Jump to content

4Afe Vs 4Age


Clint02
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys now this is porbly a old question and belive me when i say i have done my research,

 

What makes a 4AGE so much better then a 4AFE Apart from the next Generation twin Cam... So really guys just after some numbers for the 2.. i was told the 4AGE has a bigger head my question is by how much also how much dif are the intake and outtake Ports by diameter if any 1 knows would be great help

 

Not sure if i shud reco my 4AF Block and bore out the Chamber / Intake / exhuast ports. After seeing some of the Dyno results and Numbers i have seen, i'm really starting to think the 4AGE is not much better at all comparaed 2 the 4AFE..

 

The 4A-FE 113 hp (84 kW) @ 5800 rpm Torque: 101 lb·ft (137 N·m) @ 4800 rpm...Redline: 6300 rpm

 

The 4A-GE produced 112 hp (84 kW) @ 6,600 rpm and 131 N·m (97 lb·ft) of torque at 4,800 rpm

 

there you have it guys both at 84 KW, and the 4AGE needs to have an extra 1k rpm behind it, And also the 4AFE has much more torgue.. Now if any of u guys say the 4AGE revs harder please stop.. my 4AFC redines at 7.5K rpm Stocko Value springs..

 

I'm honestly stuggling hardcore to see a stocko 4AGE with a top of the line exhuast system, Even try and keep up with my

4A-F(32/36 Weber 5A)

 

If your going to reply to this backing a 4AG over a 4AF Would love to hear it but plz brings some Numbers/Diameters...

 

cause after what yous can all see there lol... i don't think the 4AF is as shit as every one puts it down to be. and would love 2 Race a 4age on the track or the streets if u truly belive your 4AG can Handle my 4AF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members dont see this ad

No one ever said that the 4AF is a bad motor but you have to be very careful about stating power figures and throwing around the "come at me bro I'll race ya" line.

One thing I can assure you is that your 4AF was not designed to be held at 7,500 rpm where as the 4AGE can happily sit there all day. My 5k can also reach 7,500 rpm but that would be

stupid to do so. Just because you can rev that high does not mean that you are making any usable power.

 

Another thing you should be aware of is the power curve, ok you got a good peak torque or HP but what is the rest of the rpm like? How long does it take you to get top that rpm?

The other point about the 4AGE is that there is an abundance of after market support for the motor. In regards for port diameters that is a useless figure as you need to match the port size with

your valve size. Unless you get bigger valves there is no point in expanding the ports because you will slow down the air velocity, unless you then attach a turbo.

 

From my personal experience I have owned a 4AGE bigport AE82 and left the 4AFEs in the dust at Mallala race track. If you were thinking about a transplant why not just go 4AGE 20 valve?

It's like a worked 4AGE with quads and a higher rpm red line. I can certainly vouch for them. You need to actually get into a car with a 4AGE and take it for a drive, only then can you say

that you like the 4AFE better or not.

 

And please for the love of god, "yous" is not a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh- I wrote a long reply and found it all in Wiki anyway! There's not much in it, but what Twinky says is correct, a 4AGE will be at home at higher revs than your 4AFE.

 

4AFE-

The 4A-FE is different from the 4A-GE in terms of performance and power. Although both have the same displacement and are DOHC, they were optimized for different uses. The first obvious difference are the valves, the engine's intake and exhaust valves were placed 22.3° apart (compared to 50° in the G-Engines). The second is that it employed a "slave cam system", the camshafts being geared together and driven off one camshaft's sprocket (both camshafts' sprockets on the G-Engine are rotated by the timing belt). Some of the less directly visible differences were poorly shaped ports in the earlier versions, a slow burning combustion chamber with heavily shrouded valves, less aggressive camshaft profiles, ports of a small cross sectional area, a very restrictive intake manifold with long runners joined to a small displacement plenum and other changes. Even though the valve angle is closer to what is considered in some racing circles to be ideal for power (approximately 25 degrees), its other design differences and the intake which is tuned for a primary harmonic resonance at low RPM means that it has about 10% less power compared to the 4A-GE engine. This engine design improves fuel efficiency and torque, but compromises power. Power rating varied from 100–105 hp in the US market. Late-model engines are rumored to make slightly greater power but still received a 105 hp rating.

Although not as powerful as the 4A-GE, both engines are renowned for the power they produce from such a low displacement relative to other engines. Toyota engineers had skillfully optimized the power and torque from the company's relatively low-displacement engines.

 

4AGE-

Toyota designed the engine for performance; the valve angle was a relatively wide 50 degrees, which at the time was believed to be ideal for high power production. Today, more modern high-revving engines have decreased the valve angle to 20 to 25 degrees, which is now believed to be ideal for high-revving engines with high specific power outputs. The first generation 4A-GE is nicknamed the "bigport" engine because it had intake ports of a very large cross-sectional area. While the port cross-section was suitable for a very highly modified engine at very high engine speeds, it caused a considerable drop in low-end torque due to the decreased air speeds at those rpms. To compensate for the reduced air speed, the first-generation engines included the T-VIS feature, in which dual intake runners are fitted with butterfly valves that opened at approximately 4,200 rpm. The effect is that at lower rpm (when the airspeed would normally be slow) four of the eight runners are closed, which forces the engine to draw in all its air through half the runners in the manifold. This not only raises the airspeed which causes better cylinder filling, but due to the asymmetrical airflow a swirl is created in the combustion chamber, meaning better fuel atomisation. This enabled the torque curve to still be intact at lower engine speeds, allowing for better performance across the entire speed band and a broad, flat torque curve around the crossover point.During rising engine speed, a slight lurch can occur at the crossover point and an experienced driver will be able to detect the shift in performance. Production of the first-generation engine model lasted through 1987.

..............................

This revision increased the power to 125 PS (92 kW; 123 hp) at 7200 rpm with a torque of 149 N·m (110 lb·ft) at 4800 rpm (128 hp and 105 lb-ft for US-market cars).

 

If you want to go up against a 4AGE. line up here-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much stuff to read above so sorry if it has been covered.

 

I personally think that the 4af is a better driving car stock from stock for it's better torque and the drivabilty around town.

 

The f series head was designed with economy in mind but there have been a few people test the head after they have done work to them and find that they out flow the 4age head.

 

Would be interesting to see an actual 4af built with performance in mind.

 

btw, the 4age starts out with 86kw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i compared the 4AFE to the 4AGE cuase they are both injection..and the 4AFE and 4AFC share the same block

I'm actully running the 4AFC with a 32/36 Weber for my carby. Power Wise its not normal Takes off crazy at low RPM and build more power with more revs there is no Rev Limit where she starts to slow down in power gain. And also yes lets remember the 4age is made 2 rev harder but the 4af has the same power as a 4age with more torgue at lowwer Revs... so to put out the same KW does not need 2 Rev as hard as the 4AGE...

 

Starting to think the only real way to prove which is the better would be on a track but vsing a Performance 4af not a econ like they all are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4AF's aren't exactly sluggish but if you're going to spend money on an engine, why not spend it on the 4AG? There's a bucketload of parts you can buy for them and it's all been done before. Tried and tested.

And also, you're comparing with the bigport only. Big and smallport GZE, smallport GE's and 20v's produce more power from factory and are all easier to modify than the 4AF..

4AG ftw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the best reason for using a 4AFE in a conversion would be their availability. I was wandering around the wrecker's today catching up with what he's got in recently and there must have been six 4AFs in cars and no 4AGs at all.

 

So, more torquey around town, just as much hassle to change, probably not thrashed previously and cheap to buy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see 4AF's everywhere. My brother owns one, a mate owns one. They're not bad, there's just better.

Wouldn't people just be working 7AF heads instead of doing the GE swap if they were half decent?

I like 4AFE's, but again. I like GE's better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...