View Poll Results: which would you do?
2JZ-GE
51
16.50%
2JZ-GTE
136
44.01%
1JZ-GTE
73
23.62%
1UZ-FE
49
15.86%
Voters: 309. You may not vote on this poll
Engine Pro's and Con's
10-03-07 | 10:44 AM
#91
Detailed discussion here. It is misinformation when you make the claim the only difference is the headgaskets. It is not, and the thread in the link explains why as well as my pictures above.
10-03-07 | 01:57 PM
#92
Driver School Candidate
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: WA
Detailed discussion here. It is misinformation when you make the claim the only difference is the headgaskets. It is not, and the thread in the link explains why as well as my pictures above.
And in regards to the link you posted, the piston dish measurement is wrong. Also, the deck height of a NA piston is without question no greater than .006" at TDC. Another factor is the resurfacing of the head. I had my block mildly resurfaced so it is probably somewhere between 0" and .006" for piston deck height on a stock motor. The head had about .005 taken off, so in my configuration would reduce the stock squish by an approximate .010.
So if the squish band of a NA head is .023" then the squish height in the stock configuration of a 2jzge has to be approx .023"+head gasket thickness-piston deck height.
In my case it would be about .018-.006+.079 = .091"
Dish measurements: http://www.supramania.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34345
The head volume is correct in the link you posted - but mine is different because I did a valve job, de-shroud, and polish on the CC.
Another point I want to make is that the squish band is not as important on this engine as some other designs. Yes, I understand and agree with you that it does effect the engine performance, but we must acknowledge that the combustion chamber design of the j series motor is much much different than that of some motorcycle engines and domestic v-8s. Looking at the CCs on some of those motors, the flat portion of the head shrouds almost half of the piston face. With those motors, yes, I do think that the quench is absolutely, without a doubt, one of the most important things you can address.
On this motor, it does not have as great of effect. Im not saying that it has no effect, im simply saying that it isnt as critical as you make it out to be.
I dont want to come across the wrong way though - I liked your article posted on TO4R. Very well written and informative. Thanks for writing that up.
Last edited by p5150; 10-03-07 at 09:09 PM.
10-07-07 | 10:17 PM
#93
Yes, I agree with you, but nobody said that the head gaskets were the only difference. The FAQ poster specifically stated that the head gaskets and the pistons are the difference. Although that statement isnt 100% accurate because it didnt address the differences in the head, it seemed like you were talking down to the poster like hes a total idiot and completely incorrect which isn't the case.
I said misinformation. I made no comment about the poster's intelligence, and you are assuming something I neither said nor intended. I stated the information is wrong. This is the Internet, not a psychology class - take what I say at face value.
And in regards to the link you posted, the piston dish measurement is wrong. Also, the deck height of a NA piston is without question no greater than .006" at TDC. Another factor is the resurfacing of the head. I had my block mildly resurfaced so it is probably somewhere between 0" and .006" for piston deck height on a stock motor. The head had about .005 taken off, so in my configuration would reduce the stock squish by an approximate .010.
Without question? Maybe on the one engine you own, but not on the original design. Somewhere between 0.00 and -0.15mm deck height off a stock motor? Didn't you measure deck height for all six cylinders to ensure the pistons are all at the same height (rods all the same length +/- 0.025mm)? That's a critical number. Also, if you measure 20 blocks, you'll have 20 different deck heights. I've seen deck height vary over 1.00 mm between individual engines. For this measurement to mean anything compared to "stock" you need to compare it with the Motorola Cup engine specifications (see attached Word doc for the official spec sheet). The 2JZ-GTE is zero deck engine. If your piston's squish lands are above the deck, you are above blueprint spec and you would be disqualified in Motorola Cup because your compression ratio would be illegally high. If your engine is built this way, your measurements clearly do not meet the manufacturer's specs, and any compression ratio calculation will not be the same as the OEM spec. You are also dealing with cast pistons, and they should be trued in a lathe to ensure the top surface is flat, even, and square relative to the piston pin. I've seen cast pistons vary as much a 0.18mm out of flat. Try running the compression calculator for the GTE with the correct numbers: 86 x 86 bore and stroke, 86mm headgasket, 44.9cc cylinder head volume, 1.35mm compressed HG thickness, zero deck, -13.8cc dome volume - just like the Motorola numbers - guess what? 8.507:1 compression ratio. How did I get the dish calculation wrong if the calculator gives an 8.5:1 compression ratio just like Toyco says? Just for fun, add a millimeter to the bore and see what happens.
So if the squish band of a NA head is .023" then the squish height in the stock configuration of a 2jzge has to be approx .023"+head gasket thickness-piston deck height.
In my case it would be about .018-.006+.079 = .091"
So, in your case, you are using measurements that are not to blueprint spec, they are production spec but within tolerance. Why would you assume your numbers would be consistent with factory ideal design specification? Also, you have an 87mm bore, not an 86mm bore. This raises compression ratio significantly (see CR calculator above for empirical proof.)
Dish measurements: http://www.supramania.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34345
From what I can tell, you measured with a graduated cylinder, a syringe, and a lot of guesswork despite your claim to accuracy. I would suggest you might have been able to measure to +/- 1cc, but with a dome volume of 13.8cc, that's at least a +/- 7% error. That's a LOT when calculating compression ratio. My calculations were based on Motorola Cup specs, not direct measurements. These numbers originally came from Toyota/TRD, so it's pretty reasonable to believe they're accurate.
No one I know in the industry uses your method. We all use a burette with graduations of 0.1cc or 0.05cc with solvent. At a minimum you need at least 0.1cc graduations to arrive at < 1.0cc accuracy. Also, oil has an incredibly high surface tension compared to almost any solvent and is not used to measure critical volumes except in those cases where solvent is ill advised. Water is even worse than oil unless it contains a wetting agent to reduce surface tension. In those rare cases where oil is required 0 or 10 weight oil is used because thick oil's surface tension does not yield accurate measurements. FWIW, piston domes and dishes are measured with modeling clay and water displacement; not a syringe, graduated cylinder, and oil.
The head volume is correct in the link you posted - but mine is different because I did a valve job, de-shroud, and polish on the CC.
It's correct for a GTE, not a GE. The GE cylinder head has a smaller combustion chamber volume than the GTE head. If I had one handy, I'd measure it for you, but I know from when I did the GE head, it is considerably smaller than the GTE head. The goal for the thread I linked was to find the volume of the OEM TT piston dish. It is 13.8cc because it must be. At 12cc it would not make 8.5:1 in a GTE engine with everything precisely at design spec.
Another point I want to make is that the squish band is not as important on this engine as some other designs. Yes, I understand and agree with you that it does effect the engine performance, but we must acknowledge that the combustion chamber design of the j series motor is much much different than that of some motorcycle engines and domestic v-8s. Looking at the CCs on some of those motors, the flat portion of the head shrouds almost half of the piston face. With those motors, yes, I do think that the quench is absolutely, without a doubt, one of the most important things you can address.
On this motor, it does not have as great of effect. Im not saying that it has no effect, im simply saying that it isnt as critical as you make it out to be.
I have a great deal of direct experience with the big Yamaha aircooled 1100/1200cc four cylinder engines. Their combustion chamber is 76mm across - slightly smaller than the 2JZ, but with an identical pentroof design including the very small squish area (originally seen in a Honda 250cc 6 cylinder from the 60's). I consistently pulled out 7 degrees of full advance ignition timing by setting the squish right. If you can show me that you've been unable to do something similar with your 2JZ, then I'll concede it may not be important. Without evidence (and so far, I've not seen any), I will continue to hold squish as the most important measurement to get right on any engine. Oh, and the very first one of these Yamahas I pulled apart was factory rated at 9.5:1 compression. It measured out at 9.125:1 because the deck height was much higher than it should have been. I have found this to be typical. Deck height ALWAYS errs on the tall side to ensure the compression ratio is not too high. If it is, the manufacturer is spending a lot of money replacing engines under warranty. Ask Suzuki about it - they set up a machine incorrectly for the Gixxer 750s one year and had 0.43mm squish. They worked wonderfully with race gas, but detonated to death on pump gas.
You might also want to consider why Toyco put this picture in the New Car Features book in 1993. They usually reserve that space for things they are especially proud to announce
I dont want to come across the wrong way though - I liked your article posted on TO4R. Very well written and informative. Thanks for writing that up.
I know you don't believe the OEM compression ratio is actually 10:1 because you measured one engine and found it lacking. Sorry to say, but I'd bet a LOT of money they're all lacking. However, when built to Toyota's ideal design specs, the engine comes out like this:
Apparently you have not seen this kind of discrepancy before. I have. Many, many times. I'd also bet a lot of money the cam timing isn't dead on what you see in the chart here either, and if you deck the block or the head, the cam timing will change, and you'll need adjustable sprockets to set it back where it should have been. But that's a whole different post.
I said misinformation. I made no comment about the poster's intelligence, and you are assuming something I neither said nor intended. I stated the information is wrong. This is the Internet, not a psychology class - take what I say at face value.
And in regards to the link you posted, the piston dish measurement is wrong. Also, the deck height of a NA piston is without question no greater than .006" at TDC. Another factor is the resurfacing of the head. I had my block mildly resurfaced so it is probably somewhere between 0" and .006" for piston deck height on a stock motor. The head had about .005 taken off, so in my configuration would reduce the stock squish by an approximate .010.
Without question? Maybe on the one engine you own, but not on the original design. Somewhere between 0.00 and -0.15mm deck height off a stock motor? Didn't you measure deck height for all six cylinders to ensure the pistons are all at the same height (rods all the same length +/- 0.025mm)? That's a critical number. Also, if you measure 20 blocks, you'll have 20 different deck heights. I've seen deck height vary over 1.00 mm between individual engines. For this measurement to mean anything compared to "stock" you need to compare it with the Motorola Cup engine specifications (see attached Word doc for the official spec sheet). The 2JZ-GTE is zero deck engine. If your piston's squish lands are above the deck, you are above blueprint spec and you would be disqualified in Motorola Cup because your compression ratio would be illegally high. If your engine is built this way, your measurements clearly do not meet the manufacturer's specs, and any compression ratio calculation will not be the same as the OEM spec. You are also dealing with cast pistons, and they should be trued in a lathe to ensure the top surface is flat, even, and square relative to the piston pin. I've seen cast pistons vary as much a 0.18mm out of flat. Try running the compression calculator for the GTE with the correct numbers: 86 x 86 bore and stroke, 86mm headgasket, 44.9cc cylinder head volume, 1.35mm compressed HG thickness, zero deck, -13.8cc dome volume - just like the Motorola numbers - guess what? 8.507:1 compression ratio. How did I get the dish calculation wrong if the calculator gives an 8.5:1 compression ratio just like Toyco says? Just for fun, add a millimeter to the bore and see what happens.
So if the squish band of a NA head is .023" then the squish height in the stock configuration of a 2jzge has to be approx .023"+head gasket thickness-piston deck height.
In my case it would be about .018-.006+.079 = .091"
So, in your case, you are using measurements that are not to blueprint spec, they are production spec but within tolerance. Why would you assume your numbers would be consistent with factory ideal design specification? Also, you have an 87mm bore, not an 86mm bore. This raises compression ratio significantly (see CR calculator above for empirical proof.)
Dish measurements: http://www.supramania.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34345
From what I can tell, you measured with a graduated cylinder, a syringe, and a lot of guesswork despite your claim to accuracy. I would suggest you might have been able to measure to +/- 1cc, but with a dome volume of 13.8cc, that's at least a +/- 7% error. That's a LOT when calculating compression ratio. My calculations were based on Motorola Cup specs, not direct measurements. These numbers originally came from Toyota/TRD, so it's pretty reasonable to believe they're accurate.
No one I know in the industry uses your method. We all use a burette with graduations of 0.1cc or 0.05cc with solvent. At a minimum you need at least 0.1cc graduations to arrive at < 1.0cc accuracy. Also, oil has an incredibly high surface tension compared to almost any solvent and is not used to measure critical volumes except in those cases where solvent is ill advised. Water is even worse than oil unless it contains a wetting agent to reduce surface tension. In those rare cases where oil is required 0 or 10 weight oil is used because thick oil's surface tension does not yield accurate measurements. FWIW, piston domes and dishes are measured with modeling clay and water displacement; not a syringe, graduated cylinder, and oil.
The head volume is correct in the link you posted - but mine is different because I did a valve job, de-shroud, and polish on the CC.
It's correct for a GTE, not a GE. The GE cylinder head has a smaller combustion chamber volume than the GTE head. If I had one handy, I'd measure it for you, but I know from when I did the GE head, it is considerably smaller than the GTE head. The goal for the thread I linked was to find the volume of the OEM TT piston dish. It is 13.8cc because it must be. At 12cc it would not make 8.5:1 in a GTE engine with everything precisely at design spec.
Another point I want to make is that the squish band is not as important on this engine as some other designs. Yes, I understand and agree with you that it does effect the engine performance, but we must acknowledge that the combustion chamber design of the j series motor is much much different than that of some motorcycle engines and domestic v-8s. Looking at the CCs on some of those motors, the flat portion of the head shrouds almost half of the piston face. With those motors, yes, I do think that the quench is absolutely, without a doubt, one of the most important things you can address.
On this motor, it does not have as great of effect. Im not saying that it has no effect, im simply saying that it isnt as critical as you make it out to be.
I have a great deal of direct experience with the big Yamaha aircooled 1100/1200cc four cylinder engines. Their combustion chamber is 76mm across - slightly smaller than the 2JZ, but with an identical pentroof design including the very small squish area (originally seen in a Honda 250cc 6 cylinder from the 60's). I consistently pulled out 7 degrees of full advance ignition timing by setting the squish right. If you can show me that you've been unable to do something similar with your 2JZ, then I'll concede it may not be important. Without evidence (and so far, I've not seen any), I will continue to hold squish as the most important measurement to get right on any engine. Oh, and the very first one of these Yamahas I pulled apart was factory rated at 9.5:1 compression. It measured out at 9.125:1 because the deck height was much higher than it should have been. I have found this to be typical. Deck height ALWAYS errs on the tall side to ensure the compression ratio is not too high. If it is, the manufacturer is spending a lot of money replacing engines under warranty. Ask Suzuki about it - they set up a machine incorrectly for the Gixxer 750s one year and had 0.43mm squish. They worked wonderfully with race gas, but detonated to death on pump gas.
You might also want to consider why Toyco put this picture in the New Car Features book in 1993. They usually reserve that space for things they are especially proud to announce
I dont want to come across the wrong way though - I liked your article posted on TO4R. Very well written and informative. Thanks for writing that up.
I know you don't believe the OEM compression ratio is actually 10:1 because you measured one engine and found it lacking. Sorry to say, but I'd bet a LOT of money they're all lacking. However, when built to Toyota's ideal design specs, the engine comes out like this:
Apparently you have not seen this kind of discrepancy before. I have. Many, many times. I'd also bet a lot of money the cam timing isn't dead on what you see in the chart here either, and if you deck the block or the head, the cam timing will change, and you'll need adjustable sprockets to set it back where it should have been. But that's a whole different post.
Last edited by lobuxracer; 10-14-07 at 11:53 PM.
10-08-07 | 10:26 AM
#94
lobuxracer,
Just got your information posted up in the FAQ on clubna-t. Thanks for pointing out the misinfo. While I still see the primary drop in compression coming from a thicker headgasket and lower compression pistons; it is clear the squish-band is maintained in the way you state. Its on the third post of the FAQ under Bigger Power. If you see another place that needs updating, please let me know. I'm pretty much at school and work all the time so I do it when I can
And to anyone else that finds a snafu, please enlighten me/us. The FAQ doesnt have to remain static, it will stay with the times and keep up to date on the most current information.
Just got your information posted up in the FAQ on clubna-t. Thanks for pointing out the misinfo. While I still see the primary drop in compression coming from a thicker headgasket and lower compression pistons; it is clear the squish-band is maintained in the way you state. Its on the third post of the FAQ under Bigger Power. If you see another place that needs updating, please let me know. I'm pretty much at school and work all the time so I do it when I can
And to anyone else that finds a snafu, please enlighten me/us. The FAQ doesnt have to remain static, it will stay with the times and keep up to date on the most current information.
10-09-07 | 11:24 AM
#95
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 913
Likes: 1
From: Wilmington, North Carolina
A 1J--
Price -- $2300 for a front clip!!! nothing else comes close
Parts-- 2J block makes it nearly americanized, if you ever melt your pistons that is
Reliability-- it's a Toyota motor--
uniqueness-- By far #1 (except for a boosted 1UZ of course)
out of the box power-- pretty good-- not the best
potential-- 22psi on stock h/g?? What's that like 600 hp for a motor that cheap--
By the time you've bolted on a single kit, bought an SAFC, bigger injectors, you've still kept $2000 over buying a 2JZ-GTE that's bone stock....
No brainer.
Price -- $2300 for a front clip!!! nothing else comes close
Parts-- 2J block makes it nearly americanized, if you ever melt your pistons that is
Reliability-- it's a Toyota motor--
uniqueness-- By far #1 (except for a boosted 1UZ of course)
out of the box power-- pretty good-- not the best
potential-- 22psi on stock h/g?? What's that like 600 hp for a motor that cheap--
By the time you've bolted on a single kit, bought an SAFC, bigger injectors, you've still kept $2000 over buying a 2JZ-GTE that's bone stock....
No brainer.
10-11-07 | 09:28 AM
#97
10-30-07 | 04:45 PM
#98
this thread is very interesting....i mean the 2jz-gte is the best motor out there, but financial wise, i believe the 1j is the best to go with...thats just me, i have seen na-t's put down some serious numbers, but to me building a non turbo motor for boost isnt as cheap or reliable as an already turboed motor....thats just me and my input...good luck with it bro....
12-29-07 | 01:42 PM
#99
Rookie
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Texas
gte all the way, ive seen both 1j and gte swaps done to sc's and even though gte is a bit more due to wiring i believe it is worth it. ive riden in a 1j sc and it is still fun and better gas milage by about 6 miles. if you are building for race then go gte. if your building dd go with 1j
01-18-08 | 12:01 AM
#100
Driver
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin
Im 1JZ all the way but I read recently something interesting that I think more people should do (i may even do it if i can afford it) Its a 1.5JZ-GTE.
"The 1.5JZ is not a production engine but is created by combining a 1JZ with a 2JZ bottom end. The 2JZ bottom end will simply bolt onto the 1JZ cylinder head.
1JZ = 2.5L Inline 6 (86.0mm bore x 71.5mm stroke)
2JZ = 3.0L Inline 6 (86.0mm bore x 86.0mm stroke)
Using a 2JZ bottom end with the 1JZ components allows an extra 500cc of displacement.
Reasons for this conversion is a matter of opinion and discussion. Some claim a 1JZ head flows better than a 2JZ, however this is unfounded as of yet.
What is known is that the 2JZ head compared to the 1JZ head has more restriction in the 5th and 6th cylinder exhaust ports due to an S shaped casting. The 1JZ also has different shaped combustion chambers which, when directly placed on a 2JZ block, increases the compression slightly and leads to a power increase when using unworked heads. Once worked (ported and chambers reshaped, valves resized) the heads have been proven to flow much the same.
The most likely reason for the setup would be if the owner of a worked 1JZ engine suffered from bottom end failure or if they wanted the extra displacement and torque of the 2JZ bottom end, as the heads are interchangeable".
Sounds like a good idea to me
"The 1.5JZ is not a production engine but is created by combining a 1JZ with a 2JZ bottom end. The 2JZ bottom end will simply bolt onto the 1JZ cylinder head.
1JZ = 2.5L Inline 6 (86.0mm bore x 71.5mm stroke)
2JZ = 3.0L Inline 6 (86.0mm bore x 86.0mm stroke)
Using a 2JZ bottom end with the 1JZ components allows an extra 500cc of displacement.
Reasons for this conversion is a matter of opinion and discussion. Some claim a 1JZ head flows better than a 2JZ, however this is unfounded as of yet.
What is known is that the 2JZ head compared to the 1JZ head has more restriction in the 5th and 6th cylinder exhaust ports due to an S shaped casting. The 1JZ also has different shaped combustion chambers which, when directly placed on a 2JZ block, increases the compression slightly and leads to a power increase when using unworked heads. Once worked (ported and chambers reshaped, valves resized) the heads have been proven to flow much the same.
The most likely reason for the setup would be if the owner of a worked 1JZ engine suffered from bottom end failure or if they wanted the extra displacement and torque of the 2JZ bottom end, as the heads are interchangeable".
Sounds like a good idea to me
01-20-08 | 11:04 PM
#101
Driver
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: New York
i just bought a 2jzgte with auto tranny ecu, wire harness, and everything thats bolted onto it for $1500 it makes me happy... now where the hell am i going to get a 5spd... does a 5sp form a 7mgte bolt up to a 2jzgte? im selling my auto from the 2jzgte and a auto from my 2jz and 2jzge engine soon...
it makes me happy... now where the hell am i going to get a 5spd... does a 5sp form a 7mgte bolt up to a 2jzgte? im selling my auto from the 2jzgte and a auto from my 2jz and 2jzge engine soon...
01-20-08 | 11:23 PM
#102
Driver
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: New York
Also since ive been wantign to boost my sc300, i been looking up prices and thinking how much labor involved and sicne im doing the work myself and always finding a good deal since i dont make alot of money i figure the 2jzgte is better then hooking up the 2jzge beacause for the same amount of money i oculd of gotten a ebay turbo kit lol. who knows the reliability on the turbo but everythign else like pipeing dont have to spend hundreds more for a name brand.. on another note i dont liek how cramp the 2jzge motor will be on the passenger side with the intake and turbo on that side.. and converting it over to a 2jzgte... the price you pay will add up more then well atleast the gte i got for.. i chose 2jzgte
01-22-08 | 12:42 AM
#103
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,129
Likes: 1
From: Where my car's at
GE
1) price - it comes with the car..
2) availability of parts and upgrades - Lots of parts for turbo charging
3) reliability - with a head gasket and apr studs, its wonderful
4) uniqueness - pretty unique considering everyone is doing 1j or 2jtt swap
5) out of the box power - its stock
6) potential - Tons of potential.
1) price - it comes with the car..
2) availability of parts and upgrades - Lots of parts for turbo charging
3) reliability - with a head gasket and apr studs, its wonderful
4) uniqueness - pretty unique considering everyone is doing 1j or 2jtt swap
5) out of the box power - its stock
6) potential - Tons of potential.
01-24-08 | 11:30 AM
#104
Rookie
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
I need some advice from people on what would be an intelligent move. i am going to be selling my mr2 turbo and picking up an sc300 with about $2600 left to spend.
I mainly wanted a very reliable daily driver that also has some kick to it. I was leaning towards the na-t, but the 1jzgte sounds good. Either way they will cost nearly the same. I only want about 300-350whp and i've read that is the limit for a stock headgasket 2jz.
i was just wondering though, does the 2jz (if maintained properly) have the potential to last 50k(on top of 130k) with a turbo on it?
i barely put 20 miles a day on my mr2, and i rarely rod it at all and its been an amazing car for me. I will treat the lexus no different, though.
Do you guys think its worth going with the XS power turbo kit for $1200 (heard nothing but praises for it) or should i just spend the $1800 for a complete swap 1jzgte? (with my own intercooler supplied etc)
I mainly wanted a very reliable daily driver that also has some kick to it. I was leaning towards the na-t, but the 1jzgte sounds good. Either way they will cost nearly the same. I only want about 300-350whp and i've read that is the limit for a stock headgasket 2jz.
i was just wondering though, does the 2jz (if maintained properly) have the potential to last 50k(on top of 130k) with a turbo on it?
i barely put 20 miles a day on my mr2, and i rarely rod it at all and its been an amazing car for me. I will treat the lexus no different, though.
Do you guys think its worth going with the XS power turbo kit for $1200 (heard nothing but praises for it) or should i just spend the $1800 for a complete swap 1jzgte? (with my own intercooler supplied etc)
02-02-08 | 12:26 AM
#105
lol mr2man07 wow i thought i was reading myself.. i just sold my car and bought a sc, have abou the exact same to spend right now and cannot figure out what the best move would be..
i as well am looking for 300 to 350whp just reliable daily driver with hp for fun..
my hangup with the na-t seems to be the strength of the GE trans?
that's one of the main benifits i see to going with a 1jz, stronger trans and stock boosted motor reliablity and ease..
the ge seems like a smart way to go, but then i'm worried about fuel management, i have 200k on my motor even though it runs like new.. age of my trans.. just to name a few worries
i as well am looking for 300 to 350whp just reliable daily driver with hp for fun..
my hangup with the na-t seems to be the strength of the GE trans?
that's one of the main benifits i see to going with a 1jz, stronger trans and stock boosted motor reliablity and ease..
the ge seems like a smart way to go, but then i'm worried about fuel management, i have 200k on my motor even though it runs like new.. age of my trans.. just to name a few worries