Pardon my ignorance: why is the 7M-GE so much less efficient? - Page 2

T-Supra · 05-31-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finaltable

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.)

Well, I for one understand that your just asking a simple question and your not trying to bash a Supra... I gonna give my 2 cents and I dont even own one...

20 years of development in engine technology has to play a big part in this... Compare a ECU from 1987 to 2007, theres more brains in 2 chips from an 07 one to the whole Supra ECU... Inector sizes will play a role in MPG, compression ratio will, engine internals will, timing will, gearing will, vehicle weight will etc... Lots of things to look at.

Just for the record, I have a 1971 Datsun 240Z, 2.4L I6 SOHC with twin 46mm side draft SU carbs, a 4 speed (no overdrive), 3.54 gears, and it gets 24mpg highway... the car only weighs 2300lbs, but it just goes to show anything can affect MPG.

oowee623 · 06-01-2007, 08:28 AM

if you are unhappy with the efficiency of the M series engines, you can swap it out for the JZ series and keep the heart and spirit of a supra

j3pz · 06-02-2007, 12:56 AM

congrats on your car. hope you have a thick wallet but assuming that you waited 18yrs for one means you dont have much green to coush your tootch (haha that rhymed). dont mean to discourage you. the majority of the people here are in that same boat and love their supras to death, its just with 20 yr old cars parts tend to go bad and you will get frustrated about that. anyways welcome to the supra brotherhood.

finaltable · 06-03-2007, 12:23 AM

I actually have a decent amount of money to spend. The reason I haven't gotten one before now is that we have two kids and I have been supporting the family on just my income so the idea of getting a less efficient/practical car has been something the wife wouldn't exactly support. She has gone back to work and I got a job that is going to require that I drive about an hour each way everyday. Since the alternative is that we move (and she REALLY does not want to move) I finally put my foot down and said "I took this job which pays more than I have ever made to support us and if I am going to be driving 2.5-3 hours a day I AM going to have a car I enjoy driving." She realized that I was right and supported me actively looking for a Supra. I probably could have bought a Mk IV but the Mk IV would have been less practical when it came to putting 2 carseats in the back. I expect to put several thousand into the car in the next few years making it "new" again. A complete repaint in in the works but that will be the last thing I do after getting all the mechanicals taken care of.

cars4me89 · 06-03-2007, 12:49 AM

the MKIV would also been more for insurance since they're worth quite a bit more than MK3's.. but the supra was a good choice for a highway driver going to work and such.. they're excellent cruisers and in fact are efficient on the highway.. i get about 22-24 on the highway and only 15-18 in the city. so good choice

j3pz · 06-03-2007, 07:00 PM

putting the foot down ftw!

mattfurlani · 06-03-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finaltable

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.)

well you answered your question.. look at 1987 honda civic and how much power thaqt puts out. besides the super was designed to have potential. just like the 5.4 mustang has a hp potential of like 1500 whp...

i bet you the new supras have like an easy 450hp when/if they come out in '08

supramacist · 06-03-2007, 09:17 PM

I'm hearing 400hp on the new ones.

mattfurlani · 06-03-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supramacist

I'm hearing 400hp on the new ones.

its gonna be a v-6 standard optional v-8 i read

so maybe we're both right its gonna be the 5.7L that is in the tundra's with a stroker mod and some other bs

SUPA FAST

supramacist · 06-03-2007, 09:29 PM

I just found out around a week ago that nissan is working on a 5.7 liter to be put into the z.

We definitley may be on the right track.

06-02-2007, 12:56 AM	#13
j3pz 500whp yet? Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Mechanicsville, MD, US of A, 20659 Posts: 1,060	congrats on your car. hope you have a thick wallet but assuming that you waited 18yrs for one means you dont have much green to coush your tootch (haha that rhymed). dont mean to discourage you. the majority of the people here are in that same boat and love their supras to death, its just with 20 yr old cars parts tend to go bad and you will get frustrated about that. anyways welcome to the supra brotherhood. __________________ 88 N/A w/ 5spd - stock - not running, bhg 87 turbo/targa w/ 5spd- fidanza light weight flywheel, new oem slave cylinder, apexi air filter, no ac and no heat

06-03-2007, 12:23 AM	#14
finaltable 3" Exhaust Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Gulf Coast Posts: 99	I actually have a decent amount of money to spend. The reason I haven't gotten one before now is that we have two kids and I have been supporting the family on just my income so the idea of getting a less efficient/practical car has been something the wife wouldn't exactly support. She has gone back to work and I got a job that is going to require that I drive about an hour each way everyday. Since the alternative is that we move (and she REALLY does not want to move) I finally put my foot down and said "I took this job which pays more than I have ever made to support us and if I am going to be driving 2.5-3 hours a day I AM going to have a car I enjoy driving." She realized that I was right and supported me actively looking for a Supra. I probably could have bought a Mk IV but the Mk IV would have been less practical when it came to putting 2 carseats in the back. I expect to put several thousand into the car in the next few years making it "new" again. A complete repaint in in the works but that will be the last thing I do after getting all the mechanicals taken care of. __________________ Current ride: Not a Supra :-(

06-03-2007, 12:49 AM	#15
cars4me89 3" Exhaust Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 115	the MKIV would also been more for insurance since they're worth quite a bit more than MK3's.. but the supra was a good choice for a highway driver going to work and such.. they're excellent cruisers and in fact are efficient on the highway.. i get about 22-24 on the highway and only 15-18 in the city. so good choice __________________ 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

06-03-2007, 07:00 PM	#16
j3pz 500whp yet? Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Mechanicsville, MD, US of A, 20659 Posts: 1,060	putting the foot down ftw! __________________ 88 N/A w/ 5spd - stock - not running, bhg 87 turbo/targa w/ 5spd- fidanza light weight flywheel, new oem slave cylinder, apexi air filter, no ac and no heat

06-01-2007, 08:28 AM	#12
oowee623 3" Exhaust Join Date: May 2007 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 224	if you are unhappy with the efficiency of the M series engines, you can swap it out for the JZ series and keep the heart and spirit of a supra

06-03-2007, 09:17 PM	#18
supramacist 1000whp postwhore Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Escape from the Prison Planet Posts: 1,356	I'm hearing 400hp on the new ones.

06-03-2007, 09:29 PM	#20
supramacist 1000whp postwhore Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Escape from the Prison Planet Posts: 1,356	I just found out around a week ago that nissan is working on a 5.7 liter to be put into the z. We definitley may be on the right track.