3VZE dyno baseline before turbo
 

Well, everything is ordered for the custom turbo installation. In about three weeks or so we should be starting to install it on my truck. Decided to get a baseline to see where I'm at, so I can tune things a little better afterwards.

http://www.digital-addiction.net/ima...eline_dyno.jpg

All I have does is intake, exhaust, and advanced timing. 33x10.50 tires. The guys at the dyno shop said that it should be more like 130rwhp if I had "car sized" tires on it.

Ricer excuses: One of my back tires is flat. The other has 15psi in it. They are freakin 33's. Gearing is slightly off. Big exhaust leak. Dirty air filter. Blah blah blah. So I'll go with 125rwhp for now. And damn, look at that torque...not bad.

Turbo time. I expect 170rwhp at first with no tuning. And about 200rwhp after megasquirt and tuning.

I'll be watching for updates! :bigok:

Nice, lets see how it goes.

i kinda feel depressed about my 3.slow now :( i had always hoped for better "stock" numbers ....

I have thought about slapping on a turbo myself. On my truck that is. Although some mornings I wish I had one on me. I am anxious to see what your stats are after! :prop:

I have to say I'm a little surprised at those numbers. More specifically the torque! That's fairly impressive compared to where I thought it would come in. Very interested in the new numbers! :rockon:

Don't be! That's at the rear wheels - and with 33s! (Gearing is not slightly off - its way the hell off!) At the crank is really probably close to "claimed" horsepower. The torque is really good, for a motor everyone despises....

sweet a baseline to use! and thats what i expect to from it...my cams taht will be released for this engine will help solve those MASSIVE falloffs
SWEEETTTT thanks for this!

My advise for tuning this engine would be too get a EGT gauge in there!! These engines burn up the valves in cyl 5 & 6 so some sort of moniter back there to keep those temps down would be good....this is TIMING related so to much timing retard will cause that EGT to heat up and by by valves.

Something else the cams should help out on. :rockin:

Good luck man!

The size of the wheels does not affect any of these numbers, it just affects the force transmitted to the road (and hence, acceleration).

So you are telling me that if I put on 49's and kept the stock 4.10 gears that these numbers would not change at all? :think:

I think you forgot that mass affects WHEEL horsepower. Lets throw some lead shot in my 33's and watch the power stay the same. lol. Yeah, the crank HP will stay the same, about 150hp in this case, but wheel horsepower is largely affected by many things.

SOB. I have to retard the timing with the turbo on, obviously. AND there will be some pretty massive backpressure going on from the head to the turbine, further increasing heat. My worries so far are burnt #6 valve, and a BHG (nothing a custom MLS or copper hg won't solve). EGT gauge has been considered, but won't go in until I start getting everything fine tuned.

The peak HP comes right where I've noticed my sweet spot in the power band, 3500-4000rpms. Too bad the peak torque doesn't happen until almost 5000 rpms though.

As much as I like you Johnny I have to disagree with you there. 5&6 get their excessive heat from the crossover running right by them. Also, better ignition will help to bring down those temps as well. Cams may offer an overall better heat management they won't fix the excessive heat in 5&6.

phorensic, I'd talk to Ted at engnbldr about the HGs I've talked with a few peeps about getting a MLS together as well but that won't be ready for at least 6 mo if not longer. He has the Rockgasket HG with a steel slipperplate in stock as well as the nitroseal and says that both solve the HG problem on these motors. He has a guy running a SC on a 3.0 with IIRC 12# boost and no problems with the new gaskets so that may be all you need. A lot of builders I talked to were against the idea of a copper gasket as they have had problems getting a consistant possative seal.

There are a few people with writups online that have done the turbo 3.0 and have had good results so I think your on the right track.

It's the other way around. And the torque is what you actually can feel in the car as acceleration (horsepower, or any power measurement, is force times speed or torque times rotaional speed, or rpms). The torque peak can't, by definition, appear at higher rpm than the power peak.

Suprathepeg, looks like it will be MLS HG for the win, then. I plan on running 15psi eventually. For now I just hope and pray the stockie doesn't let go, and REALLY hope the water doesn't take out the main/rod bearings.

On the cams issue. I think if someone could design some cams to move the peak torque from 3500 to about 4000 or 4500 we could get a NICE improvement in power. Food for thought.

Was just thinking about something here, since you were complaining about the Hp output. I think I read somewhere that if you advance your timing, you end up moving the torque curve down the rpm scale (maybe it was described by you even, you did some timing write-up I remember now). I don't know if that's right or not, but if it is, the normal timing would push the torque curve towards higher rpms, and hence increase the max HP output.

What I've learned about timing is that there is a sweet spot and anything other then that will negatively effect the timing. It is possible that the factory set the timing at a lower level of advance then was optimal to gain some breathing room and advancing it more under the right conditions on the 3.0 may yield more power. Problem with the 3.0 is getting power in the lower RPM range that said if I was gonna do FI I would likely put a SC on, but the turbo is cool too.

Now Phorensic, don't tell me that you're thinking of just adding that trubo to the engine as is? I would think that at the very least you should rebuild it so its fresh. Then I'd o-ring it to ensure you don't have any HG leaks that end in total failure at boost.

Suprathepeg,
Yes i know that is large cause as well BUT look at what causes that? Exhaust....now i go back to my timing comment...RETARD the timing and you WILL increase the exhasut gas temp..and where does that go? Back through the cross over and radiates to head (as per your theory). I guess i should have mentioned WHY i said retarding the timing will cause this. Also i dont understand your better ignition comment? Retarding the timing does not mean better ignition as that is power loss :) Timing advnace (to a certain degree) will increase power and lower temps BUTTTTTTT increase chances of detonation.
Now the way my cams will be designed WILL have this in mind :) I wont go deeper in that because its in the works right now :)

phorensic,
The cams are already in the design phase and the test 4runner here should be in the shop and dismantled to inspect the problem (siezed engine and blown headgasket)
If the engine is a disaster then I will not be putting the 3.0L engine back in but instead doing the 3.4L swap.
Also i have HEARD that a major head gasket issue on the 3vz-e (i will be looking into it more wehn i take apart the engine) is the spacing of the head bolts. The spacing is farther then normal and lifts under severe pressure, hence alot of warped heads and the fact that people dont turbo those engines with ALOT of pressure.
Im pritty sure you will be happy with 7 psi....heck ANYTHING would be better then stock! mIf you have any fueling questions let me know i can help out.

Oh thanks, that makes more sense. Its confusing the way they scaled that graph.

Better ignition creates a more complete, more efficient burn (as I understand it) which results in lower temps. I'll have those first dyno numbers soon.

Better ignition IE stronger spark... that makes the point of explosion...now WHEN it happens matters on temps...no matter what kind of ignition you got.

Are you kidding? I'd be ecstatic with RWHP/TQ numbers like that!!

Stock they are 150hp/180tq at the crank! :)

Pff, at 154K it's at half its life. It is in very good condition. If I had enough money to fully rebuild it, o-ring it, and then slap the turbo system on, I would have done a 400hp 7mgte. As it stands I can barely afford the parts and labor to do this. No risk though, I live a mile from work in Southern Cali = ride my bike if need be (and have done before).

Well, if not ALOT of pressure, then how about a bigger turbo with more flow at a lower pressure??

I've always wondered this. What would the final/total pressure in the cylinder be with the two possible turbo setups. 15psi ~500cfm, or 10psi ~700cfm (made those numbers up). I'm guessing it relates somewhat to total air mass (flow) and not just the boost pressure. However, high-pressure extremely hot air = detonation = boom. It's a question I have been asking myself for a long time.

Phorensic, I think that you are shooting kinda high with your expectations. What kind of turbo are you planning to use? I think that in order to hit 200 without creating an underhood grenade you'll want to have a lot of work and money invested into it. I mean whats the point of doing it if you lose everything?

I'd also put together a system where you can turn the turbo off on the highway, IIRC the 7mgte has something like this.

Why don't you start with a smaller turbo and intercooler then after you get that done do your tuning. If out of that you can get another 30hp over stock and you have a nice setup you can feel confident in they try for the bigger power. You're talking about adding almost 50 HP without any engine management system. I think you'll run out of fuel before you know whats happening and it will melt down.

Talk to Jeff Moskovitz about what you want to do. He has invested a lot of time and money into his 22rte and can help you I'm sure.

I still stick with a lower PSI period!
Dont try to create a monster the engine just wont take it.

The turbo I am starting out with is a CT26. Obviously a very small turbo. Starting boost will be 6psi with the stock fuel system, which is close to maxing the injectors. Megasquirt will be my EMS of choice for my 200rwhp goal. Injectors and maybe a fuel pump being the logical upgrades before hitting that goal.

Don't mean to be a dick, but I've done a ton of research. This isn't a hopeless "let's see if it will work" adventure. My fabricator has previous experience with turbos, and I have *some*.

And the "turning off the turbo on the highway" thing you are refferring to is the stock bypass valve. People are 50/50 on the theory that the stock BPV allows air to flow around the compressor during cruising. It's never really been proven. But I will have one of those BPVs at first also.

Yea not without some serious tuning, likely by a pro. That said I still want to see this done.

Weasy2k, nobody really knows what this engine will take. Nobody has sat down with a large turbo, a good EMS, and a bulletproof HG and tested the limits of the bottom end.

In my research I have found that 99% of FI engine failures are not due to sheer power alone, but due to bad tuning. Any time you might see pictures of a holed piston, broken ring lands, broken rings, bent rods, holes in blocks, etc, it's usually not due to sheer power, but detonation/etc. So let's throw enough boost, fuel, and retarded ignition at it and see what it takes! lol

I've been wanting to do this for 5 years. I finally have the income to do it. ALL the parts are ordered. The labor part is 3 weeks or so away. It WILL be done. If it doesn't work, you guys will either get to see photos of carnage or an incomplete project.

Im not saying you didnt do research at all :)
Im not much on how to build a tubo system...i know what turbos do what but i suck at fabricating :P
Been tuning for 2 years now and thats what i like to focus on, yes i know tuinng is key...BUT watch that head...i told you whats going tohappen with the heat...keep an eye on it.
Other then that good luck and hope to see what comes of it!

For a second I thought I was looking at a 22R dyno baseline! :roll:

James

I've been waiting to see a stock 3vz-e dyno!!!
phorensic
Which CT26 is it? A CT26a off a 7m-gte, or a ct26 off a 3s-gte? Either way 200whp is easy as pee to make. That's only 240-260bhp depending on which transmission you have.
(I've not done the math on a 3vz-e) but if that's a CT26a, you need to be prepared to make 200whp + at stock psi (6psi), at a relatively low rpm. After you've tuned it & got some mods going on.

Trust me. CT26's are not small turbo's.

Megasquirts are cool. I've resently been talked into building a MSII for a friend.

What fuel system are you going for; pump, FPR, and injector size?






runethechamp what you feel in acceleration is horsepower. Torque is meaningless, it is a static measurement. Horsepower is torque applied over both time and distance. Horsepower tells you what you can move, how fast you can move it, and the force of acceleration. Torque tells nothing useful. it is simply a value to find horsepower.

SRV1 :nono: ya... Until you realized that a 22r doesn't have over a hundred horsepower @ 3,000rpm. Christ they struggle to make 100bhp at all. https://www.yotatech.com/forums/images/smilies/roll.gif

3vz-e Compression Ratio & Effective Compression Ratios under boost at PEAK volumetric efficiency:

Stock - 9:1
5psi - 10.33:1
7psi - 11.27:1
9psi - 12.22:1
11psi - 13.17:1
14.7psi - 14.92:1



While Toyota gaskets of the time all had problems & the 3vz-e is obviously the largest of all - they *technically* are OK to compression ratios between 11 & 12:1.

7-8 psi is not going to be a problem. 9psi shouldn't, 10 may not be. The obvious question.
"Oh but why? That's higher than the 11-12:1 CR the gaskets are likely to max out from."
Remember... This is peak effective compression ratio. Volumetric efficiency will rise to it's peak CR (Calculated above) then fall off sharply. (Very sharply on those craptastic stock cams!)
Obviously... The engine isn't going to spend that much time @ peak VE, so exceeding it shouldn't make much of a big deal.



Remember... The 1/2mz-fe's, along with several i4's of the time were sporting greater than 10:1 compression ratios on the same style gasket (Before the '96 new gaskets & 97 MLS's) & they're expected to run that all day, every day until they die.

when i rebuild the 4runner here i will be looking at the fuel rail and what not to see what kind of options i can do for upgrades. Prob be very easy with the smt6 controling them or something. I would love to see this 12v engine preform decent!

I don't want to mess up this thread with any more discussion abut this, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Had enough physics to figure out these calcs :nerd: . But, if you can show me a set of equations that proves your point I will believe you.

phorensic, this sounds like an interesting project for sure, way past my knowledge and skills on motors. Good luck!

Also i believe from my hydrualics training that torque is applied force...IE the power it takes to MOVE a vehicle, horsepower is how effectivly the force is applied at certain revolutions....it works in my head but torque has ALOT to do with accelration...think of a semi....TQ to HP ratio is leaning GREATLY to torque, imagine that engine in a car...it would do constant burn outs but wont go fast at all...
or look at a tugboat....can go the same speed with a load or without...

Sorry, I just have to give the explanation because I can.

Torque is the rotational equivalent of force. In the same way mass times acceleration equals force, angular acceleration times the inertia of whatever is rotating equals torque.

On the wheels, the torque is applied to the driveshaft. You divide by the radius of the wheel to get a force on the road, and can then again divide by the mass of the car to get the car's acceleration.

Horsepower is torque times angular speed, and can also be measuerd in watts or kilowatts. If you ignore losses from accelerating the drivetrain and wheels, the horsepower should be the same on the drive axle as on the crank. The torque is not, since the transmission and differentials gear down the rotation of the axles. For instance, in 5th gear where I think the transmission has a ratio of 1, the wheel torque is 4.1 (differantial ratio) times your shaft torque, while the rotational speed is the shaft rotational speed divided by 4.1.

It makes sense to me at least.

yea that is in line with what is in my head...but we could have a whole entire about torque/hp relationship :P