Sam_Q Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Ah yes, of course and any failure will probably be in tension rather than compression too. Carillo make a super light A (I) beam. 496gm vs BCs 535 H beam. There's also the K1 rods: http://www.campbellenterprises.com/toyota-performance-parts/toyota-rods-k1-toyota-connecting-rods.php 514g at only $370 a set Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irokin Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 For that price you'd live with the few extra grams. I can't see the Carillos being less than $500. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam_Q Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 I agree- 496 to 514 is only 18 grams or 4% heavier. I only looked breifly but the scion guys seem to like them, the linked article had a guy reporting to use them for some serious turbo power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 although there is little i can contribute to this, i love reading this thread : ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diegoh Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) 18 grams is nothing really and for 370 dollars they are totally worth it. That pick of the factory 2az rods shows some skimping on mass which seems to be common practice these days from japanese brands. 370 beats 3 grand for Ti rods! any idea if the 1az crank fits the 2az? Edited October 10, 2011 by diegoh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRedSpirit Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I'm pretty certain 1azfe and 2azfe use the same block. So yes I believe its an easy fit for a 1azfe crank into a 2azfe block. It should just work. I feel if you were going to build a revevr, dynmically a 1azfe would be superior thanks to a better rod ratio. For a turbo setup, best to keep the capacity and use all the exhaust volume it pumps to spool a bigger turbo and not chase the peak rpm cpability. I have a sort of philosophy going, I just want a torquey NA power band that cuts at about 6500. I can do this with standard internals minus the compression ratio I want, hence the need for pistons. If I ever do build another motor I will make it purpose built for either rpm or boost, whatever I decide, but I feel the design is inherently for minimal rpms. They have a lot of low friction and weight reduction done to help with conservation of energy, so they are highly geared towards efficiency and low down torque. I want the motor to breath nice but still give low rpm torque. The capacity will be nice to have pulling me, and if I ever boosted it it would stay 2az and then not push far past the stock redline. I'm not trying to build a donkey into a horse, or to have unrealistic expectations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRedSpirit Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) The rods you guys were referencing. Edited August 7, 2017 by LittleRedSpirit photo repair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh what a nissan feeling! Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) This thread is a great read, and with some of the info you've found on this engine its a damn tempting option. That FC20 bottom end design is insane, best ive seen factory. As regard the sr20 cradle, there is an aftermarket option available that is very similar to the fc20 made by a place called JHH PERFORMANCE, as ben said it not really required, especially for $1350 a pop. As for the main cap design of this engine, check out the 2jz design, scott broke a couple at 1300 horsepower and no sooner. There is no reason why the 2az wouldnt handle plenty. Edited October 10, 2011 by oh what a nissan feeling! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJM85 Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The 2AZ-FE is a 2.4 L (2362 cc) version built in Japan and at TMMK in the USA, obtains a total displacement of 2362 cm³ with 88.5 mm (3.5 in) bore and 96.0 mm (3.8 in) stroke, with a compression ratio of 9.6:1. Output is 157 to 160 hp (117 to 120 kW) at 5600 rpm with 162 ft·lbf (220 N·m) of torque at 4000 rpm.Toyota AZ Engine Bottom end is dynamically balanced, running 9.6:1 comp. The cams run 8mm(.3")valve lift in and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam_Q Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) have been told the 2az rod length is 149.5mm which gives a rod to stroke ratio of 1.56:1 which isn't bad apparently, for reference the 4age has a 1.58:1 ratio Edited October 10, 2011 by Sam_Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRedSpirit Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Just worked it out, the rod ratio for a 2azfe is 1.55. 1azfe is 1.73. Much better due to the reduced stroke. For comparisons sake, the 4age is 1.58. 3RZ Hilux 4 cylinder is 1.54, and they don't much like revs. Our numbers differ.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam_Q Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 ah yes, I stuffed up on one number the 4age is indeed 1.58 not 1.54 also I found out that the 2az engine at 6500rpm has the same average piston speed as a 4age engine at 8600 from memory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styler Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Yeah Rod/Stroke ratio seems to be more relevant in older motors, some of the more recent honda high revving motors actually run a very average Rod/Stroke ratio which was suprising... http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/tech/0506_ht_rod_stroke_ratio/viewall.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diegoh Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) Reason I asked about the 86mm 1AZ is because 86mm is quite a good stroke for torque also. 2.1 litres is a nice capacity too for a vf34 or disco potato. However the 2.4 sounds like a perfect NA setup also for the street with beefy mass on its performance curve. Ive read about a Guru on 300hp B16 NA setups that he find 1.543 rod stroke ratio still a good compromise. It supposedly allows more compression by having the piston move away faster at the top, improving suck/swirl/mix less detonation as it moves fast away from flame front. The force of angularity on walls is minimised with todays lighter pistons that are friction coated and thinner rings then piston life is increased as they spend critically less time or combustion forces. Suzuki used the same principal in its infamous G13B road engine compared to its bike engines. Honda has been doing it since the EB1 a magical little engine with what the FC20 has now. The all alloy gen 1 honda civic EB1 engine had a ladder brace, 300g steel rods, small bore long stroke & high rpm plus other features almost 40 years ago etc. If the Ae86 becomes available Id prefer the AZ over the heavier, less flowing subey Boxer. Edited October 11, 2011 by diegoh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRedSpirit Posted October 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Just got email from Brian Crower, custom pistons in std bore (ironic much?) would be 600 US. 50 extra for coating. They can do a custom rod to sweeten the rod ratio with a shelf piston (or biscuit), but its 900 US plus 600 for custom pistons on top. I can get either JE or CP pistons, not sure what is better kit, but if they are custom ordered you can get either. Any suggestions on brand? Definately getting the coatings done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.