1HD-FT. The Story of an Engine That Wasn't Allowed to Breathe

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Joined
Nov 15, 2025
Threads
3
Messages
107
Location
Moscow, Russia
I'm sharing an English translation of my article, originally written for the Russian Land-Cruiser community. I hope it will be a helpful resource for Toyota diesel enthusiasts worldwide. The article references several detailed technical threads from Land-Cruiser.RU; you can use browser translation tools or Google web-page translator to read them.

In our daily lives, we often encounter peculiar paradoxes. For instance, powerful sports cars are sold all over the world. However, we can count on the fingers of one hand the number of countries with roads that allow a sports car owner to unlock the full potential of their steel steed, or to travel at high speed without risk to themselves or others. If we consider the legal aspect, the number of such countries becomes even smaller. Yet, we see these high-performance cars with their powerful engines more and more often stuck in endless traffic jams... As a long-time owner of the 1HD-FT engine, I would like to tell you a story about a similar paradox that happened to this remarkable powerplant. Nearly all the issues discussed here have already been covered on our forum in one form or another, often in even greater detail. However, the time has come to gather and systematize all the accumulated information, to transform quantity into quality, and to draw the appropriate conclusions.

So, the 1HD-FT engine—a 4.2-liter, inline-six, turbocharged diesel with mechanical fuel injection and a four-valve head—began to be installed in the Land Cruiser and Coaster from January 1995, replacing its two-valve predecessor, the 1HD-T (in all markets except for "general countries"). It would seem that the adoption of a four-valve design should have given the engine a significant boost in power and torque. But in reality, according to Toyota's official specifications, the 1HD-FT surpasses the 1HD-T by a mere 9 percent in peak power, and its advantage in peak torque is even smaller—just 6 percent. This seems rather meager, especially considering that the 1HD-FT's injection pump has a significantly more aggressive cam plate and is capable of delivering much more fuel to the cylinders. Of course, if we examine detailed power and torque curves for some specific modifications* of these engines, we will see that the 1HD-FT's superiority is more pronounced in the mid-range RPM, in some places reaching up to 20 percent. Nevertheless, the question arises: was it really worth it for the manufacturer to introduce such major changes to the engine's design—a completely new cylinder head and injection pump (not to mention the lesser modifications)—only to achieve such a modest gain in performance? I think not.

So, what happened, and why did Toyota take this path?

A common misconception is that the 1HD-FT was merely a "prototype" or a testing mule for the 1HD-FTE, with the manufacturer simply preparing the hardware for its future flagship diesel with electronically controlled injection. However, considering that the 1HD-FT was installed in the Land Cruiser and Coaster from 01/95 to 01/98, and continued to be installed in the Coaster for a year and a half after the launch of the 1HD-FTE, until mid-1999, it becomes obvious that this view is far from the truth. "Test" versions are not produced for almost five years, and they are certainly not continued after the final version has been launched. So, where do we find the answer to our question?

The answer lies in a different direction. The 1HD-FT was, in a literal sense, unlucky—its launch in 1995 almost perfectly coincided with the adoption of the notorious Euro 2 standard. Of course, manufacturers knew about this event in advance, and it's equally clear that the new engine modification had been designed and tested for at least a year or two. Nevertheless, Toyota was forced to release two different versions of the 1HD-FT: one compliant with Euro 2 norms, and one non-compliant. It's obvious that the version not compliant with Euro 2 was the more powerful and capable one. And it was this specific modification of the engine (*) that had up to a 20% advantage in the working RPM range compared to its 1HD-T predecessor. This issue is discussed in more detail in the thread via this link: 1hd-t или 1hd-ft на 105-ку ? Помогите выбрать. - http://www.land-cruiser.ru/index.php?showtopic=145779. But unfortunately, this modification was supplied only to Australia, and in small batches to the Japanese domestic market. The rest of the world had to make do with the more "progressive" version of the engine, compliant with the Euro 2 environmental standard. What was the price of this compliance?

The price turned out to be quite high. The 1HD-FT engine was equipped with an EGR system, with all the unfortunate consequences that entails. The manufacturer had to install a full two EGR valves to strangle the engine down to Euro 2 norms. The EGR system adds exhaust gases to the intake manifold under certain engine load conditions ("partial" load modes), which reduces the amount of oxidizer in the combustion chamber. As a result, the combustion temperature of the mixture drops, achieving the primary environmental effect – a reduction in NOx emissions. The total mass of gas in the cylinder remains the same and is heated to the required temperature during the compression stroke. It's just that part of this gas does not participate in the combustion process. Furthermore, the EGR system's computer also limits fuel delivery, accounting for the reduced amount of oxidizer in the combustion chamber. On the 1HD-FT engine, pump control is managed through a vacuum actuator for the boost compensator—a rather perverted hybrid of a fully mechanical injection pump and an electronic control system. In other words, in certain engine operating modes, its power is forcibly limited. All other supposedly "positive" effects of the EGR system, such as "after-burning" of unburned fuel, reduced thermal load on the engine, etc., are nothing more than marketing nonsense pulled out of thin air. For those who are not well-versed in technical matters, I can offer a simple, accurate, and crude everyday analogy: the EGR system works as if, under severe financial constraints, you were forced to mix your own excrement from breakfast into your lunch, from lunch into your dinner, and so on. The size of the servings would be larger, but something horrible would happen to your body.

The introduction of the EGR system alone proved insufficient to meet Euro 2 standards. The four-valve system was well-designed and continued to supply a sufficient amount of air for efficient fuel combustion. Therefore, it became necessary to reduce the air supply by deliberately impairing combustion chamber ventilation. To achieve this, the maximum boost pressure of the 1HD-FT's turbocharger was reduced to 0.7 atm (the Toyota manual specifies a check range of 0.38-0.5 atm with no load). The maximum boost pressure of the two-valve 1HD-T was 0.8 atm (check range 0.5-0.65 atm with no load). This means both the operational and maximum boost pressures of the EGR-equipped engine were significantly reduced. Meanwhile, the non-EGR engines continued to be fitted with turbochargers featuring a wastegate that allowed them to reach the designed maximum of 0.8 atm, even though Toyota's parts catalog does not formally specify this difference.

A similar "trick" was performed with the exhaust system – as a "gas mask," the engine was simply fitted with the old exhaust system from the two-valve 1HD-T. As they say, "cheap and cheerful," with the added bonus for the manufacturer being "parts unification." Apparently, in the spirit of this same unification, the old exhaust system was also installed on non-EGR models (since very few of these were produced). For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that even the old exhaust system on non-EGR 1HD-T and 1HD-FT engines for Australian and some Asian markets differed from those for other markets, offering less resistance to exhaust gas flow due to the absence of an additional muffler in the final section.

We should also remember the "environmental legacy" inherited from the Euro 1 standard introduced in 1991. Back then, with the launch of the 1HD-T, its thermostat lineup was reduced to just one model with a range of 76-90°C. It made no difference whether the vehicle was destined for Africa or Northern Europe – there was only one thermostat. The goal was the same: to lower the combustion chamber temperature and reduce NOx emissions. Before Euro 1, the predecessors of the 1HD-T had a full range of thermostats: 76-90, 82-95, 88-100. The 1HD-FT inherited from the 1HD-T this same single, unique "African" 76-90 thermostat.

As a result of the measures described above, the 1HD-FT engine complied with the Euro 2 standard. However, in doing so, the 1HD-FT's dynamic characteristics were practically degraded to the level of its two-valve predecessor, the 1HD-T. Meanwhile, Toyota was already preparing for the introduction of the stricter Euro 3 standard. It was clear that electronic control over fuel quantity, air flow, fuel temperature, etc., would now be essential. This meant abandoning Toyota's legendary diesel reliability but allowed for the restoration of previous, and even higher, levels of air and fuel in the cylinders, improving performance without exceeding the stricter Euro 3 emission limits. Consequently, ahead of the Euro 3 norms taking effect in 1999, Toyota prematurely launched its new flagship, the 1HD-FTE, with its electronically controlled injection pump. Boost pressure was returned to the 0.7-0.85 atm range for Europe and 0.85-1.0 atm for "non-suffering" regions, an intercooler was added, fuel injection pressure was increased, and finally, a completely new exhaust system was fitted, allowing the engine to breathe properly. The EGR system had to be retained, although even this new engine had a superior Australian version where the EGR system was not installed.

Let's return to our hero, the 1HD-FT. Was it destined to "sniff" its own exhaust and remain in a gas mask for the rest of its existence? Of course not. And Mother Toyota left us many paths for retreat. This is especially true given that the engine's potential was clearly demonstrated by Yanmar with their 300-horsepower marine engine, the 6LPA-STP, producing 700 Nm of torque and built on the basis of the 1HD-FT with mechanical fuel injection. Naturally, extracting such power imposes certain longevity constraints, so we will focus on modernizing the 1HD-FT within the service life originally intended by the manufacturer for this engine. So, what needs to be done to achieve this?

A Guide to Liberating the 1HD-FT: Restoring the Engine's True Potential

1. EGR Removal
The first and most critical step is to disable and, preferably, completely remove the EGR system, including cleaning and replacing any related components. The "why" and "how" are detailed in these threads:
EGR system removal and cleaning
EGR valve study and diagnostics

2. Restoring Mechanical Pump Operation
Next, eliminate the influence of the EGR computer on the injection pump's fuel delivery. This effectively returns the pump to the standard operation of the rare, non-EGR models. The procedure is described here:
EGR computer removal and injection pump adjustment

3. Optimizing Air Intake
Use the original air filter 17801-61030. This filter offers less airflow restriction compared to the 17801-68030 filter designed for EGR-equipped engines. The 17801-61030 was used on non-EGR Australian 1HD-FT models and is also rated for the more powerful 1HD-FTE and 1FZ-FE engines. A bonus: it is washable for extended service life. In reality, even this filter is a restriction. A more radical solution is to modify the airbox to accept a larger filter from the 100-series. Details here:
Modifying the airbox for 100-series filter element

4. Installing a Proper Thermostat
If you live in a temperate or northern climate, replace the thermostat with one suited to your region. For more information, see:
Thermostat selection and replacement

5. Freeing the Exhaust
The next step is to remove the "gas mask" by replacing the restrictive exhaust system. While fitting a 1HD-FTE system is difficult, there are many quality aftermarket options from manufacturers like Fujitsubo, Ganador, and Saxon that offer high-flow systems for this engine. For examples, see:
Aftermarket exhaust systems discussion

6. Restoring Boost Pressure
Return the turbocharger's maximum boost pressure to its original designed value of 0.8 atm. It is also advisable to use a two-stage boost controller for the wastegate for more effective low-end response. See this thread:
Boost controller installation and tuning

7. Camshaft and Cylinder Head Upgrade
Installing a camshaft from the 1HD-FTE is a worthwhile upgrade. This cam has a more low-end and mid-range performance, as its intake valve closing timing occurs 8 degrees earlier compared to the FT cam (24° ABDC for FTE vs. 32° ABDC for FT). If you need to replace the cylinder head, it is recommended to use one from a 1HD-FTE, as it incorporates several useful improvements. More info here:
1HD-FTE cylinder head and camshaft upgrade

8. Post-Modification Results and Further Tuning
After these modifications, you will finally experience what this remarkable engine was meant to be. You will find that its performance is nearly on par with its electronically controlled, intercooled sibling. Note that we have not excessively tuned the engine with extreme boost or fuel; we have simply returned these parameters to values that disregard the Euro 2 standard.

For those seeking more power, consider adding a front-mount intercooler from the 1HD-FTE or a more powerful Safari intercooler for the 1HD-FT. The standard turbocharger, with its small 42mm compressor inducer, becomes a major restriction and should be replaced. A pre-facelift turbo from the FTE is a direct bolt-on upgrade. This must be accompanied by corresponding adjustments to the injection pump for increased fuel delivery. More details here:
1HD-FTE turbo and intercooler installation on 1HD-FT

9. Advanced Tuning: Twinscroll Turbocharger System
A significant step forward is implementing a twinscroll turbocharger and corresponding exhaust manifold. This setup greatly improves engine efficiency, cylinder scavenging, lowers EGT, and enhances turbo response across the entire RPM range. This is particularly effective on inline-six engines, where the firing order allows for a relatively straightforward manifold modification. Safari Turbo Systems used this approach in some of their turbo kits for the 1HZ.

When switching to a twinscroll turbo, it is advisable to move away from the standard FTE air-to-air intercooler setup and adopt a more efficient air-to-water charge cooling system. The "cherry on top" is to separate the wastegate gas flow from the main twinscroll turbine flow, routing it through a dedicated downpipe and exhaust. This requires a custom turbine outlet and a separate exhaust section, significantly reducing backpressure and improving high-RPM breathing and EGT. As mentioned, the stock turbo's 42mm compressor inducer is a major "restrictor plate," limiting power to ~180-190 hp. Switching to an FTE turbo (46mm inducer) reduces this restriction, increases compressor trim and flow, and allows for 220-230 hp. Ideally, upgrade to a fully-machined (milled) 48/68 compressor wheel from a Celica, enabling the engine to breathe well at high RPM and produce up to 270-290 hp. For more, see:
Another Twinscroll for 80-series 1HD-FT. This time CT26 Small from Celica 205

10. Enhanced Cooling for Tuned Engines
If you have installed an intercooler and an alternative turbo, significantly increasing power, it is crucial to upgrade the cooling system. Install a more robust viscous clutch and cooling fan from the 1HD-FTE. Details here:
1HD-FTE viscous clutch and fan installation on FT
Also, use a high-quality carboxylate (OAT) antifreeze, such as BASF Glysantin G30.

11. Further Cooling and Oil System Improvements
Another consideration is replacing the oil pan with the larger unit from the newer heavy-duty 70-series. According to Toyota manuals, this pan holds 1.5 liters more oil (+15%), which benefits oil temperature and service life. However, its fitment on a non-lifted 80-series is yet to be fully confirmed. More here:
Question about HZJ78-79 oil pan, part number 12101-17200

An alternative for increasing oil capacity is to replace the inadequate stock oil filter with a larger, cartridge-type truck filter. This adds roughly the same 1.5 liters of oil and offers numerous other advantages. Details here:
Question about 1HD-FT oil system

12. Electrical System Optimization
A useful modification for prolonging battery life is installing a switch for the intake air heater mesh. The mesh draws up to 80A and can operate for 80-120 seconds after engine start. This significantly drains the batteries, especially on short trips. On a well-maintained engine, the mesh is only beneficial as a pre-heater for cold starts below -20°C. Above this temperature, the engine starts perfectly without it. Post-start heating is another "environmental nonsense" feature that slightly improves combustion in a cold engine at the cost of slowly killing your batteries. More here:
Is the intake air heater necessary for 1HD-FT engine?

Good luck and more torque to you,
Vadim Akopyan, aka VADUS
 
Last edited:
Fascinating read! Thanks.
 
Good post but there are a few things we can add.

EGR's purpose is to reduce free oxygen to prevent NOx formation. A better method which has been used since then on industrial engines is simply more boost. You run the engine leaner with more boost so you can deliver the torque and power without hitting the internal temps that cause a lot of NOx formation.

The Toyota turbochargers are not worth modifying. They use a very old and inefficient turbine design. Reading here: Turbocharger Turbines. - https://www.4btswaps.com/threads/turbocharger-turbines.77250/
Also air/air intercoolers are more efficient than air/water. Simply fit the biggest air/air you can.
Boost controllers have no advantage, they don't provide more boost or better boost. You are better to adjust the wastegate rod mechanically.

Marine engines can delivery a lot of power and torque because propellers don't need low end torque. So you can run a big turbine with the whole ocean for cooling. Bigger turbines perform better at higher rpm but worse at low. Doesn't matter on a boat. The same engine with the same peak boost in a marine application will always deliver more power.
 
The Toyota turbochargers are not worth modifying. They use a very old and inefficient turbine design. Reading here:
It depends from the point of view.... If you have an unlimited budget for your project, I would say yes, the BorgWarner twinscroll with external gates would be much more interesting, for instance. But. if you are counting the money, Toyota turbos have lots of benefits: they are less expensive, they fit original manifold, there are bunch of tuning parts for them - turbine wheels and compressor wheels. They are also reliable and watercooled. And almost like in any field, there is no ideal design for all conditions and modes. You always need to choose configuration for your own preferences. As an example - reducing amount of blades on turbine wheel will improve hi-rpm and hi-power performance, but will spoil the response time and low-range performance. For low-rpm range, original ceramic turbine wheel from Celica205 is very good, much better, than many others. From other hand - the ceramic blades are too thick and they decrease hi-rpm/power mods flow, that way increasing the backpressure. Same story with the compressor wheels. I am going to buy one fully machined milled, and bore my FTE cold housing for it. My friend Den has already done it, and result is very good.
Also air/air intercoolers are more efficient than air/water. Simply fit the biggest air/air you can.
Oh, no no.... For our application and this low-rpm engine, it is not correct. First, because air-air significantly increases response time (turbo lag) with all of its huge piping volume and its own volume. On mechanical transmission and normal city driving, air-air intercooler becomes a nightmare (not counting top mount ones). Secondly, because the whole air-air system is much longer and has biger resistance and losses for a flow velocity and pressure. Finally, because the water is much better coolant, than the air. The water thermal capacity and conductivity is much higher, and it cools more efficiently.
Boost controllers have no advantage, they don't provide more boost or better boost. You are better to adjust the wastegate rod mechanically.
That is what boost controller does - adjusting the waste gate opening time. Two-stage controller keeps waste gate completely closed until desired pressure, so that improves the spool time of the turbocharger. I have one of those controllers installed - TURBO XS BC-HPBC - excellent mechanical device for 100USD. In my case it significantly decreased turbo lag and also, helped me with easy adjusting the maximum boost pressure 1.2 Bar.
Marine engines.....
You are right here and it is clear for me, but it was just an example of engine's abilities. Even on maximum rpm the power and torque are almost 2 times higher than the stock ones. I know, that everything there is being cooled with a seawater, starting from the fuel and finishing with the boosted air.
 
Last edited:
Smartly designed air-air intercoolers always beat air-water systems in custom installations.

I am not familiar with the Toyota diesels outside of forklifts. They make a good forklift engine.

Something I would add to this discussion, unsure of it's relevance, but in the Cummins world the 4V cylinder heads are minutely superior to 2V heads stock VS stock.

Once mild bowl work is done under the valves this changes. The 2V heads flow more and make more power. They also last significantly longer. 24v heads wear guides and seats rapidly at high boost levels. The 2V design has significantly larger valves- More guide surface area.

In my 80 series experience, the transmission is the power limitation. The 80 series autos and sticks simply will not handle more than 600 ft/lbs.

With a better transmission the transfer case, drivelines and axles will take about double that.
 
Smartly designed air-air intercoolers always beat air-water systems in custom installations.
Once again, this statement is very far from reality. Every system has its strong and weak spots, and the choice is pretty much depends on application. For me and for my goals, air-air has the biggest unacceptable feature - huge turbo lag, and the bigger you make this system, the bigger lag becomes. Considering the SUV, which main purpose is crawling the rocks, forests and swamps, air-air system is also looking poor, since the big radiator and thick pipes take too much space, when installed together with the winch, bull bars, extra lights etc. Relatively slow off-road (and road) speed of the vehicle makes the air-air system inefficient. However, air-water system works much better under these conditions, at the same time having much smaller external radiator and water pipes. I took my chances to compare both systems on my TLC80, and the air-air one completely lost.
I would recommend a book by Corky Bell - "Maximum boost" - it explains some theoretic and practical basics.
Something I would add to this discussion, unsure of it's relevance, but in the Cummins world the 4V cylinder heads are minutely superior to 2V heads stock VS stock.
I can not say anything about Cummins engines, can only assume, that it is not correct to compare common rail systems with the VE-pump. In 1HD particular case the difference is noticeable, with stock and with deeply modified ones. For instance, the Yanmar marine engines, based on 2V and 4V 1HD engines, have even bigger difference, than stock ones:
Based on 1HD-FT Yanmar 6LPA-STP - 311 Hp @ 3800 rpm'
Based on 1HD-T Yanmar 6LPA-DTP - 246 Hp @ 3800 rpm.
The stock engines have 170 vs 160 Hp difference, and I've described in article above, why it is so little.
The 2V heads flow more and make more power. They also last significantly longer. 24v heads wear guides and seats rapidly at high boost levels. The 2V design has significantly larger valves- More guide surface area.
In 1HD case we have opposite situation. 2V heads always have problems with seats, while 4V heads don't have any problems, except for the EGR modifications, which have a problems with intake valves hanging (stocking) inside the guides because of soot from EGR valve. But this is easy to fix, removing EGR. And there is nothing good in a bigger valve, since it has a bigger weight and a bigger inertia. Like I wrote above, the most reliable cylinder head from all 1HD engines is the 1HD-FTE one.
 
Last edited:
Great article, I actually read through your original post about a week ago.
I like the focus on using factory parts from other Toyota models/engines to improve the engine.
Did the #1 and #2 mods recently, already made a big difference in low to mid range power and response

Kinda disagree on A2A vs W2A intercoolers. Main reasons why OEMs use water intercoolers is for emissions (to control the charge air temperature window) and for packaging. Now if you need the space where a large intercooler would sit that's a valid point. Efficiency of air/air is greater in most conditions as you cool charge air directly instead of having an exchange medium in between, even low speed performance is debatable imo. Most performance engines use an A2A system from the factory, even the FTE did. Also W2A is more complex, potentially more unreliable with additional electrical components and circuits.
 
Most performance engines use an A2A system from the factory, even the FTE did
I've recommended a good book above, it covers this field also. This quote reflects an essential. Try to analyze, what is the goal of the performance engine and which conditions it is being used in. It is not comparable with our conditions on TLC80, especially if you are using manual transmission. Give you an example: if you are building a racing car for high speeds and high rpm performance (like Porsche etc)., then YES - air-air might be more efficient. since your goal is a high speed. If you are building a reliable truck for multi purposes, including city and off-road driving, then NO - air-water is much more effective. Factory FTE cooler is too small, from other hand, the turbo lag is also not big. I used that for 6 years, and half year ago switched to air-water... What can I say - it is a drastic difference - just wonderful. I've also been driven TLC80 with big and nice Safary intercooler - the highway is very nice, the city is nightmare - boost appears about that time, when you need to shift a gear, unless you are spinning the engine over 2000-2500 rpm every time. I posted a photos in my welcome thread - you can see how short is the whole way from turbo to the cylinders. It is about 4 times shorter, than it was with original FTE air-air cooler. Regarding reliability - it is also a question of viewing angle. From one hand, you have an additional pump. I've used an original water pump from VW/Audi with a brushless motor.... with these temperatures it is almost eternal. And it eats only 10-15W. From other hand, if you brake external radiator or water pipes during rough riding trough the forest, you will loose only an air-cooling feature and the engine will stay operable. If you do the same with an air-air one, then you need to repair your air pipes or radiator immediately. What is more reliable - everyone decide on his own.
I am not insisting on my opinion, this is just my experience and knowledge, I wanted to share. Everyone should go his own way.
 
photo_2025-06-12_20-19-35-jpg-7b54d6e5be579235d1b00e1ee57958ec-webp.4032929
 
@VADUS all good, happy to hear about your experiences. There are obviously pros and cons and a number of potential failures with both. Still considering both routes personally. A2A kits like PDI are very popular here on the 1HD engines and I haven't really seen much complaining about lag but maybe I've overlooked it. I also like the idea of keeping the piping short and compact with a water intercooler.
 
My friend Den has a same TLC80 1HD-FT, but with an automatic transmission. After all of our experiments with turbochargers I can say, that with AT it is much easier to get the proper boost pressure and to keep it while normal driving (without any kick-downs etc). As a result, you can easily use a bigger turbocharger from Celica 185 - CT26 Twinscroll with bigger turbine wheel 68/52. For high RPMs and high power mods it is better, but for low RPMs (below 2000) it is quite slow in response. That is why I've decided to stick with CT26 small (CT20B) from Celica 205 with smaller turbine wheel 60/50. With my manual transmission it works much better, because my normal driving RPM range is 1400-2000. On high RPMs it is still good, however I am going to reduce back pressure by separating waste gate exhaust flow from a main turbine flow. Unfortunately, I couldn't find an original ceramic wheel with shaft, so I run on a usual inconel now. But if I find it, I will definitely buy and install it.
 
Thank you, a lot… I have read some of this stuff already and you helped with my egr removal and pump fix, I really like where you are going with keeping the reliability and improving drivability, I see the high HP Aussie stuff and wonder how long those motors last, I agree on the ct26 it can be upgraded very cost effectively as the drift guys in the US machine and modify them,

If you are ever in the states I will gladly buy you a beer and say thanks in person…heck if you are here in the summer we can go over the Rubicon in my other 80..
 
RAYJON, you are very welcome. I am happy, that my posts are helping other people. And tank you for the invitation. If I come to US again, it will be California - not too far from you. And I also meet you in person with pleasure.
 
It depends from the point of view.... If you have an unlimited budget for your project, I would say yes, the BorgWarner twinscroll with external gates would be much more interesting, for instance. But. if you are counting the money, Toyota turbos have lots of benefits: they are less expensive, they fit original manifold, there are bunch of tuning parts for them - turbine wheels and compressor wheels. They are also reliable and watercooled. And almost like in any field, there is no ideal design for all conditions and modes. You always need to choose configuration for your own preferences. As an example - reducing amount of blades on turbine wheel will improve hi-rpm and hi-power performance, but will spoil the response time and low-range performance. For low-rpm range, original ceramic turbine wheel from Celica205 is very good, much better, than many others. From other hand - the ceramic blades are too thick and they decrease hi-rpm/power mods flow, that way increasing the backpressure. Same story with the compressor wheels. I am going to buy one fully machined milled, and bore my FTE cold housing for it. My friend Den has already done it, and result is very good.

Oh, no no.... For our application and this low-rpm engine, it is not correct. First, because air-air significantly increases response time (turbo lag) with all of its huge piping volume and its own volume. On mechanical transmission and normal city driving, air-air intercooler becomes a nightmare (not counting top mount ones). Secondly, because the whole air-air system is much longer and has biger resistance and losses for a flow velocity and pressure. Finally, because the water is much better coolant, than the air. The water thermal capacity and conductivity is much higher, and it cools more efficiently.

That is what boost controller does - adjusting the waste gate opening time. Two-stage controller keeps waste gate completely closed until desired pressure, so that improves the spool time of the turbocharger. I have one of those controllers installed - TURBO XS BC-HPBC - excellent mechanical device for 100USD. In my case it significantly decreased turbo lag and also, helped me with easy adjusting the maximum boost pressure 1.2 Bar.

You are right here and it is clear for me, but it was just an example of engine's abilities. Even on maximum rpm the power and torque are almost 2 times higher than the stock ones. I know, that everything there is being cooled with a seawater, starting from the fuel and finishing with the boosted air.

There are no good turbines available for the Toyota turbos. None. Read through the turbine geometry guide I linked before and you will find all the Toyota turbines are paddle wheels. Including the ceramics.
Going to a MHI or even Garrett core adapted to the manifold (there are many aftermarket that bolt on) will give you far better efficiency everywhere. More boost and more flow with less restriction. Borg Warner do not have anything suitable in this size.

Water/air intercoolers have twice as many heat transfers required to reject heat. This is why outside marine applications they are pointless. Air/air is the best performace. Lag is because your stock turbo sucks and has nothing to do with air volume in an intercooler.

Boost controllers cannot make the stock wastegate hold more boost than the spring inside, the weakly preloaded spring will be pushed open by drive pressure. That's why it is better to fit a stronger actuator or increase preload. Leave the boost controllers to the ricers.

The "maximum boost" book is from the 80's and while it's a good introduction it's very outdated. It was focused on maximising power and not drivability.
 
Last edited:
There are no good turbines available for the Toyota turbos. None. Read through the turbine geometry guide I linked before
I've read your article - very interesting. But we understand, that there is no ideal wheel for all conditions. If the wheel has a high flow, it is good for high power mode, but poor for response at low rpm modes. And vice verse - if the wheel is greatly grabbing exhaust at low-end, it will restrict the flow under the high power/rpm modes. I was also thinking, that our Toyota turbine wheels greatly restrict the exhaust after 3000 rpm. But, I do not exceed those prm for 99% of engine working time.

There is a Mamba wheel for my Toyota CT20B Twinscroll turbo, and according to your classification, it fits with Gen. 2. BUT it has a reduced amount of blades: 9 vs 10 in original wheel, and I absolutely agree with your statement from the article, that says:
Just be wary of the blade counts, many aftermarket wheels have reduced blade count for lower weight and inertia. It might work for a rice burner, but I'll take steady state performance improvement of more blades.
And this fact stopping me from buying this Mamba aftermarket wheel. From other hand I realize, that the blade design is improved. But counting my priority to the low-end range and low-power modes, I am looking at original ceramic wheel, since its weight beats all other benefits from different wheels.
What do you think about comparing Mamba VS original STEEL 10-bladed wheel?
Boost controllers cannot make the stock wastegate hold more boost than the spring inside, the weakly preloaded spring will be pushed open by drive pressure.
You are absolutely right. That is why I've made a longer lever for the wastegate valves shaft. It makes the spring force much higher. But boost controller still helps a lot, since you have THREE forces, which are acting together on a wastegate shaft: 1) actuator spring force, 2) exhaust gas pressure and 3) boost pressure on actuator, which is being adjusted by boost controller.
The "maximum boost" book is from the 80's
Well, nobody has cancelled the physics since then.
 
I've read your article - very interesting. But we understand, that there is no ideal wheel for all conditions. If the wheel has a high flow, it is good for high power mode, but poor for response at low rpm modes. And vice verse - if the wheel is greatly grabbing exhaust at low-end, it will restrict the flow under the high power/rpm modes. I was also thinking, that our Toyota turbine wheels greatly restrict the exhaust after 3000 rpm. But, I do not exceed those prm for 99% of engine working time.

There is a Mamba wheel for my Toyota CT20B Twinscroll turbo, and according to your classification, it fits with Gen. 2. BUT it has a reduced amount of blades: 9 vs 10 in original wheel, and I absolutely agree with your statement from the article, that says:

And this fact stopping me from buying this Mamba aftermarket wheel. From other hand I realize, that the blade design is improved. But counting my priority to the low-end range and low-power modes, I am looking at original ceramic wheel, since its weight beats all other benefits from different wheels.
What do you think about comparing Mamba VS original STEEL 10-bladed wheel?

You are absolutely right. That is why I've made a longer lever for the wastegate valves shaft. It makes the spring force much higher. But boost controller still helps a lot, since you have THREE forces, which are acting together on a wastegate shaft: 1) actuator spring force, 2) exhaust gas pressure and 3) boost pressure on actuator, which is being adjusted by boost controller.

Well, nobody has cancelled the physics since then.

The best turbine wheel you can get is the latest generation in that guide. The earlier turbos like the CT26 cannot fit later generation wheels because the housing geometry is wrong and they don't fit.
Better turbines spool up sooner, flow better at higher rpm and have lower drive/boost ratios across the whole operating range.

There's no reason to run a boost controller as once maximum boost is set where it needs to be it never needs lowered. When the turbocharger is matched correctly the boost scales as needed.

Maximum boost is not a physics text book. It's 1980's home-mechanic level introduction. Some of the diagrams were even wrong.
 
The best turbine wheel you can get is the latest generation in that guide. The earlier turbos like the CT26 cannot fit later generation wheels because the housing geometry is wrong and they don't fit. Better turbines spool up sooner, flow better at higher rpm and have lower drive/boost ratios across the whole operating range.
Like I said before, I have a limited budget, so I was looking for an easy and cost-effective solution to implement Twinscroll Turbo and split manifold on my car. And I found it - works excellent, MPG and HP are high, low-end torque is very good. And I understand clearly, that the turbo from 90-s is not even close to the top efficiency, so the engine with VE pump is not also. But it has two important advantages: It is simple as 2+2 and it is reliable as a rock. Moreover, after my upgrades it is powerful enough and I can make a 1000km on a highway with only 100 liters of original fuel tank. So, it is a 23.5 MPG, and I don't even need a second fuel tank.
There's no reason to run a boost controller as once maximum boost is set where it needs to be it never needs lowered. When the turbocharger is matched correctly the boost scales as needed.
Boost controller is much more convenient. I can increase or decrease the max. boost pressure and/or wastegate opening limit just for a couple of minutes. I do not need to spend half a day in garage for taking off an actuator out of the turbo, or turbo out of the engine..... and then half a day to set it back.... )))
Maximum boost is not a physics text book. It's 1980's home-mechanic level introduction. Some of the diagrams were even wrong.
May be. But it gives and explains the correct theoretical and practical basics,

Anyway, cutting all these lyrics, do you have any advice for me on a Mamba wheel?
 
Like I said before, I have a limited budget, so I was looking for an easy and cost-effective solution to implement Twinscroll Turbo and split manifold on my car. And I found it - works excellent, MPG and HP are high, low-end torque is very good. And I understand clearly, that the turbo from 90-s is not even close to the top efficiency, so the engine with VE pump is not also. But it has two important advantages: It is simple as 2+2 and it is reliable as a rock. Moreover, after my upgrades it is powerful enough and I can make a 1000km on a highway with only 100 liters of original fuel tank. So, it is a 23.5 MPG, and I don't even need a second fuel tank.

Boost controller is much more convenient. I can increase or decrease the max. boost pressure and/or wastegate opening limit just for a couple of minutes. I do not need to spend half a day in garage for taking off an actuator out of the turbo, or turbo out of the engine..... and then half a day to set it back.... )))

May be. But it gives and explains the correct theoretical and practical basics,

Anyway, cutting all these lyrics, do you have any advice for me on a Mamba wheel?

The efficiency of the VE pumped 1HD-FT is very good, within about 10% of the best engines. Better turbo gets you even closer.

The mamba wheel IMO is not worth the investment and work for a diesel that needs to optimise low end torque. You've still got a turbo with the wrong wheel trim for high end flow and not enough blades for low end torque. That's why they make TD05H based turbos which bolt on: 12-11 Billet Turbocharger For TOYOTA LandCruiser 1HD-T 1HD-FT 3" TD05H-18G 7cm - https://www.mambatek.com/en/products/12-11-billet-turbocharger-for-toyota-landcruiser-1hd-t-1hd-ft-3-td05h-18g-7cm
There are several variations depending on your goals.

There's no need to adjust boost lower. Set the turbo on the bench with a bike pump so the wastegate opens about 2-3psi over your target boost. The drive pressure behind the flap will make it open a bit earlier so it's near target.
 
The mamba wheel IMO is not worth the investment and work for a diesel that needs to optimise low end torque.
I have exactly the same opinion. Thanks.
You've still got a turbo with the wrong wheel trim for high end flow and not enough blades for low end torque.
May be it is not the best, but it is a Twinscroll, and that is increasing engine's volumetric efficiency and, as a result, fuel efficiency. And it is much better at the low-end compared to the original CT26 from 1HD-FT. After 3000 rpms it is also OK, much better, than stock one from 1HD-FTE with smaller wheel 60/48. Above I've written the solution to increase high-end performance - just separate wastegates flow from a main turbine wheel flow.
That's why they make TD05H based turbos which bolt on
But it is a singlscroll I'm not going back to. That's why I am looking for an original used ceramic wheel&shaft for my CT20B. Its weight about TWO times less, than inconel one, and together with fully machined compressor, it will make my low-end perfect. With my diesel exhaust temperatures it will last long. But it is pretty hard to find.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom