|
|
 Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: Esquire812]
#500871
02/02/05 11:49 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,935
Roll Me Over
|
computerized valve actuator pusher downer thingy and a 110v pluginable ignition system and I'll break down and get me one. Foe Shu. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/drunk.gif" alt="" />
Those computerised valve actuator pusher downer thingy's are where it's at. Everyone is using them. They're the bomb... uh... what the heck are they???? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Brian K. Gallus
I have nothing important to say.
|
|
|
Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: Esquire812]
#500872
02/02/05 11:49 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 895
Rock Warrior
|
Hey now, there's no need to share such pessimism. You might influence Engnbldr to not look into the cams even if it is just for giggles. I'm just trying to hold out until he magically finds 20 or 30 extra ponies without losing low end torque.
'89 3.0 4Rnr: Jacob's Electronics, K&N, CF Dual Frict, 4:56 w/ Truetracs, 33 BFG AT/KOs, Cascade Audio, Pro-Comp 4" susp & 2" body (previous owner)
I know, a lot of wasted time and money ... if I knew then what I know now....
|
|
|
Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: JWHnAtl]
#500873
02/03/05 12:02 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,688
Trail Leader
|
Get them panties out of a bunch, sitting on a knot of silky stuff cant be that comfortable. Influence Ted to stay away from the 3.0L?? Yeah right! When he has to go to extremes to find something new to do to a 22R shortblock because he's already tried everything that means its time for new frontiers. The 3.0L design should keep him and everyone else busy for along time to come. Plenty of places to shave this, change that or add a little something something to, to keep a whole herd of motorheads scratching their melons. Hell I even have to admit, I am getting real curious about the 3.0L myself. Hopefully I'll find the 89-95 xtra cab Ive been wanting with a blown V6 in it. That way I can do whats proper and load my spare 22R-E and W56 into it and have the 3.0L on the stand to tinker and play with. Now that can get dangerous! Might have to do a webcam for if and when that comes around. LOL ~Darin <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/baby.gif" alt="" />
88' 4x4 *22R-EB Gen II* 87' $Runner *22R-EB Gen I* 85' Sillyca 22R-Esq  "I LIVE IN MY OWN WORLD...THEY KNOW ME WELL THERE"
|
|
|
Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: TRDSR5]
#500874
02/03/05 01:37 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,854
Roll Me Over
|
The part about this engine that has me stumped is the lack of torque down low. ... Er...uh...which engine are you talking about? The 3VZE as about the broadest flatest torque curve there is . Calling it a curve isnt even right. It climbs drasticaly off idle and remains a gentle rise after that and makes a good bit more torque than it does HP. I believe about 90% of its 180 ft/lbs available torque is available at 1800rpm It may, but you don't "feel" the torque till 3000 RPM, where my cousins 94' 4.0 ranger, you feel the torque from 1-4500 RPM, and it makes less torque than the 3.0. Ridde me that.
89 4Runner
3" BL, M/T locks, 33"bfg mt, bilstein, Kayline, tubebumper, toyotafiberglass panels
TBI: Elocker,3.4 w/ORS,b+b,S2Sstg2cams,arias pistons,P+P intake,TRDs/c,URDpullies+7th,downey headers,MAPECU2,WEGO WB, SupraMAF,walboro255,stg4clutch, EPaOo2 sim
|
|
|
Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: Greg_Canada]
#500875
02/03/05 01:53 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,935
Roll Me Over
|
It may, but you don't "feel" the torque till 3000 RPM, where my cousins 94' 4.0 ranger, you feel the torque from 1-4500 RPM, and it makes less torque than the 3.0.
Ridde me that.
I have to agree w/ Greg... On paper the 3.0 has a great torque range... But in the truck, the torque just doesn't seem there. In our old 4Runner (well modded 3.0), people actually asked me "do you KNOW how to drive a stick?" because the truck would bog so badly when starting out in 1st gear. That is, unless I rode the clutch, which I don't do. The thing screamed above 3K RPM's, but below that seemed very weak.
Brian K. Gallus
I have nothing important to say.
|
|
|
Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: bkg]
#500876
02/03/05 02:08 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,854
Roll Me Over
|
It may, but you don't "feel" the torque till 3000 RPM, where my cousins 94' 4.0 ranger, you feel the torque from 1-4500 RPM, and it makes less torque than the 3.0.
Ridde me that.
I have to agree w/ Greg... On paper the 3.0 has a great torque range... But in the truck, the torque just doesn't seem there. In our old 4Runner (well modded 3.0), people actually asked me "do you KNOW how to drive a stick?" because the truck would bog so badly when starting out in 1st gear. That is, unless I rode the clutch, which I don't do. The thing screamed above 3K RPM's, but below that seemed very weak. THe only way to not bog her in 1st is to rev it to 3g's and drop the clutch <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/notooth.gif" alt="" /> (no, i dont do that very often, heh)
89 4Runner
3" BL, M/T locks, 33"bfg mt, bilstein, Kayline, tubebumper, toyotafiberglass panels
TBI: Elocker,3.4 w/ORS,b+b,S2Sstg2cams,arias pistons,P+P intake,TRDs/c,URDpullies+7th,downey headers,MAPECU2,WEGO WB, SupraMAF,walboro255,stg4clutch, EPaOo2 sim
|
|
|
Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: Greg_Canada]
#500877
02/03/05 02:36 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,045
Body Damage is Cool
|
It may, but you don't "feel" the torque till 3000 RPM, where my cousins 94' 4.0 ranger, you feel the torque from 1-4500 RPM, and it makes less torque than the 3.0.
Riddle me that. I think the answer to the riddle may lie in the fact the Toyota engine is 3/4 the size of the Ranger engine and the Ranger weighs less....so it feels like it gets up and moves. Extra cubes always acount for a little. Thank Mazda for that "Ford" motor <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Turn LEFT to go RIGHT
Thudump!....What was that daddy? Ran over a Honda, go back to sleep sweety.
|
|
|
Re: 3.0 Discussion
[Re: TRDSR5]
#500878
02/03/05 02:45 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,854
Roll Me Over
|
It doesn't weigh less than my 4runner with no doors, roof, sunroof, tailgate, or interior minus the dash and front seats tho. That's how i drove it all summer and the ranger still pulled way more.
Ok, riddle me this.
The supra 7mge 3 litres of fury pulls harder than teh 4.0 of the ranger...
89 4Runner
3" BL, M/T locks, 33"bfg mt, bilstein, Kayline, tubebumper, toyotafiberglass panels
TBI: Elocker,3.4 w/ORS,b+b,S2Sstg2cams,arias pistons,P+P intake,TRDs/c,URDpullies+7th,downey headers,MAPECU2,WEGO WB, SupraMAF,walboro255,stg4clutch, EPaOo2 sim
|
|
|
|
