</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by elripster:
<strong>Do we have reason to believe that the headgaskets are weaker than normal after repair? I ask because I have 270,000 miles on mine and it runs like a top. It did get the gaskets swapped under the recall.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Yeah, but its apples to oranges. You are claiming reliability after the HG upgrade repair for a NA engine. Fair claim. He is considering blowing it. If the NA stock design makes great demands on the headgasket, but a decent headgasket's failure mode just exceeds the demands, will the 3.0 not make demands exceeding the failure threshold if blown?

Good money after bad in that case, you'd have a good blower and a toasted engine and have spent as much as an ever-more-painless 3.4 swap. Just doesn't make sense.

Why would we think that for example, my motor's head gaskets are marginally more robust than they need to be to survive?

Maybe they are on par with any other head gasket.

But, maybe not. If the cost of the supercharger were less money it would be one thing but with the availability of the 3.4 which will readily accept the SC it's the best deal for sure.

I'm curious, you say "NA" and I assume you mean non applicable. What would be different between my year and say a '92 before the repair? What is different after the repair? My HG's were covered by the dealer so someone thought the motor was applicable and my truck is a pre 03/89 truck.

Frank.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by elripster:
<strong>
I'm curious, you say "NA" and I assume you mean non applicable. What would be different between my year and say a '92 before the repair? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Naturally aspirated Frank. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Clifton down in Arizona is the only one who has put boost through a 3.0L (I am sure that there are others out there...) and AFAIK it is holding up pretty well. I warn anyone who thinks that they can just slap a turbocharger or supercharger on to their motor (or nitrous for that matter) that it is not that easy and if you don't make the proper upgrades ($$$) you will get bit.

Oh yeah.... how did I miss that... I'm slipping or something. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Frank.

Anyone ever hgear anything else about this? Was this an april fools joke or something?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by elripster:
<strong>Why would we think that for example, my motor's head gaskets are marginally more robust than they need to be to survive?

Maybe they are on par with any other head gasket.

But, maybe not. If the cost of the supercharger were less money it would be one thing but with the availability of the 3.4 which will readily accept the SC it's the best deal for sure.

I'm curious, you say "NA" and I assume you mean non applicable. What would be different between my year and say a '92 before the repair? What is different after the repair? My HG's were covered by the dealer so someone thought the motor was applicable and my truck is a pre 03/89 truck.

Frank.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Isn't it still a bit of mystery as to why the Toyota 3.0s were really blowing gaskets in the first place? I know virtually nothing about the 3.0 V-6, but I have some docs on my website about the campaign and as a result I get emails almost daily from V-6 owners. I'm really surprised how many people tell me that they've had one or more failures after having the gaskets replaced. I wonder if maybe some of those failures are due to the poor workmanship on replacing the gaskets, like not resurfacing the heads, since so many other V-6s have lasted many hundreds of thousands of miles.

However, I've heard the problem may not have been the gaskets at all, but rather the lack of the proper number of head studs, or lack of proper torque or something else.

These are questions I'm just curious about. Seems like a few 3.0 V-6s will last forever, but there are still too many of them with repeated gasket failures. Without have a concreat reason as to why this is happening, I would be worried about putting a supercharger on that motor.

Anyway, as for the supercharger cost, that's a huge chunk of change. As mentioned earlier, seems to me a bone stock 3.4 liter would drop right in, with no hassle, and cost about half as much for probably the exact same power increase. Take part of that $3000 and put it into the 3.4 supercharger and you'd have real rocket. Reliable too.

<small>[ June 19, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Brian894X4 ]</small>

Funny Brian you should mention the head resurfacing. My truck, when it went in, came out with one new head and the other rebuilt. I assume the rebuilt one was resurfaced as that's part of the job. Anyway, it might explain my engine's longetivity. It also might be a clue to why others have problems after the repair and even to what the root cause is. I think from a marketing standpoint, I'd rather blame a bad gasket (read vendors fault) than bad machining (read bad quality control).

Another guy on the ORC board about 1.5 years ago, after a mileage poll of vbangers Vs. V6, claimed 365,000 miles and climbing.

Part of the reason I think the 3.0 is more reliable is from that poll. Hands down the V6's kicked the 4bangers butts all over. I mean really bad. Most 4 cyl guys were doing headgaskets in the mid 100'000's out their own wallets. At least the 3.0 people didn't have to pay the dough. Most had described their 4 bangers as "tired" at 200,000. The V6's pulled all they ever could until they croaked completely.

I think when you talk about a 2wd truck that doesn't weigh as much and has less drag, the differences between the 4 cylinder and V6 get very small in longetivity. However, add big tires, lots of weight, lots of rolling/wind resistence, hard trail use, and you have your 4 cylinder foot to the floor a whole lot more than a V6's. That's just plain hard on a motor no matter how you look at it.

PS, if you scan these boards, there are WAY more posts about 4 cylinder rebuilds and V6's. I kinda trip out on the perception the 3.0 is less reliable, when I look around I just don't see that. It's just not very powerful for a V6 and really is too small in comparrison to the competition's motors.

Just remember, I don't have to "take my time", "Not be in a hurry", "take is easy", or "be patient". I put my foot down, the truck accelerates. Not a rocket, but with the 4.88's and 33's, I never have trouble top gear passing on the freeway. In fact that speedo is passing 90mph a little to quick for comfort. How many stock 4 bangers can claim that?

Frank.

I'd dare say that the real problem with the 3.0 is not that they aren't very reliable, its that when they do have a problem, it is a real pain to fix. The spark plugs are a pain to get to. The vacuum lines are a nightmare. Book rate on a knock sensor works about to around $1000! Headgaskets are a much bigger job on the V6 than they are on the 4.

I just sold my V6 4Runner. I had lots of problems with the valves, but I think that is due to a poorly done valve job and the cams. The 4 bangers I've had are definately lacking power. However, with the exception of the fuel filter, just about everything is easier to work on.

That said, I'm going for the 7MGE swap on my 85. The 22RE just isn't cutting it up the hills. Swapping in a V6 is much tougher than doing the 7M swap.

Hey give the 3.0 some credit it may not be toyotas best but its better than 90% of any thing else on the road. I was told the head gasket problem was due to toyota discontinuing asbestos in the gaskets in late 1990 (thats why the 89,s dont appear to have as many problems . As for a supercharger knowing what I know now I wouldnt have put one on my 3.4 (ping)

I don't know...I think the R series 4 cylinders have proven themselves over and over and over again to almost always exceed 200K miles and sometimes twice that or more on a regular basis.

I think that almost all 4 cylinder head gasket problems can be traced to the motor being overheated at some point. And I don't think headgasket failure in the 4 cylinder is really that common.

The reason you hear of all these problems with 4 cylinders instead of the V-6 is because there far more 4 cylinder Toyota trucks out there. From 1979 through 1987, there were only 4 cylinders. And from then on, the V-6s only comprised of half or perhaps far less of all the truck produced.

I won't argue against the Toyota V-6 being an excellent engine. After all, it is Toyota designed and has an overbuilt quality to it. Toyota was able to use the same block as the 3.0 V-6 and pump 1/3 more power out of it and even more than that with the supercharger when it designed the 3.4 V-6 and it's still factory Toyota reliable.

They just screwed up the head design or gasket design on the 3.0 V-6 somehow, that's all.

But for simplicity sakes, there's a lot to be said for the old reliable 22R motors. They are cheap and easy to work on and since so many were made from 1982 through 1995 (Here in the U.S.) parts are more than abundent.