Dyno results : 2F-E vs 2F carbed

Yspen · 10-07-12, 03:05 AM

EDIT : the tuning was incorrectly done . Information in the first few posts is misleading .
The dyno tuning was redone and gave much better results than indicated in first post
Rather skip to Post 14 in the thread

For academical purpose here follows my experience :

2F Block overbore 0.060" ( Toyota pistons and rings )
ARP conrod bolts
Delta 250S cam
SBC valve springs

Dyno graph - Efi engine with stock compression ratio ( aftermarket ecu )
As you can see the engine power was still climbing when the tuner stopped the run .

In comparison : The carbed engine with higher compression ratio ( 3F carb head with kidney shape chambers and 9,5:1 CR )

I find it strange that the Torque of the carbed engine shows it to be higher at 2000 rpm than with the Fuel injection - when I drive it , it "feels" like there power at lower revs with the new Fi . Strictly speaking the graph of the carbed engine looks like it performs better than the Fi-engine . It was done on two different dyno machines , two years apart .
If fuel consumption is lower with Fi then I regard the process as a success - if not ... well I enjoyed the research and development .

Cruzerman · 10-07-12, 06:11 AM

I was expecting more from the EFI motor. I've been eyeing the 2F-E conversion but was expecting more. Perhaps I was just being unreasonable. I'm going to have to give that more thought.

Yspen · 10-07-12, 07:36 AM

I would love to see what the graph would be like below 2000rpm as I spend most of my time there in Daily Driving . With the efi it "feels" like there is more power at idle to 1500rpm . Throttle response is quicker without a doubt .

The tuner said the 3F-E injectors have a limited pulsewidth ( 255 ) and he could get more out of the car at higher rpms if the injectors were bigger . He was suggesting upping the rail pressure with adjustable fuel pressure regulator and seeing what happens .

Mace · 10-07-12, 08:10 AM

Using different machines that is pretty much an apples to oranges comparison unfortunately.

toyofj60 · 10-07-12, 08:47 AM

What does that convert to in horsepower and lbs/ft tourqe??

coolotisdog · 10-07-12, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toyofj60

What does that convert to in horsepower and lbs/ft tourqe??

It's about 135 hp at the rpms they have for the 2fe

RockDoc · 10-07-12, 11:43 AM

A couple of quick questions/points:

Your carbed 2F had a compression of 9.5:1, from numbers I wrote down when I was doing my 2FE a "stock" compression would be 8.6:1 for 3FE head on a 2F. Does this jive with what you figure?

Everything under the head was the same for both setups, correct? Same cam, no work on the bottom end before either that would need break-in?

I recall you did some port work on the carbed head, did you do any with the EFI head?

Do you notice any difference in smoothness at high rpm between the two setups? My 2FE gets "vibey" above 3500 rpm, but I have attributed that to the crank not being balanced (I think the shop screwed me on that job), but maybe I'm wrong and the fuel flow is an issue at high engine speed.....

Yspen · 10-08-12, 12:14 AM

The 3f-e head was placed as I received it from the US. My thumbsuck was 8,6-8,7 CR.
One reason for not skimming the head is that you do not find them in africa and it needs to last. Less stress on the head and some meat for future skimming. It cost me $1000 just in shipping charges to get it here.

The rest of the bottom end was left unchanged. Only placed new valvesprings and used stock valve clearances .

Above 3500 rpm the valvetrain is noisy as it was after the rebuild 2 years ago.
At the time we readjusted the valve clearance to oe spec and then fitted the SBC valvesprings. All that took the tappet noise down . After a few 1000miles the tappet noise settled completely and I hope the same will happen now.

The carbed head was a aweful cast and needed some porting . The 3fe head was actually quite smooth and did not show the ugly ridges and grooves of the carbed head - so it was left and not ported.

Engine truns smooth though above 3500 rpm and it is above 4200 rpm where the injectors start showing its limit - that is according to the tuner as I have not had the opportunity to take it there.

In daily driving the revs go to 1800-1900 rpm and the I change gear. So the part where the engine spends most of its time does not show in the graph.
In that range the car feels stronger and quicker response on throttle.

When I get time I will take the car to the dyno where the carbed run was done for a more fair comparison

Yspen · 10-08-12, 06:29 AM

I had my regular mechanic check the setup and he thinks the ecu mapping is incorrect.
The car does not run as she should. The is overfueling and at idling this morning we had to leave the workshop due to the emissions .
We checked the timing and it was set after TDC and not before TDC.
Think I need to find a new dyno- tuner

red803f · 10-08-12, 01:20 PM

Wow!! That would make a big change in power being retarded like that, was your dizzy left loose maybe?

RockDoc · 10-08-12, 01:27 PM

Yspen · 10-22-12, 09:57 AM

We should delete this thread and start over as there is too much misleading info .

Car was re-tuned today on dyno.
Tuner still not happy and will continue tomorrow. He says there is an hesitation when he did a road test between 1500 and 2000 rpm

So far today the final dyno run:

115kW
310nm

Will post the printout when I get it

FJ40Jim · 10-22-12, 10:58 AM

They should graph out the AFR as well as power.

Yspen · 10-23-12, 12:22 PM

OK , here is the printout of the final dyno today .

You can see where the before graph ( how the first tuner set it ) lower line and after the second tuner set it . ( higher line )

Compare that to carb again ( the efi is higher in torque and Hp during the whole rev range )

gregnash · 10-23-12, 04:52 PM

So top sheet is the 2F and the bottom sheet is the 2FE?!

Yspen · 10-23-12, 10:47 PM

No , top sheet is 2Fe with aftermarket ecu and bottom sheet is 2F
( lower graph only goes to 4400 rpm and top one to 5000rpm )

@ 2000 rpm :
2F = 240Nm , 2Fe = 260 Nm ( roughly the same HP )

@ 3000rpm
2F = 275 Nm / 90 kW , 2Fe = 305 Nm / over 100kW

2Fe max values :
115.7 kW @ 3970 rpm ( that is 155hp at the wheels )
308Nm @ 3009 rpm

2F max values :
109.3 kW @ 4400 rpm
274 Nm @ 3445 rpm

GeologistFelix · 10-23-12, 11:22 PM

For my those who prefer horsepower/foot-pounds, that's, very conservatively, assuming only a 20% loss for the drivetrain, about 190 hp/255 ft-lbs at the crank.

That's like 40% more horsepower through most of the power band, and 20% more torque than the factory values for the 2F.

Cool.

gregnash · 10-24-12, 05:25 PM

Thanks for the translation Felix. That is a pretty impressive gain from the conversion.