AE112R Corolla Sportivo 7AFTE, Factory 7AFE Turbo Options

[hurley97]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before but I know a few people were looking for more info on the infamous factory 7AFTE and I haven't been able to find it here...


2001 AE112R Corolla Sportivo
only 100 produced
only came in gold
only sold in Australia
only made in 2000 for release in 2001


from a post on trdforums.com:

Launched in Australia in 2001, the Corolla Sportivo packs a turbocharged version of the base 1.8 litre twin-cam 4-cylinder. Curiously, the Corolla Turbo was released just months before the all-new Corolla series arrived in late 2001 – it was never going to be a long-running model.

Under the bonnet you’ll find a turbocharged 7A-FTE engine, which was a joint venture between Toyota and Tom’s. The 7A-FTE is an untouched garden-variety Corolla engine with a low-boost turbo system added. This means the standard 9.5:1 static compression ratio remains to help maintain excellent off-boost flexibility and all-round torque.

The turbo conversion comprises an IHI RHF4B turbocharger, a new cast iron exhaust manifold, revised exhaust, bigger injectors, remapped engine management, colder spark plugs and new inlet plumbing (which snakes its way through the engine bay from the standard Corolla airbox location). Boosting to 8 psi, induction-air is chilled by a front-mount air-to-air intercooler. The result is 115kW (156hp) at 5600 rpm and 237Nm (175 ft/lb) at 3600 rpm – but note that premium unleaded fuel is required to avoid detonation and extract maximum power.


more specs and info here













I wish I could find more detailed pictures of the engine bay. I'll keep looking though

[Blakout16]

neat looking engine bay. they really made that intake piping way out of the way. cant even see the turbo. neone wonder why they didnt do the 5sfte instead of the 7afte?
interesting out of all the turbo'd cars, i've never seen a company slap a FMIC on a stock model. but yet again they got together with TOMS.
neone notice that they only came out with a hundred of these? no wonder why most of us never heard of it.
crap - they got ventilated disk brakes on all 4. for not much hp they really wanted that stoping power

This post has been edited by Blakout16: Feb 15, 2007 - 1:59 AM

[laff09]

neat looking engine bay. they really made that intake piping way out of the way. cant even see the turbo. neone wonder why they didnt do the 5sfte instead of the 7afte?
interesting out of all the turbo'd cars, i've never seen a company slap a FMIC on a stock model. but yet again they got together with TOMS.
neone notice that they only came out with a hundred of these? no wonder why most of us never heard of it.
crap - they got ventilated disk brakes on all 4. for not much hp they really wanted that stoping power

Whats the weight difference between a 7a and 5s?

[Bigmeanbulldog55]

Whats the weight difference between a 7a and 5s?

Doing the math through liters, the 5sfe is 18% heavier. I can't find the exact number on either one, but I did find that the 1999 Lexus RX 300 came with option of a 5sfe or a 1mzfe. So, there's another car to get parts from in the 5sfe to 1mzfe swap.
Link

[celicaST]

Whats the weight difference between a 7a and 5s?

Doing the math through liters, the 5sfe is 18% heavier.

A: your math is wrong, 2.2/1.8=1.22 and B: that logic is completely flawed anyway

[Bigmeanbulldog55]

Whats the weight difference between a 7a and 5s?

Doing the math through liters, the 5sfe is 18% heavier.

A: your math is wrong, 2.2/1.8=1.22 and B: that logic is completely flawed anyway

2.2-1.8=.4 .4/1.8 = .2222 = 22% So yeah, my math was a little off. I did it like 1.8/2.2=.8181 then 1 - .82 = .18 = 18%
So the 1.8lt 7afe would be 82% of the weight (if correlated to displacement/liters) of a 2.2lt 5sfe. And a 2.2lt 5sfe would be 22% heavier than a 1.8lt 7afe.

The logic isn't completely flawed. They have a very similar design with same materials such as iron blocks. You couldn't do the same thing with a 4age, or any other motor except maybe the 4afe. I'm not real familiar with its design, so I can't say for sure. I'm not saying it's exact by any means, but I bet it's not that far off.

This post has been edited by Bigmeanbulldog55: Feb 15, 2007 - 4:33 PM

[saleeka]

The logic isn't completely flawed.

LOL! So since when has space and mass meant the same thing? Nice try...