Dyno numbers for the 2UZ?

[Ask10]

Hi all,

Now I know the pre VVT-i runners are rated at 235 bhp/315 tq, but I really have a hard time believing that is all. Yes sure, the drive by wire throttle is very "biased" to low down power and instant response, but just the fact that my own 4Runner makes 60 in 6.5 seconds ish makes me wonder if 235 horses is all it's really putting out. My Jag with the 4.4 motor supposedly puts out 290 hp and 300 tq, and 60 comes just a hair quicker (6.1-6.2) despite 6 speeds and weighing 400 lbs less.


Just curious if anyone has run a 2UZ runner on the dyno before and what the numbers were. I can't find anything elsewhere, but just to me it seems like the 2UZ would be putting out much closer to 270 bhp or even more.

 

[AKmoney]

Hi all,

Now I know the pre VVT-i runners are rated at 235 bhp/315 tq, but I really have a hard time believing that is all. Yes sure, the drive by wire throttle is very "biased" to low down power and instant response, but just the fact that my own 4Runner makes 60 in 6.5 seconds ish makes me wonder if 235 horses is all it's really putting out. My Jag with the 4.4 motor supposedly puts out 290 hp and 300 tq, and 60 comes just a hair quicker (6.1-6.2) despite 6 speeds and weighing 400 lbs less.


Just curious if anyone has run a 2UZ runner on the dyno before and what the numbers were. I can't find anything elsewhere, but just to me it seems like the 2UZ would be putting out much closer to 270 bhp or even more.

The HP rating seems about right to me. Remember, redline/full throttle upshifts are only at 5,000 rpm (when everything else out there these days spins to 6,500 and beyond).

 

[BlackWorksInc]

HP is a very inaccurate measurement of engine potentional/vehicle power. Torque/Torque Band is a more appropriate number.

You're V8 gets to 60 in 6.5? I believe factory specs is low 7's

 

[Ask10]

HP is a very inaccurate measurement of engine potential/vehicle power. Torque/Torque Band is a more appropriate number.

You're V8 gets to 60 in 6.5? I believe factory specs is low 7's

I guess you're right, although it's hard for me to put into words. I do understand what you're saying though.

Mine's on a diet (one seat), no spare, no tools, no extra accessories and it's a 2WD to begin with. I weigh in at 3900 lbs whereas most are at 4300-4600?

I also timed with an iPod, so give or take a few tenths for "user error". I also did the run on nearly empty and I myself am only 135 lb.

 

[t-man]

When I can finally afford my headers I plan on doing before and after dyno runs. It's going to be several months though.
As was stated, people get lost in HP numbers when in all actuality it is all about the Torque! And if our truck weighs say 4900 lbs loaded, and we have 335 ft/lbs torque, that is 1 ft/lb of torque for ever 14.63 lbs of truck. Now, a 2010 chevy silverado with the 5.3L has 335 ft/lbs of torque as well but it weighs in at 6400 lbs. Thats 19.1 lbs for every 1ft/lb of torque. Just for comparisons sake, a 2010 Honda Civic with a 1.8L has 128 ft/lbs and weighs in at 2630 lbs. That makes it 20.55 lbs for every 1 ft/lb of torque.
People wonder why our trucks are so fast, it's because they have a shit ton of torque and are very light in comparison. Simple arithmetic really. My moms ex boyfriend thought his special edition chevy 2500 was a badass cause it had 342 HP. Haha, I could dust him at any point and it drove him nuts!

 

[Ask10]

When I can finally afford my headers I plan on doing before and after dyno runs. It's going to be several months though.
As was stated, people get lost in HP numbers when in all actuality it is all about the Torque! And if our truck weighs say 4900 lbs loaded, and we have 335 ft/lbs torque, that is 1 ft/lb of torque for ever 14.63 lbs of truck. Now, a 2010 chevy silverado with the 5.3L has 335 ft/lbs of torque as well but it weighs in at 6400 lbs. Thats 19.1 lbs for every 1ft/lb of torque. Just for comparisons sake, a 2010 Honda Civic with a 1.8L has 128 ft/lbs and weighs in at 2630 lbs. That makes it 20.55 lbs for every 1 ft/lb of torque.
People wonder why our trucks are so fast, it's because they have a shit ton of torque and are very light in comparison. Simple arithmetic really. My moms ex boyfriend thought his special edition chevy 2500 was a badass cause it had 342 HP. Haha, I could dust him at any point and it drove him nuts!

Funny how you mentioned the Silverado and Civic, those are both my old vehicles except mine was a 2010 Si and not an R18.

The Silverado though in terms of your stated weight, that has to be a 4WD 2500 HD Crew Cab because my old 1500 2WD 5.3 extended cab was closer to 5,000 lbs even. Consequently although it wasn't as quick as the Runner, it would hold it's own against most ricer boys and their noisy Hondas (which I also consequently had).

The Civic though only had 165 ish tq @ 2,800 lb. (slightly modified) but it would easily destroy my 4Runner, so torque can't be the entire story, but I do get what you mean.

 

[t-man]

Funny how you mentioned the Silverado and Civic, those are both my old vehicles except mine was a 2010 Si and not an R18.

The Silverado though in terms of your stated weight, that has to be a 4WD 2500 HD Crew Cab because my old 1500 2WD 5.3 extended cab was closer to 5,000 lbs even. Consequently although it wasn't as quick as the Runner, it would hold it's own against most ricer boys and their noisy Hondas (which I also consequently had).

The Civic though only had 165 ish tq @ 2,800 lb. (slightly modified) but it would easily destroy my 4Runner, so torque can't be the entire story, but I do get what you mean.

According to Edmunds the 4x4 long box with the 5.3 is 6400. I've found Edmunds to be pretty darn accurate. Didn't look at the 2wd weight as I'd never buy a 2wd truck for Northern Michigan. Chevy's are pigs! I've had a ton, will never go back. I liked my Tahoe, until I got my 4Runner. When I need a pickup again I'm going Tundra.
The Civic si is nice. Lots of power there. And yours was more than a little extra ;-) hard to compete with them, smaller, geared different, many things go into it. Tuned, no chance, stock, I'll smear them all over the road even with my stock gears and 35's! :-D I take personal pleasure in messing with the kids around here. One older guy surprised me in his Juke though! That thing gave me the best run for my money so far! Lol

 

[m85476585]

According to Edmunds the 4x4 long box with the 5.3 is 6400. I've found Edmunds to be pretty darn accurate. Didn't look at the 2wd weight as I'd never buy a 2wd truck for Northern Michigan. Chevy's are pigs! I've had a ton, will never go back. I liked my Tahoe, until I got my 4Runner. When I need a pickup again I'm going Tundra.
The Civic si is nice. Lots of power there. And yours was more than a little extra ;-) hard to compete with them, smaller, geared different, many things go into it. Tuned, no chance, stock, I'll smear them all over the road even with my stock gears and 35's! :-D I take personal pleasure in messing with the kids around here. One older guy surprised me in his Juke though! That thing gave me the best run for my money so far! Lol

I had a R18 civic, and it was slow off the line, but once I got over about 5,000 RPM you could feel it. The problem was redline was only 6,800 RPM (vs 8000 for the Si), and the automatic was geared for efficiency starting at 3rd. Once it hit 65 mph, it had to shift, but then it wasn't able to accelerate any more.

A high torque engine accelerates quickly from a stop, but it might run out of power (torque drops off) or hit redline as the RPMs increase.

Engine torque isn't really relevant since the transmission multiplies it. Say you compare a Civic R18 and a Civic with a hypothetical 1.8L V8 (with 8 tiny cylinders!). If you're cruising along and you want to accelerate, you downshift the R18 Civic two gears, multiplying the torque in the transmission. In the V8 Civic you just hit the gas and it accelerates in the gear it's in. They can both accelerate just as quickly once they are moving. The V8 civic will be faster 0-60, though, since it doesn't have to wind up the engine before it gets torque. More speeds in the gearbox could compensate for that and make the R18 as fast as the hypothetical case.

Of course, knowing Honda they would make a 1.8L V8 that can rev to insane speeds since all the parts would be so small. It would be like an economy Lexus LFA. They could bolt two motorcycle engines together.
For example, two CBR1000RR engines:
344 hp @ 11,250 RPM
153 ft-lb @ 8500 RPM (still not a lot of low end torque)
2.0L displacement


BTW, here are some dyno graphs:
2003 4runner V8: http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/63-9022_dyno.pdf
I can't find the VVT-i V8 one I was looking for

 

[t-man]

I had a R18 civic, and it was slow off the line, but once I got over about 5,000 RPM you could feel it. The problem was redline was only 6,800 RPM (vs 8000 for the Si), and the automatic was geared for efficiency starting at 3rd. Once it hit 65 mph, it had to shift, but then it wasn't able to accelerate any more.

A high torque engine accelerates quickly from a stop, but it might run out of power (torque drops off) or hit redline as the RPMs increase.

Engine torque isn't really relevant since the transmission multiplies it. Say you compare a Civic R18 and a Civic with a hypothetical 1.8L V8 (with 8 tiny cylinders!). If you're cruising along and you want to accelerate, you downshift the R18 Civic two gears, multiplying the torque in the transmission. In the V8 Civic you just hit the gas and it accelerates in the gear it's in. They can both accelerate just as quickly once they are moving. The V8 civic will be faster 0-60, though, since it doesn't have to wind up the engine before it gets torque. More speeds in the gearbox could compensate for that and make the R18 as fast as the hypothetical case.

Of course, knowing Honda they would make a 1.8L V8 that can rev to insane speeds since all the parts would be so small. It would be like an economy Lexus LFA. They could bolt two motorcycle engines together.
For example, two CBR1000RR engines:
344 hp @ 11,250 RPM
153 ft-lb @ 8500 RPM (still not a lot of low end torque)
2.0L displacement


BTW, here are some dyno graphs:
2003 4runner V8: http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/63-9022_dyno.pdf
I can't find the VVT-i V8 one I was looking for

I wish I was an engineer. I've always had an idea of making a W16 with tiny little pistons that can push 20k rpm. Would be pretty badass little motor I bet. Of course, I'm not an engineer and I could just be a delusional motor junky that has no realistic thought. lol
16 cylinder 2-stroke running 20k+ and a small civic size car to scream around in.

 

[Ask10]

... In the V8 Civic you just hit the gas and it accelerates in the gear it's in. They can both accelerate just as quickly once they are moving. The V8 civic will be faster 0-60, though, since it doesn't have to wind up the engine before it gets torque...

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just curious), but being a V8 or not has a lot less to do with the available torque, but rather the bore/stroke ratio of the motor itself.

i.e. It's like imagining the crankshaft as a wrench and the pistons/rods as your arm. If you has a 3 foot breaker bar for example (long stroke), you would be able to produce massive off the line torque, but in terms of how fast you can spin your arm, well, imagine turning a super long breaker bar it's full rotation to undo a 10mm bolt. It would take forever, but you can undo a 500 ft/lb bolt easily for a standstill. That's "torque" from what I understand.

Now if I had a 3 inch ratchet and tried to undo a crankshaft pulley bolt, nothing would happen, just "clunk" and shatter if you tried too hard. However, once the bolt was loose, you could unthread it very easily because you can spin the ratchet must faster than the breaker bar and therefore remove the bolt "efficiently" so to speak. That's "horsepower", work x distance? I think it is.

So a V8 Civic would actually be less torquey than the R18 (which is what my daughter drives now) because the size of the "arm" turning the "crankshaft wrench" is much bigger, but consequently, can't spin as fast.

i.e. I have a CRF 230M which is a "long stroke" 223 cc single cylinder 2 valve motor, and if you multiply it by 8 cylinders, you get almost exactly 1.8 liters. Interestingly, despite no balance shafts and such, it revs to 9000 without the aid of v-tec or even fuel injection. Try that with a long stroke 450cc bike and I think you'd rattle your brains out and destroy the motor very quickly.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, I didn't go to school for this.

Of course, knowing Honda they would make a 1.8L V8 that can rev to insane speeds since all the parts would be so small. It would be like an economy Lexus LFA. They could bolt two motorcycle engines together.
For example, two CBR1000RR engines:
344 hp @ 11,250 RPM
153 ft-lb @ 8500 RPM (still not a lot of low end torque)
2.0L displacement


BTW, here are some dyno graphs:
2003 4runner V8: http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/63-9022_dyno.pdf
I can't find the VVT-i V8 one I was looking for

Would be nice if engine scaled up in terms of power and such. I have a 49cc scooter that produces 6 horsepower, so at that ratio, I'm sure my daughter (with the R18) would love to have a 216 horsepower 1.8 liter carbureted vehicle capable of 11,000 rpm, but it doesn't.

Btw, thanks for the link, i was surprised. It's a very nice torque curve though, explains why my truck moves so well from any speed.

 

[Ask10]

Chevy's are pigs! I've had a ton, will never go back. I liked my Tahoe, until I got my 4Runner. When I need a pickup again I'm going Tundra.

It's a love hate relationship with me. I hate GM electronics but I love their motors, especially the LS series. My 5.3, despite weighing over 1,000 lb more than my 4Runner would still do 1-2 mpg better (city and freeway), and tow a fair bit more as well, not to mention spin to 6k and last 1,000 years.

If only GM could build the rest off their cars like their engines, they'd dominate the world.

 

[AKmoney]

There's more to it than just bore/stroke ratio. Intake manifold design, exhaust design and cam timing also play important roles in determining an engine's torque curve.

GM LS2/LS3 engines have really good top-end pull, especially for a motor with only 2 valves/cyl, but it's a compromise. They have really aggressive cams in them with lots of duration and intake/exhaust overlap. As a result, they're actually kinda soft down low and they have a lopey idle that shakes the car back and forth. Definitely not glass-smooth like a 2UZ.

 

[m85476585]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just curious), but being a V8 or not has a lot less to do with the available torque, but rather the bore/stroke ratio of the motor itself.

i.e. It's like imagining the crankshaft as a wrench and the pistons/rods as your arm. If you has a 3 foot breaker bar for example (long stroke), you would be able to produce massive off the line torque, but in terms of how fast you can spin your arm, well, imagine turning a super long breaker bar it's full rotation to undo a 10mm bolt. It would take forever, but you can undo a 500 ft/lb bolt easily for a standstill. That's "torque" from what I understand.

Now if I had a 3 inch ratchet and tried to undo a crankshaft pulley bolt, nothing would happen, just "clunk" and shatter if you tried too hard. However, once the bolt was loose, you could unthread it very easily because you can spin the ratchet must faster than the breaker bar and therefore remove the bolt "efficiently" so to speak. That's "horsepower", work x distance? I think it is.

So a V8 Civic would actually be less torquey than the R18 (which is what my daughter drives now) because the size of the "arm" turning the "crankshaft wrench" is much bigger, but consequently, can't spin as fast.

i.e. I have a CRF 230M which is a "long stroke" 223 cc single cylinder 2 valve motor, and if you multiply it by 8 cylinders, you get almost exactly 1.8 liters. Interestingly, despite no balance shafts and such, it revs to 9000 without the aid of v-tec or even fuel injection. Try that with a long stroke 450cc bike and I think you'd rattle your brains out and destroy the motor very quickly.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, I didn't go to school for this.

Would be nice if engine scaled up in terms of power and such. I have a 49cc scooter that produces 6 horsepower, so at that ratio, I'm sure my daughter (with the R18) would love to have a 216 horsepower 1.8 liter carbureted vehicle capable of 11,000 rpm, but it doesn't.

Btw, thanks for the link, i was surprised. It's a very nice torque curve though, explains why my truck moves so well from any speed.

I still really don't understand torque and horsepower very well. But don't forget that there's the transmission so the torque at the engine is multiplied depending on the gear. Going back to your breaker bar example...
You would have gears between the bar/wrench and the 10mm bolt. The goal is to remove the bolt as quickly as possible. With the short wrench you choose a low gear that gives you mechanical advantage. You have to turn the wrench a lot while the bolt is difficult to turn, but once it gets going you shift to a normal gear. With the breaker bar, you choose a high gear. You use torque to get the bolt unstuck, then you go to an even higher gear (an overdrive gear like 5th) to get it off the rest of the way. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other.

One problem with bolting lots of motorcycle engines together is that you need stronger rotating parts to handle all the extra power. And if you don't have a good connection between them, you could break one if everything flexes and one engine ends up just slightly ahead of the others, even if they are linked together with a solid connection.

The Toyota Century V12 engine is basically two V6 engines bolted together.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

You guys are getting into the more nitty gritty of torque/power curves/generation/efficiency/engine design at this point.

From a numbers stand point Torque will be a better guideline/indicator of power over horse power as Torque is the component calculation of the engine's potential mechanical energy being output. Horsepower is derived from Torque and is more indicative of the potential speed the vehicle can travel/push/pull a weight (HP=TQ*RPM/5252 is the basic HP formula, the actual one is a bit more complex I believe) so it indicates more of the speed the vehicle can attain vs. torque which while indicative of how fast it can accelerate does not itself guarantee vehicle movement.

But then both numbers themselves also only paint a partial picture of a vehicle's design as shown by how many of use regard the V6's "Top-End" power-band to be less desirable when related to the V8's "Low-End" torque. So thus we need to add a bit of knowledge of the design of an engine (i.e. the Honda Civic making 150ft/lbs of torque in the higher RPMS, versus the 300ft/lbs of available torque at the low end RPMs in the V8.) Further complicating these measurements are going to be Transmission gearing, power band calculations, tires (for now lets just stick with diameter and leave grip, deflection, pressure, ratings, ect. alone), parasitic losses, final drive ratios, ect.

So in short... Torque + engine type (i.e. Car engines tend to be High-Revvers while Truck/SUV engines tend to be Low-Revving power delivery) can be enough information to give a mostly good idea of a vehicles potential; while Horsepower is not always indicative of a vehicle's abilities.

 

[RPS13]

You guys are getting into the more nitty gritty of torque/power curves/generation/efficiency/engine design at this point.

From a numbers stand point Torque will be a better guideline/indicator of power over horse power as Torque is the component calculation of the engine's potential mechanical energy being output. Horsepower is derived from Torque and is more indicative of the potential speed the vehicle can travel/push/pull a weight (HP=TQ*RPM/5252 is the basic HP formula, the actual one is a bit more complex I believe) so it indicates more of the speed the vehicle can attain vs. torque which while indicative of how fast it can accelerate does not itself guarantee vehicle movement.

But then both numbers themselves also only paint a partial picture of a vehicle's design as shown by how many of use regard the V6's "Top-End" power-band to be less desirable when related to the V8's "Low-End" torque. So thus we need to add a bit of knowledge of the design of an engine (i.e. the Honda Civic making 150ft/lbs of torque in the higher RPMS, versus the 300ft/lbs of available torque at the low end RPMs in the V8.) Further complicating these measurements are going to be Transmission gearing, power band calculations, tires (for now lets just stick with diameter and leave grip, deflection, pressure, ratings, ect. alone), parasitic losses, final drive ratios, ect.

So in short... Torque + engine type (i.e. Car engines tend to be High-Revvers while Truck/SUV engines tend to be Low-Revving power delivery) can be enough information to give a mostly good idea of a vehicles potential; while Horsepower is not always indicative of a vehicle's abilities.

The real key number is DRIVEWHEEL TORQUE. As in flywheel torque minus drivetrain losses times total gear ratio (trans ratio and rear end ratio).

The interesting thing is that when you do the math, you'll find that an engine will accelerate hardest at a certain speed in whichever gear it makes the most HP in, as it takes RPM into account (and thus indirectly gearing). But all this just describes a single point in time.

The real capability of a vehicle to accelerate is the gear ratio spread and the average HP over each of those gears (i.e. it better be a really broad HP curve if you've got wide gears).


In general, the 2UZ has a strong low end. Not so much on the high end. So it's got a pretty flat HP curve, which helps on some of the wider gear spreads (1-2 and 2-3 are pretty wide). But it's got decent power for an SUV.