I've read many threads about the differences between them both, including the FAQs.
My question is about low end torque. I'm under the impression that the 3F has more torque at low RPMs than the 1FZJ.
Can you tell me if there's an important difference when rock crawling and the ability to control movement with the throttle and move at very low speed as opposed to using the left foot on the break?
Actually it does, the 1fz-FE has more power across the board. If you are looking to buy, it is no brainer, get a 93+, more power, full floater rear, factory lockers front and rear, the list goes on.
I read somewhere that the 1FZ-FE has 90% of its torque available at 1400 rpm's. That puts the low end torque about 30 lb/ft over the overall peak of the 3F-E. I don't think there is any question that in every way the 1FZ-FE is the superior engine.
Can you tell me if there's an important difference when rock crawling and the ability to control movement with the throttle and move at very low speed as opposed to using the left foot on the break?
Thanks!
Some years ago I was given the opportunity to drive my 3FE equipped 80 and an 1FZFE equipped 80 over the same trail. Both rigs were very smilar at the time; 35s w/stock gears, similar body protection, same springs. We simply switched trucks and ran the same trail together. His comment was that mine was easier to control in the rough stuff. I though that his was just the opposite. More power, less control IMO.
We both went back to our trucks, but I was smiling.
You also question the left foot brake. I use that all the time and I am now running 36" tires nd 4.56 gears. Clear as mud?
Some years ago I was given the opportunity to drive my 3FE equipped 80 and an 1FZFE equipped 80 over the same trail. Both rigs were very smilar at the time; 35s w/stock gears, similar body protection, same springs. We simply switched trucks and ran the same trail together. His comment was that mine was easier to control in the rough stuff. I though that his was just the opposite. More power, less control IMO.
We both went back to our trucks, but I was smiling.
You also question the left foot brake. I use that all the time and I am now running 36" tires nd 4.56 gears. Clear as mud?
Some years ago I was given the opportunity to drive my 3FE equipped 80 and an 1FZFE equipped 80 over the same trail. Both rigs were very smilar at the time; 35s w/stock gears, similar body protection, same springs. We simply switched trucks and ran the same trail together. His comment was that mine was easier to control in the rough stuff. I though that his was just the opposite. More power, less control IMO.
We both went back to our trucks, but I was smiling.
So to put this into words, according to Raventai's graph, the 1FZ has more tourque at 1000rpm than the 3F has at it's peak at 3000rpm. IOW, the 1FZ has more low end torque at lower RPM than the 3F
One of the chief design intents on the 4.5L 1FZ was to improve torque at every RPM over the 4.0 3FE. I recall seeing a chart once that showed they succeeded in this. In fact, Cruiser trivia: In Australia the launch ad campaign included an ad showing the new 4.5 twincam 6 had more torque at idle than its chief competitor Range Rover's V8 had at its max. Rover demanded Toyota pull the ad because that type of comparative advertising was not allowed at the time in Australia. I cannot recall the outcome.
However, your question was about moving through rock crawling conditions and this I take to mean very large suspension movements and extremely slow speeds. I had a 92, then a 93 which I still own. Speaking stock suspensions, I feel that the 92's was a better combination of resiliency and suppleness for heavy trail work. Seemed to have softer springs and less damping. The 93's stiffer springs made it far superior on the road and improved trail capabilities as well, but I think it gave up a nanoamount of extreme capability on the trail for big rocks and ledges. Somewhere I have video of a test we did on the trail that highlights this. After the 93 had 100,000 miles on it and loosened up a tad I'd guess it got this ability back where then the 92's looseness with the same miles might have made its ability on less extreme trails degrade somewhat.
Sorry this is a wandering comment, but that's the way I saw it and I used to do product development for Toyota.
As a summary comment, the 93+ is the better trail rig if I had to choose one due to the engine and availability of factory lockers on a used rig that don't increase its market value, disc brakes in the rear, 16" wheels, and other refinements.
I read somewhere that the 1FZ-FE has 90% of its torque available at 1400 rpm's. That puts the low end torque about 30 lb/ft over the overall peak of the 3F-E. I don't think there is any question that in every way the 1FZ-FE is the superior engine.
If your rock crawlin', you will need to use your left foot on the brake no matter what. I really use this technique a lot with my Comanche runnin' 5:13's. Left foot on brake, right on the gas, lets you move smoothly over the rocks with an auto tranny.
I've had three cruisers - FJ40, FJ60, FZJ80. While I never had a cruiser with the FI 4 Litre engine, it is similar to the carbuerated version in torque. I loved all of these for off highway driving. BUT, the FZJ80 4..5L twin cam, 24 valve engine is hands down more powerful at the low end, mid-range, and high end.
It also runs smother and quieter, and has better roadability on the highway.
I don't think you can compare the two equally, since the FZJ engine is a more advanced design. In fact, I have always been a bit puxxled why Toyota did not continue with this engine beyond 1997 - it was only available for US customers from '93 to '97.
I've read many threads about the differences between them both, including the FAQs.
My question is about low end torque. I'm under the impression that the 3F has more torque at low RPMs than the 1FZJ.
Can you tell me if there's an important difference when rock crawling and the ability to control movement with the throttle and move at very low speed as opposed to using the left foot on the break?
