Re: Some details of the 2AZ-FE engine

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> Built_Well wrote
>
> >
> > Gonna write this stuff down and post it so I don't lose it.
> > =============
>
> Of course, you could've just written it down in a text document and saved it
> rather than posted it, assuming the actual purpose was to not lose it.
=================

Joey, you should take a hint from Jeff Strickland. He's
much more polite and together than you.

"Built_Well" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:00311cb2-00f4-4789-9085-545e2f0b7d7f@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> Built_Well wrote
>>
>> >
>> > Gonna write this stuff down and post it so I don't lose it.
>> > =============
>>
>> Of course, you could've just written it down in a text document and saved
>> it
>> rather than posted it, assuming the actual purpose was to not lose it.
> =================
>
> Joey, you should take a hint from Jeff Strickland. He's
> much more polite and together than you.


Clarity of purpose is a good thing. Try it sometime.

I think it was Buick. Had an Aluminium engine in something like '62.
V8, I think it was 300 ci. I did a brake job on one of those cars once
and really liked driving it. So when I gave it back to the girl that
owneed it I tried to explain that it was of utmost concern that this
car NEVER be over heated. Always check coolant and have a GOOD
radiatoer, fan belt, water pump, etc....One year later she was trying
to sell it to me because "We think it's only the head gasket". Right.
Aluminium warps really good.

disston

"disston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:159d7b56-fc55-4c5a-bc83-c9908405c264@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>I think it was Buick. Had an Aluminium engine in something like '62.
> V8, I think it was 300 ci. I did a brake job on one of those cars
> once
> and really liked driving it. So when I gave it back to the girl that
> owneed it I tried to explain that it was of utmost concern that this
> car NEVER be over heated. Always check coolant and have a GOOD
> radiatoer, fan belt, water pump, etc....One year later she was
> trying
> to sell it to me because "We think it's only the head gasket".
> Right.
> Aluminium warps really good.

The engine was 215 cubic inches and had cast iron liners. GM sold the
tooling to British Leyland and they continued to produce it for years.
I think Ford finally stopped producing it when they bought Land Rover
(but according to wikipedia, it is still in production at third
party). Oldsmobile sold a turbocharged version. It was sold in various
Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac intermediate sized cars (included the
Tempest that used a transaxle with IRS).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine

Ed

The 2AZ-FE has a variant 2AZ-FXE for hybrid cars.

By the way, the supercharged 2AZ-FE's found on some of the Scion tC,
are there other modifications on the engine or just added the super
charger? Would you be able to fit a supercharger on a camry, rav4 or
highlander?

"EdV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:385ac2b5-b6e4-4d80-a307-b00c1b882b64@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The 2AZ-FE has a variant 2AZ-FXE for hybrid cars.
>
> By the way, the supercharged 2AZ-FE's found on some of the Scion
> tC,
> are there other modifications on the engine or just added the super
> charger? Would you be able to fit a supercharger on a camry, rav4 or
> highlander?

Not sure. I would think that you could given the proper kit.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_AZ_engine#2AZ-FE
http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=201074
http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/archive/topic/111394-1.html

Ed

Hee hee hee. 2AZFE "an advanced powerplant?" that's a good one.
Checkout the Audi FSI 2.0T for an advanced design with a flat torque
curve from 2000-5000 RPMs.



On Jul 14, 8:08 pm, Built_Well <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gonna write this stuff down and post it so I don't lose it.  Had
> to wade through a lot of pages to find it.  The 5th Generation Camry's
> 2AZ-FE engine (an advanced powerplant, by the way) is
> the same engine that was used in the '01 Highlander SUV.
> 5th Generation Camrys cover Model Years '02 - '06.

On Jul 15, 11:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Hee hee hee. 2AZFE "an advanced powerplant?" that's a good one.
> Checkout the Audi FSI 2.0T for an advanced design with a flat torque
> curve from 2000-5000 RPMs.
>
IIRC, The flat torque is because of the CVT transmission design and
not the engine. I could be wrong.
.

On Jul 16, 12:43 pm, EdV <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:> Hee hee hee. 2AZFE "an advanced powerplant?" that's a good one.
> > Checkout the Audi FSI 2.0T for an advanced design with a flat torque
> > curve from 2000-5000 RPMs.
>
> IIRC, The flat torque is because of the CVT transmission design and
> not the engine. I could be wrong.
> .

The old 1.8T had an essentially flat torque curve over the same rev
range and was only available with conventional transmissions. I
wasn't aware that Audi had a CVT yet, although I have missed stuff
before. I thought their new high end transmission was the dual-clutch
deal?

nate

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT), EdV <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jul 15, 11:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Hee hee hee. 2AZFE "an advanced powerplant?" that's a good one.
>> Checkout the Audi FSI 2.0T for an advanced design with a flat torque
>> curve from 2000-5000 RPMs.
>>
>IIRC, The flat torque is because of the CVT transmission design and
>not the engine. I could be wrong.
>.

A transmission has nothing to do with torque output of an engine.
A CVT is able to keep the rpms at max torque at all times while
accelerating.

RT wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT), EdV <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 15, 11:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Hee hee hee. 2AZFE "an advanced powerplant?" that's a good one.
>>> Checkout the Audi FSI 2.0T for an advanced design with a flat torque
>>> curve from 2000-5000 RPMs.
>>>
>> IIRC, The flat torque is because of the CVT transmission design and
>> not the engine. I could be wrong.
>> .
>
> A transmission has nothing to do with torque output of an engine.
> A CVT is able to keep the rpms at max torque at all times while
> accelerating.
Max HP speed will give best acceleration.

RT <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT), EdV <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 15, 11:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Hee hee hee. 2AZFE "an advanced powerplant?" that's a good one.
>>> Checkout the Audi FSI 2.0T for an advanced design with a flat torque
>>> curve from 2000-5000 RPMs.
>>>
>>IIRC, The flat torque is because of the CVT transmission design and
>>not the engine. I could be wrong.
>>.
>
>A transmission has nothing to do with torque output of an engine.
>A CVT is able to keep the rpms at max torque at all times while
>accelerating.

Right. Correspondingly, if you have a CVT, you can get away with an
engine that has high torque in a very narrow speed range, whereas with
a conventional transmission the engine has to be able to provide good
torque over a wider range of speeds. (ie. the torque curve has to have
a much wider peak on it).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

This is how I understand GDI (gasoline DIRECT injection), feel free to
correct my mistake

Fuel and air mixture are injected in some kind of pressure tank where
the pressure is increased, by compressing the mixture I suppose. At
this stage the ratio of the fuel and air is adjusted for optimum burn.

This pressure tank sometimes called as a *common rail*? has a nozzle
that will release the pressurized fuel-air mixture directly into the
chamber chamber via the intake valves. This high pressure coupled with
optimum ratio allows the engine to run more fuel efficiently and, of
course, more powerful. The VVTi (toyota) will then adjust the opening
of the valves whether to inject the mixture during the intake stroke
or slightly delayed.