Topic: Thinking about getting bigger cam??

[Gnarly4X]

That cam, same one I have. Would not mess up your cold start.  What I'd do is replace your ECU temp sensor on the lower intake manifold as a replacement is cheap, check your cold start thermo timing switch and your cold start injector.

Hey Mudder,

What cam did you have before installing the 261C?  So, you did not notice any change in cold starting?

"ECU temp sensor"... ?  Do you mean the Water Temperature Sensor? 

That sensor and the Start Injector Time Switch both passed the Ohm test while I was assembling the engine.

Thank you for your input.

Gnarls.

[Mudder]

Maybe, there's a temp sensor for your gauge and and a coolant temp sensor for the ECU. So I call it the ECU temp sensor.

 I had the stock cam before I swapped. I was having a cold start problem and it was the thermo time switch. Just because it ohms out doesn't mean it's good. I'd pull it back out and clean it up as well as check the connector going to it.

[Gnarly4X]

Maybe, there's a temp sensor for your gauge and and a coolant temp sensor for the ECU. So I call it the ECU temp sensor.

 I had the stock cam before I swapped. I was having a cold start problem and it was the thermo time switch. Just because it ohms out doesn't mean it's good. I'd pull it back out and clean it up as well as check the connector going to it.

OK, I'll check both out.

I believe you commented on your 261C in earlier posts here, so would you choose this cam again?  What does your butt dyno say about it?

Most of the people I've read about or spoke to made their cam change during a rebuild, so the actual "change" in performance between camshaft profiles is difficult to determine.  As I mentioned, I am planning to do some cam swaps after this engine is completely broken in, tuned, and running like I think it should, so I can "feel", and possibly chassis dyno, the results of the change.

One thing with this cam that I'm not happy about is the fact that 6 of the lobes are misaligned to the rockers - off by as much as .100".  I don't believe it's the rocker rack, but I have not verified that.  It may be just lack of quality control during the casting of the camshaft?  I am curious if you have noticed this with your 261C?  Next time you have the rocker cover off, would you mind checking out the alignment and letting me know.

I'll check the alignment of the valve stem to valve lash bolt and post some photos.

Thanks.

Gnarls.

[Gillesdetrail]

I remember in a post many years ago made by engnbldr on a forum where he said he would take the time to shim the rockers so that they would line up perfectly and that he could get about 200 rpms more out of the powerband. Not sure if he was talking about lining up the rocker pad with the cam lobe or lining it up with the valve tip.

[Mudder]

I believe you commented on your 261C in earlier posts here, so would you choose this cam again?  What does your butt dyno say about it?

Most of the people I've read about or spoke to made their cam change during a rebuild, so the actual "change" in performance between camshaft profiles is difficult to determine.  As I mentioned, I am planning to do some cam swaps after this engine is completely broken in, tuned, and running like I think it should, so I can "feel", and possibly chassis dyno, the results of the change.

One thing with this cam that I'm not happy about is the fact that 6 of the lobes are misaligned to the rockers - off by as much as .100".  I don't believe it's the rocker rack, but I have not verified that.  It may be just lack of quality control during the casting of the camshaft?  I am curious if you have noticed this with your 261C?  Next time you have the rocker cover off, would you mind checking out the alignment and letting me know.

Next time I have the cover off I can let you know. I actually made the cam change during an engine rebuild, but my old engine was perfect as it came from an automatic truck so the engine was still tight. I had asked Ted for the cam suggestion and I don't know if my expectations were to high or what but I'm pretty disappointed in its performance. The stock cam kicks its but I think. I can barely get this cam to 5k without it running out of steam. I typically run it at 3500 going down the road but when trying to get on the highway (I live in Utah at the moment so speeds are 70) I just don't like it at that time.

[:)bestgen4runner]

Said this before
I installed  the 261c when I rebuilt my last 22re. 10k miles later I could not handle it any longer. In the trash it went
I replaced it with a Lce power pro cam and adjustable timing gear. The difference was huge!
I have tried many times to save people from the same mistake I made.

[Mudder]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having Ted and Tod around to give advice and they have some sweet deals on parts. I just think the stock cam was the right one for me. But I'm don't with this engine so next time I'll just stick with stock (unless it's an old school v8, things change there stupid smog era).

[Gnarly4X]

For the 22s in a 4x4…

I’ve posted my thoughts on two of the most discussed topics on several popular Toyota 4x4 sites.

First, the claims made by various aftermarket suppliers are rarely, if ever, backed up by reasonable proof that I can see.

Has anyone seen or can provide a certified dyno test comparing several highly touted camshafts with a Toyota 20/22 stock camshaft?

Over the past 20 years or so, it’s interesting to me how times I have read about someone hacking up an air intake box, or for this particular topic, selling a new camshaft profile that increases the “power” in a factory stock engine…. which by the way, arguably have been engineered by the most brilliant automotive minds on the planet - in the most technologically advanced “work shop” anyone could imagine.

I’m not saying that any of the aftermarket camshafts being offered do NOT perform as claimed, I’d just like to see some proof.

I’m also not saying that a backyard mechanic who modified something doesn’t work.  Obviously there have been many performance gains discovered by those who experiment….. I’d just like to see more than anecdotal evidence.

I have asked for test data during my recent rebuild and conversations with several suppliers, but they either will not or cannot provide it to me.

That's just my opinion - it may be worthless.

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

... I have tried many times to save people from the same mistake I made. 

Sharing your experiences is what its all about here...  thank you! 

Gnarls.

[Plainview]

...

First, the claims made by various aftermarket suppliers are rarely, if ever, backed up by reasonable proof that I can see.

Has anyone seen or can provide a certified dyno test comparing several highly touted camshafts with a Toyota 20/22 stock camshaft?

Over the past 20 years or so, it’s interesting to me how times I have read about someone hacking up an air intake box, or for this particular topic, selling a new camshaft profile that increases the “power” in a factory stock engine…. which by the way, arguably have been engineered by the most brilliant automotive minds on the planet - in the most technologically advanced “work shop” anyone could imagine.

....
Gnarls.

Totally agree with you on claims made by aftermarket parts suppliers.  Would be nice to see some documented testing.

As to your comment about Toyota engineers - keep in mind they were constrained by many things that are often not relevant, or at least not as important to enthusiasts building these engines 30 years later.  If you want significantly more power than stock you pretty much *have* to go with aftermarket parts, especially headers, cams, and carbs.

Emissions were a huge deal for them, along with cold starting, low speed drivability, durability, economy, and manufacturing costs.  I know guys in Cali. have to worry about emissions, but a lot of folks in other places, like here in WA, don't.  I can put whatever I want in my truck and the gubmint doesn't care.  I also don't care a whole lot about cold starting, I know how to get a performance engine started and how to deal with it for the 5 minutes it takes to warm up.  I'm also not expecting this engine to last another 220K miles like the stock one did, nor am I concerned with saving $0.50 on each valvespring because I'm not installing millions of them.

That said, it seem like any time you start dealing with aftermarket parts and deviating from stock things often don't fit or work right without some serious dicking around...

[Gnarly4X]

Totally agree with you on claims made by aftermarket parts suppliers.  Would be nice to see some documented testing.

As to your comment about Toyota engineers - keep in mind they were constrained by many things that are often not relevant, or at least not as important to enthusiasts building these engines 30 years later.  If you want significantly more power than stock you pretty much *have* to go with aftermarket parts, especially headers, cams, and carbs.

Emissions were a huge deal for them, along with cold starting, low speed drivability, durability, economy, and manufacturing costs.  I know guys in Cali. have to worry about emissions, but a lot of folks in other places, like here in WA, don't.  I can put whatever I want in my truck and the gubmint doesn't care.  I also don't care a whole lot about cold starting, I know how to get a performance engine started and how to deal with it for the 5 minutes it takes to warm up.  I'm also not expecting this engine to last another 220K miles like the stock one did, nor am I concerned with saving $0.50 on each valvespring because I'm not installing millions of them.

That said, it seem like any time you start dealing with aftermarket parts and deviating from stock things often don't fit or work right without some serious dicking around...

Plainview.... well stated,  I totally agree.

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

Plainview....

Excellent feedback!

Some philosophical thoughts…

Over many years of my ownership and interest in my 22s, like most of us, I’ve read thousands of posts on multiple automotive forums.  Many of those posts and threads do not get into the actual facts and real data on the points of discussion, the information posted is mostly opinion and not on any actual testing. That’s OK for an anecdotal view of what’s happening, but it always leaves questions in my minds.

1994, when I first started looking for modifications to my under-powered 22R, I started with bolt-on exhaust and bolt-in camshafts to see if I could simply to get more torque without rebuilding the engine.  I wanted to track the cost per increase in power – for my goal, more torque. 

I totaled my 1985 22R just before I was about to have some chassis dyno tests done.  Fast forward to 2006, I bought my current very low mileage 1986 22RE Xtracab. In 2013 I toasted the engine and parked it until July 2016 when I started my rebuild.  My goal for this rebuild was, again, to simply increase the torque numbers in 2500 to 3500 RPM range, where I drive the most, by spending money on what I thought was the basic engine modifications to gain that added power.  I got anxious to get it done, and did not do enough research. At this point, I realize my level of ignorance and inexperience on understanding just what facts ARE published and what is NOT published about successfully rebuilding one of these engines.

Paying someone (auto shop) to rebuild my 30 year old engine was not an option.  I know they would NOT have rebuilt it to my level of quality, and any warranty coverage for poor workmanship or defective parts is practically worthless in my opinion.

To a large part we, the DIYers, are relegated to learning from the posts here to uncover the problem and then apply a reasonable fix.

Regarding published advertising and certified test data by the suppliers… protecting the intellectual property for their performance products is normal.  However, I find it difficult to understand why if XYZ Toyota aftermarket parts suppliers publishes a statement like…

Quote:  “The Xxx Xxxxx cylinder heads are designed as a stock replacement with some mild performance upgrades. Great for any stock application or mild performance build.  The Xxx Xxxxxx heads are compatible with stock fuel injection and will give you performance gains of 18-20 HP over stock!!”  Unquote.

Has anyone every seen and can provide any actual dyno test data that backs up this claim?

If the increase is even on ½ (10 HP) of the published claims, for me it would be worth the $1,000 cost during a 22RE rebuild.

That’s just my opinion – it may be worthless.

Gnarls.

[Plainview]

Said this before
I installed  the 261c when I rebuilt my last 22re. 10k miles later I could not handle it any longer. In the trash it went
I replaced it with a Lce power pro cam and adjustable timing gear. The difference was huge!
I have tried many times to save people from the same mistake I made.

Bestgen - which cam was that specifically?  I can't find a "power pro" cam on LCE's web page.  I do see "EFI Pro,"  "Pro Torquer," and "Pro Turbo" cams listed.  If it's something they don't offer any more, can you list the specs for it?

It's interesting that LCE markets the same cam under two different names: EFI Pro = Street Performer.

[:)bestgen4runner]

I just checked out the Lce cams on the web site.
I think they have changed the names of the cams but there descriptions sound like the same as what I remember.
The pro torquer sounds like the one I chose.

[Gnarly4X]

I just checked out the Lce cams on the web site.
I think they have changed the names of the cams but there descriptions sound like the same as what I remember.
The pro torquer sounds like the one I chose.

Hey =:)bestgen4runner,

What criteria or what information did you use to decide to choose the LCE Pro Torquer over any other camshaft that was available at the time?  Are you running an adjustable cam gear?

Just curious.

Gnarls.

[:)bestgen4runner]

I no longer have the vehicle. I used friends recommendations based on their experience with the Lce cams.
Yes I added an adjustable cam gear at the same time.
I was looking for daily driver with power increase.
Also wanted minimal drivability concerns. (rough idle, hesitation, EFI compatible)

[Plainview]

I just checked out the Lce cams on the web site.
I think they have changed the names of the cams but there descriptions sound like the same as what I remember.
The pro torquer sounds like the one I chose.

Thanks!  That cam is interesting because of the big duration split between intake and exhaust.  I'd think if you're running headers and a good exhaust system you wouldn't need so much extra exhaust duration. 

[Gnarly4X]

Thanks!  That cam is interesting because of the big duration split between intake and exhaust.  I'd think if you're running headers and a good exhaust system you wouldn't need so much extra exhaust duration. 

I agree.

Yes, the LCE Pro Torquer profile is interesting.  I don’t fully understand the design?.... my lack of knowledge.

It has a large split duration – 12 degrees.  Why?  In my early research days, I was always confused (uneducated) about the cam specs that LCE published compared to the other 22R aftermarket cam suppliers.

The LCE ProTorquer profile indicates a 4 degree advance in total cam timing.

The Schneider 244-50F has a 14 degree split, but indicates straight up cam timing degrees.

Schneider offers two Lobe Separation Angle options, one for carb and one for EFI.  The EFI LSA is 112 degrees, the carb profile is 106 degrees.

For Peak HP, in the Engine Analyzer, the Schneider 210-216 out performs the CC252S at 5,000+ RPM producing 7 more HP (132 HP), and only 2 more HP (130 HP) at 5,000+ RPM above the 261C.  The LCE Pro Torquer shows 117 HP at 5,000+ RPM.
 
For the 22RE, if a split duration profile adds performance – torque or HP, specifically for the EFI, why didn’t the Toyota engineers design it in?

Why does Schneider have a different LSA for the 22RE?

After emailing several cam suppliers with questions, only CompCam support has responded.

Gnarls.

[Plainview]

Which engine analyzer program are you running?

Does it have a built-in profile for a Toyota 22R head or do you have to enter the variables for things like valve size, port volume, port length, etc?

As to the LCE cam - I thought the split was only 12 degrees...?  Without going and looking it up, isn't the I/E duration @ .050" 208/220?

Where can I find specs on stock Toyota cams?   If it's in the FSM I have been unable to locate a 1984 FSM for a reasonable price. The 1985 and later are plentiful but for some reason the earlier ones are had to come by so I've just been living with a Haynes manual and this website for technical stuff.

I would really like to see the specs for the factory carb and EFI cams so we have a meaningful baseline to compare the aftermarket cams.

[Gnarly4X]

Which engine analyzer program are you running?

Performance Trends Engine Analyzer v3.2

Does it have a built-in profile for a Toyota 22R head or do you have to enter the variables for things like valve size, port volume, port length, etc?

No, I had to input all data and specs.

As to the LCE cam - I thought the split was only 12 degrees...?  Without going and looking it up, isn't the I/E duration @ .050" 208/220?

Correct.. typo - edited my post.

Where can I find specs on stock Toyota cams?   If it's in the FSM I have been unable to locate a 1984 FSM for a reasonable price. The 1985 and later are plentiful but for some reason the earlier ones are had to come by so I've just been living with a Haynes manual and this website for technical stuff.

I have researched many many sources.  Some may not be completely accurate.

Here's one of a number:    http://www.off-road.com/trucks-4x4/toyota-4-cyl-engine-information-18589.html

I would really like to see the specs for the factory carb and EFI cams so we have a meaningful baseline to compare the aftermarket cams.

Yeah... accurate specifications and engine, carb, EFI, cam specs and other data is nice....just may take some time to find it.... then figure out what it means.  I have found that some of the specs and data on the early Toyota engines, as well as aftermarket sites that are published and that have been posted on some forum sites to be incorrect.

As far as "a meaningful baseline to compare the aftermarket cams".... I've posted text charts, Excel sheets on cam profiles, cam specs data, and comparison results from my software testing, from cam suppliers, Toyota experts, owner feedback, from published forum discussions, and from practically anything I could find in my research since about 1994.

A meaningful baseline is most likely VERY subjective!

In the obvious absence of any published real certified dyno test data, I have generously taken many hours of my time to provide comparison data for anyone who is seriously interested in the cam profile comparison data from my software and with whatever information I have, whether it may considered total Bravo Sierra, anecdotal, fake, theoretical, virtual, exaggerated opinions, highly expert, or otherwise.

My primary initial interest in the 22R aftermarket cams was to get more torque between 2500 and 3500 RPM for my daily driver.  I was not interested in pumping up the HP number at 5,000+ RPMs - not racing anything.

I hope to do some chassis dyno testing in the future.

Gnarls.

[Plainview]

The baseline would be a stock engine and the components Toyota put into it.  This would not be subjective.  It appears the problem is finding this information.

Did Toyota not publish cam specs?  Do the FSMs not have that information in them?  That would be the most authoritative resource.  The link you posted above doesn't really contain enough info on the cams, as you surely know.  No lobe centerlines, no duration @ .050", etc.  I also find it really odd that the intake and exhaust durations are reversed from carb to EFI and that the Carb cams had quite a bit more intake duration.  Is that possibly a typo?

Is it possible to still order a stock replacement cam from Toyota?  If so, then someone could measure it to find out what it really is.

Other information is also needed.  What is the (designed) combustion chamber volume of stock heads (20R, 22R, 22RE), what dome or dish volume did stock pistons have, etc.  I'd guess a lot of that is in the FSMs.

You say you entered all the parameters for the 22R head in the Engine Analyzer.  Does that mean you CC'd a port and measured it's length and diameter?  I'd think that measuring average port diameter and even port length might be difficult given the goofy 22R head design.

Big kudos to you if you've gathered all this data.  Have you published it on the web anywhere (links?).

Understand, I'm just searching for info and asking questions here in the spirit of sharing info and learning.  Cheers!

[Gnarly4X]

The baseline would be a stock engine and the components Toyota put into it.  This would not be subjective.  It appears the problem is finding this information.

Did Toyota not publish cam specs?  Do the FSMs not have that information in them?  That would be the most authoritative resource.  The link you posted above doesn't really contain enough info on the cams, as you surely know.  No lobe centerlines, no duration @ .050", etc.  I also find it really odd that the intake and exhaust durations are reversed from carb to EFI and that the Carb cams had quite a bit more intake duration.  Is that possibly a typo?

Is it possible to still order a stock replacement cam from Toyota?  If so, then someone could measure it to find out what it really is.

Other information is also needed.  What is the (designed) combustion chamber volume of stock heads (20R, 22R, 22RE), what dome or dish volume did stock pistons have, etc.  I'd guess a lot of that is in the FSMs.

You say you entered all the parameters for the 22R head in the Engine Analyzer.  Does that mean you CC'd a port and measured it's length and diameter?  I'd think that measuring average port diameter and even port length might be difficult given the goofy 22R head design.

Big kudos to you if you've gathered all this data.  Have you published it on the web anywhere (links?).

Understand, I'm just searching for info and asking questions here in the spirit of sharing info and learning.  Cheers!

Hey Plainview,

Have you published it on the web anywhere (links?).

As I stated, this forum and other Toyota forums has lots of my posts with data.

Since the majority of actively participating forum members are DIYers, time and money are usually two key aspects of their hobby. 

Regarding actual measurements…. There are most likely a very few number of people who actively participate in this forum or any other Toyota forum, who have rebuilt their engine, that has physically cc’d a Toyota head or even degreed a cam profile, much less flow benched their head, or had any dyno testing performed.

So… much of the “information” that I read about is subjective, opinion, or simply virtual.

Specific and detailed information from Toyota FSMs or other repair manuals with data and specifications, although probably available, in my experience it has not been easily sourced.  There are thousands of posts and internet text and YouTube videos, by presumably well-meaning individuals who post misleading or totally false information.

Most of the specific specs and measurement data gathered from my research has been verified, and sometimes disputed, by a number of people that I would consider either expert, reputable authority, or extremely knowledgeable sources.

You ask good questions and since you appear to be interested facts, I encourage you to spend some time doing some research.  After you find some good information, go ahead and post it, I’d love to see more information.

Here's a good research question for you..... how many cc's is a factory stock 1986 22RE head chamber, and what type of chamber is it?  I'd be interested to know how long it takes you to find out, and what source(s) you used to get the "facts". 

Good luck.

Gnarls.

[Plainview]

Hey Plainview,
 

As I stated, this forum and other Toyota forums has lots of my posts with data.

Since the majority of actively participating forum members are DIYers, time and money are usually two key aspects of their hobby. 

Regarding actual measurements…. There are most likely a very few number of people who actively participate in this forum or any other Toyota forum, who have rebuilt their engine, that has physically cc’d a Toyota head or even degreed a cam profile, much less flow benched their head, or had any dyno testing performed.

This is what I find surprising given how big of a following these engines have.  They are still quite popular today, closing in on 30 years since the last one was produced.  Judging by the offerings on LCE's website it appears people circle-track race with these engines.  I bet those guys know quite a bit about them, maybe I need to find a Toyota circle-track site, if such a thing exists.

It seems to me Toyota enthusiasts are a bunch of DIYers for the most part.  You read about all kinds of fabrication and cool stuff on this and other sites like Pirate and Yotatech so it's confusing to me why engine tech specs are hard to sleuth out and why people wouldn't be building engines when they're building transmissions and swapping/rebuilding differentials and transfer cases and suspensions and such.

So… much of the “information” that I read about is subjective, opinion, or simply virtual.

Nature of the web, I guess.  That's why it's important to consider the source and verify if possible.

Specific and detailed information from Toyota FSMs or other repair manuals with data and specifications, although probably available, in my experience it has not been easily sourced.  ...

Again, this is what I find strange.  If the info is in the FSM, why would it not be readily available.  As mentioned in a previous post, the only reason I don't have an FSM is because I haven't been able to find one for '84 for a reasonable price.  I'm not paying $150 for one, I can do a lot of poking around and asking questions for that kind of money, and the last one I saw on Ebay was priced there.  The later FSMs seem to be far more abundant for some reason.

Most of the specific specs and measurement data gathered from my research has been verified, and sometimes disputed, by a number of people that I would consider either expert, reputable authority, or extremely knowledgeable sources.

You ask good questions and since you appear to be interested facts, I encourage you to spend some time doing some research.  After you find some good information, go ahead and post it, I’d love to see more information.

Here's a good research question for you..... how many cc's is a factory stock 1986 22RE head chamber, and what type of chamber is it?  I'd be interested to know how long it takes you to find out, and what source(s) you used to get the "facts". 

Good luck.

Gnarls.

LOL what is this, a test for the noob?  Well, before I even looked for it I knew a few details about the 20R/22R/22RE heads.  I know that the RE heads are all basically the same from '85 'til end of production.  I'd be surprised if there weren't some revisions and differences over those years but my understanding is they're all interchangeable.  The RE uses a much smaller, shallower chamber that's more of a "kidney" shape and a flat-top piston. This configuration is much more efficient than the 20/22R big hemispherical chamber with a dome piston.  I don't know what you're asking for when you ask for chamber "type."  Lots of words get used to describe combustion chambers.  Compared to the 20/22R chambers, in the world I come from they'd be described as a "closed" chamber vs. an "open" or "hemi" chamber on the earlier heads.

A quick Googling just to prove I'm not lazy beyond redemption turned up LCE's tech page which states RE chambers are 58cc but there's a weird  reference to the RET though it doesn't state any differences between them.  I don't know much about the RETs so wondering if maybe they used the same head but a dished piston as the one thing I do know about them (other than that they had turbos) was that they had a lower compression ratio, which is typical of turbo motors.  I saw some references to the RE heads on a couple other forums as well.

Thing is, I'm not working on RE engines and while they have a superior combustion chamber design they're going to respond the same way to performance modifications as any other 22R/RE, differences in carb/FI notwithstanding.  Therefore I'm not terribly motivated to do a bunch of research to turn up a number that doesn't mean a whole lot to me.  However, if I could verify that info I'd catalog it and pass it along to anyone who asked.

Which brings up the last thing I want to type before I head out to the garage to continue to be frustrated by aftermarket parts - I'm all about the free exchange of info.  I'm happy to share anything I may have learned.  If I know something for a fact, I'll say so.  If I'm not sure, I'll try to make that clear.  If someone asks a question and I know the answer I'm happy to share.  I can't count the number of times I've posted this image on the Pontiac websites when someone asks how to identify a cylinder head:  https://flic.kr/p/UPbMKq    Ask me anything you want about Pontiac V8 engines, those are something I know something about.

Cheers!

[Gnarly4X]

Great discussion...

This is what I find surprising given how big of a following these engines have.  They are still quite popular today, closing in on 30 years since the last one was produced.  Judging by the offerings on LCE's website it appears people circle-track race with these engines.  I bet those guys know quite a bit about them, maybe I need to find a Toyota circle-track site, if such a thing exists.

I agree and that is why I started my own quest for facts.  I have never spoken to anyone, known anyone, or read anything about the Toyota race engines used in “circle track racing”… my lack of knowledge, although I love just about any aspect of auto racing.

It seems to me Toyota enthusiasts are a bunch of DIYers for the most part.  You read about all kinds of fabrication and cool stuff on this and other sites like Pirate and Yotatech so it's confusing to me why engine tech specs are hard to sleuth out and why people wouldn't be building engines when they're building transmissions and swapping/rebuilding differentials and transfer cases and suspensions and such.

Well, there are many who are rebuilding their engines, but welding on a skid plate, or bolting on a bumper is WAY different than building an engine that DOES require knowing some tricks…. and if that is NOT true, then someone please explain to me why 90% of posts on these Toy forum discussions is the same thing … “I just rebuilt my 22 and now it won’t run”.

… If the info is in the FSM, why would it not be readily available.  As mentioned in a previous post, the only reason I don't have an FSM is because I haven't been able to find one for '84 for a reasonable price.  I'm not paying $150 for one, I can do a lot of poking around and asking questions for that kind of money, and the last one I saw on Ebay was priced there.  The later FSMs seem to be far more abundant for some reason.

Yes, “buying” information can get expensive!  As I mentioned, the FSMs just did not provide enough specific and detailed information for the performance gain search I was on.

  LOL what is this, a test for the noob?

No… no pop-quizzes….  I was just making fun of my own experiences while making a point that if you are lucky to find three sources that state the “facts”, you may find that the “facts” are not exactly the same!

In my experience, with just about any subject, and seems especially true with our Toyota discussions and in the automotive world in general, there are 3 basic categories of people… Those who don’t know $hait.  Those who think they $hait.  And those who really know their $hait.  In any given day, I find myself in one or more of those categories!

Well, before I even looked for it I knew a few details about the 20R/22R/22RE heads.  I know that the RE heads are all basically the same from '85 'til end of production.  I'd be surprised if there weren't some revisions and differences over those years but my understanding is they're all interchangeable.  The RE uses a much smaller, shallower chamber that's more of a "kidney" shape and a flat-top piston. This configuration is much more efficient than the 20/22R big hemispherical chamber with a dome piston.  I don't know what you're asking for when you ask for chamber "type."  Lots of words get used to describe combustion chambers.  Compared to the 20/22R chambers, in the world I come from they'd be described as a "closed" chamber vs. an "open" or "hemi" chamber on the earlier heads.

Very good.  Yes, lots of words are used to describe the same thing in automotive terms.  Funny… there is no description in my Engine Analyzer for the shape of the 22RE head chamber…. I’ve read it called “bathtub”.

A quick Googling just to prove I'm not lazy beyond redemption turned up LCE's tech page which states RE chambers are 58cc but there's a weird  reference to the RET though it doesn't state any differences between them.  I don't know much about the RETs so wondering if maybe they used the same head but a dished piston as the one thing I do know about them (other than that they had turbos) was that they had a lower compression ratio, which is typical of turbo motors.  I saw some references to the RE heads on a couple other forums as well.

 

Yes, confusing data and published statements are plentiful.  The 22R turbo head chamber is somewhere between 58 and 60cc, depending your source.  The 1986 22RE head chamber will cc between 52 and 56, again depending on your source.

Thing is, I'm not working on RE engines and while they have a superior combustion chamber design they're going to respond the same way to performance modifications as any other 22R/RE, differences in carb/FI notwithstanding.  Therefore I'm not terribly motivated to do a bunch of research to turn up a number that doesn't mean a whole lot to me.  However, if I could verify that info I'd catalog it and pass it along to anyone who asked.

 

If you're saying the performance modifications to a 22RE respond the same as a 22R, my experience is different.  The ECU in the RE EFI will not allow significant changes without “side effects”.   My carb’d 22 showed very noticeable changes, small and large, when modifying it.

Which brings up the last thing I want to type before I head out to the garage to continue to be frustrated by aftermarket parts - I'm all about the free exchange of info.  I'm happy to share anything I may have learned.  If I know something for a fact, I'll say so.  If I'm not sure, I'll try to make that clear.  If someone asks a question and I know the answer I'm happy to share.  I can't count the number of times I've posted this image on the Pontiac websites when someone asks how to identify a cylinder head:  https://flic.kr/p/UPbMKq    Ask me anything you want about Pontiac V8 engines, those are something I know something about.

Well… that is what will generate you lots of deposits in your Karma bank.

My all-time second most favorite muscle car is the 1964 Pontiac GTO, tri-power, 4 speed, hardtop.

[Plainview]

Gnarly - YES, those are such beautiful cars.  Is that yours?  '64 and '65 are my favorite with '69 coming in a close second.  But, I've owned a '72 Formula 400 since '86 and that will be forever my favorite.

As to mods working on carb vs. EFI - what I meant by "carb/FI notwithstanding" is that removing whatever quirks a factory EFI setup imposes, the general rules of increasing airflow through the engine = more power still hold true.  Yes, if the factory ECU can't handle the changes or the injectors can't deliver enough fuel or the intake manifold is too restrictive or whatever then that imposes limitations on how far you can go.  This is one of the reasons I wanted to stick with a carb'd engine.  I'm not into rock-crawling so issues of fuel pouring out at extreme angles aren't something I'm going to worry about.  There are a lot more options with carbs and you can go a lot farther with modifications without having to fight a computer.

And finally, about variances in reported data for things like cylinder head volume - It's not surprising to me to see differences of a couple CCs one way or the other with something like that.  First, there would be production variances to take into account.  There are various things in an engine that the factory is either more or less concerned about.  surface finish on a crankshaft, bearing journal diameters, piston to bore clearances, etc. are the kinds of things that are critical and are held to close tolerances.  Other things like combustion chamber volume variances of a CC or two aren't as critical and it doesn't pay to try to hold as close of tolerances on those things.  Casting core shifts and variances in the final milling of the deck surface of the head could account for a CC or two difference on a fresh from the factory head.  Then throw in whatever might have been done to that head over the years.  A mill job makes the chamber smaller, a valve job makes it bigger, and pretty soon one guy is saying his chambers are 56cc and another guy is saying his are 60 and they might both be right, especially when you throw in another variable - the technique and equipment used to CC the chamber.  The information I'm after is what does Toyota say that head is supposed to be?

I tell you what, the next engine I build and it won't be a whole lot longer (maybe next winter) is going to be measured and analyzed.  I paid one shop to do the machine work on my 20/22 hybrid and several years later I paid another shop to assemble it and now I have an engine with only a few thousand miles on it that smokes and rattles and has what sounds like either bad piston slap or a bearing knock on hot restarts.  It definitely has more power than a stock 22R but that's about the only good thing I can say about it.  Next time around I will personally take the time to measure everything and will assemble it myself and I'm going to use something better than the cheap cast pistons everyone sells.  I really like the look of the Wisecos, their dome design makes way more sense than that cone-with-a-cup-in-the-top design all the cheap pistons use.  I just need to find someone who can make a deck plate for the boring & honing and find a machine shop that actually gives a damn about doing quality work.

[Mudder]

Plainview, Tod, Engnbldr's son does machine work. He's out of Portland. I know he'd do quality work and is very reasonable.

[Gnarly4X]

Gnarly - YES, those are such beautiful cars.....

Geezz… Plainview, I’m going to have to relinquish my title of forum “Novelist” to you. LOL…  The best, most interesting and informative threads I’ve read over the years have long-read posts.... “2-beer” posts.

No, not my car, but I wanted one SO badly.  Two of my college buddies owned GTOs - one was a ’64 tri-power, a metallic purple color hardtop… beautiful car!  I was so envious of him.  My other buddy drove a 1965.  My girlfriends’ brother owned a ’64, all around the time.  The sounds and sensations, and adrenalin hit of dropping the clutch on the tri-power and smoking through the gears was so addictive!  I drove a 64 Malibu, Muncie 4-speed, SS, hardtop. The previous owner had built a 327 with fuelie heads, it would only run back then on leaded premium “White Pump" gas…. Gawd it was FAST!  It only weighed 3200 lbs.  It would smoke just about any SB Camaro!

Yes, I agree on ECU vs carb.  And YES, I kick my a$$ for NOT buying a 22R!  The EFI is way better for rockcrawling, and trying make a carb’d 22 happy about extreme angles is not easy.

Yes, I agree with the castings, factory concerns, etc, and why differences are found.  BUT… even if you find the factory specs, aren’t they likely to be slightly different between engines?  It sounds like you are going to start with blueprinting.

Sorry for your rebuilt engine issues. I’ve read countless horror stories regarding a failed rebuild. Before I started this project I interviewed and visited several engine rebuild shops and engine machine shops.  I wasn't happy or felt confident enough with most of the "rebuilders" and didn’t like what I saw. I did hours of internet research and spoke to several reputable Toyota experts.  I also have a family member who is highly respected early Mopar expert and has owned several Toyotas.  Buying a short block or a long block did not give me any assurances regardless of their phony warranties.  That’s when I decided to rebuild it myself, and I’d do the same thing again. Naturally I will be very interested in following your next Toyota rebuild.

And finally, yes… I should have spent more time with the sources of the parts and pieces. Looking back, I would do it differently and would have chosen the parts more carefully.  I believe I should be able to rebuild a 22 as good or better than the quality parts used by Toyota in 1986 and gain a few lbs of torque where I want them.

But… I’m still working on that!!

Gnarls.

[Plainview]

Plainview, Tod, Engnbldr's son does machine work. He's out of Portland. I know he'd do quality work and is very reasonable.

Mudder - thanks for the recco!  I see from your signature that you're running the OME HD springs.  Mind if I ask you a few questions about your experience with them via PM?

Geezz… Plainview, I’m going to have to relinquish my title of forum “Novelist” to you. LOL…  The best, most interesting and informative threads I’ve read over the years have long-read posts.... “2-beer” posts....
Gnarls.

Yes, I do tend to run on at the keyboard at times... LOL.

[79coyotefrg]

I'll come back and read everything later but some highlights from my memory

stock 20 R carb is 190 cfm
stock 22R carb is 325 cfm  which makes the 3236 weber a perfect replacement but the stock carb out performs the weber for offroading in tuned correctly

20R combustion chamber 75cc early and 81cc ish in 79 and 80 and up.
22R  is about 85cc also
22re 55cc
22RET is also 55cc  (pistons are different)
stock 20 and 22R cams was around 390 and about 190 duration it started off about the same ramp as the 215* but since emissions sucked the close side drops off sharply

My setup has one thing I really love about it.  when pulling a heavy load once  my soninlaw and daughter were following me and she called me on the cb and said "Dad, do you know that when you shift a 3 or 4 foot flame shoots out the exhaust?" 

[emsvitil]

Gnarly,

Do any of your computer dyno runs show the 'dip' I usually see in the dyno run I usually see around 3k +- rpm for various vehicles?

This is for my Sportster (883):    first is dyno at dealer, second is something called a 'road dyno' (search images 'road dyno software')






I've used the 'road dyno' on my 86 22RE truck and 64 Plymouth Valiant slant 6 225, and they both showed the 'dip' (don't know where I put the .jpg of those) that DON'T show up on a computer simulation (Desktop Dyno 2000 & 2003)