Topic: Up coming 22RE rebuild ?'s

[Gnarly4X]

In the science of physics, what is that force called?

Gnarls.

It's called TORQUE!!  And it can be measured.  The same TORQUE that can be measured on an engine dyno.

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

Physical laws are different on the production of power, rotating mass, inertia, and ugh centrifugal (centripital) force.

Can you explain?

Yes, the engine changes the inertia in the flywheel from staic to motivational.

What is motivational inertia?....

A 10lb mass requires greater velocity than a 30lb mass to overcome the same resistance.

I think it requires more torque, to reach the same RPMs?... if we are still talking about flywheels?

Gnarls.

[sirdeuce]

Motivational? Maybe have the term wrong, it's what I came up with to describe inertia with motion.

More torque? Inertia can better be related to power than to torque as mass X speed equal power as torque X speed equals power. As stated before, a 10lb mass(flywheel here) has to have more speed to overcome the same resistance that a 30lb mass(flywheel here). So torque isn't the answer you were looking for, it is power or energy. Torque is measured statically not in motion. On a dyno it is measured at a stalled RPM, engine dyno. Or as the force required to accelerated a known mass/weight over time, like on a chassis dyno.

Centrifugal force really is an incorrect term. Centripital force is correct as it is a measurement of force required to draw a mass towards the center of a circle it is traveling.

[Gnarly4X]

Motivational? Maybe have the term wrong, it's what I came up with to describe inertia with motion.

More torque? Inertia can better be related to power than to torque as mass X speed equal power as torque X speed equals power. As stated before, a 10lb mass(flywheel here) has to have more speed to overcome the same resistance that a 30lb mass(flywheel here). So torque isn't the answer you were looking for, it is power or energy. Torque is measured statically not in motion. On a dyno it is measured at a stalled RPM, engine dyno. Or as the force required to accelerated a known mass/weight over time, like on a chassis dyno.

Centrifugal force really is an incorrect term. Centripital force is correct as it is a measurement of force required to draw a mass towards the center of a circle it is traveling.

"Torque is measured statically not in motion.".... you got me there!  So my truck sitting on a DynaJet 224 SLC, eddy current chassis dyno is measuring the output to my rear wheels... and my rear wheels are NOT in motion?

Gee… where’s Lewis....the self-identified “physics police”??


sirdeuce,

Lots of interesting discussion.  We each have our own perspectives, vocabulary, and understanding - or not - of the laws of physics. 

Given the same obstacle to climb (big steep rock for example) I will stick with my theory that the reason my Toy truck engine will not stall at 300 RPMs with a heavier flywheel (LCE type), and WILL stall at 500 RPMs with a stock flywheel is very simply that the added inertia, mass, and rotating force (centrifugal) of the heavier flywheel is producing more TORQUE to input shaft of the transmission, and then to the rear wheels.

Moreover, that TORQUE can be measured.   

Gnarls. 

[emsvitil]

The inertia of the flywheel supplies the torque to the transmission when the engine isn't supplying any.

Remember it's not puuuuuussssssshhhhhh, but PUSH.....PUSH.....PUSH......PUSH

[Gnarly4X]

e....

Yes... or if the load (steep rock) is more than the amount torque the engine in producing at 500 RPMs, the reason the engine stalls. 

The heavier flywheel, with more rotating mass, will overcome the load (steep rock) at the amount of torque that the engine is producing at 500 RPMs, and add to the input shaft the amount torque necessary to allow the engine to go down to 250 RPMs before stalling. 

But that is a matter of opinion, obviously. 

In all my years of 4-wheeling I don't recall anyone that installed a heavier flywheel and described the difference.  I have read, like others here, that the heavier flywheel is better for crawling.  I don't believe that the advantage of avoiding an engine stalling at 500 or 800 RPMs is better than just gearing the vehicle properly to keep the RPMs at a range that provides the necessary torque for the load that crawling typically causes..... a Marlin Crawler t-case? 

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

Just thinking out loud…

A brand new LUK flywheel is about $35.00

An LCE 30# is $300.00

An LCE 35# is $350.00 – 10 times more than a new LUK stock one.

The 30# is only 5.5 lbs heavier than my 22RE factory stock flywheel at 24.5 lbs., so would it be worth going up only 5.5 lbs?  So… I buy the 35 # flywheel.  I’m out $350.00.  And supposedly it’s going to make my 4-wheel crawling better.  How much better?  My engine is going to rev slower.  How much “gain” am I going to see or feel while rock crawling?  Probably a little smoother throttle response.

If I take the $350.00 and spend it on some other enhancement, what would I gain?  For a $177 more I can buy a Doug Thorley header!! .... adding about 5 to 8 more foot pounds of torque!  Or… for $388 I can buy a set of alloy wheels… saving about 100 lbs of weight.
My point?... I would rather spend my money on different bling.

Gnarls.

[mountain,man1 [OP]]

I see everyones point of view on the heavier flywheel debate. What I get out of it from all the information provided is a heavier flywheel helps when you do not know how to drive a 5-speed properly. Idle speed on a 22RE is recommended at I believe 750 RPM. I have mine set at 800 RPM. I do not let my engine drop below 800 RPM no matter the driving conditions so I do not stall the engine. With that being said and all the information provided taking into consideration it is clear a heavier flywheel is not right for my application therefore I will not waste my money on one. After the build my truck will be used primarily for traipsing around Mountain trails and winter driving. I live at close to 9000 feet. When I go down to town and come back up the elevation changes roughly 3500 feet within 17 miles. Currently there are two hills my truck has to run at 4200 RPM in 2nd great in order to climb at 35 MPH. I am looking to add more low to mid-range torque because I feel my little engine that could would not have to work so hard at a high RPM to climb said hills. I am planning on getting either stage 2.5 or stage 3.0 22RE from 22RE performance with a balanced crankshaft, new pistons, new piston rods, new stock flywheel, new harmonic balancer, and new injectors. Still debating if I want to get a big bore throttle body. My next upgrade after the engine and exhaust are done and running properly will be regearing front and rear diffs and adding air lockers. Depending on how much more torque I feel I need will then facilitate what gearing I go with. I greatly appreciate everybody's input on this thread thank you very much the information has been extremely helpful. One last question I have. I currently use Royal Purple synthetic oil Lucas Oil synthetic oil additive and K&N oil filter in all my vehicles. What is everybody's thoughts on that oil combination? Thank you again

[toyodaaddict]

Gearing the diffs for your tire size will be as noticeable as rebuilding the engine, if not more so.

Im not a fan of K&N filters. I use Castrol GTX 10w30. Ive seen to many leaks with synthetic motor oils and these engines have proven to go 300k miles on standard oil. Also, I like to change my oil often and synthetic is expensive. I am however considering redline synthetic gear oil for my diffs, trans, and tcase.

Hopefully you will post some pics of the engine install and let us know how it drives afterwards.

[Gnarly4X]

On your oil/filter question.  K&N oil filter are good filters.

With the Royal Purple synthetic, I would not think you’d need any additive.

I realize 22REP recommends conventional motor.  Motor oil is one of THE most debated topics on many automotive forums.  The advantage of synthetic oil is it’s flow characteristics at extremely low ambient temperatures… and that is the reason I’d be running synthetics if I lived where months of freezing and sub-freezing temperatures are normal.

Assuming you are experiencing freezing temperatures, at your elevation, I’d definitely be running full synthetics in all oil, gear lube, and grease.  In ambient temps of months of freezing, I’d be running 5w-30, Mobil 1 because it’s available at Walmart.

Your decision to go with a 2.5 (I didn’t know Jim was building a “3.0”) is a wise one.  I’d be discussing with Jim exactly were I need my peak torque and his recommended cam profile.

To maximize your transmission gears at RPM, your ring & pinion ratio will be very important for tire size and using peak torque.

Super tuning that 22RE is going to be key to getting the power you need out of that engine at those elevations.  The 22RE is very good at adjusting ignition timing and fuel mapping (probably injector pulse width) for significant elevation changes, but you will lose VERY noticeable throttle response.  From sea level to 3500 feet elevation a drop in peak torque and peak HP of around 10% is likely.  From 3500 ft to 9,000 ft, perhaps 15% to 20% - that would be a drop in torque of about 40 to 50 foot lbs. at peak RPMs.

The gasoline octane you burn can also be a factor in power out.

I’m looking forward to reading about your project and how is turns out! 

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

Gnarls. 

[Gnarly4X]

      

Gearing the diffs for your tire size will be as noticeable as rebuilding the engine, if not more so.

….. and then you woke up. 

Gnarls. 

[toyodaaddict]

     
….. and then you woke up. 

Gnarls. 

My comment on filters was in reference to air filters. I didnt even think about k&n oil filters.

I have a 22reperformance stage 2 head/cam, lce header, etc. On 35's I'll take my 5.29s over what I gained from the rebuild all day. My engine is a bit more spirited than the old 22re but it isnt even in the same ballpark as a stock 3rz. As far as Im concerned running 33s or bigger with stock gears isnt even an option. One of the biggest things I learned from my rebuild is that trying to get power out of a 22re is a wast of money. Feel free to disagree.

[Gnarly4X]

My comment on filters was in reference to air filters. I didnt even think about k&n oil filters.

I have a 22reperformance stage 2 head/cam, lce header, etc. On 35's I'll take my 5.29s over what I gained from the rebuild all day. My engine is a bit more spirited than the old 22re but it isnt even in the same ballpark as a stock 3rz. As far as Im concerned running 33s or bigger with stock gears isnt even an option. One of the biggest things I learned from my rebuild is that trying to get power out of a 22re is a wast of money. Feel free to disagree.

I’m a little confused on how mountain,man can be in 2nd gear at 4200 RPMs at 35 MPH?

What R&P do you have?

toyodaaddict... I ran 10 years with my 85 22R with 31s, 32s, and 33s with stock 4:11 R&Ps.
I could not use 5th gear effectively with 33s.  So I drove mostly in 4th gear at highway speeds at 75 MPH in 4th I’d be at 3100 to 3200 RPMs… just above where my peak torque was.

Climbing steep grades meant I got down into 3rd gear and tach’d it to about 4000 RPMs, so I could maintain 60 or 65 MPH.

With my 31s in 5th gear I’d be at about 2800 RPMs, right where my peak torque starts.

The slight sluggishness from a stop of course was noticeable, but I got use to it and never changed my R&Ps.

Adding 10 to 15 ft lbs of torque with a DT header and opened exhaust allowed me to use 5th gear at 80 MPH.

My truck would have had way more pep if I had installed 4.88s.

No doubt, the right gearing (R&P) for tire size is definitely important for using the available engine torque for the RPM range you want to use it.

I also agree that some guys spend oodles of money on trying to juice up a stock 22RE.  In my case, I only really need 15 or 20 ft. lbs of additional torque at between 2500 and 3500 RPMs.  I don’t need HP at 5,000 RPMs.

But… I’ll take a 22REP Stage 2.5 over any two R&Ps! 

I am also NOT a fan of K&N air filters.

Gnarls. 

[mountain,man1 [OP]]

I'm running 31x10.5 with alloy wheels. Not sure on the gearing I know the owner previous to the one I bought my 4Runner from had regeared it. Before I move to Colorado from Iowa she was pretty sluggish in 3rd gear climbing small hills I think my 4Runner has fairley high gearing. It has a hard time taking off on a flat surface. No matter what the gearing it's time for a new motor not sure of the miles on the motor itself. The previous owner dropped in a junkyard motor because he could not get the timing and throttle body tuned properly. It seized up on me once about a year after I bought her I unseized the motor by pulling the spark plugs and filling each cylinder with 3 in one oil I let it soak for 2 days then bumped the starter a bunch till it turned over freely. It seemed to run pretty good for close to 8 years till I blew a head gasket and cracked the timing cover while bogged down in some mud. Almost three years ago I had the head planed and replaced the head gasket timing cover and oil pump with a new timing chain kit of course. She still runs but has been sitting for close to seven months because there is a terrible clunking noise in the motor. I've been too busy with work to tear into her and find out the issue. Chances are I will not have the time to swap the motor till February but I assure you I will be posting pictures. Until then I'm stuck driving a POS 91 Honda CRX

[sirdeuce]

4Runner huh. I have an '86 Runner, probably never see anything more than a fire road. I have 31 X 10.5 (on 12" wheels as I got the thing) Plans are to bump torque, like Gnarly mentioned above and put in 4.56 gears. I gage my power needs by the northbound 101 Cuesta pass N. of San Luis Obispo CA. As my 4Runner sits, stock 22RE and gears with those 31s I have to pull over to the right lane and let the Semis pass me. If you want better climbing ability I say to go with gears. If you keep the 31s anything more than 4.56 is too much for the road, IMO. If the 4.56 is too much off road I'd get 4.70 T-gear instead of a step lower R&Ps. For past reference, I had 32" LTBs on my stock carby 22R '83 with 4.56s and could climb CA 168 to Shaver lake at 70MPH in 4th gear at the steepest points. It did well enough on the trails with the 2.31 geared T-case.
As for beefing a 22RE, from what I've read, starting with a 1989 or newer EFI is best, better tuning, flexibility. Then learn to tune the AFM and fuel pressure, find the right injector flow rate. If you can get away with it a stand alone ECU would be best. I know the AFM is limited to around 175HP/TQ with a 4AGE N/A so I'd dare to say with a lesser efficient engine, like the 22RE, expectations should fall a bit below that. Even though I've heard stories of 170HP with the stock EFI 22RE. To get that far good knowledge of tuning with available sensors and fuel pressure/flow.

[Gnarly4X]

.... Even though I've heard stories of 170HP with the stock EFI 22RE. To get that far good knowledge of tuning with available sensors and fuel pressure/flow.

170 HP out of "stock" 22RE.... only in someone's dream!

The injectors are only good for about 125 HP!!

Just my worthless opinion.

Gnarls.

[sirdeuce]

170 HP out of "stock" 22RE.... only in someone's dream!

The injectors are only good for about 125 HP!!

Just my worthless opinion.

Gnarls.

Yep, the injectors are a restriction. Stock 22RE flow rate is 200cc at 2.5 bar, if memory suits me. at 2.9 bar that increases to @215cc. Maybe look at 140hp? I use the 2.9 bar fuel pressure as the JDM regulators I have are 2.9 bar. Could adjust higher, just have to know the injectors max pressure.

I believe the AFM is a bigger issue than the injectors. ECU tuning, AFM, injectors. 

Definitely need a different tuning capability with the ECU as the stocker throws a fit with minor changes.

[sirdeuce]

170 HP out of "stock" 22RE.... only in someone's dream!

Just passing on some claims I heard/read. I've gotten 150hp with a single Weber 40DFEV and a lot of mods, 20/22R hybrid. 170hp with side draft carbs is easy enough. I'm sure the 22RE can do it, but not stock. Probably not with bolt ons either. Definately not good for climbing rocks at that point.

[sirdeuce]

I've done "budget builds" in the past to prove a point. Wish I had disposable income like I used to, a budget 22RE torquer could be an interesting project.

[Gnarly4X]

Yep, the injectors are a restriction. Stock 22RE flow rate is 200cc at 2.5 bar, if memory suits me. at 2.9 bar that increases to @215cc. Maybe look at 140hp? I use the 2.9 bar fuel pressure as the JDM regulators I have are 2.9 bar. Could adjust higher, just have to know the injectors max pressure.

I believe the AFM is a bigger issue than the injectors. ECU tuning, AFM, injectors. 

Definitely need a different tuning capability with the ECU as the stocker throws a fit with minor changes.

Hey s....

As you know any time you go beyond 1 HP per cubic inch... generally.... you are going to be doing some very significant modifications to a naturally asperated engine.. right?

So a 2.4 liter 22RE is 146.45 cubic inches.   I believe 146 HP is probably a doable, but somewhat ambitious, number for a basically stock 22RE, with cam, head-work, header/exhaust and some obvious tweak-tuning.

For a 22R carb'd engine to get 170 HP is also doable, but it's going be a bunch of hours, money, and parts beyond a stocker bore and stroke.

Do you know of, or have any engine or chassis dyno sheets you could share?

Chevy's early most powerful non-injected 327 was an L79 - 350HP @ 5800 RPMs, 360 ft. lbs. of torque @ 3400 in a 1967 Corvette.  11:1 CR and a huge 4-bbl carb.

Gnarls.

[sirdeuce]

Never said 170 came from a 'basically stock' engine. Lotsa time and money went into my past engines. As for getting 1hp per c.i. really depends on the base engine layout. Look at the 4AGE 1.6 liter(98c.i.), quite easy to coax 150hp out of that little mill with 'basically stock' components. Mild port work, stock cast header and free flowing exhaust, cams and compression. Secret there is being able to spin the crank to 8500RPM. Stock 4AGE puts out 115hp, 1.17 hp/c.i. and the 150hp is 1.5 hp/c.i. . Thing is the torque is sacrificed for hp. Stock tq. is 98lbft @4800RPM and at the 150hp mark the tq. is @120lbft at 5200-5400RPM. All depends on what the engine is designed to do. The engines I built for my Celicas would spin to 7500RPM making peak tq. @4800-5000RPM and peak power @ 6500RPM. At the time it was quite a bit for a 4 banger in the mid '80s, especially a 22R, 20/22R hybrid. So, for what we want for our 4X4 trucks 140hp would seem a bit ambitious, keeping the tq. low in the power band. Considering the 22R/RE came with 130/140lbft tq. stock the goal would be increasing the tq. by @30lbft while staying at the same RPM as stock.

The car I drove here from Kansas, no smog rules back there, had a 383 small block with a list of mods as long as your arm, carby, putting out in excess of 650hp . It ran 8 second 1/4s all day long. 9000RPM engine $$$$
Had a VW Beetle in the mid '80s with a carbed engine, 2110cc put out over 250hp and was a street terror, especially in a gutted and lightened '64 bug, weighed in at 1736lbs with 5 gallons of gas in it. Never tracked it so no time slips, but it beat most of it's challengers on the street. Some said it would have run low 11s to high 10s. 9500RPM engine $$$$ that needed to be torn down twice a season. It paid for itself and my other 20some project cars.
Those were the days!

[sirdeuce]

I do have to put in my 2c on production engine tuning of yesteryear, it was horrible at best. Can't really say they tuned the engines badly because they didn't know what they were doing, but because of the operating parameters expected of those engines. Take into consideration the elevation changes the tune was expected to undergo, sea level to the highest road in the land. Short of pressure carbs used in aviation it really wasn't possible. So manufacturers tuned for a range of operating parameters. Quality control in the processing of fuels, lack of operator knowledge of what was under the hood, maintenance practices, elevation changes, humidity, temperature...…. All were taken into account when tuning that production engine. Even the 'high performance' engines of the time entailed a large fudge factor for the safety and longevity of that engine.
I'm sure the tuners would have been able to get sustantially more out of that 'Vette engine if they could be guarantted the owner/operator could/would pay attention to the changes and adjust accordingly. Take that VW I mentioned above, I carried a jet kit and timing light everywhere I went. If I wanted to drive that car to Reno to, uh, play, I had to change the tune substantially. For a cruise to Lake Tahoe I had to change everything about those carbs, all jets, emulsion tubes, air bleed jets, chokes and even the auxilliary venturis, or change the plugs every 2 miles. For racing, had to pay attention to the barometer and thermometer and make minor changes on the spot. That engine was tuned to the gnats ass. Not a very roadable car.

Having an 11-1 compression in the old days was possible because of to higher octane fuels available. We have cars these days with 11-1 compression running on this crap 91 octane fuel. Thing that makes that possible is a combination of piston and combustion chamber shape and tuning. With the modern combustion chamber/piston shapes and the air charge shape/mix manipulation high comp carb engines can be possible. Still have the issue of widely varied operating parameters to deal with though.  Hell, my Mazdaspeed3 has a compression ratio of 9.5-1 and boosts to 2 bar (30psi), on 91 octane pump gas. Go back 20 years and people would tell you that's BS. (Yeah, that's EFI and we're talking carbs).

Then, we had the "SMOG FIASCO"! The NOx emissions were being a big issue in the atmosphere. What do we do to correct this problem? I know! We'll lower compression ratios and enrichen the air/fuel mixture. Yet another tuning parameter had been added to the mix. Yup, NOx went down HCs went through the roof! It became necessary to chew the air before you could inhale it. 350 c.i. engines put out 127hp and 150lbft of tq.

So I'll say using past, very past, engines as examples isn't a good tuning example. Still eager to see what's next in the internal combustion game.

[sirdeuce]

Whatever you do, don't get me started on electric cars.

[Gnarly4X]

Whatever you do, don't get me started on electric cars.

So I can't say Tesla X?

Gnarls.

[sirdeuce]

Not electric cars themselves, presentation and timing really, and the idiots that insist on shoving them down our throats. The electric car is a great idea! We're just not prepared for the extensive use of them. My main concern is infrastructure. Our electricity supply grids are barely able to support the current demand we put on it. Now everybody, turn on your AC, electric stoves and plug in your cars! Then these morons that want to put all appliances in my area, climate control, stoves and anything else in the home on the grid, and push for a majority electric vehicles. How many people have to freeze when the power goes out and the temps are 8*F out? That electric heater/heat pump ain't gonna cut it then. Nope, not ready to give up my gas heater or gasoline powered car, Mot until I have a guarantee that my lights will NEVER go out, even when every house on the grid is pulling 500 amps continuously.

Open your eyes people! Not ready for an immersed electrical community.

[Gnarly4X]

Whatever you do, don't get me started on electric cars.

Sooooo….. I figured you DID want a forum to rant on.   

I tend to agree that the "thinkers" of environmental euphoria are mostly full of Bravo Sierra.  They spew rhetoric that has very little to do with reality or the facts. 

Don't get me started on AskSolarSandy!!!  I have at least one solar energy system salesperson that knocks on my door... the door bell is disconnected... every week and tells me "there's no cost to me".
I tell them that the guy just 4 doors down from me signed a 40-year solar energy contact at $177 per month.... just shy of $85,000.... "You should sell him whatever your "no cost" deal you have for me!"

When I ask them "What is the mean time to failure?".. they have a blank stare on their face.  Then I quickly say "I commend your tenacity to be walking around in this 110d F temperature to make a living, but I am not a candidate for anything that will cost me nothing.  I am a nuclear energy believer.... write that down and come back and see me in 10 years!" 

Gnarls. 

[sirdeuce]

I'll build my own solar system, don't care if stays off grid. Last time I talked to one of those solar guys he wanted to install nearly 2kW more than I would ever need. I figure they use the extra to pump power into the grid for credit, or whatever, that I would never hear about. Not sure about all of it, but I get the feeling they want to use my roof to supply someone else without any benefit to me, all while charging ME for the system. Not going to pay for more than I need at someones inflated prices while paying interest to a bank for that loan. Nope, I don't have the money to just give away. Don't have money to help the poor out, sure as hell don't have the money to give someone who really doesn't NEED it.

[Gnarly4X]

I'll build my own solar system, don't care if stays off grid. Last time I talked to one of those solar guys he wanted to install nearly 2kW more than I would ever need. I figure they use the extra to pump power into the grid for credit, or whatever, that I would never hear about. Not sure about all of it, but I get the feeling they want to use my roof to supply someone else without any benefit to me, all while charging ME for the system. Not going to pay for more than I need at someones inflated prices while paying interest to a bank for that loan. Nope, I don't have the money to just give away. Don't have money to help the poor out, sure as hell don't have the money to give someone who really doesn't NEED it.

Solar energy power for the general public use will not be a factor in global energy generation.  Too expensive, takes up too much space, short mean time to failure, and storage is a big issue.

In the future, global electric energy will be from micro-nuclear power plants... that's my prediction.

If you want to see a basically failed solar energy experiment done by Germany, just Google "Solar power in Germany"... Wikipedia.... read where their less expensive electrical energy power comes from.

Gnarls.

[sirdeuce]

You should take a drive on CA 41, there's a few solar farms off that highway. Hundreds of acres of solar panels! There's also that solar project on I 15(I think it's 15) that fell under fire for frying birds in flight.