VVti or non vvti

Hi everybody a question for the more informed on here, how much difference and what difference is there between a BPU VVti and a BPU normalTT supra in reference to driving style and performance and the way the performance is delivered, your help would be appreciated many thanks.

Chris.

I am led to believe there is more low down torque in the VVTi. I have never driven an non VVTi car but the performance of ours is fantastic from low down speeds. This is auto though so they are quick launching anyway.

H.

I am led to believe there is more low down torque in the VVTi. I have never driven an non VVTi car but the performance of ours is fantastic from low down speeds. This is auto though so they are quick launching anyway.

 

H.

Many thanks H you have a PM

chris

If two cars was identical other than VVTI, then I would have the VVTI car, but I don't think there is much in it tbh, I'd be more concerned about finding a nice condition, low mile car.

As H. Says, the VVTI is defiantly more lively at low revs.

Subscribed out of Interest

Just my general 2 cent is the VVTI has more low end torque , not too sure if noticeable and the other preconception I have is VVTI has less Aftermarket parts available for it and the VVTI may be a restriction in how far you can tune the car within $$ reason due to its complexity

I stand to be corrected

If two cars was identical other than VVTI, then I would have the VVTI car, but I don't think there is much in it tbh, I'd be more concerned about finding a nice condition, low mile car.

 

As H. Says, the VVTI is defiantly more lively at low revs.

Thanks Jamie nice to see your still floating around here :-)

Accurate 'head line' power figures are impossible to find due to Japans gentlemans agreement on power levels in the late '90s.

However, The non VVTi 2JZ produced 319 lb/ft torque @ 3600rpm, and the VVTi produced 333 lb/ft at the same 3600rpm.

http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_2750/article.html

This is coupled with slightly increased fuel economy. However, as very few of these engines remain standard, it really doesn't matter that much. They're both great.

It would be interesting to see torque / power curves for both stock engines.

Accurate 'head line' power figures are impossible to find due to Japans gentlemans agreement on power levels in the late '90s.

 

However, The non VVTi 2JZ produced 319 lb/ft torque @ 3600rpm, and the VVTi produced 333 lb/ft at the same 3600rpm.

 

http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_2750/article.html

 

This is coupled with slightly increased fuel economy. However, as very few of these engines remain standard, it really doesn't matter that much. They're both great.

 

It would be interesting to see torque / power curves for both stock engines.

Many thanks

Subscribed out of Interest

 

Just my general 2 cent is the VVTI has more low end torque , not too sure if noticeable and the other preconception I have is VVTI has less Aftermarket parts available for it and the VVTI may be a restriction in how far you can tune the car within $$ reason due to its complexity

 

I stand to be corrected

With regards to tuning, it makes no odds really, VVTI will aid turbo spooling a tad. A set of HKS 264 VVTI cams will push more power than anyone round here is likely to ever want, and if you do want bigger cams they are available.

VVTi cars also have a rev limit of 7200rpm compared with non-VVTi being 6800rpm

- - - Updated - - -

VVTi cars also have a rev limit of 7200rpm compared with non-VVTi being 6800rpm

That's a good point, the extra RPM is a huge bonus.

With regards to tuning, it makes no odds really, VVTI will aid turbo spooling a tad. A set of HKS 264 VVTI cams will push more power than anyone round here is likely to ever want, and if you do want bigger cams they are available.

thanks for clearing it up

cheers all you have been most helpful

As others have said, buy on condition, there's not much in it. A good none VVTi will outperform a tired VVti. But now these cars are elderly I would buy on body

and underside condition above mileage and mechanical. Mechanics are dirt cheap to fix as opposed to sorting a semi rot box out! "Dirt cheap" is of course a relative term...

As others have said, buy on condition, there's not much in it. A good none VVTi will outperform a tired VVti. But now these cars are elderly I would buy on body

and underside condition above mileage and mechanical. Mechanics are dirt cheap to fix as opposed to sorting a semi rot box out! "Dirt cheap" is of course a relative term...

Cheers chris

I like girls but not to the extent of Jimmy Saville.

I like girls but not to the extent of Jimmy Saville.

Why?

Why?

Mainly because I cant Fix girl problems he could.

Oh and VVTI is good but given the option I would go Six Speed VVTI not Tiptronic just incase you want more power at any point.

I have owned both the non vvti and vvti engines and as others have said I can confirm the lower end power band is much more lively. I had a little race with Mike on the forum against his UK Spec 6 speed Vs my VVTi 6 speed and with my rev limit being higher (possibly also to do with the gear ratio on the V161 box too) and you saw the difference when Mike had to shift and I could keep going.

Agreed though with the others, I wouldn't buy a Supra on that on merit alone.

Cheers chris

I have owned both the non vvti and vvti engines and as others have said I can confirm the lower end power band is much more lively. I had a little race with Mike on the forum against his UK Spec 6 speed Vs my VVTi 6 speed and with my rev limit being higher (possibly also to do with the gear ratio on the V161 box too) and you saw the difference when Mike had to shift and I could keep going.

 

Agreed though with the others, I wouldn't buy a Supra on that on merit alone.

Seemed pretty even when we did a rolling start on Dragonball.

Interesting post, IMO if you were building a car beyond 1000hp non vvti, and I also prefer the V160 to the V161, I have no idea why Toyota shortened the gear ration 1-5 on the latter than added a longer final drive. VVTI is way more fun low down though.

Interesting post, IMO if you were building a car beyond 1000hp non vvti, and I also prefer the V160 to the V161, I have no idea why Toyota shortened the gear ration 1-5 on the latter than added a longer final drive. VVTI is way more fun low down though.

I thought the gear ratios on the v161 were taller except for 6th?

I thought the gear ratios on the v161 were taller except for 6th?

Comparison is here: -

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?35923-Manual-gearbox-ratios

Edit: -

Ratio's here show the V161 is shorter.

6 Speed (V160) / (V161)

3.827 / 3.724

2.360 / 2.246

1.685 / 1.541

1.312 / 1.205

1.000 / 1.000

0.793 / 0.818

3.280 / 3.192

3.266(all TT) / 3.769(NA)

The gearing calculator seems to agree with me

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?225050-Supra-specific-gear-diff-ratio-and-tyre-size-calculator