Notices
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners 2nd/3rd gen pickups, and 1st/2nd gen 4Runners with IFS

3VZ, Cylinders .030 over

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 8, 2008 | 07:16 AM
  #1  
sven911t's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Exclamation 3VZ, Cylinders .030 over

Hello all,

I just joined and already i am seeing that this forum is a tremendous asset to Yota owners. Thanks to all for all the great info!

I recently purchased a 95 4Runner that was oil starved, engine pulled and left for dead. The machine shop is telling me that we will likely need to go .030 over to get the cylinders cleaned up.

Will this change my compression ratio, and should I be concerned about additional fuel/air flow to cover the increase in cylinder volume?

Thanks for any help.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 07:30 AM
  #2  
1stgen4gunner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 809
Likes: 1
From: Connecticut
ooh, that dont sound like fun, if you bore it .030 to get it cleaned up there are a couple things that will happen, you will have a bit more power at the foot, however you will be sacrificing gas mileage, but dont worry not by much, gas flow should stay the same you might have to get a bigger spark, but nothing serious, if the garage knows what there doing than there should be no problem. I dont know about the compression ratio, but i assume since the volume of the cylinder is larger it would change a little bit. Im guessing the engine is seized and seized engines are never fun.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 07:34 AM
  #3  
1stgen4gunner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 809
Likes: 1
From: Connecticut
wait scratch what I said about gas up above if you have fuel injection instead of a carburetor, in that case you may have to increase the gas flow.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 07:41 AM
  #4  
sven911t's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
That's what I was afraid of. I am trying to keep this build as stock as possible and oversize injectors add expense that i don't want. I agree with you, I think the additional volume will cause a lean run condition unless I get more fuel in there.
As far as the compression ratio, I think it would remain the same since the amount of air brought in, is the same amount being compressed, just more!
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 08:01 AM
  #5  
mastacox's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 2
From: Fort Worth, TX
The engine's ECU has an oxygen sensor and will automatically increase fuel delivery to stay at or close to stoichiometric AFR. Boring .030 over isn't much, so you should be fine.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 08:45 AM
  #6  
MonsterMaxx's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 614
Likes: 1
From: Greenville, SC
You would be a fool to rebuild the 3.turd, for the $ you'll spend rebuilding it you could have swapped in a 3.4 and really have something to work with.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 09:22 AM
  #7  
sven911t's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
I couldn't agree more on the 3.4 swap. I am sure there are many posts on here about doing just that, but don't you think that I would be well over $1600 for a low mileage donor?
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 09:24 AM
  #8  
sven911t's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Thanks Mastacox!
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 10:11 AM
  #9  
MonsterMaxx's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 614
Likes: 1
From: Greenville, SC
You will NOT be able to rebuild a 3.turd for $1600. Not going to happen. You might find some used bone yard engine for that, but why bother.
I just DIY'd mine last year. I already had all the good crap, all it needed was the enginblder full kit (it cracked a piston), machining and labor. I figured it's nutz to do a full rebuild w/o doing a valve job, so I added enginblder's OS valves which added $60 to the build.

I DIY everything but the machining and shortblock assy (R&I, full dissassembly, assembly of the engine, etc) and spent $2200.

If you don't have the abilities I have to do much of that work, you can just add more $$ to the job.

There's several reports of people getting a 3.4 swap FINISHED for $2k.
I'm still kicking myself for not tossing the 3.turd in the trash and going 3.4

Last edited by MonsterMaxx; May 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 11:11 AM
  #10  
JonnyBoy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,580
Likes: 1
From: Park City, UT
To add to this, if you go .030 over on a 390 Ford engine(not apples to apples, but bear with me, it's what I have lots of experience rebuilding), you only gain roughly 6 cubic inches. That's a 6.4l, so the math roughly figures a 3.0 is 183 ci. Even if you gain 3 ci from an .030 bore change, you're only making it a 3.04 liter. Not enough for fuel system changes, IMO, unless you're going hi-po and increasing compression, bigger cam, whatnot else. I do agree that since you're at a point to do a swap, why not? There's more performance products available, and from what I've heard, people usually get better fuel mileage outta the 3.4 too. More power, more fuel mileage...win win?
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 11:17 AM
  #11  
sven911t's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Thanks MonsterMaxx and JonnyBoy, I think I'll stew on it for a bit and see if I come across a good donor truck. Any suggestions or threads that would give me a good synopsis of the hardware required for the changeover?

Last edited by sven911t; May 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 11:23 AM
  #12  
ozziesironmanoffroad's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,002
Likes: 1
From: Spring Valley, CA
cherry picker, tools, know how, soldering gun, electrical knowledge, adapters. i think thats about it. oh, and yotatech for reference.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 11:23 AM
  #13  
mmcpeck's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 593
Likes: 1
From: Long Island, NY
I agree completely with the 3.4 swap, even if you spend $500 extra, it's worth it.

I had my '91 3.slow (or 3.turd as it's being called here) rebuilt, but it was by Toyota under the head gasket recall, I was hoping for a new short block, but they tore it down and did a rebuild instead, since nothing was wrong with the block. It was free so that was cool, but if I was paying, I would have put a 3.4 in in a second, no question.

My 3slow gets about 15mpg after the rebuild, still a dog, not sure how much over they went, but I have to assume it was .030 over, that is pretty standard for a rebuild.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 11:28 AM
  #14  
rdharper's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
From: Morgan Hill, Ca
Originally Posted by sven911t
As far as the compression ratio, I think it would remain the same since the amount of air brought in, is the same amount being compressed, just more!
As an exercise, I calculated compression ratio for a 0.03 bore increase on the 3.0L engine. Assuming the head is stock... I get a change from 9.00 to 9.16.

This assumes the volume at TDC is unchanged by the bore increase which should be a valid assumption if the head is stock. Not having actually seen the head design.... makes this an assumption.
Reply
Old May 8, 2008 | 11:45 AM
  #15  
1stgen4gunner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 809
Likes: 1
From: Connecticut
yup I agree with everyone else, if my engine was burned i'd get the 3.4 it's got more power and it's better on gas, you cant lose.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
matmattmatthew
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners (Build-Up Section)
10
Feb 9, 2021 04:15 PM
4.34runner88
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
19
Feb 7, 2016 02:24 AM
Obmi
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
46
Nov 24, 2015 11:37 AM
Obmi
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
14
Oct 30, 2015 04:27 PM
eggens
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
25
Oct 27, 2015 03:14 PM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:37 PM.