Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nandalora
Fastcougar: I'm not argueing the use of IMRC, I am argueing how you said they used VCT in the 2.0L and how they were too cheap to put it on the 2.5L. We got IMRC and that is way better. The VCT on the 2.0L is no where near the technology of the VVT in the Mazda 6. That's a more useful form.
Warmonger: You had IMRC working on your turbo 3.0L, correct? If so, did you change the secondary's opening point to match the turbo application better?
|
IMRC opening point is less of an issue with the turbo because the air is forced.
I set it to open just a bit lower, at about 3400rpm.
The reason IMRC was still a benefit on my car was because I had a huge turbo on my car with a .82 housing and it din't really start spooling until 3K rpm. With the newer headers and piping I designed I got lower spoolup time so I was building a few psi under WOT in 2500+ range after that. But cruising around town it restricted airflow and kept part throttle driveability MUCH better than had I pulled them IMO.
I also proved that they weren't stealing power either.
Also, VVT when used for emissions purposes is not the same as VVT used to make high performance. One way can save gas and one way can cost more gas. So VVT equiped engines can outperform IMRC engines in that the VVT can reduce emission and improve economy when you are normal driving and then improve power when you want to drive fast. If I had to choose between VVT and IMRC I'd pick a tuned in VVT car but I'd prefer to have both systems for a very broad power band.