Builds The Mountain Goat - An FJ140/2UZ-FE/Ute Build (1 Viewer)

[Well Sorted]

Why not just go stand alone ECU on the engine.... no fuss, no concerns with the transmission, or immobilizee, etc....

That's certainly an option. My philosophy though is to try and keep as much OEM content on the vehicle as possible. I'm biased because I have worked in the auto industry for 17 years and developed a lot of engines and powertrains, I tend to trust OEM design and development much more than one-off solutions. When I put a product in the field I want it to perform seamlessly at all conditions, including temps, altitudes, fuel variations, etc. There's just no way an aftermarket shop can replicate the calibration development work that goes into OEM engines. So my mission here is to find the right recipe of factory Toyota components with as minimal modification as possible to get the truck running.

There's certainly a business aspect of this project too, if I can make the 2UZ and H55 combo work then I can offer that to my customers as an engine swap option. The business case demands as much off-the-shelf content as possible, it's very hard to be successful building one-offs until you reach a level of fame/renown that means clients seek you out specifically for that (ex: Icon and their Derelict/Reformer series). I justify some of the time and money going into this project with the belief that it will help my shop in the long run.

 

[toyotaspeed90]

Not sure how working in the auto industry gives bias for that, unless it's simply that you are personally more familiar with Toyota OEM. I worked in the industry starting around 03ish (left for other reasons after ~4 years but didn't stop autoxing nor building engines/vehicles).

Many (non Toyota) OEM EFI systems have huge faults, even though they are built for the masses, not the desired application.

I can't think of much that an OEM 2uz ecu can do in an aftermarket setup that a good aftermarket can't do (and as far as weather/elevation variances go even the most rudimentary EFI handles that via map and AIT values). I can think of things an aftermarket system can do that a stock ecu can't.

I would think having the ability to work on OEM stuff (or even as you put it - have an off the shelf system available) is a great base for any shop. I would also think that a shop that has the ability to setup custom EFI systems, calibrate/tune for the application would open as many if not more doors.

A couple friends of mine own/work at a specialty Subaru shop. It's very interesting- they specialize in Subarus (closes in the market for them) but they are very successful because they take both avenues- they will change the oil and brakes for a customer with a newer, 100% stock Subaru... or do a complete wire tuck, turbo upgrades you can't buy, and EFI systems.

 

[Well Sorted]

Not sure how working in the auto industry gives bias for that, unless it's simply that you are personally more familiar with Toyota OEM.

...Many (non Toyota) OEM EFI systems have huge faults, even though they are built for the masses, not the desired application.

It's not so much about capability of the hardware, more about the robustness of the design/development work done. What huge faults are you seeing in Toyota production vehicles? Every one I've drive has been pretty darn bulletproof from a calibration standpoint.

Sure, a standalone system has a lot of knobs to turn and that can be advantageous depending on your goals. Yes, you can tune based on IAT and MAP, but did you actually test it at all conditions or just extrapolate the map out and hope for the best? In essence I'm asking the small tuner shop if you have the time (or if your customer will pay for it) to turn each knob and optimize the system for all possible conditions? I do believe that any OEM calibration is a significantly more robust system than what an aftermarket/performance/tuner shop can produce in terms of reliability and driveability across a wide range of conditions. That's the bias I was referring to. For a racecar with a limited operating envelope I'd be running a standalone, but that's not what I'm building. Even street cars with fairly standard usage in a known environment can perform quite well with custom tunes, but we're talking about off-road, out-of-country overland vehicles here. It's a different demographic.

Custom tuning, standalone systems, etc is certainly a viable business model as has been proven by many shops. It makes sense when you're talking about performance builds because the factory systems do leave things on the table in the name of durability and conservative tuning for tails cases (ex: Joe Blow puts the s***ty 85 octane gas in Colorado in his turbocharged DI engine). This isn't a high performance build though, and the overland community doesn't seem to desire the last 5% of performance at the expense of reliability. The purpose of these vehicles is to take you across landscapes, altitudes, locations, and seasons without a hitch. Sacrificing some peak performance is a reasonable tradeoff for robustness to varying conditions.

My goal for this one is to drive it to Patagonia. That means huge changes in weather, altitude, and fuel quality. I want seamless operation in all environments (at the expense of peak power) so I'm relying on Toyota and their development process because it's far more thorough than what I can complete on my own. If I (or my customers) just wanted peak HP I'd just put an LS in it (and probably still use a GMPP computer).

 

[Well Sorted]

And to get back on to the fun stuff, some small progress today... Started with trimming the C-pillar back and measuring the relative angles of the C-pillar and D-pillar. I want to keep this thing fairly short behind the 2nd door so I'm pulling the D-pillar far forward so as to not leave too much rear overhang. I cut the donor roof section back and started with some test fitting.

 

[White Stripe]

Nice progress!

 

[toyotaspeed90]

It's not so much about capability of the hardware, more about the robustness of the design/development work done. What huge faults are you seeing in Toyota production vehicles? Every one I've drive has been pretty darn bulletproof from a calibration standpoint.

Sure, a standalone system has a lot of knobs to turn and that can be advantageous depending on your goals. Yes, you can tune based on IAT and MAP, but did you actually test it at all conditions or just extrapolate the map out and hope for the best? In essence I'm asking the small tuner shop if you have the time (or if your customer will pay for it) to turn each knob and optimize the system for all possible conditions? I do believe that any OEM calibration is a significantly more robust system than what an aftermarket/performance/tuner shop can produce in terms of reliability and driveability across a wide range of conditions. That's the bias I was referring to. For a racecar with a limited operating envelope I'd be running a standalone, but that's not what I'm building. Even street cars with fairly standard usage in a known environment can perform quite well with custom tunes, but we're talking about off-road, out-of-country overland vehicles here. It's a different demographic.

Custom tuning, standalone systems, etc is certainly a viable business model as has been proven by many shops. It makes sense when you're talking about performance builds because the factory systems do leave things on the table in the name of durability and conservative tuning for tails cases (ex: Joe Blow puts the s***ty 85 octane gas in Colorado in his turbocharged DI engine). This isn't a high performance build though, and the overland community doesn't seem to desire the last 5% of performance at the expense of reliability. The purpose of these vehicles is to take you across landscapes, altitudes, locations, and seasons without a hitch. Sacrificing some peak performance is a reasonable tradeoff for robustness to varying conditions.

My goal for this one is to drive it to Patagonia. That means huge changes in weather, altitude, and fuel quality. I want seamless operation in all environments (at the expense of peak power) so I'm relying on Toyota and their development process because it's far more thorough than what I can complete on my own. If I (or my customers) just wanted peak HP I'd just put an LS in it (and probably still use a GMPP computer).

This conversation has gone sideways.

I don't believe there are major faults in Toyota EFI systems in a stock setting. However, as someone else mentioned - there are issues with a 2uz ecu as they are set up for an A/T, not to mention you have to incorporate the immobilizer system as well. One of the most successful 40 builds I've seen, which was on here, utilized a 2uz - had to integrate the immobilizer plus use an A/T. This could be the shortcoming - where it 'works' with a manual but runs in a different mode as the trans codes are flying all over the place. This could snowball problems with power, reliability, and fuel economy.

I've seen 2uz swaps into ae86s with a manual, street and track driven, with stand alone systems. It's very possible.

I'm unsure what you think is needed in calibration variances. The purpose of EFI is to use a variety of sensors to provide information to a CPU that runs algorithms against base data to determine the fuel and timing. That accounts for elevation (map), throttle input, air and coolant temps, knock, and more accurate oxygen sensor readings (wideband if you please). A good system will even allow you to tune on the fly - which means you determine your desired outcomes and it will learn based on all inputs and real time data.

Tune on pump gas and you're fine - either stand alone or Toyota if you get gas with sediment or water- you're gonna have a bad time. There's nothing magical in a stock ecu that will fix that.

This is just a discussion, not an attack. If you get it all to work without loss of power, or CELs to ignore (I see that on "professional" 4runner 3.4 swap ads all the time - "CEL is on, but that's typical") then that's awesome. I would enjoy seeing this build succeed. I see others chiming in and wanting to see how you do it.

Trust me - I've been where you are (in a different manner). I had a 1990 Corolla set that had a 4afe engine - swapped to a smallport 4age, then used a JDM (ie - hard to find) 4age distributor, rewired the 4afe igniter to it, modified the 4afe ecu to run another 1300rpms. Was told by the community it wouldn't work - it did, for 9 years, and had the dyno to prove it worked and made more power. However, the dirty secret was that ignitors couldn't handle it (carried 3 spares at all times) and the ecu wasn't actually running right as there was no TPS signal (4afe was switch, 4age was potentiometer - no way to make it all work properly). Daily drove it for years and tracked that car. The demise of that car was a high compression (11.3:1) 7age build that the ecu couldn't handle. Looking back - had I just gone stand alone from the get go it would have all been better.

If you stand on the notion that factory engineering is nearly flawless to be suitable for everything, then throw that engine into another vehicle - you're throwing out the engineering that was married to that transmission, transfer case, diffs, engine bay, cooling system - meaning a lot of those re-engineered calibrations go out the window.

That's why we're all here.... to rebuild how Toyota did, or improve upon.

 

[Well Sorted]

This conversation has gone sideways.

Yeah, I think we've worn it out. I didn't take it as an attack and didn't mean to stifle people questioning my approach. I'm always open to other ideas and part of the reason to put things like this thread out there is to hear what others think.

I'd say our opinions are more in line with each other than it probably first seemed, just some subtle differences in how we are looking at things. Having an 2UZ integrated into a 60 with a 5-spd delivering factory performance with no CEL's is absolutely the goal. We'll see if I can pull it off...

 

[dogfishlake]

It is so crazy how hard it is to break out the sawzall and break the rules of the original vehicle.

Engine swaps are everywhere but mega body mods just don't fly in the mainstream-yet.

It takes vision and guts, but it can be done. Kudos to your efforts and thanks for the inspiration!

I stared at the roof of Chunk last night thinking of a built in "pop top". If I only had the time...

 

[FJACS]

View attachment 1834928

Any thought to having the rear line of the D pillar parallel to the door gap? With the piece you have there now... I can’t imagine how the rest of it will fill in without looking bulbous.

I think your rendering was more even looking.

 

[POTATO LAUNCHER]

Awesome job D. I like your approach on this. Are you planning on keeping the rear seat and if so are you relocating the latches to accommodate the upper back?
BTW, I'm hoping to see this at SAS #3 along with Patrick's 60 project "Chunk".

 

[Well Sorted]

It takes vision and guts, but it can be done. Kudos to your efforts and thanks for the inspiration!

I stared at the roof of Chunk last night thinking of a built in "pop top". If I only had the time...

Thanks Pat, I appreciate the encouraging words! In a prior business venture I was messing around with poptop vans. I have had thoughts of trying to build a poptop for a 60-series. I'll save that one for later though.

 

[Well Sorted]

Any thought to having the rear line of the D pillar parallel to the door gap? With the piece you have there now... I can’t imagine how the rest of it will fill in without looking bulbous.

I think your rendering was more even looking.

You're spot on, the rendering had the line matching the C-pillar angle. I wanted to do that, but as I can see it there's only two ways to pull it off - fabricate a whole custom back wall for the cab, or use the factory parts (like I'm doing now) but tilting them. I didn't like the idea of a custom cab wall, I want a more factory look. Tilting the factory bits to match the angle is quite complicated due to the way the character lines below the rain gutter run and also the ones lower on the body side so I decided not to go that approach.

At SEMA I spent some time looking at modern cabs and a lot of them have a fair bit of forward sweep at the roof line. I think it can look okay if the canopy box is integrated well. I'll probably put in a sort of fairing to close up the gap some and maybe use it for a creative storage space.

In a few weeks I'll have the major bits of this approach together enough to see how it looks. If I don't like it and it's got too much bubble butt I'll cut it up and try again.

Awesome job D. I like your approach on this. Are you planning on keeping the rear seat and if so are you relocating the latches to accommodate the upper back?
BTW, I'm hoping to see this at SAS #3 along with Patrick's 60 project "Chunk".

I am keeping the rear seat and from what it looks like now I will probably need to pull the latches forward an inch or so, not too much. I'm hoping to keep the rear cushion where it is and not lose leg room. If the backrest angle feels weird then I'll redo everything to move the seat a bit farther forward. I may have to glue headrests to the window though!

And I'd say it's a real long shot for this rig to make it to SAS 3 but I'll definitely have the blue truck with some more upgrades and hopefully the R2.8 swapped FJ40 I'm working on. I've already negotiated with the owner to get some chances to take it out to events next summer. Already looking forward to the next trip to the San Juans with you guys!

 

[REZARF]

I think the lines still look really good. I like the incorporation of the factory pieces... too many chops look like a chop. Keeping the OEM panels in the build trick your eye more than one off pieces. For instance your drip rail transition looks so rad already. I think your rendition above just plain works.

Keep on being awesome.

 

[Well Sorted]

The wifey and I had plans family plans fall through at Thanksgiving so we decided to escape to the desert. Moab always does good things for my soul, there's something about those red rocks and magnificent sunsets that just resonates with me. We spent a little time wandering solo in the workhorse FJ60 shop truck...

We didn't get too ambitious since we were alone, mostly I used the time for driver training for her. Working through some easy sections of slick rock...

As a side note, I've never stopped in to talk with these guys (one of the many rental/expedition shops) but I sure like their style...

Saturday afternoon/evening was a long trip home in a classic Colorado snowstorm. I skipped a powder day on Sunday (blasphemous) and got back to work in the shop.

We left off with the challenge of blending the rearmost roof section in with the body. The problem here is that the trucks taper just a bit in the rear. The overall width between the rear drip rail above the hatch and the central portion behind the doors is a little less than an inch. Lining up the panels as I have them cut leads to this discrepancy between the two.

I spent a while looking at various ways to slice and stretch things so that I could line it all up. I made a few simple slices in the upper portion of the roof beam and the drip rail and tried to massage things with light hammer/dolly work.

In the end, I decide it wasn't going to work. Too much stretching/pushing/pulling required. I think it is possible but would look heavily worked in that area and not the factory-appearing finish I am going for.

 

[Well Sorted]

A new approach was needed. If you're going to be cutting and welding panels to get alignment it's better to do it in a less-obvious location. With that mindset, the solution is obvious...

The plus side of this approach is that I can much more easily align the remaining portion of the D-pillar with the C-pillar. The downside of this approach is that my prior plans to use a stock hatch will have to be modified. Mocking things up meant a number of clamps to hold the positions at the C-pillar plus a section of bracing and clamps in the center to temporarily "join" the two sides.

The gap here is about 7/8" wide. In an ideal world you'd take sections from two separate trucks, cut each a little long and trim them to fit in a clean butt weld. I don't have another spare roof laying around so I'm going to have to fill this gap with custom fabbed panels. The good thing is that it's in the center rear of the truck and will pretty much be hidden by the canopy box, so it's not going to be seen much. I'll still try to match the factory sheet metal profile though and make it all look seamless.Whatever solution I come up with for the hatch/rear panel will now also have to account for this 7/8" extra width. It's easier to find two hatches than two roof sections though, so I may just splice two together to get it right.

The upside to this approach is that the corner transition at the C-pillar is now much cleaner. The pic makes this look simple but rest assured there was a lot of time in carefully measuring and trimming pieces to fit. The first step was to get the angle of the rear face off my other truck and make sure it matched here (so that the lower body lines will align). I riveted a support piece on and measured, clamped, adjusted, trimmed, measured, clamped, adjusted, etc until it was all just right. Once there, I put tack welds along the joint of the two panels. I then made a small filler piece to box in the upper beam which gets hidden by the roof. With all the tacks and the upper section welded it's not going anywhere. Later I'll come back and redo the drip rail with some replacement sections to finish it all off.

 

[ceylonfj40nut]

I came across this and thought I’d share. Has a HJ61 Ute.

Parting Out - Parting out HJ61

I like your bold moves here. Awesome.

 

[FJACS]

Whatever solution I come up with for the hatch/rear panel will now also have to account for this 7/8" extra width. It's easier to find two hatches than two roof sections though, so I may just splice two together to get it right.

I don’t think you’ll be happy with the rear hatch moved forward. What about building it flat and using the rear sliding window from a 79 series truck?

 

[Well Sorted]

I don’t think you’ll be happy with the rear hatch moved forward. What about building it flat and using the rear sliding window from a 79 series truck?

That's a definite possibility. I think any number of pickups could donate a rear window, 79-series stuff is maybe harder to get than domestic models. The lower corners are next, once I have those done I'll move to the lower rear cross panel which will likely be made from cut up tailgates. I'll work my way up to the window/hatch last and figure out what makes the most sense when I get there.

 

[Willard]

I look at this project and the welding. I am always impressed by good welders. I wish my best weld was as good as any of your worst welds.

I am following this post here and on Expedition Portal. It is interesting to see the different comments. Great build.

 

[White Stripe]

A 3rd gen 4runner rear window might be cool. They are power roll up and plentiful used. Although if you have a box back their it might not be very useful to you.