ohio

Don't know jack about my own truck, but thought I'd chime in on SOHC vs. DOHC. The high rpm and low rpm performance is dependent mainly on cam profile, NOT the number of camshafts/valves. It's just that to get the most out of a high RPM cam profile, you should run DOH cams. Basically DOHC are always more optimal than SOHC... however at low RPMs for the same cam profile and cam timing, the advantage is so small (because you're really not pulling in THAT much air relative to cyclinder diamter) as to be a waste of money. At high RPMs it becomes much more significant. High RPMs require different cam profile to optimize performance given the inertia and viscosity of air (basically longer lift to allow air to pull itself into the cyclinder and compress a bit before closing off). This is true for SOH or DOH cams, but DOH cams do it better as they allow even more air to get in. You optimize for high RPM combustion, you give up low end performance, because the longer lift allows some air to escape back out. So the result is companies only shell out for DOHC engines when they go to high RPMS. As a result of designing for high RPMS they lose the low end. Not the fault of DOHC, just the design of that engine. With variable valve lift (VTEC, VVTil) engines now have cam profiles for BOTH high and low end, but because trucks pretty much stay in the low end there's no reason to use 'em. Without knowing why the 3.0 has such bad mileage it's hard to say if the head mod will help. Most likely you'll end up with a touch more horsepower and torque up in the revs, and the same crappy mileage you got before. I also don't know how higher lift cams are going to mix with the heavy (read: low RPM and torquey) flywheel in the 2nd gen.

This ad is not displayed to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on Yotatech!

KING

$500??

I don't hate it that much.

Praufet

Talked to DOA. The head bolt pattern is different from the -E to the -FE. Personally I was mainly seeking converting the E to the FE to increase gas mileage. The power was just a bonus I remember once there was this article in hot rod mag about a year or two ago about cars that pulled 12sec 1/4 and got 20 mpg, anyone have this article. Interested in seeing how that was pulled off. Anyways off to find another solution to the ever elusive mpg answer.

__________________
--Brian
'94 4Runner SR5 4WD
285 Terra Grapplers on FJ80 wheels|Rancho 9000s on all 4 corners|Cruiser coils|Marlin Rear brake line
Stereo
CDT Audio CL-61A|CDT Audio CL-6X|Profile 640 and Profile 600M|Audiobahn 100Q

Lucky

Interesting point that about getting decent power and decent mileage.

I guess there is no real rule that says a high power lump should be inefficient. In fact really the better power you are getting the more efficient the engine.MPG is also determined by the shape of the car and the 4runner is about as aerodynamic as the White House therfore it doesn't do the MPG any favours, you are pushing a square box through air that doesn't like it.

Also reducing friction and losses in the ebgine can help, get the engine blueprinted, balanced, used a decent oil, make sure the bores and rings are spot on and also make sure that the bearbox, transfer case, diffs have decent clean oil. Tyres are at the right pressure, have a good tread pattern.

The problem with SUVs is they aren't aerodynamic, induce a lot of drag and have high friction losses due to extra diffs, bigger tyres etc etc.

I used to have a Camaro with a 283 cube engine from 1960's Corvette. Used to top out at 135mph (my fear limit not the car's), 0-60mph in 6.6 seconds and returned 23mpg so power doesn't neccessarily mean bad gas mileage.

And while everyone thinks that Diesels are more economical, in the UK we are lucky hitting mid 20s MPG with the 2.4TD engine. The 3.0TD engine actually returns better gas mileage and has considerably more power.

Cheers

__________________
Andy

1993 Toyota Hilux Surf (Japanese 4 Runner), 2.4 Turbo Diesel, Custom flush mount rear fog lamps, Ring front fogs and spots, Thule Roof Rack, Arrigoni and De Angelis roof rails, Sony Double DIN stereo, IPAQ GPS system.

lakings17

I agree that an automatic trans. is slow.I have an "88" 3vz 4X4 with a 5 speed and this truck flies on and off road and pulls trailers up hills with ease.I had the engine rebuilt at 295k miles and spent $2000 going through it.The truck looks and runs like new and for the money is an excellent deal.I think the big problem with 4 runners is they are almost all automatic transmissions.Anyone else agree?

__________________
'91' 4x4 x-cab
'87' rx-7
'84' 944

Paul H.

I could deal with the low gas milage if the gas tank wasn't so small. Toyota did a lousy job in not putting a bigger gas tank on such a large vehicle.

__________________
92 4Runner SR5 V6 4X4
Skyjacker Nitro shocks, Pro-Comp steering stabilizer, clear bumper lenses, lund windjammer, OME standard coils, ISR mod, inlet pipe removed, Bushwaker Fender Flares.

2002 Tacoma Prerunner V6 Xtracab. Lund Intercepter bug guard, rear glass sunshield, Bilstein shocks on rear.

2004 Honda CRV EX stock belongs to wife.

amusement

The gas tank is too small.

I purchased and installed an aux gas tank to offset the stock one.
16+15=31 gallons at a cost of 425 USD. I can drive from 530 - 620 miles when the truck is filled.

coloradodragon

275,000 miles and running strong.(knock on wood)-- I get like 18 miles per hour at over 6000 ft of altitude. Guess I got lucky with my beast.