Low points in Ve table graph.

[vlad01]

I would have gone straight to the Mahle pistons, you honestly can't go wrong with them and lowering comp is always easier than trying to raise it with big dish pistons that are OEM. With the heads left un-milled other than the min for surface, those larger CNC chambers, I would have guessed a comp of low 9s maybe mid 9s which is about what you wanted.

I think even a good NA engine would give a ranger the run for their money fairly easily in a hilux, and def leave them in the dust in a commodore, pitty the Toyotas are such heavy pigs, my nephew has the 4Runner with a stock VR engine in it, miles better than any of the factory engines they came with but will all the weight they still are much to be desired for, but the way they handle, not sure I'm game on having more power

With a turbo, it will make much more power for less fuel but will be like a rubber band, nothing and then all at once. And HEAT! a real engineering challenge to manage and get good reliability from all the heat related issues, like cracking, ageing of rubber and plastics, wires and hoses.

The SC will be less power and more fuel hungry but will give a nice linear power delivery, will feel much like an NA engine but way bigger and the maintenance and heat, reliability etc and complexity will be virtually a non issue. And it will be much more drivable too.

Pros and cons of either, I would stay away from positive displacement SC, not worth the headache for crap efficiency, intake heat and poor power compared to the other options.

[jessejames09]

Yes the pros and cons of supercharger vs turbo can be indecisive subject ,but I'm leaning toward centrifugal supercharger for the constant torque ,better for towing the boat...but not looking forward to fuel bill. I've raced the GLX rangers and I get them off the mark up to 160kphr ,they start to reel me in after that ....which i dont like hitting 180 in the old girl...get white knuckles on the smoothest of roads. I'm running 33s with 4.3 diff gearing,,which is a bit loaded for a cammed truck ,I got 32s coming which will help.
Going back to your vr tune ,140kw at the wheels is very respectful power from such a small cam ,and the ve shows it flows well at all rpms too. Nice combo
I had mine in the dyno ,started at 140kw first pull with blcd standard tune . Was knocking like hell ,so I subtracted 3 degrees overall,next pull 153kw. We got through the 90 cells then my fly wheelwheel bolts started to loosen off ... so had to pull the pin. I ended up drilling and taping the 8 5/16,to 3/8unf,..47ftlbs stopped it from happening again!.
So for a big cam ,I'm not pulling power like your motor ....will be back on the dyno later and play with the timing a bit more one day...or just wait till it's charged

[vlad01]

That's my VR stock engine, only pacemakers, decent exhaust and Mace CAI. It's actually 146 hp or about 110kw. 0-100 in 7.6.

That is also the dyno and VE for it.

My VP with 140kw, about 190hp, 0-100 6.0 flat, is wavy as shit. and the VE is quite spiky as well, any decent overlap in the cam does this and it is normal. But I found I could never feel any of the waves when driving or flat out from idle to fuel cut. It's the power curve that is what makes the car go, torque alone is completely meaningless without it happening at an rpm, and as you see on any dyno plot, even with scale taken into account, torque fluctuation even large, only equal small ones in power, unless they are way up top, which isn't the case for most engines.

Good example of such is any diesel 4x4, mountains of torque, all at the low end. Puts big V8 engines to shame in the figures, yet slow as hell, because the power is low due to all the torque being so low in the rpm range. So waviness isn't a big deal for 95% of engine builders running on the street.

212 cam.png (30.04 KiB) Viewed 2171 times

212 cam-1.png (34.29 KiB) Viewed 2171 times