5VZFE swap into a 2nd gen 4Runner, need help

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

Seth_O

Seth_O

10 Year 15 Year
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Threads
118
Messages
1,741
Location
Under the hood
Im swapping a '99 5VZFE motor into my sons 1990 4runner (both MT, 4WD). I used the original 3VZ engine mounts with new 3VZ isolators, and when I attempted to test fit the engine I can't get it to line up with the mounts on the frame. I have the engine all the way square against the bell housing & transmission, but the isolators are sitting ~1" forward of the mounts on the frame rails. All of my research says the whole drivetrain should fit like stock, but thats not what I am running into. ChatGPT/Gemini/Claude cant agree on the cause - or even give me reasonable answers.

I had to scrounge some of the parts: the vehicle I bought appears to have been repowered at some point ('96 4runner, but it had a '99 engine in it), the bellhousing was an ebay purchase (6v R150F 3.4L 5VZFE manual transmission bell housing). To my knowledge the R150F in my 19990 4runner is original.

Any ideas? Do I need some strange combination of parts because of something unique in the years of my vehicles? Appreciate any help I can get.
 
Quoted from 3.4L (5VZ-FE) Conversion - Tech Info - Off Road Solutions - https://www.offroadsolutions.com/tech-info/3-4l-5vz-fe-conversion/#engine_mounts

"This 5-speed manual transmission is nearly identical to the unit placed behind a 5VZ-FE from the factory (also called the R150). The only note-able external difference between the older and newer R150 is the length of the input shaft, the depth of the bell housing, and the bolt pattern on the rear (4×4 models). The later (3.4L) version uses a longer input shaft and deeper bell housing. The newer version also uses a driver side output transfer case (except T100 models) with a different bolt pattern. This often means it is easier and more economical to use the older R150 from a 3.0L application."

Is it possible that your bellhousing is from a later 5VZ, which is pushing it forward an inch or so? I can't tell you from personal experience, but maybe it is possible you have the correct bellhousing, but just the wrong year. 🤷‍♂️
 
thabruiser said:
Quoted from 3.4L (5VZ-FE) Conversion - Tech Info - Off Road Solutions - https://www.offroadsolutions.com/tech-info/3-4l-5vz-fe-conversion/#engine_mounts

"This 5-speed manual transmission is nearly identical to the unit placed behind a 5VZ-FE from the factory (also called the R150). The only note-able external difference between the older and newer R150 is the length of the input shaft, the depth of the bell housing, and the bolt pattern on the rear (4×4 models). The later (3.4L) version uses a longer input shaft and deeper bell housing. The newer version also uses a driver side output transfer case (except T100 models) with a different bolt pattern. This often means it is easier and more economical to use the older R150 from a 3.0L application."

Is it possible that your bellhousing is from a later 5VZ, which is pushing it forward an inch or so? I can't tell you from personal experience, but maybe it is possible you have the correct bellhousing, but just the wrong year. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Its absolutely possible, since its just an ebay purchase with no vehicle information. I had no idea that was even possible, I'll bust out the measuring tape when I get home. Thank you!
 
Was your son's 1990 a 5 speed?

If so the input shaft/bell are interchangable but it does require a tear down to do so.
 
dohcdelsol93 said:
Was your son's 1990 a 5 speed?

If so the input shaft/bell are interchangable but it does require a tear down to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, both vehicles were 5 spds. this is the first Ive heard of needing to do anything with the tranny for the swap to work? I do not have access to the 3.4L transmission, it was sold before I got to the vehicle.
 
Doesn’t the factory 3.0 trans and bell housing bolt to the 3.4 and not require any modifications? You’d maybe have to route the slave cylinder line differently but I thought I read long ago that you could use the stock r150 found behind the 3.0.
 
I believe the problem the OP has is that the engine is further forward than expected, from what I can tell. It is bolting up fine, but the motor mounts aren't lining up with the frame mounts. I think the issue is probably bellhousing thickness.
 
Seth_O said:
Yes, both vehicles were 5 spds. this is the first Ive heard of needing to do anything with the tranny for the swap to work? I do not have access to the 3.4L transmission, it was sold before I got to the vehicle.
Click to expand...

That depends. It doesn't "bolt in" if you have the later 3.4 sourced transmission due to it being longer. Hopefully OP will respond back with the length of the input shaft. I have two 3.0 sourced transmissions torn down in the shop I can measure to compare. Unfortunately I cannot remember the length difference right now, Im thinking 11" for the 3.4 r150 and 9" for the 3.0 r150.
 
Mudder said:
Doesn’t the factory 3.0 trans and bell housing bolt to the 3.4 and not require any modifications? You’d maybe have to route the slave cylinder line differently but I thought I read long ago that you could use the stock r150 found behind the 3.0.
Click to expand...
I believe you are 100% correct. Not sure there's any reason for a different bellhousing.
 
gnob said:
Definitely need to use the bell that matches the trans.
the 3.4 parts are longer
Click to expand...
You Sir, were 100% correct. I laid the 3.0 and 3.4 bellhousing side-by-side, and the 3.4 is ~1" deeper/longer (mounting face-to-mounting face.) The 3.0 appears to bolt up directly to the 5VZFE. I'll clean it up and run it. I dont know why the folks I was watching were using the 3.4L bellhousing. Assuming no interference issues this is a much cleaner, easier solution as it opens space up on the d-side for the exhaust by keeping the slave cylinder where it was originally.
 
The early R150F behind a 3.0 has a shorter input shaft and shallower bell housing than the one behind the 3.4.

The early shallower bell housing also has the slave on the passenger side vs on the driver side on the later 3.4 version.

I used a 3.0 bellhousing, the 3.4 flywheel and clutch and the clutch lever and slave from my 88 22RE so some of this stuff will mix.

I also had to use a V6 cross member to get the engine in the proper location. I think it was off 3 inches from my original but that was for a 22RE.
 
Seth_O said:
You Sir, were 100% correct. I laid the 3.0 and 3.4 bellhousing side-by-side, and the 3.4 is ~1" deeper/longer (mounting face-to-mounting face.) The 3.0 appears to bolt up directly to the 5VZFE. I'll clean it up and run it. I dont know why the folks I was watching were using the 3.4L bellhousing. Assuming no interference issues this is a much cleaner, easier solution as it opens space up on the d-side for the exhaust by keeping the slave cylinder where it was originally.
Click to expand...
not sure what your clutch situation is but you need to be using the 3.0 TO bearing fw/clutch don't really matter
 
@gnob , Out of curiosity, I compared the 3.0, 3.4 and 22RE slave cylinders, clutch forks and the TO bearings and posted pics and measurements on Yotatech many years ago. Same with the 3.4 and 3.0 bell housings. Including my R151F.

The forks had very slight shape differences. You had to lay them side by side to even notice. The mounting dimensions were all the same and I could swap them out with each other no problem.

I "think" the 3.4 TO bearing was different. The 3.0 I "think" was the same as the 3rd gen pickup with 22RE like my son had. A one piece TO bearing. My 88 22RE with W56 trans had the cast collar that you pressed the TO bearing on. They looked a lot different but the measurements and contact surfaces matched. I'm actually running a 3.4 clutch, 3.0 bell housing, my 88 W56 fork (because it was the nicest one I had) and my 88 cast collar with a new TO bearing on it. I had a new 88 W56 slave cylinder so I reused it.

The 3.4 slave was just a driver side version of the passenger side version that the 3.0 and W56 used. Bleed port on opposite side. I think there were different part numbers for all of them?? I took them all apart and measured them and they were all the same bore and piston length. The only difference I could find was the spring tension.

My post is still up but ,the pics are gone unfortunately. I think I still have them on my hard drive.
 
aztoyman said:
@gnob , Out of curiosity, I compared the 3.0, 3.4 and 22RE slave cylinders, clutch forks and the TO bearings and posted pics and measurements on Yotatech many years ago. Same with the 3.4 and 3.0 bell housings. Including my R151F.

The forks had very slight shape differences. You had to lay them side by side to even notice. The mounting dimensions were all the same and I could swap them out with each other no problem.

I "think" the 3.4 TO bearing was different. The 3.0 I "think" was the same as the 3rd gen pickup with 22RE like my son had. A one piece TO bearing. My 88 22RE with W56 trans had the cast collar that you pressed the TO bearing on. They looked a lot different but the measurements and contact surfaces matched. I'm actually running a 3.4 clutch, 3.0 bell housing, my 88 W56 fork (because it was the nicest one I had) and my 88 cast collar with a new TO bearing on it. I had a new 88 W56 slave cylinder so I reused it.

The 3.4 slave was just a driver side version of the passenger side version that the 3.0 and W56 used. Bleed port on opposite side. I think there were different part numbers for all of them?? I took them all apart and measured them and they were all the same bore and piston length. The only difference I could find was the spring tension.

My post is still up but ,the pics are gone unfortunately. I think I still have them on my hard drive.
Click to expand...
im pretty sure the only difference in the to bearing is the carrier they ride.
there's no real reason for toyota to change any of those parts
we did end up building a longer slave rod in our rz swap because the RE and RZ to forks are different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom