When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm old school so I included HP/ Cubic Inch and Torque / Cubic Inch too. And for kicks threw in some bike numbers from Yamaha engines of 2008.
Interesting our 2GR-FSE makes just a bit more horse power per liter than the 4GR-FSE and their big brother 2UR-GSE.
Data came from wiki....
I would have expected the 2UR to have a higher ratio of HP / liter but the numbers show otherwise. Perhaps the 350 has more aggressive MAPs for fueling and ignition or slightly different camshaft profiles. Granted the families group pretty well. Amazing what engines pulling twice the RPM do too. That said, their torque per cubic inch although lower when compared to HP, it is on par with our auto engine.
Being that the average dynojet reading for a stock 2IS350 is 265rwhp (which is abnormally high for a car rated at 306 crank hp), I've always felt that the published horsepower rating was a bit underrated.
Older Toyota/Lexus documentation have the 2GR-FSE rated at 318ps (equivalent to 314bhp) which makes more sense to the 265rwhp dyno readings for a stock 2IS350.
The higher 318ps rating is what the 2GR-FSE is rated for with the Japanese market tune. The US-market was always 306hp, Japan was always 318ps (except in the 2015 GRMN Mark X, which was 321ps).
Being that the average dynojet reading for a stock 2IS350 is 265rwhp (which is abnormally high for a car rated at 306 crank hp), I've always felt that the published horsepower rating was a bit underrated.
It may be underrated, but 265rwhp is still showing a 15% drivetrain loss, fairly consistent with what one would expect on a RWD car.
The higher 318ps rating is what the 2GR-FSE is rated for with the Japanese market tune. The US-market was always 306hp, Japan was always 318ps (except in the 2015 GRMN Mark X, which was 321ps).
Jeff
Are you implying that the Japan based ECM's make more power (i.e. have a different MAP for fueling, timing, cam events)? That free power exists from an ECM swap?
From what I understand, the 2GR-FSE does make approximately 318ps (314bhp) when placed on an engine dyno but the USDM version is rated lower (306 hp) due to Lexus USA volunteering to utilize the then-new SAE J1349 testing procedures back in 2005. This then-new procedure required the manufacturer to test the engine with the accessories that would normally suck power from the engine (air conditioner, pump, etc.) which would reduce the engine hp output. I don't believe the rest of the world markets had to follow those same engine testing procedures which is possibly where the difference comes from.
...an important provision of the new J1349 standard “says you have to (test the engine with) the same hardware that's in the vehicle.”
That means, among other things, the hydraulic power steering pump now must be attached to the test engine. Before, the engine could be tested without the power steering pump, disregarding the parasitic drag the pump creates. This likely means a loss of a few horsepower for just about any engine.
I could be completely wrong but this is how I understood the difference all these years.
From what I understand, the 2GR-FSE does make approximately 318ps (314bhp) when placed on an engine dyno but the USDM version is rated lower (306 hp) due to Lexus USA volunteering to utilize the then-new SAE J1349 testing procedures back in 2005. This then-new procedure required the manufacturer to test the engine with the accessories that would normally suck power from the engine (air conditioner, pump, etc.) which would reduce the engine hp output. I don't believe the rest of the world markets had to follow those same engine testing procedures which is possibly where the difference comes from.
I would have expected the 2UR to have a higher ratio of HP / liter but the numbers show otherwise. Perhaps the 350 has more aggressive MAPs for fueling and ignition or slightly different camshaft profiles. Granted the families group pretty well. Amazing what engines pulling twice the RPM do too. That said, their torque per cubic inch although lower when compared to HP, it is on par with our auto engine.
It's also worth noting that the torque delivery through the RPMs is also tuned different between the 2UR-GSE and 2GR-FSE. The 2GR-FSE provides a fairly flat torque curve through most of the RPM range (with 90 percent of its peak torque being available at 2K RPMs) while the 2UR-GSE gradually builds toward its peak torque (which was intentional per interviews with the Chief Engineer stating that the torque curve resembles the shape of Mount Fuji):
Since we're on the topic of engine design, I thought I'd attach these old 2GR-FSE engine development documents on this thread for those that are unfamiliar with the historical significance of this engine and its revolutionary dual-injection system (D4-S) which was a world's first for a mass production engine.
Both Yamaha and Denso were key contributors to developing this technology which was first used on the 2GR-FSE and introduced on the 2IS350.
Since we're on the topic of engine design, I thought I'd attach these old 2GR-FSE engine development documents on this thread for those that are unfamiliar with the historical significance of this engine and its revolutionary dual-injection system (D4-S) which was a world's first for a mass production engine.
Both Yamaha and Denso were key contributors to developing this technology which was first used on the 2GR-FSE and introduced on the 2IS350.
Redspencer do you think that a supercharger made for the 2gr-fe can fit the 2gr-fse... and what are the differences between the two engines. here's a link to that supercharger system. https://www.monkeywrenchracing.com/p...rifugal-rotrex.
Redspencer do you think that a supercharger made for the 2gr-fe can fit the 2gr-fse... and what are the differences between the two engines. here's a link to that supercharger system. https://www.monkeywrenchracing.com/p...rifugal-rotrex.
Main differences between the two engines are the different compression ratios (10.8 vs 11.8) and fuel injection systems (port vs port/direct injection). 2GR-FE is also transverse mounted for FWD application while the 2GR-FSE is not. However, I believe the newer 2GR-FEs (used in the new generation Camry) does match the compression ratio of the 2GR-FSE and also uses dual injection.
Not sure about the compability of using a 2GR-FE supercharger kit on a 2GR-FSE but if you are looking for a proven supercharger kit for this engine, I recommend going with RR-Racing: https://www.rr-racing.com/RR-Racing-...isxscr2002.htm
Funny this thread pops up. Over the past few weeks, I've been hacking up a cheap junkyard 4GR head; seeing how much I can get away with as far as modifications go. I'm doing all of this because I read the cam specs on australiancar.reviews, did a little hand math to translate it's specs into a theoretical LS motor, and was sorely disappointed. That 2.5l should be acting way more turnt up at WOT than it does.
As far as fuel goes, I'm assuming these DI injectors are well up to the task of delivering, say, 300 or more hp on their own. I wouldn't be surprised to see them support more than 400 on their own, given the latent heat of vaporization right there next to the valves, inside the chamber.
Timing? Considering the 12:1 CR and carbon the 4GR likes to build up, my assumption is that this engine's ECU is always running a crazy knock retard by design. Reducing pre-det should net a few free hp just from better timing control.
Spark? Couldn't really ask for more here.
That leaves air. Valve overlap at full-vvt is as aggressive as the cam I have in the 383 in my vette, and that thing is 11.2:1 static, 7.9:1 dynamic CR on a 110 LSA...she's rowdy (CC grind 294S, if you care). Making an apples-to-apples rwhp-per-cubic inch comparison, the 2.5 should be putting 200+ to the WHEELS and cutting like a 14.9 quarter straight from the factory. But it doesn't. So here I am investigating the scene of the crime: the cylinder heads themselves. Albeit, I already suspect that the 4GR head was originally designed for the 3GR, which has an 87.5mm bore--compared to the 4GR's 83mm--makes me want to say that the outboard edges of these intake valves are shrouded by the cylinder wall itself...gramps would grind the cylinder liner there to help air fill the chamber, but I'm not tryna modify the short block here, just the heads.
As soon as I find my card reader, I'll be transferring the pics from my DSLR of the stock heads and starting a thread of all the measurements I grabbed before I started hacking. Toyota stopped believing in intake bowls on the GR head, I assume to help taper the air column past the tumble cuts on the short turn, but the valvestems are 5.5mm, have a 30 degree back cut, and it looks like they gave the seat a 30 degree face cut, though there's no 60 throat to match the valve's 30. Lots of improvements to make. My assumption is if I just clean up all the casting BS, open up the intake ports into a sportbike-style semi-but-not-really bowl, and polish the ports (no fuel to carry, so shiny=sound here), I'll be well on my way to the 200rwhp that the rest of this engine's equipment suggests it should be capable of doing. Either that, or I'll make the ports flow too good backward and have the exhaust note of a 2 stroke...
So you know what I'm going on about, here's the references from australiancar.reviews and aperaceparts ('99 'busa)
I see no reason other than air starvation for the 4GR to behave as timidly as it does.
This is partly why I threw in the 600cc numbers in the OP. These engines should be capable of much more. Maybe you get 6 stacks with TB's below them and send the ecu some fake news regarding MAF data! lol
Cam timing is not the hold up. Certainly the 2GR could do 12:1 CR but they already killed the ignition just as the party is getting going.
05-28-19 | 10:54 AM
HP / Liter comparison 2GR, 4GR, 2UR
