[evomind]

yes, but i was referring to peak horsepower

 

[Illusive]

yes, but i was referring to peak horsepower

well concidering the stock low speed lobe falls flat on its face at 5K the bigger low lobe on the regrind will have the potential to produce as much if not more power than the high cam by 7K if my calculations are correct.

it should have a large increase in torque from 4500+

which is why I'd say it probably wont be streetable because accel before 4500 will most likely be mediocre at best.


and yes the lift change over makes no difference at what rpm you set but from the numbers i've run it seems as though 7K might end up being the optimum set up.

with the bigger low speed lobe the transition between cams will also be smoother, and you wont get that nasty upsettling on lift/no lift operation, especially mid corner

Dont get me wrong were going for peak hp, but theres also the most important factor which is power under the curve. With the bigger low lobe the powerband at 6K-7K will be conciderably higher than the stock cams. This will greatly improve acceleration, and also in autox since most of the time is spent between 4K-7K

For visual reference if we look at the 193hp celica dyno, you can see the low speed lobe is running out of breath right at about 5K, and you can see the ramp in hp start to steadily decrease. Until lift kicks on at 6K then the powerspike from the difference in cams is very sudden until about 7K then it starts to taper off and fall at about 8300. The change to the lowspeed lobe will remove the drop off from 5K and make the cam produce power at a simmilar rate to the high speed lobe at 6K, not as sudden but a gradual increase in power up utill somewhere in the 6700-7K range where it will start to taper off, and the bigger high speed lobe will take over.

Those were the main reasons for going with such an agressive low speed lobe, especially when we knew daily drivability would be an issue. I believe the company will also be offering a more toned down version that may be compatable with the stock ecu, but we'll just have to see. So far any cams that have been bolted up to the stock ecu haven't been able to make power without some kind of management allowing for vvt adjustments.

 

[evomind]

illusive,
i love what im hearing so far.....i dont really care abt performance under 4k anyway....(why in the hell are u down there anyway on a high revving engine?)
now tell me what u can do with the top cam.....can u make power to 9500 or more? that would be awesome....
i just think to make an awesome lower cam that makes more power at 7k than the stock upper cam only to have the party come to an end at 8500, 8600 rpms is a waste and a bit of a shame.

 

[Illusive]

illusive,
i love what im hearing so far.....i dont really care abt performance under 4k anyway....(why in the hell are u down there anyway on a high revving engine?)
now tell me what u can do with the top cam.....can u make power to 9500 or more? that would be awesome....
i just think to make an awesome lower cam that makes more power at 7k than the stock upper cam only to have the party come to an end at 8500, 8600 rpms is a waste and a bit of a shame.

I'd like to say yes, but unfortunately there just arent any dynos yet. From what i gather the stock springs and valves start to experience small amounts of valve float past 8300 rpms, nothing engine killing but enough to drop off on power, It may be as simple as installing stronger springs to stop the drop off in power, its all just calculated guess work since most of it is uncharted territory. Worst case senario it could even be the intake manifold just cant flow enough air at those rpms and then we'd have to get started on another project

I do know that the stock cams duration and lift should be good for making power to 9K the honda ITR has a less agressive high lift profile and will make power up to there with upgraded valvetrain, and our heads flow comparably. When we actually tested the duration of the stock cams we were suprised that they weren't closer to the advertized lift and duration. it was somewhere in the 260's for duration and I believe advertized is 270ish.

I'd like to see a port & polished head with aftermarket springs dynoed on the stock cams to see if its the head that is causing the sudden drop in power or if its just the cam. But since our car will have both done at the same time we'll only see the finished product and not each one separatly.

 

[BrettP]

I'm not going to steal force feds thunder, so I'll just say my car club is prototyping some regrinds for one of our n/a celicas. Cant release any info on them because they arent ours but another company's. That 2zz will also have a port & polish job done by Industrial Flow, his head is currently being worked on, and stiffer springs will be used, but the head company believes the stock valves can out flow the mwr valves with some valve work to them so the stock valves will be utilized.

What I can say about the profiles is that we went big on the low lob, (daily drivability will suffer but the car will not be streetable once were done with it) and we'll most likely have to move the lift engagement back to near 7K or so, but we hope to greatly improve the midrange and the lift transition, and just a touch up top to make power to 9200+

BTW this will be stuffed into the same celica that went 13.7's @102mph n/a @170whp. Curb weight was just under 2350 with out driver.

Our goal is 12.9's n/a with a curb weight of about 2250 and 220whp but we may need to go the stroker route to get there, we'll just have to wait and see.

I'm really interested in forcefed's development of their n/a cams and how well they fair. Crower apparantly has a renewed interest in 2zz cams also, and has stated several times their working on finding a core manufactuer to begin prototyping.

We are ramping up our production run on the cams because of the overwhelming interest. It is very expensive to do runs on this particular cam as the design inhibits your ability to do regrinds like on other cams(Acura ect) The Toyota cams are a work of art and a pain in the butt to make an improved design and are actually pieced together like a jig saw puzzle! It would have been great to simply do a regrind on the factory units but unfortunately this is not possible in this case. You cannot safely regrind these cams as they have a press fit design and are not engineered to handle loads outside of the factory profile. There are 15 pieces in this cam assembly!

 

[Illusive]

You cannot safely regrind these cams as they have a press fit design and are not engineered to handle loads outside of the factory profile. There are 15 pieces in this cam assembly!

care to elaborate on why you feel a regrind isn't possible with these cams.

I'd like to congratulate you on putting the effort into development. The ceilca community has been waiting some 5+ years for someone to step up and start making cams.

BTW have you test fit the new baffled oil pan on a celica yet? i'm like the first guy in line once we know they fit. I've already lost one engine due to oil starvation and high cornering g's.

 

[BrettP]

care to elaborate on why you feel a regrind isn't possible with these cams.

I'd like to congratulate you on putting the effort into development. The ceilca community has been waiting some 5+ years for someone to step up and start making cams.

BTW have you test fit the new baffled oil pan on a celica yet? i'm like the first guy in line once we know they fit. I've already lost one engine due to oil starvation and high cornering g's.

Hello,
The regrind is "possible" but not advisable as it places loads on the lobes that they were not designed to see. This cam is not a single billet piece but a multi pieced cam design with press fit lobes. I am sure you can grind on them, as we already tried that. Unfortunalety running stress tests on the cams produced results that were not acceptable to us. Hence the reason for the new blanks we now have that we are grinding as we speak. Look for dyno results on both an engine dyno and chassis dynos.

 

[Illusive]

Hello,
Unfortunalety running stress tests on the cams produced results that were not acceptable to us.

would you be willing to share the data from your stress testing?

Don't get me wrong new blanks are by far the best route to go but its usually costly.

Although with the regrinds we had made we had to order custom valve shims, because toyota didn't make the sizes we need. That bumped the cost up conciderably. We didn't want to have to start removing links from the timing chain so we decided to go the custom shim route.

 

[TimMullen]

order custom valve shims, <...> We didn't want to have to start removing links from the timing chain so we decided to go the custom shim route.

Exactly how do you adjust valve lash by removing links in the timing chain. Or do anything else other than change the length of the timing chain?

 

[Stan]

>>>than the high cam by 7K if my calculations are correct. it should have a large increase in torque from 4500+ which is why I'd say it probably wont be streetable because accel before 4500 will most likely be mediocre at best.<<<

A low cam that can "make it" to about 6000 does not need to kill the low end. It may just need some more lift/duration on the intake side, leaving the small exhaust lobes alone or little changed. On many engines such a strategy can help keep a powerband broad.

 

[Illusive]

Exactly how do you adjust valve lash by removing links in the timing chain. Or do anything else other than change the length of the timing chain?

the ones we are prototyping are regrinds.

we reground the cam lobes only and left the rest of the cam untouched.

Since your removing metal from the cam lobe it will no longer make the proper contact with the valve stem caps (i call em shims) so you have to get bigger shims to fill the void. this adds a bit of valvetrain weight but with the stronger springs we should be able to get away with it.

the other method is to grind down the core so so that it will sit in approx the same location as the stock cam but just lower down thus eliminating the need for custom shims

The problem with method #2 is that you usually have to remove a link or 2 from the timing chain in order to keep tension on the chain and to keep it from slipping off during normal operation, and you also run into issues with getting the proper sized shim for the cam bridges.

 

[Stan]

Interestingly enough....Toyota themselves now have a higher midrange torque version of the 2ZZ with reputed cam and possibly intake manifold changes. I'm reading that the motor is rated at 170 HP instead of the normal Toyota 180 HP for this motor, but some say this is just a marketing thing. In any event peak torque is claimed at 4400 instead of 6800 RPMs. The motors come in the latest Corolla XRS and Matrix XRS cars it seems. If true such an engine would be net faster in autocross, and possibly faster overall if the top end is the same as before.

 

[Illusive]

Interestingly enough....Toyota themselves now have a higher midrange torque version of the 2ZZ with reputed cam and possibly intake manifold changes. I'm reading that the motor is rated at 170 HP instead of the normal Toyota 180 HP for this motor, but some say this is just a marketing thing. In any event peak torque is claimed at 4400 instead of 6800 RPMs. The motors come in the latest Corolla XRS and Matrix XRS cars it seems. If true such an engine would be net faster in autocross, and possibly faster overall if the top end is the same as before.

its just different tuning.

on the pfc i hit a torque spike at about 4500 rpms close to that and thats wtq not claimed flywheel tq.

they also changed the lift change over to 6500 rpms and redline at 8450 or 100 rpms later.

claimed wtq is 127@4400 rpms vs celica claimed at 130wtq @ 6800 rpms.

they still make peak torque near 6800 they just market that it makes 127 @ 4400.

 

[raggedy1]

stupid question:

doesn't our engine have a timing BELT and not a chain?

 

[Illusive]

stupid question:

doesn't our engine have a timing BELT and not a chain?

no it uses a timing chain.

there is a serpentine belt that drives the accesories like the water pump/alternator/ac ect.

 

[raggedy1]

no it uses a timing chain.

there is a serpentine belt that drives the accesories like the water pump/alternator/ac ect.

thanks for the info. so, lazy me, when do we have to service the chain? i know toyota used to require timing belt replacement every 60K miles...

 

[Illusive]

thanks for the info. so, lazy me, when do we have to service the chain? i know toyota used to require timing belt replacement every 60K miles...

there are 2zzs with over 150K miles on the stock timing chain.

it should last the life of your engine.

 

[matrixTRD]

:wave: AS IT IS THE STATUS OF CAMSHAFT 2ZZGE?I AM INTERESTED IN THEM :up:

 

[Manny]

ANY updates?

 

[ToyotaGuy23]

Interestingly enough....Toyota themselves now have a higher midrange torque version of the 2ZZ with reputed cam and possibly intake manifold changes. I'm reading that the motor is rated at 170 HP instead of the normal Toyota 180 HP for this motor, but some say this is just a marketing thing. In any event peak torque is claimed at 4400 instead of 6800 RPMs. The motors come in the latest Corolla XRS and Matrix XRS cars it seems. If true such an engine would be net faster in autocross, and possibly faster overall if the top end is the same as before.

its just different tuning.

on the pfc i hit a torque spike at about 4500 rpms close to that and thats wtq not claimed flywheel tq.

they also changed the lift change over to 6500 rpms and redline at 8450 or 100 rpms later.

claimed wtq is 127@4400 rpms vs celica claimed at 130wtq @ 6800 rpms.

they still make peak torque near 6800 they just market that it makes 127 @ 4400.

Here is my Corolla XRS baseline dyno. Figure the torque peak for yourself. Not trying to hijack the thread, just thought you might be interested.