From: Andrew Farmer To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:32:39 +1300 Update - I've got more detailed info on what bits I've got... plus I've had no responses :( It's time to rebuild the motor in my 40. Just pulled the air filter and noticed about 1/2 litre of oil in the bottom - looks like the blow-by has finally got the better of the breather system. I've been searching the archives and have picked up some tips, but still have a number of 'silly' questions I'd appreciate some help with. Background. My 40 (1975) has the late model F in it. I have access to an early 2F Both motors have flat top pistons I run LPG (propane) and want at least 10:1 compression (11:1 would be better) I've recently had the crank rebuilt in the F I've already got a new cam. Low down torque is more important to me than hp - truck is serious wheeler. But I do pull some serious revs (lots of clay here!) - would like to be able to pull at least 5000 safely I've already read Mark W's oiling tips ( can someone scan me a pic of where to tap the block for a feeder to the 'oil sender' for oiling the rear mains?) 2F motors here don't come standard with oil coolers - I'll be running aftermarket fitted on the filter housing I've located the 'high performance' inlet manifold (just today - YES!!) F and 2F motors here don't come with the domed pistons mentioned in the archives - only flat tops. Now for the questions Is the F crank the same as the 2F? Given longer stroke = more low down torque, will the F produce more torque than the 2F (given it's less 'square')? If not, how much can I bore the 2F? What's the maximum valve size anyone has put in an F head? How much difference do multiangle valve seats make? From the archives, I assume my max compression option is to use my F head on an early 2F (flat, flat) and then skim the head some more - correct? How much has anyone skimmed the head in this setup, what compression did it yeild? Anything else anyone thinks I need to know on this? Thanks in advance (and (still) awaiting the deluge of different opinions!) Andrew Farmer 1975 FJ40 Wellington, New Zealand From: Andrew Farmer To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] F head on 2F Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:07:44 +1300 Searched the archives - found this. Question - does anyone have pics? How 'domed' are domed pistons (I'm trying to see through spark hole on assembled engine. Thanks Andrew Farmer 1975 FJ40 - http://go4wd.co.nz/gallery/Gertrude Wellington, New Zealand The early F heads (pre '68) hd siameesed ports and a very deep and narrow "closed" combustion chamber (what I call the "bathtub head)". The '68-'72 F engines had a more modern closed chamber head and were, of course, used with flat top pistons. This head had no provision in the head for oiling the rocker arms. They were oiled via a brass tube which ws located inside the side cover of the engine. It was tapped into the #2 cam bearing for supply. The '73-74 F engine used an open combustion chamber and a piston with a small dome. The '74 used the same oiling system as the 2F, which oils the rockers via passages in the head. The '73 retained the earlier oiling system, BUT the head was identicl to the '74. Some of these had did not have the oiling passaes drilled since they were not in use in '73. Some were drilled, but not all. Early 2Fs ('75-'80) used an open combustion chamber and domed pistons. Later 2Fs used a closed chamber and flat top pistons. (This is US varient 2Fs... Canadian and overseas 2Fs don't neccesarily follow this pattern.) -- Message-ID: <6f.3d78ef5f.2cc94cad@aol.com> Subject: Re: [LCML] F head on 2F To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:24:29 EDT >In a message dated 10/23/2003 4:10:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >andrew.farmer@clear.net.nz writes: > Searched the archives - found this. > Question - does anyone have pics? How 'domed' are domed pistons (I'm > trying to see through spark hole on assembled engine. > Thanks > Andrew Farmer I can take a pic of my 76 block that has no head. I wouild guess the peak of the dome is a couple of cm high. I don't think your going to be able to see it that well peeking through the plug hole. Wes 76 fj40 tlca 4180 From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F head on 2F Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0800 Andrew Farmer wrote: > Question - does anyone have pics? How 'domed' are domed pistons (I'm trying to see through spark hole on assembled engine. > Thanks > Andrew Farmer > 1975 FJ40 - http://go4wd.co.nz/gallery/Gertrude > Wellington, New Zealand The domes are fairly small and symetrical. With good lighting in through the sparkplug hole you should be able to see well enough to discern them. Mark... From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:38:39 -0800 Andrew Farmer wrote: > Background. > My 40 (1975) has the late model F in it. > I have access to an early 2F > Both motors have flat top pistons > I run LPG (propane) and want at least 10:1 compression (11:1 would be > better) > I've recently had the crank rebuilt in the F > I've already got a new cam. > Low down torque is more important to me than hp - truck is serious wheeler. > But I do pull some serious revs (lots of clay here!) - would like to be able > to pull at least 5000 safely > I've already read Mark W's oiling tips ( can someone scan me a pic of where > to tap the block for a feeder to the 'oil sender' for oiling the rear > mains?) It is the location where the oil sender is installed on the Fs and earliest 2Fs. Rear, low, driverside of the block. > 2F motors here don't come standard with oil coolers - I'll be running > aftermarket fitted on the filter housing > I've located the 'high performance' inlet manifold (just today - YES!!) Congratulations! ;) > F and 2F motors here don't come with the domed pistons mentioned in the > archives - only flat tops. > > Now for the questions > Is the F crank the same as the 2F? The oiling clearances are listed as different by Toyota. Other that that they *appear* to be identical but I suspect that they are not. I would guees that the counter weights might be different due to the slightly different piston weights. But I have never had reason to really look nto it. Anyone else....? > Given longer stroke = more low down torque, will the F produce more torque > than the 2F (given it's less 'square')? No. The theoretical advantage os overwhelmed bu the greater displacement of the 2F > If not, how much can I bore the 2F? According to Toyota either of these engines can be bored 1.5mm oversize > What's the maximum valve size anyone has put in an F head? (all inches to follow) Chevy makes a 1.50 which can be used to replace the 1.48 exhaust. They make a 1.84 and/or a 1.88 (I don't remember right now) which can be installed in place of the 1.81 intake. I have not bother to go larger. I don't think that there would be enough gain to justify. In fact I almost always stick with the toyota valves anymore. > How much difference do multiangle valve seats make? It always helps, but at the rpm ranges and flow rates encountered in this engine it probably doesn't make a real lot of difference. >>From the archives, I assume my max compression option is to use my F head on > an early 2F (flat, flat) and then skim the head some more - correct? > How much has anyone skimmed the head in this setup, what compression did it > yeild? Never done this one. Running on gasoline the flat top/closed chamber head swap gives you all the compression you really want if you are going to stick with regular. The domed/open chamber swap gets into the premium gas range. I would probably feel comfortable taking about .050 inches off the head with the flat/closed combo if I was willing to run premium Mark... From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:46:36 -0800 Mark Whatley wrote: > > Andrew Farmer wrote: >> I run LPG (propane) and want at least 10:1 compression (11:1 would be >> better) I just saw this in your post. I would go ahead and cut the head a full .100 inches. I would be surprised if you reached 11:1 Should be able to get 10:1 though. Don't forget that you can deck the block some as well Mark... From: gbrown@ihug.co.nz To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:00:34 +1300 > Andrew Farmer wrote: > > I've located the 'high performance' inlet manifold (just > > today - YES!!) What model cruiser did you find this on. Any more where that came from :-) Guy 1985 FJ40, Christchurch, NZ From: Andrew Farmer Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:11:11 +1300 ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:00 AM > > Andrew Farmer wrote: > > > I've located the 'high performance' inlet manifold (just > > today - YES!!) > > What model cruiser did you find this on. Any more where > that came from :-) > > Guy > 1985 FJ40, > Christchurch, NZ > According to the paint on it, it was off an 'F' in an FJ40. And sorry, there's only the one. :( It's pretty corroded and will need a bit of welding to build it up, but it's obvious just from looking at it that it should breathe a lot better than the standard manifold. Will post a pic in due course.... Andrew Farmer 1975 FJ40 - http://go4wd.co.nz/gallery/Gertrude Wellington, New Zealand From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:03:55 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Whatley" > > > > Now for the questions > > Is the F crank the same as the 2F? > > The oiling clearances are listed as different by Toyota. Other that > that they *appear* to be identical but I suspect that they are not. I > would guees that the counter weights might be different due to the > slightly different piston weights. But I have never had reason to really > look nto it. Anyone else....? The cranks for both engines from 69/03 to 80/07 are the same part no. each one changes up to the last... Wayne Calgary Alberta Canada From: Andrew Farmer Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:05:21 +1300 More questions, see below... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Whatley" Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost > > Is the F crank the same as the 2F? > > Other than that they *appear* to be identical but I suspect that they are not. I > would guees that the counter weights might be different due to the > slightly different piston weights. Oops - didn't think of that! Anyone got an F and 2F crank they could weigh for me? (I've recently spent quite a bit reconing my F crank, would like to use it in the new motor, but the plan is to get the new motor fully built then just pop the crank in - reduces my 'sad, unhappy, can't go wheeling' time!) > > ( can someone scan me a pic of where > > to tap the block for a feeder to the 'oil sender' for oiling the rear mains?) > > It is the location where the oil sender is installed on the Fs and > earliest 2Fs. Rear, low, driverside of the block. Sorry - bad question - knew that, but where do I bring the oil 'from'? Will be fitting a late model oil filter housing with oil pressure sender - would this be a good place? > > What's the maximum valve size anyone has put in an F head? > > (all inches to follow) Chevy makes a 1.50 which can be used to replace > the 1.48 exhaust. They make a 1.84 and/or a 1.88 (I don't remember right > now) which can be installed in place of the 1.81 intake. I have not > bother to go larger. I don't think that there would be enough gain to > justify. In fact I almost always stick with the toyota valves anymore. Note an earlier post from you where you mention "They are also stonger, and concerns of snapped valve stems (not uncommon in the F/2F engines) will be reduced significantly. They should also transfer heat away from the valve head more effeciently due to the larger stem". Have you changed this view? Like the idea of machining out the guide rather than replacing them. What chevy motor do these vavles come from? (chevy is not a common brand here). Given they have thicker stems, what do you do for the top end (spring cap, keepers)? Use toyota ones? Chevy ones? > > From the archives, I assume my max compression option is to use my F head on > > an early 2F (flat, flat) and then skim the head some more - correct? > > How much has anyone skimmed the head in this setup, what compression did it > > yeild? > > Never done this one. Running on gasoline the flat top/closed chamber > head swap gives you all the compression you really want if you are going > to stick with regular. The domed/open chamber swap gets into the premium > gas range. I would probably feel comfortable taking about .050 inches > off the head with the flat/closed combo if I was willing to run premium Note at the start of my email - I run propane - should have clarified - propane is approx 115 octane - I can use all the compression I can get! Thanks for the help... From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:11:37 -0800 Wayne Smith wrote: > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > the cranks for both engines from 69/03 to 80/07 are the same part no. each > one changes up to the last... > Wayne Calgary Alberta Canada Great! I like to say that I learn something every day. Here's todays bit. ;) Mark... -- Mark Whatley Owner, Cruisers Only, Wasilla Alaska Mailto:cruiser@mtaonline.net Technical Editor, Toyota Trails, TLCA Mailto:techexchange@tlca.org Alaska Cruiser Trek 2001! http://www.aktrek.somewhere.net Alaska Cruiser Trek 2002! http://www.xplorn.com/ACT2002 Alaska Cruiser Trek 2003! http://www.xplorn.com/ACT2003 From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:00:38 -0800 Andrew Farmer wrote: > Sorry - bad question - knew that, but where do I bring the oil 'from'? > Will be fitting a late model oil filter housing with oil pressure sender - > would this be a good place? No. The goal of the oiling system modifications is to allow more oil to be at the bearings with no restrictions to it's flow. Toward this end, the oil pump is modified to reduce restriction internally, two outlets from the pump are used and the regulator is removed. The block is drilled using existing bosses that remain in the casting from the F engineoiling system. A external regulator from an F engine is used (the passages however are not drilled the same as in the F engine. The additional outlet from the oilpump is routed through the regulator andthen to an external cooler and second filter before being reintroduced to the block at the rear of the mail oil gallery. If you just pull oil from the filter mount and plumb it to the rear of the engine you don't really gain anything. Short of the more extensive mods outlined above, you best bet is to use a late model pump with the regulator tweaked a little and leave it at that. With a new bottom end and proper care of the motor you should have no problems. > Note an earlier post from you where you mention "They are also stonger, and > concerns of snapped valve > stems (not uncommon in the F/2F engines) will be reduced significantly. > They should also transfer heat away from the valve head more effeciently > due to the larger stem". > Have you changed this view? Like the idea of machining out the guide rather > than replacing them. > What chevy motor do these vavles come from? (chevy is not a common brand > here). > Given they have thicker stems, what do you do for the top end (spring cap, > keepers)? Use toyota ones? Chevy ones? I have since come to the conclusion that failed valves are not a common problem in the Toyotas, unlike I had gathered in the past. More personal experience and less reliance on reports from others. I have also realized that a setof guides installed in the head (if needed) is not amajor expense. I still like the modification, but I see it as a slight improvement, rather than a needed upgrade. These are not uncommon valves (the 1.50 exhaust is probably the most common valve in Chevy small blocks). I would not look for them by vehicle or even motor application. Too many variables. You will want to use Chevy keepers and retainers with the chevy valves. Mark... From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F/2F performance rebuild questions - repost Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:51:10 -0800 Wayne Smith wrote: > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > i was wondering about this. in all the engines i have pulled apart i have > not came across a single broken valve. a lot of burnt #5 though.... > i was beginning to think maybe it was an Alaskan problem... > ;^) I have in the past seen two engines which suffered broken valves. At one time I was hearing a number of stories about this happening to others. However, I no longer consider those sources to be particularly credible. I still consider the chevy valves a good upgrade. But I have no worries about the Toyota valves failing. If I had a head which needed a large number of valves replaced due to wear or damage, then I would consider swapping the Chevy stuff in. But if the valves are usable, I would not go to the trouble/expense. Mark... From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] F head on 2F Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:59:37 +0200 On 23 Oct 2003 at 21:07, Andrew Farmer wrote: > Searched the archives - found this. > Question - does anyone have pics? How 'domed' are domed pistons > (I'm trying to see through spark hole on assembled engine. Couldn't you poke through that hole with a thin rod, and 'feel' it's shape? Or find an endoscope with integrated light....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://rzeppa.org/resto/resto13.htm xxxxxxxxxx Next is installing the stock oil cooler. These didn't make their way onto federal spec. Land Cruisers until 1979 or so, but CA spec. started using them with the 1976 model year. The cooler itself has o-rings which seal it to the oil filter bracket, and there are copper washers such as you'd find on brake bajo fittings under the hollowed out mounting bolts, which allow oil to pass through them. From: "Greg Dyche" To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: [FJ55] New Engine Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:51:35 -0700 >From: Seanmckayak@aol.com >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:29:45 EDT > >Ok fellas, have a question for you. I am thinking about >replacing/rebuilding the engine in my 74- the current one is burning a lot >of oil. I am looking >for some suggestions. I know this is a wide open question, but I really >don't know how to get started. > >I don't go seriously offroad- but I do like an Engine with some balls to >it, >but nothing too crazy. I mainly just drive around town with the >occassional >camping trip into the mountains. Rebuild the F? Put something else in >there? Whatcha think...of course, cash is always an issue, but I am >willing to >get a little nuts with this thing (spend some dough). Its my baby... >thanks. > >Sean Gosh, Sean, I've been thinkin' the same questions. I rebuilt the Late F in my'74 Pig 10 or eleven years ago; just bored, balanced and put a lot of new parts in. It has served me well. Added headers and an early dist, carb work by me, it was a bit more ballsy. Now it's getting tired, I can feel it. Still has fine oil pressure and vacuum but I was considering a pre-emptive re-build... Then a used free late F fell into my lap and I was looking for a machine shop when a few 2Fs fell into my lap and I went to plan B. If you have a late F, I say re-build what you have. Probably no reason to spend money on another block. That said, If you find a real cheap later 2F (and they are out there) with the improved oil pump, build that (then, what do you do with your old block?). I believe the later oil pump will fit on a late F with a little work on the oil pan baffles. You can put your late F head on a 2F block (as I am doing) to up its ballsiness. It all depends on how nuts you can afford to go... HTH, Greg Dyche 2 LandCruisers, 12 engines. P.S. You want a cheap 2F? Will barter for mead, but you gotta come and get it.