Scott610

iTrader: (3)

Wassup Rafi this joe keep me informed on stage 4 the supercharger and pricing lol

UpsjujuIS

Will this be available for the IS350?

STLblueF

iTrader: (3)

I'm interested in pics and pricing info for those of us who already have the tuned ECU.

RRRacing

iTrader: (1)

At some point, but right now we are a bit backlogged with the v8 tuning.

Tuned intake price will include re-tune cost. We are hoping to get the OBD handheld tuners working by next week, so those who have handheld tuners can just get the new file from us by email, and those already have our tune can upgrade to the OBD handheld tuner at our cost. We will announce pricing soon.

Rafi

rw3

iTrader: (1)

I mis-read, it is the VALVE LIFT that changed....not size. None of the 2UR-GSE Tech Briefs have valve size listed...

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

And without testing the head, it's difficult to say what impact there would be to increasing lift on the IS F configuration. Shape of the ramps on the cams also can dramatically impact total area under the curve, and when it comes to flow, that's what rules. Peak numbers are just like peak hp or torque numbers - completely meaningless without fully understanding the rest of the curve.

rselby

the closest thing Ive found that says anything about head flow about a UR engine is this
http://www.tundratalk.net/forums/tun...tml#post630589 see post #10
this guy has some interesting stuff about the 2UR/3UR motors....he got almost 300cfm @ .550 lift out of a 3UR head ( and I guess the 2UR head is even better) , Im still looking ( I found something one time that I thought it said the 2UR heads flowed 327 cfm )

Jeff Lange

iTrader: (1)

The IS F and RC F use the same intake valves. All 2UR-GSE's have the same size valves as far as I know.

Lift, that's a different story.

Jeff

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

And while peak flow it helpful, it only tells a small piece of the story. It's way better to know flow at 1mm or even 0.050" increments simply because it helps understand what kind of cam profile it will like, or again, if the head hits a wall at some specific lift. The 2JZ-GTE head in factory form does not benefit from lift over 8mm on the exhaust side, so putting cams with more lift is just a valve spring killer, not an actual improvement. The other thing to ask is, what lift do we currently have, and what lift will the current valve springs tolerate and for how long will they take it?

Still lots more questions than answers. I wish I had time to dig into to all this stuff, but work makes it very challenging.

rselby

here is some more info I have ran across

intake valve dia-- 38mm / lift is 12mm

exhaust valve dia -- 32mm / lift is 11mm

and found this For the 2UR-GSE engine in the Lexus IS F, dual VVT-i provided: •A valve overlap range (the period when both the exhaust and inlet valves were open) from minus 10 degrees to a maximum of 65 degrees;
•A 40 degree range of inlet camshaft timing variation relative to crankshaft angle;
•A 35 degrees of exhaust camshaft timing variation relative to crankshaft angle;
•Inlet camshaft duration of 248 degrees; and,
•Exhaust camshaft duration of 244 degrees....

and this is interesting now that we can get tuned ....For the IS F, D4-S had the following operating scenarios:
•Under cold start conditions, D-4S used port injection during the intake stroke and direct injection during the compression stroke. This produced an air:fuel mixture of 15-16:1, generating a richer mixture around the spark plug and raising the temperature of exhaust gases for faster warm-up of the two thin-wall catalysts;
•At idle, the engine operated on direct injection alone due to its higher efficiency;
•At low to medium loads and lower engine speeds, both direct and port injection systems were used during the intake stroke. This created a homogeneous 12-15:1 air:fuel ratio to stabilise combustion, improve fuel efficiency and reduce NOx and HC emissions; and,
•Under heavy loads, direct injection alone was used with an 11.8:1 air:fuel ratio during the intake stroke. The use of direct injection at high engine loads created an intake cooling effect which improved the efficiency of each charge. The 2UR-GSE engine could therefore use a high compression ratio while reducing pre-ignition tendencies and improving engine output and performance.


-the 11.8 AFR is kinda fat for a N/A motor, seems that there is some power alone with just leaning this out a bit( at WOT)

MileHIFcar

Wow^^^good find! Some good info about our engine quite impressive what they (engineers) were able to do with our motor utilizing both port and direct injection

RRRacing

iTrader: (1)

Yeah... talk to BMW and VAG guys who run direct injection only. Amazing how much carbon buildup these engines see. I remember seeing an Audi V10 with intake manifold off with only about 50,000 miles, looked like molasses in the intake ports and valves!

BMW even developed some sort of blasting technique where they clean the carbon buildup on the intake ports by blasting with ground up walnut shells! I can only imagine what the stealership bills you for that.

So you have to hand it to Toyota for running direct and port injection systems in tandem, its certainly much more costly to implement than what the Germans are doing.

Rafi

MileHIFcar

Yea I've heard about the carbon issues with direct injection only systems, which is why I'm glad the F employs such a sophisticated system

Didn't know how bad it gets, so your description on the Audi V10 engine sounds like a engineering fail big time! It must not be a big deal to the German manufacturers because they've employed direct injection now for what 10 years or so Maybe they like the money it brings in to the service departments when their customers complain about said issues?

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

D4S was not developed to combat carbon build up. It was developed because the engineering team found better mid-range performance with combined port and direct injection. A lot of what you can do with port injection to create a homogenous mixture is difficult with direct injection, but the endothermic action direct injection provides is the key to getting more hp/liter - you can run higher compression on the same fuel. We would never be seeing compression ratios at 12:1 or higher without direct injection.

Way back in the day, I boosted CR in my Yamaha 1200cc engine from a measured 9.2:1 to a measured 11.25:1. With carburetors, that meant 93 octane only, and I had the squish set to 1mm exactly after "truing up" the piston tops and milling the deck and head. It was a beast for its time, but with DI, we could have gone even higher on compression and made more power - as bikes and cars are doing today.

What will be most interesting to see will be how different engines handle supercharging. Ideally, you would build the engine for maximum detonation resistance by setting the squish area to 1.0mm across all cylinders. It's a whole lot easier said than done, but squish is the most important dimension on any engine. It determines octane sensitivity better than any other mechanical parameter.

Anyway, we will see where this all ends up soon enough.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

What is the source for the valve diameter information? Jowett? I have looked all over for it and have not been able to find it from Lexus, Yamaha, or Toyota.