The thick 1uz rods are indeed weak
02-03-08, 11:13 AM
#61
when was the last time you have seen an adjustable, open end torque wrench? the point of a torque wrench is to have precise control over the preload of whatever you are twisting/tightening. i have special fittings for my torque wrench that use an open end wrench configuration. i have never had to use those.
02-03-08, 11:43 AM
#62
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that strikes me is the amount of twist. Personally I don't care if he used a 9 iron to twist the rods, the one thing I very much pay attention to is the level of deflection that the 2jz, 3sgte, and 7m... and the utter lack of deflection in the 1uz rod. We seem to be getting caught up in everything but the point, but the fact that the rod shattered in the first place is the point entirely. Take it for what it's worth, guys.
Eric
Eric
02-03-08, 12:00 PM
#63
i am concerned about the fact that it shattered but the amount of twist is not important. the rod is not made to function in the twisting scenario. the crank and cams will experience twist. not the rods. in all really how much torsinal twist do you think the rods experience? do you think that a rod will actually make a full revolution inside the bore?
would you agree that if you take a cam or crank and pull it apart and it breaks its a weak cam or crank? absolutely not because the cam or crank is not made to work in tension thus that test is invalid.
the cam and crank experience extensive torsional loads thus a crank can shear at a journal if it is heat treated too much and become very brittle to the point where it just snaps like a twig.
if you dont agree with this analogy then i dont know what to say. each part is made to work in a certain way and if you test it in a way that does not relate to its regular operation then it is useless.
if you still believe that the test is valid then you should take a bunch of cams, put them in a hydraulic press, switch it to pull and show us how much the camshaft elongates. based on that you tell us which cam is the best. lol.
i am concerned with the 1uz rod and would like to see some real test made. if you have some spare rods laying around send some to gunluvS14 and he can do some material analysis and tests for all of us to see.
would you agree that if you take a cam or crank and pull it apart and it breaks its a weak cam or crank? absolutely not because the cam or crank is not made to work in tension thus that test is invalid.
the cam and crank experience extensive torsional loads thus a crank can shear at a journal if it is heat treated too much and become very brittle to the point where it just snaps like a twig.
if you dont agree with this analogy then i dont know what to say. each part is made to work in a certain way and if you test it in a way that does not relate to its regular operation then it is useless.
if you still believe that the test is valid then you should take a bunch of cams, put them in a hydraulic press, switch it to pull and show us how much the camshaft elongates. based on that you tell us which cam is the best. lol.
i am concerned with the 1uz rod and would like to see some real test made. if you have some spare rods laying around send some to gunluvS14 and he can do some material analysis and tests for all of us to see.
02-03-08, 12:50 PM
#64
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree with you on all points, however everyone is forgeting one thing. The burden of proof doesn't lie with either me or the tester. The stock 1uz rods already have a track record of of shizzing the bed at less than impressive HP levels. The guys who did the test were not trying to proof that they are weak, they already know that they're weak. They just want to see but just how much compared to other rods that are proven to make Paul Bunyan HP.
As stated before, if you guys want to see some numbers to qualify the results, then by all means. But all those numbers don't mean jack if the rods keep snapping at ~500rwhp as they do.
Thanks man,
Eric
As stated before, if you guys want to see some numbers to qualify the results, then by all means. But all those numbers don't mean jack if the rods keep snapping at ~500rwhp as they do.
Thanks man,
Eric
Last edited by c0wboy; 02-03-08 at 12:53 PM.
02-03-08, 01:34 PM
#65
Super Moderator
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sideways on the Yellow Brick Road! < Thats KS!
Posts: 5,827
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
looks like a regular pipe wrench to me. when was the last time you have seen an adjustable, open end torque wrench? the point of a torque wrench is to have precise control over the preload of whatever you are twisting/tightening. i have special fittings for my torque wrench that use an open end wrench configuration. i have never had to use those.
when was the last time you have seen an adjustable, open end torque wrench? the point of a torque wrench is to have precise control over the preload of whatever you are twisting/tightening. i have special fittings for my torque wrench that use an open end wrench configuration. i have never had to use those.It is hard to tell in the picture, I thought it looked like a torque wrench with increments on it, I figured they had a open end crows foot on it like my snap-on ones. Looking at the picture I still cant decide if it is a pipe wrench or not. I guess at this point it really doesnt matter.
02-05-08, 03:19 AM
#68
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, it doesn't matter whether it's a pipe wrench, a wiffle ball bat, or a 7 iron, the point is the differnce in the way to rods reacted. One of these kids is not like the others...... And, as a caveat let me state this. If a dude or dudette is making up to 500rwhp, they may be fine and dandy. It's when the motor is pushed beyond that it's a roll of the dice. Lower power levels... cool. Higher power levels.... negative.
Eric
Eric
02-05-08, 05:19 AM
#69
Exactly, it doesn't matter whether it's a pipe wrench, a wiffle ball bat, or a 7 iron, the point is the differnce in the way to rods reacted. One of these kids is not like the others...... And, as a caveat let me state this. If a dude or dudette is making up to 500rwhp, they may be fine and dandy. It's when the motor is pushed beyond that it's a roll of the dice. Lower power levels... cool. Higher power levels.... negative.
Eric
Eric
Plus, the owner of the ride would be most unhappy having to step into a rebuild...
That's ok though, if they go anywhere near 500 rwhp, and do not at least change their head gaskets to new MLS, and swap in a set of ARP head studs, they will be doing so soon after they slap those turbos on...
BTW, better do a leak down and check those stock rings...How many miles are on that car...
Ryan
02-05-08, 08:49 AM
#70
The common knowledge regarding the UZ motors is that they are purpose built motors for non-performance vehicles with factors like long term reliabilty and fuel economy in the forefront of the Toyota engineers' minds.
That being said, isn't it still impressive that these motors can push 400+whp -double the stock output of the motor- without requiring a rebuild? How many other motors for non-performance passenger vehicles can say that?
In stock form, the UZ engine bows down to the mighty 2JZ or 3S and even the less mighty 7M: no doubt. The capabilities of the UZ motor are pretty well documented prior to the advent of this thread, and the 400-500whp range is widely considered to be the maximum that is safe, even with good tuning.
How many UZ guys are intending to exceed 500whp (or even 400whp) on stock internals anyway? A PD blower would be so massive that it wouldn't clear the stock hood without serious modification. I bet that guy knows to rebuild. A centrifugal blower would require more than the stock six rib pulley system to build that much boost without slippage. I bet that guy knows to rebuild. A turbo set up would require custom manifolds or TTC's manifolds that cost $2500. I bet that guy knows to rebuild.
My point: anyone seriously considering modifying a UZ engine has to have done research, and that research would lead them to the common opinion of 400-500whp being the maximum power output that can be acheieved without catastrophic failure.
This study you have found is further evidence of something that is well known: if you want jaw dropping power from a UZ motor, you better have a jaw droppingly deep wallet to make it happen because the motor was not designed from the factory to do more than double the stock output.
07-11-09, 07:44 PM
#75
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal & SLOcal
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope you guys remember from school that as strength goes up, ductility goes down. So I don't understand how the 1uz rods are "weak" when they are the least ductile.
The thread title should be changed to "The thick 1uz rods are indeed not ductile".
Just my two cents.
The thread title should be changed to "The thick 1uz rods are indeed not ductile".
Just my two cents.