Stock bottomend N/A 1UZ- Kelford 207-Es, ITBs, etc etc- What to expect?

[StavFC]

As title really.

Have a 1UZ being built at the moment, and the current plan is to stick to the stock bottomend (but rebuilt), but with Kelford 207-E (286duration) cams and uprated springs, 8 throttles, aftermarket ecu, decent headers, etc etc. Have most these parts already and engine is stripped down (and will have Cometic gaskets and ACL bearings when it's re-installed).

What power/torque can I expect from that? I'm happy to rev to around 8000rpm going by what I've seen. ~400bhp would be nice, but really unsure as heard to many numbers.

Can I skim the heads a little to increase the compression? If so, any idea how much before we end up with issues (either valve/piston ones or other probs)? Looking at the heads, it doesn't look like a lot can be done to the ports, but some would be ok if worth while. No bigger valves etc at this point though.

The 207-Es were advised by Kelford in case anyone wondered why.

Also, are there anything else well worth using? Aftermarket crank damper, etc etc?

Reasoning for stock rods/pistons were to keep things on a sensible budget and mean IF things do go wrong, we can do a quick bottomend swap to keep the car in action.

Any advice/experience welcomed

Cheers

 

[StavFC]

ok, can anyone tell me of a forum where people actually know about 1UZs?

there must be one in the world?

 

[hiluxfan]

The forum with the most knowledgeable people on it is Lextreme.
Give the guys a chance to reply.

 

[gloverman]

Good recommendation on cams. To get good power the heads will need a really good sort out. They are not the best design and guys like kelford give them a really good sort out to make them flow well. Also getting some adjustable cam wheels (intake and exhaust) will allow you to make the most with those cams.

Next bit is make sure you follow best practice when assembling the whole unit and allow plenty of dyno time.

 

[StavFC]

Regarding the head work- It didn't look to us like a whole lot could be done (without going to larger valves)?

Regarding cam wheels- Err, how? There's only one cam gear per head, and the other cam is ran from cogs in the centre of the cams?

 

[gloverman]

BHP needs air flow. 1uz heads standard flow is very average. The guys over here making big power have spent alot of time making the heads flow well. The VVti heads flow alot better in stock trim.

There are adjustable gears for inlet and exhaust. I posted a photo a while back of one example. http://www.lextreme.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14361&highlight=adjustable+cam+gears

The search function works well. Cheers

 

[StavFC]

It doesn't seem to work too well as I've found very little.

Has anyone had N/A results on stock heads with cams they can tell me about?

I don't want to spend big bucks porting heads, and fitting high comp pistons, but I also don't want to be disappointed and end up going turbo not long after building this engine.

 

[JustenGT8]

Probably says more about you than the site How to make friends and influence people whinging pom much

As for your questions, there are no magic tricks for the early UZ. They respond just like most engines of that generation. They were built for torque and do their intended job well. They will still make power n/a but it will be proportional to what you spend.

FI will always be ahead and is pretty well cheaper from the get go. A completely stock engine with a well matched turbo setup and fuelling to match will make 450hp at the tyres all day every day for years.....you just won't get that n/a no matter how much you spend (ie power and longevity).

Add valve springs to the gear you have and it will be a solid combo and make a light car go pretty well.

Merry Xmass

 

[StavFC]

Uprated valve springs are on the list in the OP.

Not whinging, just not found anything much on here, lots of talk but not much proof/details, especially N/A. Even the link posted wasn't much use.

I just imagined there to be a lot more info about than there is, obv' people have done it, but not the kind of people that openly talk about it. Much more info on turbo, not much on N/A.

I'm normally turbo all the way, built countless turbo cars, still have one now, but going N/A on this car, for the first time ever for me, just as I want an engine I can beat on for year(s) on track with nothing more than servicing as they get a seriously hard life on track.
I wouldn't say my turbo cars have ever been unreliable, but I CBA with fixing niggling little problems all the time, and the less things the car has to go wrong, the better.

Hope I don't regret going N/A and adding a turbo after, as that's money spent for nothing...!

 

[XR8tt]

I had my heads CNC . The area where most gain is under valve and through valve guide bowl or pocket area.. If you pull the heads off / apart a simple polish with a
flap wheel, cartridge roll will make a difference..There is a forging ridge there which can be smoothed out..
You DON'T need to take much out to make a difference !!

 

[JustenGT8]

N/A takes revs to make power. Nothing stresses an engine more than revs. A mild turbo setup will take more of a beating than an n/a making anywhere near the power and the turbo will still kill it for torque.

My stock setup (with turbos) did 5 years of hard work in multiple track disciplines and only failed when I started messing with exotic fuels...and getting it wrong this was a 300+rwkw setup. The only n/a engine I know making this power has failed more times than I care to remember....huge $$$ pumped into the thing as well. No criticism of that build, pioneering stuff. But, a pretty stark contrast.

Keep the gear you have and add low boost turbo setup for a better and more reliable result straight up.

What sort of power do you need?

 

[XR8tt]

Yep I agree to above..Why spend 1000's to make 100 h.p or so when you fit a turbo and make 100's h.p, do it easy done right !!! Which is mainly TUNE and keep power levels moderate !!

 

[StavFC]

Good info, thanks, and yeah, it didn't look like much could be done to enlarge the port really, so expected it to be mostly around the valve guide.

Am I likely to hit 400bhp with my spec? The cams Kelford reccomended are 286deg, 9.9mm lift btw.

I'm waiting to hear back to see if skimming the head a little to raise the compression is possible (10:1 is pretty low) without valve to piston issues- I don't want to forge the bottomend- If I was going that far I'd just turbocharge it like I do everything else- I'm trying to keep it simple!

 

[StavFC]

My current thoughts are IF what we are building isn't enough to keep me happy (It's going in a ~900kg car, so 400bhp should be fine) then I'll get some plenums made and a pair of small low boosting turbos will have to be added. Even if it only added 50bhp up top the torque increase from turbos will be massive.

I hope I don't need to though, I really don't, trying to keep this basic, hence N/A and stock (albeit new bearings) bottomend.

 

[gloverman]

Found some photos of a 400rwhp+ car with 1uz. 1uz bored/stroked to 4.5 litres , ITB , motec , awesome headers, big cams , many hours of head porting etc. Built by an extremely experienced engine builder over here. These photos are from 2005 and the car had been running for a few years at that time. The tuning alone was worth thousands. This same car went 1uz supercharged for a while and now is running an American Cast iron Small block V8 and making more power than the mega$$$$ 1uz.

We have plenty of 400+rwhp 1uz's over here running as stock cars. (and I hate to say this but running carbs - yuck) Not unusual for guys to spend 30-50K (and more, lots more) on engines in the top cars. Some of that money is to get a certain engine builders name on their engine.

Often people try to avoid the HP figure game as it seems to start arguements over which dyno , dyno testing techniques etc.

Heres some things I know based upon my own wheel roller dyno and cars with similar engine setups. There will be variance between different cars. All manual and tuned by the same person. Results based on runs in 4th gear with 1 to 1 ratios.

Stock engine with stock manifolds - around 135-150rwkw.
Add aftermarket ECU - around 150-160rwkw with better torque

Throw stock manifolds away and fit long 4 into 1 headers or 4 into 2 into 1 headers with 38mm primary pipes - around 175rwkw with better torque. This is our most popular setup we build in our conversions.

Stock manifolds suck - Ive tested crown logs , Soarer mids , And wides UCF10, UCF20 , UZS151. Aftermarket ECU gives a small gain on its own but much bigger with headers. Stock ECU with aftermarket headers give very small gain power gain and small torque gain.

Add ITB's to this setup. Next to no gain in power across the range over ECU/header setup. Throttle response feels much improved. Something else is now the restriction. Sounds awesome though

Add mild cams to ITB- good increase to around 230rwkw.
Add mild cams without ITB - I havent done this one myself yet but had another guy who reported similar results to the ones above who got 220rwkw with cams and stock intake.

Thats pretty much what you are heading towards with more aggressive cams.

Sorry we work on budgets too so no big ported headed have been tested along the same lines.

We ran our stock bottom ends out to 7000rpm. Stock car guys run them harder and they have quite a few fail at 7500 and plenty fail at 8000rpm. I beleive the stock bottom ends dont like going that far. 20 series rev much better but I get similar power and torque figures between early and late motors. Just working on figures for VVti engines but their base numbers seem to start higher at around 190.

Then turbo setups - stock engine , turbo(or two), injectors and tune - 247rwkw 8psi , 250rwkw 10psi(same engine with 15 made 300) , 260rwkw 10psi (auto) etc etc. If you want exception turbo results check over our resident turbo expert (guru even) Justin. He has done amasing things with 1uz's while pushing the air in (other than using the atmosphere to push it in that is) You wil also see his posts span years.

Im not trying to convince you of going turbo. I personally have sold off my early engine turbo setup and swapping to a 4.3 VVti NA in the same vehicle. Aiming for 215rwkw(will settle for 200) and 10litres/100km on an unopened engine.

What you actually end up with could be very different. I think you would get a more drivable engine if you went with 1uz VVti engine with cams (We have one of these in the pipeline somewhere done the track). I still think your idea of ITB's , cams with light head porting on a stock bottom end is a really good setup but I dont think you will quite hit your wanted power figure. The engine is only one part of the car and set up correctly it could work really well.

If you read a few posts similar to this at this point someone says "what about a LS1?, LS2? etc" and I agree. The 1uz is an awesome engine but they are what they are.

 

[StavFC]

Great info, thanks!

I actually meant 400@flywheel- I knew I had no chance of 400whp- Sorry, in the UK we're still used to using BS flywheel figures and I forget sometimes when posting on forums not based in the UK!

By the sounds of it, I am probably best off sticking with the setup as planned (slightly concerned about the cams being too wild, but the car is very light so hopefully no issue- I would love to see a dyno to see where they're likely to make power though!), and if I'm not happy with the performance there's nothing about the setup that would stop a couple of turbos being added in the future if need be.

Thanks for the info :

EDIT- Regarding the LS series. Yes, normally it makes a whole lot of sense if you in the correct country, BUT in this country, pretty much everything LS related is imported, and carries a big price hike too, so even a simple setup ends up costing £7000+. The 5.3 truck lumps that cost £400 in the USA are £1500 here! And then you got to buy a gearbox, etc etc etc.
Big bonus of the 1UZ is it's stupidly light, far lighter than even I thought- The complete engine weighs less than a bare Skyline RB engine block from one of my other cars. Ridiculous really.

 

[JustenGT8]

Good post there Gloverman, spells it out nicely I think.

StavFC, I don't think your cams are too wild at all and in a 900kg car your planned setup sounds fine. As advised, keep the revs 7500 and lower and it should hang together OK. A light flywheel and clutch setup will help too. Even 400 flywheel will still be a stretch but you won't need it in such a light car....that would be ballistic power to weight and similar to my current 650 hp combo which is quite frankly mad to drive

 

[XR8tt]

What is the LSA on those cams ??
One thing these engines do have is rpm and wide power
band. In light car its worth another 100 h.p [to a point] compared to
pushrod motors..
Yes NZ stock cars have developed these engines for quite some time !!!
Good write up Gloverman...

 

[gloverman]

Thanks guys. Looking back Ive managed to try a few different setups now. I miss the dyno but it was sold as I leased it and the investor sold it. Most of the graphs went with it. Cheers

 

[StavFC]

Merry Xmas all.

What is the LSA on those cams ??

Here's the cam card for the 207Es they suggested...

http://www.camshaftshop.com/uploads/Shoppingcart/207-E.pdf

They advertise them as an expected 3000-7500rpm power band, and while midrange performance is something I really do want still, it doesn't need to have tons below 3k, that's for sure.