Stroker Cranks

[KweazI]

Sorry I'm new to these engines and was just wondering if there are any stroker cranks for this engine?
Do the cranks from the infiniti fit this engine also?
Thanks

 

[Drizt]

Are there any off the shelf cranks that can be put in a 1uzfe... ??? who sells them and what are they worth ?

 

[1UZ-HZ]

I'm only guessing, but I rekon TRD might...they do billet cams for *UZ's(or so I read) and the V8's in the JGTC cars are 5.4 litres

 

[R-Jay]

i doubt you can get the same 5.4 billet items they use in the JGTC... they're race items.. weren't designed for sale... though i would love to be wrong...

only options as far as i know are other xUZ cranks... the 2uz is 4.7l... fairly nice size... wont rev as hard though.

 

[Lextreme II]

2UZFE crank will be a nice step up, but not sure the specs.

 

[turboandrew]

The 2UZ has only a slightly longer stroke, and it will rev no problem. Its stroke is still shorter than the 2JZ motors, which in stock form can rev to 8000 rpm with no issues. Most of the displacement difference between the 1UZ and 2UZ is the bore.

 

[JBrady]

2UZFE looks to have a 94mm bore and 84mm stroke. Since the 1UZFE is 87.5 x 82.5 and the 3UZFE is 91 x 82.5... the 2UZ crank is only a 1.5mm upgrade.

Stock 1UZFE is 3969cc
add 1.5mm and the new displacement is 4041cc... not worth the trouble.

Here is a Club Lexus member, Jim Meader, who said they ordered the 2UZFE pistons, sleeves and crankshaft and installed in his 1UZFE.

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...&perpage=15&highlight=Jim Meader&pagenumber=2

Now, he says 4.9 liters but that does not make sense since it should be 4.7 liters. I do not know if overbore service sizes are available but using say a 96mm piston (vs. 94mm stock) would give 4865cc so maybe that is what happened.

Either way, very expensive and not cost effective.

 

[Lextreme II]

John,

Its funny, I just talked to Jim Meader earlier today via telephone and we talked about 20 minutes or so. Here is an email i got from him few days ago.

"I have a 1992 SC400, which has been built out to 4.9 liters via resleeving and the use of Tundra dished pistons and a Tundra crank. Static compression is 9.6 to 1. The heads were O-Ringed and a very minor port cleaning, not really head porting.

The cams were cleaned up and the heals were ground down to provide greater lift. The intake was installed 3 degrees retarded to increase cylinder fill at RPM. The net affect is the premium gas is still required as it knocks with anything less.

I have a set of the Australian headers with new high flow cats (2.5 inch) as well as all new 2.5 inch pipes and mufflers. The headers were installed with the tube that connects to the intake manifold at the EGR valve. I need to block that, just have not gotten around to it.

The ECU was modified based on the stock engine and still runs fine. New high volume fuel pump with max 60 lbs pressure. As of now it runs best at stock fuel pressure settings. The intake has a K&N, and the the filter housing has been opened up for max air flow. The air sensor piece was modified by eliminating the screen and using a Drumel tool to grind out and smooth out the housing for better air flow

The trany has a new stall converter, the rear end has a limited slip.

The above dynoed at 240 rwhp and 272 lbs of torque. It was pig rich at max rpm so there is more to get with playing with the fuel and timing maps - another project. The ECU richened the mixture from 5,600 RPM to to 6,500 and ended up at 11 to 1. The engine has about 10,000 miles on it and is a daily driver.


Thanks


Jim Meader"

John,

How much over bore the needed for the 1uzfe to gain an additional .3 liter? Perhaps we can bore out our block with custom pistons to get the additional .3 liter like the 3UZFE (4.3 Liter)

 

[Drizt]

John,

Its funny, I just talked to Jim Meader earlier today via telephone and we talked about 20 minutes or so. Here is an email i got from him few days ago.

"I have a 1992 SC400, which has been built out to 4.9 liters via resleeving and the use of Tundra dished pistons and a Tundra crank. Static compression is 9.6 to 1. The heads were O-Ringed and a very minor port cleaning, not really head porting.

The cams were cleaned up and the heals were ground down to provide greater lift. The intake was installed 3 degrees retarded to increase cylinder fill at RPM. The net affect is the premium gas is still required as it knocks with anything less.

I have a set of the Australian headers with new high flow cats (2.5 inch) as well as all new 2.5 inch pipes and mufflers. The headers were installed with the tube that connects to the intake manifold at the EGR valve. I need to block that, just have not gotten around to it.

The ECU was modified based on the stock engine and still runs fine. New high volume fuel pump with max 60 lbs pressure. As of now it runs best at stock fuel pressure settings. The intake has a K&N, and the the filter housing has been opened up for max air flow. The air sensor piece was modified by eliminating the screen and using a Drumel tool to grind out and smooth out the housing for better air flow

The trany has a new stall converter, the rear end has a limited slip.

The above dynoed at 240 rwhp and 272 lbs of torque. It was pig rich at max rpm so there is more to get with playing with the fuel and timing maps - another project. The ECU richened the mixture from 5,600 RPM to to 6,500 and ended up at 11 to 1. The engine has about 10,000 miles on it and is a daily driver.


Thanks


Jim Meader"

John,

How much over bore the needed for the 1uzfe to gain an additional .3 liter? Perhaps we can bore out our block with custom pistons to get the additional .3 liter like the 3UZFE (4.3 Liter)

the figures quoted above are very poor for a 4.9 litre 1uzfe... i would have been thinking at least 300rwHP and at least 320rw ftlb......

but as he says it is not tuned right at all.....

 

[JBrady]

the figures quoted above are very poor for a 4.9 litre 1uzfe... i would have been thinking at least 300rwHP and at least 320rw ftlb......

but as he says it is not tuned right at all.....

Drizt, using a 22% drivetrain loss = 308hp/349tq. I agree that the hp is far from optimized but it is still a 78hp gain if you accept my theory on the original motors actually only making 230hp not 250hp. If so, the original motor makes (230/4) 57.5hp/liter, and Jim is making (308/4.9) 63hp/liter.

Torque is much improved. Compare with the latest factory 3UZFE at 325tq/4.3 liters = 75.5tq/liter compared to Jims 349tq/4.9 liters = 71tq/liter.

Now, it is my understanding that this engine uses the stock exhaust manifolds... TERRIBLE... and his 2.5" dual exhaust is running a dual in/out catalyst which effectively becomes an H pipe... not optimized. Also the stock intake manifold is not as efficient as a later design. Change to a new intake and good headers and there is probably 50+rwhp to be had.

 

[Zuffen]

JBrady,

You quote 22% transmission loss but wouldn't this run a larger loss percentage due to the extra gearbox?

The transfer case for the 4x4 would absorb heaps of power, plus you would be driving an extra (front) propellor shaft and diff.

I know now you will tell me the Tundra is 2wd.

 

[turboandrew]

I would be very interested in who did the resleeving for him. It's really hard to find someone competent to do this, and I would consider sending a block if they are in the US.

I bet it didn't make as much HP as expected (compared to Tq) because of the heads and intake design. The later 1UZ and 3UZ motors at least -appear- to have far better intake side.

 

[Zuffen]

Wouldn/t it be cheaper and more effective to add cubes by compressed air. Either tutbo or supercharging can artificially overcome a smalish displacement without selling off you children.

I don't see the need for too much more than 600HP on the street as you have trouble keeping drivelines up to engine. Sure there are transmissions out there to handle 1,000 hp and gobs of torque but they change like a truck gearbox because that is what they usually are.

 

[JBrady]

JBrady,

You quote 22% transmission loss but wouldn't this run a larger loss percentage due to the extra gearbox?

The transfer case for the 4x4 would absorb heaps of power, plus you would be driving an extra (front) propellor shaft and diff.

I know now you will tell me the Tundra is 2wd.

Rod, this is not a Tundra. This is an SC400 with the factory 4 speed automatic.

TurboAndrew, I don't think the heads are the restriction but agree that the 1998+ intake manifolds flow better. The stock exhaust manifolds are a serious compromise even at 4.0 liters... at 4.9 liters you have an even bigger problem.

 

[Red Supra]

I bet there is also 50rwhp to be had in leaning it out to 12.5-13.1 a/f as well. 11 to 1 air fuel ratio is fairly rich for turbocharged cars even.
You guys are right about the stock exhaust manifolds absolutley killing the output potential of a big motor like that.

 

[cyberdiamond]

Now, it is my understanding that this engine uses the stock exhaust manifolds... TERRIBLE... and his 2.5" dual exhaust is running a dual in/out catalyst which effectively becomes an H pipe... not optimized. Also the stock intake manifold is not as efficient as a later design. Change to a new intake and good headers and there is probably 50+rwhp to be had.

The stock exhaust manifolds are a serious compromise even at 4.0 liters... at 4.9 liters you have an even bigger problem.

He is not running the standard exhaust, he is running 'long style' Rush (Tex) headers (4-2-1).
Not sure if he is running the big or small pipe version of them though?

 

[highlander]

Hey... how did you guys play with the stock computer and its maps? thanks

 

[JBrady]

He is not running the standard exhaust, he is running 'long style' Rush (Tex) headers (4-2-1).
Not sure if he is running the big or small pipe version of them though?

CD, where do your source this information? The last thread I could find from Jim himself has the following quote;

"The stock exhaust headers seem to flow sufficiently, so most benefit would come from a free flowing system from the headers back. Remember to not go to big as it will reduce the scavenging effect from reduced gas speed."

5th post down on this link.
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...&perpage=15&highlight=Jim Meader&pagenumber=2

Of course I dissagree with him... the stock manifolds are terrible.

 

[cyberdiamond]

The 8th post down in this thread by Lex.
It is a quote of an email he got from Jim saying that he has Australian headers on it.


EDIT: I agree the stock exaust manifolds are poorly designed.
Obviously he has also seen the light!

.

 

[highlander]

again... what has been done to the ECU?