Topic: Thinking about getting bigger cam??

[Gnarly4X]

Hey 79coyotefrg,

Wow... OK!  Thanks for sharing all that information!  I really enjoy reading about other people's Toys.

I'll plug your information into my DD and do some mock pulls.

I'll be back..

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

...I think I was at 82cc

.060 over size bore 90mm stroke, (custom cut done when I had money)

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.

[Snowtoy]

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. 

The reason for testing w/a set of stock tires is to verify if the .020 bore/cam/header/exhaust upgrades equal/surpass the rear wheel hp/trq of the w/31's, my guess is it wont, and the on highway performance gain/$ spent you are expecting wont be there either.

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.

Gearing has no effect on crank output numbers, where it does effect the numbers will be at the rear wheels, the only place hp/trq numbers matter in the real world.  Most stock drivetrains tend to consume 15-30% of the crank output, smaller gears than tires will absorb more torque as it takes more energy to turn them, where taller gears than tires will absorb less resulting in rear tire performance gains.  An example of this is the '85 2wd I took in partial trade for 4 Runner I had restored.  The PO had used the truck for work and towed a 5-6k lb trailer with it.  After replacing a few clutches and stock diffs, his mechanic suggested going w/4.10's.  W/the 4.10's the truck would chirp the the tires in 3rd gear up shifts at when driving aggressively.  There was no change to the engine, yet it performed as if there had been a larger engine installed, it was very fun to drive, though a bit noisy rpm wise at 75mph. 

As you know Toys are heavy and the older gens had small engines, IME gearing has always had a better bang/$ result than engine upgrades, outside of complete swaps that is, maybe yours will be different.

[Gnarly4X]

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.

[79coyotefrg]

Desktop dyno 2000 and 2003 will run on win 8.1........

not sure which I have somebody here copied it from their cd and sent me the disc.  I tried running it but never got it to work. good time to try again I guess.

[79coyotefrg]

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 kicked myself for going .060 you cant find rings without paying out the butt

[Mudder]

Isn't .060 over close to the max you can bore a 22re anyways?

[Gnarly4X]

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.

[blackdiamond]

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!

[Gnarly4X]

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.

[blackdiamond]

   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.

[Gnarly4X]

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.

LOL.... OHHHH.... yes, "in" vs "on"!!!! ...... experiencing more torque as I sit on my Toyota bench seat, going through the gears,  goes through my entire body!

I remember the day I picked up my car from D-I-C-K Guldstrand Enterprises in Culver City California in 1972 after he rebuilt my 327 CI powered 1967 Corvette Stingray.    OMG!!!!! Now THAT had some torque!!!  With a solid lifter cam it was happy at 6,500 RPM.  I'd give my left testicle to have that little jewel back!! It was the quickest car I've ever owned.  I raced a Porche 911S on the way to Reno, NV one time.  He blew by me at about 80 MPH.  My beautiful little feisty Italian girlfriend said "Are your going to let those 2 guys in their fancy Porche beat us to Reno?!  I shifted down to 3rd and we were off!  I caught up with him in about 10 seconds and he punched it, I shifted into 4th and the Thrush side pipes were very loud.  I stayed on his butt for about 1 minute.  We were over 120 MPH by then.  The road opened, and I passed him at about 130 MPH.  He stayed with me for about 20 seconds.  He backed off (thank GOD!!)!!

I glanced at the tach it was reading 7,000 RPM and the speedo said 140 MPH.!!

My heart was pounding so hard I got a woody!!

My girlfriend said "WOW... that was fun!! 

I didn't tell her that I damn near pooped myself!!    That little 3400 pound car felt so light the steering wheel had almost no direction!! 

Those were some of the best days of my life!  

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

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.

[79coyotefrg]

Isn't .060 over close to the max you can bore a 22re anyways?

max is .080 or 94mm but pistons over .040 are very expensive.

[79coyotefrg]

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.

[Gnarly4X]

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. 

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.

[79coyotefrg]

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

[79coyotefrg]

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??  https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjd2s2jwqTOAhUE_mMKHS_xBoQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyhouseblog.com%2Ftiny-house-concept%2Ffiberglass-trailers%2F&psig=AFQjCNENOovueyWKAp-jF98PHay081lc0Q&ust=1470288671488244

[Gnarly4X]

like this??

Yes, exactly like that one!  I have considered the 16' and the 17' models.

http://casitatraveltrailers.com/showroom/

Gnarls. 

[Gnarly4X]

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

Hi 79coyotefrg,

Great discussion.... 

Again I think it’s a matter of perspective.

The lack of torque in the 22s is probably the most discussed topic on every Toyota forum I’ve been active on since 1999.  And, that is what I’ve experienced since my first 1986 22RE Toyota longbed automatic.  As far being  “little torque monsters”, compared to the Nissan 2.4L engine in 1988, which produced 140 HP and 152 lbs of torque at 4,400 RPM, the Toyota 22RE is “little” short monster .  So I think the 22s do lack power and especially in the low to mid RPM range. In the stock engines, after 5,000 RPM they lack enough torque to really “feel” the pull during acceleration.

In my experience, the guys that I’ve ridden with when driving their 22 powered trucks, I noticed they don’t rev them up like I’ve always done.  I’ve never babied my vehicles. I keep them well tuned and maintained, but I’m not afraid to exercise them frequently.  My 22R would easily tac to 5,500, it just wasn’t producing much torque above 5,000 RPM.

If more torque and power at the higher end of the RPM range is a power goal, then typically you will trade off some lower RPM grunt. 

Again, my target goal is to get increased power at my most used RPM range – between 2800 to 3400.  With 31” tires, 4.10 R&P, 5th gear (.85 ratio), I should be just starting into my peak torque range at 3,000 to 3,100.  If I need to shift down to 4th gear (1:1 ratio) to pass or maintain an up hill grade, I’ll be between 3400 and 3500, right end of my peak of torque curve.

There may be times when I will get into the 4,000 to 5,000 RPM range, but it will not be very often for any sustained driving.  Most likely I will tac it to 4500 or 5000 often in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gears while getting on the freeway.

As you can see on the attached Excel sheet, the LCE cam does produce nice numbers above 3700 RPM, but sacrifices torque from off idle to about 2900 RPMs.

My research and experience tells me that I should see an increase of about 12 to 18 peak HP, and about 8 to 12 pounds of increased torque at about 3400 with this rebuild over it's stock form.

All of that is on paper, so I won’t know what this engine will really put out until I dyno it.

That's just my worthless opinion.

Gnarls.

[blackdiamond]

I am also one to run higher rpm than most people that I have been around, but I rarely go above 4,000 rpm in 1st or 2nd, but will push 3rd closer to 4,500 to 5,000 rpm when merging onto the highway.  I generally won't sustain an rpm much over 4,000 rpm.  As you say, they don't have much pull above 4,000 rpm.

[H8PVMNT]

Very interesting spread sheet.  If there is a true "crawler cam" for low RPM it is surely the stock profile.  I can see why the low end grunt has impressed me. Clearly made for 55-65 mph with little tires with the peak tq at 2,800. I can also see why I have a harder time pushing the head winds and pulling passes.

Both the 261C and the LC cam would give more drivability for demanding conditions on the road for sure.  You can see why the 261 is a favorite with the most pull at the rpm right where we cruise down the highway.  You can also see why Glen's truck hauls ass with the most umph in the acceleration pocket of the rpms and really putting out at the upper end.  Totally kicked everything's butt starting at 3,600 rpm.  You can see why he can pull on a 3RZ.

It would be a tough choice between the two cams for me.  I guess it would really depend on my intended use for the particular truck.  I think I would have liked the 261C in my 4runner with road tripping but in a hot dog pickup for short trips and dirt roads I think I would like the LC.

I am continuously going at 3,800 rpm bucking head winds though, where the LC cam would help me.  The question is however if I would need to push it that hard if I had the 261C, where I could probably be 1 gear higher.  I would love to build both engines and try them out and see which is more practical.

I am bench racing with myself.  I guess I'm crazy.

[H8PVMNT]

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.

[Gnarly4X]

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.

I'll run some numbers tonight and post them for you.

How many pulls do you want to see? 

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

H8PVMNT,

Here is an Excel sheet comparing camshafts. 

It looks like LCE's 440 Lift cam is producing some awesome low to mid range RPM torque!  I'm going to review the data and re-run it.

I will have to run some more numbers to compare 79coyotefrg's 22R engine with a different cam, but the numbers should be close to parallel with the 22RE.

It takes me about the same time to run the numbers and report them as it would if I actually did a couple pulls on a chassis dyno.

I can post Tq, HP, RPM graphs/curves also.

Gnarls. 

[Gnarly4X]

UPDATE:

I did a mock pull on with LCE's 440 Lift cam

http://www.lceperformance.com/EFI-Pro-Camshaft-22RE-RET-p/1022021.htm

 in a 22R with .060" over bore, similar to 79coyotefrg's engine.

See the attached Excel spread sheet.

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

.. If there is a true "crawler cam" for low RPM it is surely the stock profile.  I
I am bench racing with myself.  I guess I'm crazy.

The Japanese automotive engineers are arguably among the best on the planet. They have been building the R motors for over 60 years and have lots of practice in their multi-billion dollar "shop".   

I really enjoy "bench racing", and have spent many many hours enjoying it with friends. 

Gnarls.

[emsvitil]

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...

[Gnarly4X]

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...

Hi emsvitil,

Good question.

I agree that increasing the bore in a 22 should show increased torque and HP. With all components remaining the same, a bigger bore will increase the compression ratio.  So there should be an increase in "power".  However, with every engine design the key words are "volumetric efficiency"  There are many factors involved.

Does increasing displacement necessarily improve VE?

VE typically directly corresponds to peak torque.  Lower VE usually means a lower torque number.

Tonight I'll look the VE numbers on what I posted in the Excel sheet for .060" over bore.

Gnarls. 

[Snowtoy]

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.

I understand what you are trying to achieve, I just don't see how a few more ft lbs of torque and a couple of ponies at a lower rpm are going to overcome the 11-12% under gearing you have now.  The .020 bore and O/S head will help, as will the header, but I have yet to see any engine mods to a 22r replace the performance lost when being under geared.

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.

With the engine mods you have done/plan to do and 4.56 gears you could likely tow the trailer you are looking at w/pleasurable results, but with your current tires and 4.10's, I don't think you will find it all that enjoyable.


The gains of the 261 from 2800rpm's up are nice, don't care for the drop in numbers between 23-2800rpm's though, maybe along w/better intake/exhaust set-up allows it revs faster so that the lower numbers don't effect the performance.

Do you have the numbers for the stock cam and DT header?