Jump to content
The mkiv Supra Owners Club

reving to 7000 rpm


Guest P-Irish

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest whatthe

You've experienced many failures at 7500rpms on the 2JZ-GTE, or you've experienced many rod failures?

 

, although its a sample size of one. Good for him for being prepared to try it out, though. Personally, I know that inertia loads increase by the square of the change in engine speed, so you won't have to go too far before you are going seriously beyond what Toyota will have considered in their design.

 

Unfortunately, without access to simulation codes or an actual test engine that someone is willing to sacrifice, there will never be a definitive answer.

 

Sample size of 2JZs running at 7500rpms = Many, not one.

 

I think you missed my first post showing the software that RCTS has been selling for 2JZs with 7500rpm limit for a long time (8-10 years?). Also, the mention about math that would imply very quick failure for those guys running over 8000rpms if it was going to pop at 7500rpms. As for RCTS, there have been days where you could walk in and see 2 MKIVs on the lifts, 2 under the lifts, 1 on the dyno, and a few spread on the floor. RCTS has built a lot of MKIVs for a lot of customers who have paid a lot of good money for good advice. I could list his collaborations with Toyota and at Toyota and probably do an ok job at his personal resume, but I really don't see the point. I was just looking for a straight forward answer to my question in the first post and wanted to provide more than 1 example for you.

 

The makers limit seems like a moot point without actually having the documentation from Toyota engineering. Do people actually try to blow stuff and find the limits of an engine when it's not available? Absolutely. I would expect this to be the case especially on an engine like the 2JZ-GTE which has already had basically every mod possible done to it. Even for me, I've tried to induce mechanical failure/find limits on cars that I've owned or raced. I had a Swift 1.3L dohc with what is listed as a somewhat unfavorable r/s ratio. Red-line 6750rpm, fuel cut at 7500rpm in north America. With rev-limit removed and stock cams, the engine would reach somewhere around 8500rpms and not make enough power to overcome all the horsepower robbing forces to accelerate the vehicle/increase rpms any further. With a turbo on, I pushed it over 9000rpms before feeling a tad worried that I was probably too far from the garage to be trying it. I even had a wonderful 2nd gear downshift at a good cruising speed and hit a peak of 9800rpms. I'm pretty sure the valves knocked the carbon off the tops of the pistons, but it always drove me home and still wasn't in need a rebuild.

 

It's not a 2JZ, just an example that 700 rpms over the 'makers limits/fuel cut' doesn't fault to - it should blow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whatthe is asking whether or not anyone here (specifically CW) has had any number of people saying "I've got a rod failure, is it because I'm running at 7500(+) rpm?", because he got an implication from his posts that there is actual evidence of higher rpms causing damage, rather than CW simply saying he doesn't advise it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I could fairly easily model a stock piston and up, and do an FEA test on it. It's fairly easy to generate what the forces will be on the individual components for given RPM's, then it's pretty easy to see if for the material's that we think they're made from will stand the kind of abuse. It'll be a bit hit and miss due to guestimations with regards to the material and it's properties, but I think we can have an educated guess as types of material's have similar properties and if we're out by a couple of % in terms of say youngs modulus, it's not going to make that big a difference to the failure point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could fairly easily model a stock piston and up, and do an FEA test on it. It's fairly easy to generate what the forces will be on the individual components for given RPM's, then it's pretty easy to see if for the material's that we think they're made from will stand the kind of abuse. It'll be a bit hit and miss due to guestimations with regards to the material and it's properties, but I think we can have an educated guess as types of material's have similar properties and if we're out by a couple of % in terms of say youngs modulus, it's not going to make that big a difference to the failure point.

 

 

The standard rob bolts are the main problem at high RPM and horsepower. Would be good to know at what RPM the rod bolts start to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know what size they are? I'm guessing M8 / M10?

If so, using fairly standard bolts you'd be looking at a tensile strength of 47.6kN for M8 or 75.4kN for M10. To make that real for you, 1kN = 1 ton. A decent M10 equivalent NAS bolt (they're generally imperial) then you're looking at about 100kN.

If someone know's the stock crankshaft throw, rod length and weight and piston weight then it should be possible to work out how much load is put into the bolts. If it's more than these figures, or approaching near to these figures to allow yourself a factor of safety, then it's going to let go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know what size they are? I'm guessing M8 / M10?

If so, using fairly standard bolts you'd be looking at a tensile strength of 47.6kN for M8 or 75.4kN for M10. To make that real for you, 1kN = 1 ton. A decent M10 equivalent NAS bolt (they're generally imperial) then you're looking at about 100kN.

If someone know's the stock crankshaft throw, rod length and weight and piston weight then it should be possible to work out how much load is put into the bolts. If it's more than these figures, or approaching near to these figures to allow yourself a factor of safety, then it's going to let go.

 

Tony,

 

These are the figures I pulled together in the past - no idea how accurate they are though.

 

Bore x stroke = 86x86

Reciprocating mass (small end plus piston) = 0.4kg (might be a tad light)

Rod length = 0.139

 

I reckon this gives you a maximum inertia load of just over 12kN @ 7000RPM

 

I make the preload from a couple of yeild tightened SAE 10.9 M10x1.25 bolts would be approx 2x40kN, so a 6.6x factor of safety.

 

If someone could get pukka piston and rod masses (weighed seperately) and an idea of the bolt size and thread pitch I could refine this.

 

There's also the bearing crush load to take into account, which will also be working to separate the big end cap from the rod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have this stashed from when JamieP weighed his:

 

Stock piston + conrod + rod bolts = 1150grams

 

Alas I didn't get the seperate component weights...

 

-Ian

 

I remember that. A golden oppurtunity missed :(

 

Sadly not much use weighed as a complete assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Digsy, you must have enough benchmark info to be able to apportion a fairly accurate weight to each component.

 

I'd do it myself, but I'm laid up at home!! I assume you're at work?:p

 

Weeeell, I wanted to be accurate and all that :)

 

I'll look through a mass rollup and see what I can find. Or you could whip one of yours out and weigh it for me, since you're not doing anything :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. You might also be interested in our Guidelines, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.