you think BMW would allow anything to leave a facility poorly tuned?? Apples to apples???????? toyota vs. bmw

Apples to Apples. The new version of the 08 supra, along side the same 350z.
I'm hearing there's going to be a small block v8 introduced and quite possibley called the 400z

Japs Don't think Like Jerries and we Don't think like either of them.

cre · 05-31-2007, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supramacist

This is a simple case of you being clueless.

Play nice.

Even if you were comparing one Toyota to another there are a lot of things not being taken into account here. Compression, volumetric efficiency, internal resistance and friction, interia and the weight of the stock internals, the RPM at which the power is made, the tradeoff between torque and HP, bore, stroke, valve timing, factory tuning, and so on.

cars4me89 · 05-31-2007, 05:46 AM

cre is correct, its very difficult to make definate comparions about vehicles, engines, drivetrains, simply by numbers due to the fact that there are millions of things that you can adjust on cars these days.. the only way to really compare them is by driving.. you cannot compare simply by power the power they make.

comparing a 1987 supra to another car of its day of equal price range is very difficult because as much as we wish our cars were built as high-performance race cars.. they weren't. the mk3's were built as luxury cross-country GT (grand touring) cars. think about it, they came with power seats (who knows how many directions they're adjustable), power windows, automatic a/c, headlamp washers, adjustable suspension, adjustable steering wheel, and the car weighs in at over 3500 pounds. this is in no way being able to be compared to a high-performance vehicle such as a porsche.. truth be told is that the supra cannot be accuratly compared to any other car from its day. It is a very unique vehicle.. don't try and compare your numbers to anyone else because supra's are so tuneable and make so much power with few mods (assuming its turbo) that it's unheard of.. now idk about 250 horse with few mods on an N/A.. i just don't believe that but who knows.

I don't try to compare my Supra to anything else because it is very difficult to do so for all the reasons listed above.

finaltable · 05-31-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Even if you were comparing one Toyota to another there are a lot of things not being taken into account here. Compression, volumetric efficiency, internal resistance and friction, interia and the weight of the stock internals, the RPM at which the power is made, the tradeoff between torque and HP, bore, stroke, valve timing, factory tuning, and so on.

I like this response better than being told I am just clueless. I started out by saying I don't know the answer to this, silly me for thinking that a forum frequented by people knowledgable about this car/engine (and engines in general) might be able to help me understand what makes this engine of 20 years ago different from the engines being made today. I thought comparing the BMW engine to the 7M was actually a good comparison since it makes sense that 20 years later the 3.0L straight 6 (a good design to start with) could be improved by about 10-12% in HP given a similar performance target.

supramacist · 05-31-2007, 01:21 PM

I'm sorry dude...., but you did kind of come off as knocking on supras a bit.

And that may not bother anyone else. But personally, I was a bit offended.
Because you have or had no idea as to how much time and money alot of us put into these cars to keep them on the road.

You have to passionate about supras if you are to own one or it will never work out for you. These cars have a tendency to push back when they get tired of you pushing on them.

It read like you hadn't even driven one.

And you have to admit that comparing an 07 anything to any supra just isn't a logistical process.

Concider the 07 nissan z car to the 90 model z car. You just can't compare engines specs from that day and age to this one.

I'm tired of feeling like someones always banging on my ride.

Alot of these guys have a bit more tact than me. I shoot from the hip.
Tact goes out the window completely when you compare a supra to a honda.

finaltable · 05-31-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

It read like you hadn't even driven one.

You aren't far off. I had never actually driven one before I got this one 3 days ago. So far I have 302 miles behind the wheel but it's the best 302 miles I've ever driven. Don't worry about my passion. From a big picture standpoint there is not another car in existence I would rather drive than this, except a Mk IV, and maybe not even then because I don't know what kind of back seat room a Mk IV has. Yes, there are better cars but every one of them introduces some very undesirable factors. From a cost-performance-reliability standpoint nothing touches the Supra.

I asked the question wrong but I wasn't knocking the Supra; I was trying to learn what makes today's engines better so I could approach my Mk III with those factors in mind with an eye toward improving it.

supramacist · 05-31-2007, 06:59 PM

Alright man. My Bad.

I feel alot better about that now that I know where you are coming from.

Alluminum. That's the biggest visible difference in engines of 07 to even just as late as the 90's. Everything on the new LS2 is alluminum. Everything on the z is the same. Hell the titan and tundra engines are all alluminum based engines.

It's much lighter than the steel that was used from circa 1980.

05-31-2007, 01:07 AM	#1
finaltable 3" Exhaust Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Gulf Coast Posts: 99	Pardon my ignorance: why is the 7M-GE so much less efficient? The 3.0 V-6 in the '07 Honda Accord make 244 HP, 211 ft-lbs of torque and gets 21/30 MPG. The 3.0 7M-GE makes 200 HP, ~190 ft-lbs of torque and does about 18/23 MPG. I understand that the 7M has a longer crankshaft being a straight engine instead of a V but this doesn't seem to me to be enough of a difference to make such a disparity between the two. Can someone shed some light on this for me? (I'd like to point out that I am aware there is a roughly two decade difference in the technology of these engines. Were we just that much less knowledgable about what could be done with an engine in 1987? It just seems to me that given that the Porsche 959 came out around that time we (as people in general) couldn't be THAT primitive compared to today.) Last edited by finaltable; 05-31-2007 at 02:17 AM.

05-31-2007, 03:12 AM	#2
Kuban 3" Exhaust Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 174	You answered your own question. 17 years of difference between the two. And this really probably isnt the place to knock on a SUPRA ENGINE. Thats not even comparing apples to apples. You wanna compare apples to apples, take a look at a 94 supra with a 2jz-ge. Makes 220hp and its still 13 years older than ur honda engine. And an I6. And again theres another honda making 30 less torque than it does hp. The torque of the 2jz-ge is even still more than the honda v6 13 years newer than the 2jz. I think my point is proven. __________________ -868 Miles on new jasper engine -All hard pipes -0.57 trim ct-26 -greddy type S -greddy profec b -apexi ride high 7 way adjustables -eibach springs -slotted rotors -mkIV TT rims (front)245/45/17 (rear)285/40/17 -targa -greddy turbo timer -egr eliminated -3" turbo back, no cat, no resonator, Apexi N1 back. -n/a cams Theres others ill think of later.

05-31-2007, 03:24 AM	#3
finaltable 3" Exhaust Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Gulf Coast Posts: 99	I'm not knocking the Supra engine; just this evening I handed over a stack of $100 bills for a Supra and I am thrilled that I did. I've waited 18 years for this day. I'm just trying to understand a little about engine technology. Maybe a good followup would be "why can't the 7M make numbers like that?" Let's compare apples to apples: the 2002 BMW straight 6 3 liter makes 225 HP and 214 ft-lbs of torque. The Honda is tuned to be a Honda; I imagine that even if I could put that engine in my Supra it wouldn't perform like my Supra does now. Could today's technology be applied to the 7M to make numbers like the 330i or is the block all wrong for what we now know? BTW...the mpg numbers on the beemer are 19/27, much more in-line with the 7M. I expect that the 7M probably has a much broader power band than the Honda powerplant. No engine is both efficient and powerful otherwise they all would be. Last edited by finaltable; 05-31-2007 at 03:44 AM.

05-31-2007, 05:46 AM	#6
cars4me89 3" Exhaust Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 115	cre is correct, its very difficult to make definate comparions about vehicles, engines, drivetrains, simply by numbers due to the fact that there are millions of things that you can adjust on cars these days.. the only way to really compare them is by driving.. you cannot compare simply by power the power they make. comparing a 1987 supra to another car of its day of equal price range is very difficult because as much as we wish our cars were built as high-performance race cars.. they weren't. the mk3's were built as luxury cross-country GT (grand touring) cars. think about it, they came with power seats (who knows how many directions they're adjustable), power windows, automatic a/c, headlamp washers, adjustable suspension, adjustable steering wheel, and the car weighs in at over 3500 pounds. this is in no way being able to be compared to a high-performance vehicle such as a porsche.. truth be told is that the supra cannot be accuratly compared to any other car from its day. It is a very unique vehicle.. don't try and compare your numbers to anyone else because supra's are so tuneable and make so much power with few mods (assuming its turbo) that it's unheard of.. now idk about 250 horse with few mods on an N/A.. i just don't believe that but who knows. I don't try to compare my Supra to anything else because it is very difficult to do so for all the reasons listed above. __________________ 1987 Toyota Supra 7M-GE Natrually Aspirated Automatic http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2385905 Currently enrolled in UTI (Universal Technical Institute.. ya ya say what you want bout the school lol its got some nice benefits though), have about two years of auto experience so far.. only 18 years old. My supra's older than me :P -Phil

05-31-2007, 04:05 AM	#4
supramacist 1000whp postwhore Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Escape from the Prison Planet Posts: 1,356	This is a simple case of you being clueless. Ya there's a good 15 year difference. I have a 91. 200hp n/a. With minor mods 250 is obtainable with no real work but if I were to buy a new block and build big. Do you think BMW would allow anything to leave a facility poorly tuned?? Apples to apples???????? toyota vs. bmw Apples to Apples. The new version of the 08 supra, along side the same 350z. I'm hearing there's going to be a small block v8 introduced and quite possibley called the 400z Japs Don't think Like Jerries and we Don't think like either of them.

05-31-2007, 01:21 PM	#8
supramacist 1000whp postwhore Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Escape from the Prison Planet Posts: 1,356	I'm sorry dude...., but you did kind of come off as knocking on supras a bit. And that may not bother anyone else. But personally, I was a bit offended. Because you have or had no idea as to how much time and money alot of us put into these cars to keep them on the road. You have to passionate about supras if you are to own one or it will never work out for you. These cars have a tendency to push back when they get tired of you pushing on them. It read like you hadn't even driven one. And you have to admit that comparing an 07 anything to any supra just isn't a logistical process. Concider the 07 nissan z car to the 90 model z car. You just can't compare engines specs from that day and age to this one. I'm tired of feeling like someones always banging on my ride. Alot of these guys have a bit more tact than me. I shoot from the hip. Tact goes out the window completely when you compare a supra to a honda.

05-31-2007, 06:59 PM	#10
supramacist 1000whp postwhore Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Escape from the Prison Planet Posts: 1,356	Alright man. My Bad. I feel alot better about that now that I know where you are coming from. Alluminum. That's the biggest visible difference in engines of 07 to even just as late as the 90's. Everything on the new LS2 is alluminum. Everything on the z is the same. Hell the titan and tundra engines are all alluminum based engines. It's much lighter than the steel that was used from circa 1980.