0 Members and 19 Guests are viewing this topic.
...I think I was at 82cc.060 over size bore 90mm stroke, (custom cut done when I had money)
Hi Snowtoy,I don’t want to run tires smaller than 31s, so there would be no point to buy or borrow a set of smaller tires just to dyno test.Gnarls.
I re-read your comments and you indicate that there is POWER loss or gain with gear changes. Perhaps its just semantics?Its my understanding that changing ring & pinions to lower the gear ratio or changing tire sizes which affect final gear ratio, has zero effect on the torque or horsepower numbers produced by the engine. Changing gear ratios will only move the torque and HP numbers up and down the RPM range.For example, the result of changing from 4.10 R&P to 4.88s when going from 28" tires to 33" tires will have a very noticeable "feel" of power increase because the gearing will put the higher torque number in a more usable RPM range.I could be totally wrong - and if I am - please explain. Gnarls.
Desktop dyno 2000 and 2003 will run on win 8.1........
I'm kinda kick'n myself for not going more than .020" on the over bore! A few more cc's would have been better?? There's no substitute for cubic inches!.... Go BIG! Size matters! There's no such thing as too much money, too much fun, or too much torque!! Gnarls.
I've attached an Excel sheet that shows a stock 22RE bore compared to a stock 22RE that is bored over .060".To gain 5 lbs of torque in that RPM range would be very noticeable in my butt dyno! Gnarls.
On your dyno or in your dyno. Big difference for what you wrote!
Sorry, I don't understand. Can you please elucidate on that statement?? Thanks,Gnarls.
I was being childish and your post said "in your butt" dyno. I was entertained and figured that saying, on your butt dyno or to your butt dyno might be a better way to state things.
Isn't .060 over close to the max you can bore a 22re anyways?
I have attached an Excel sheet. Look what I could have done!! Instead of .020" over bore, I should have gone .060". The only possible trade-off going to .060" is that if I had to pull the engine down and rebuild it and it needed to be bored .020", I don't think we can go to .080" reliably with a 22??But.... that extra torque would have been really nice, since I already had the block at the machine shop!!! Gnarls.
I never bore an engine more than needed to clean it up. This block was the bottom of my 20/22 hybrid til i dropped #4 exhaust valve at 7000 rpm it was a stock block but after that valve beat the hell out of that cylinder it had to go to .060 to clean it up.to answer the question though yes you can bore it to .080 BUT pistons are about $400 a set. thats $100 per piston.
Hey 79coyotefrg,That's a good point, although I didn't price the cost of larger pistons, I did think about boring the block.Looking back, during my discussions with Tod at engbldr and my local machine shop, the idea of boring beyond what was necessary to clean up the block to gain more power was not discussed? I'm not sure why I didn't think about it more?? My thinking may be off, but I figure if everything goes according Hoyle *fingers crossed* I won't have to rebuild this engine. I will have over $4,000 in the rebuild, and my objective was to modify it for more torque. I didn't price the cost of pistons over the .020", but adding another $400 to gain more torque would be worth it to me. http://My ultimate plan is to pull a little fiberglass 16' travel trailer,so I was going for all the extra power I could get, within my tight budget, to gain needed extra torque at freeway speeds.Comments here by some folks suggest changing R&Ps to lower the gearing. I figure roughly that would be around a $600 investment for absolutely ZERO torque gain. For $400 more I could have several more pounds of torque. When I calculate cost per increase in torque, why would I spend $600 and gain nothing except lowering the peak torque in my RPM range?Here's how I see it right now..... I only have Tod's expertise at engbldr, my DD data, speculation, assumptions, and comments from the guys who are running or have run a 261C cam in a 22, but some comments seem to indicate that while it gains peak torque in the lower to mid RPMs, it seems fall off in the upper RPM range, which is understandable. I estimate that 90% of my engine running time will be between 2600 and 3400 RPMs - THAT is the RPM range where I want my power. If the 261C cam does not perform well enough, I will look at another cam profile, and possibly some other modifications. But when it comes time to pull a 16' travel trailer, and it just can't do it reasonably, I'll buy another Tundra.Gnarls.
like this??
these engines don't need more torque they are little torque monsters for their size. what you need is to move your power UP the rpm range. If it wont run up to 4000 before you shift then when you grab that higher gear the rpm will drop to the very bottom of that torque curve and struggle. the factory expected you to shift at 3600 and with a stock carb, cam and exhaust most wont rev past 4500.I love my cam. I have F150's in the back and they are real soft til they get way down there. which makes for some insane flex on the trail
Hey could you put the cam that's one notch less nasty than Glen's on there for comparison? My only issue with that one is that the lift is big enough you might have to fly cut the pistons and it would be nice to use one that was more plug and play. I want to see how much theoretical difference the bigger lift makes.Might be fun to add the EB268 as well.
.. If there is a true "crawler cam" for low RPM it is surely the stock profile. II am bench racing with myself. I guess I'm crazy.
I don't get the output............A larger engine with else the same (especially the cam) tends to lower the power curve rpm wise.....With the .060, the curves shifted up rpm wise...
Hello Snowtoy,Here's my real world. I will be running 31" tires, R&P 4.10s. My RPM in 5th gear is calculated to be approximately 2900 at 80 MPH, right were I want it, which is the beginning of my projected peak torque range for my engine rebuild.Changing R&Ps to 4.56 will move my RPM in 5th gear to 3200 RPM, which is in middle of peak torque, NOT where I want.I want the RPM in 5th gear at 80 MPH to be at or near 2900 because if I drop down to 4th gear, at say 70 MPH my RPM will be approximately 3200 right in the middle of my peak torque range - right where I want it. Now I have two gears that I can use to take advantage of my peak torque and pull steep grades or buck head winds while traveling at freeway speeds.With 4.10s if I need to drop down to 3rd gear, my RPM at 50 MPH will be about 3200 RPM, right in the middle of my peak torque range - right where I want it to be.It does not matter whether my torque and HP numbers are calculated at brake or at the rear wheels. Whatever power is produced to my rear tires, and whatever energy is absorbed, I will have my peak torque range right where I want it at the rear tires.Gnarls.
My ultimate plan is to pull a little fiberglass 16' travel trailer, so I was going for all the extra power I could get, within my tight budget, to gain needed extra torque at freeway speeds.Comments here by some folks suggest changing R&Ps to lower the gearing. I figure roughly that would be around a $600 investment for absolutely ZERO torque gain. For $400 more I could have several more pounds of torque. When I calculate cost per increase in torque, why would I spend $600 and gain nothing except lowering the peak torque in my RPM range?Here's how I see it right now..... I only have Tod's expertise at engbldr, my DD data, speculation, assumptions, and comments from the guys who are running or have run a 261C cam in a 22, but some comments seem to indicate that while it gains peak torque in the lower to mid RPMs, it seems fall off in the upper RPM range, which is understandable. I estimate that 90% of my engine running time will be between 2600 and 3400 RPMs - THAT is the RPM range where I want my power. If the 261C cam does not perform well enough, I will look at another cam profile, and possibly some other modifications. But when it comes time to pull a 16' travel trailer, and it just can't do it reasonably, I'll buy another Tundra.Gnarls.
Started by taco9824 Parts Wanted
Started by jonathan82toy Parts Wanted
Started by allbones Toyota Pickup/4Runner Tech 1979-95
Started by Jokeass-Wheelers Parts Wanted
Started by Hurricaneinmotion Toyota Pickup/4Runner Tech 1979-95