PDA

View Full Version : 1zz and 2zz rod comparison



vip09
04-13-2007, 06:15 PM
This was originally posted by Smaay at newcelica.org. Just thought I would share with you guys as well.


here is a comparison to the rods in the ZZ engines.

Here you see the stock 2ZZ rod and piston, then Crower rod with Weisco piston, and then stock 1ZZ rod and piston.


http://controlledinertia.com/Portals/0/405/rods1.JPG


http://controlledinertia.com/Portals/0/405/rods2.JPG


http://controlledinertia.com/Portals/0/405/rods3.JPG



1zz is teh weakness!!

donteatbugs
04-13-2007, 06:25 PM
dont dont see the difference...isnt the 1zz gonna be lighter?

DarkSideCelica
04-13-2007, 06:28 PM
1ZZ pistons look like it's good for boost.. lower compression.....correct me if i'm wrong :lolhittin

vip09
04-13-2007, 06:29 PM
dont dont see the difference...isnt the 1zz gonna be lighter?

As you can see from the pics, the 1zz rod is very weak. They bend very easily. People that aren't "in the know" argue that the 1zz was better built for boost than the 2zz. This picture proves otherwise.

vip09
04-13-2007, 06:31 PM
1ZZ pistons look like it's good for boost.. lower compression.....correct me if i'm wrong :lolhittin

They are lower compression, but they are very brittle. The ringlands break very easily. The stock 2zz pistons have survived up to 410whp.

DarkSideCelica
04-13-2007, 06:46 PM
don't wanna sound like a noob, but i never did find out what ringlands are.. is that the horizontal lines on the side of the pistons? and i'm guessing those are to maintain compression?

vip09
04-13-2007, 07:04 PM
don't wanna sound like a noob, but i never did find out what ringlands are.. is that the horizontal lines on the side of the pistons? and i'm guessing those are to maintain compression?


http://kb-silvolite.com/images/article/ringland.gif

DarkSideCelica
04-13-2007, 07:11 PM
^^not very helpful :p arrows perhaps lol

vip09
04-13-2007, 07:17 PM
Forgot to add.. that is a broken ring land

arctik06
11-26-2008, 04:08 AM
the pic dosent prove the 2zz is better for boost. It just compares the rods,not the complete engines.

vip09
11-26-2008, 05:30 AM
You have bumped an old thread with every post you've made so far. Please stop reviving old threads!

Go compare the engines. You will see the 2zz is better in pretty much every way possible over the 1zz unless you have no interest at all in going faster.

KoreanJoey
11-26-2008, 05:40 AM
Toyotas pistons are usually the weak point... unless it's a 3VZ because then everything is a weak point....

ciento44
11-26-2008, 03:08 PM
Toyotas pistons are usually the weak point... unless it's a 3VZ because then everything is a weak point....

Are you sure you got that code right? Everything i've ever read about them point to them being ridiculously overbuilt.... The electronics might suck, but the motor itself is supposed to be stupid strong.

But then again, i've never worked on one.

wizzards581
11-26-2008, 04:31 PM
this is like comparing honda B18C5 with B18B1... im sure everyone already knows whos better.

vip09
11-26-2008, 04:34 PM
Toyotas pistons are usually the weak point... unless it's a 3VZ because then everything is a weak point....


On the 1zz, the rods usually go before the pistons. The pistons go very shortly afterwards. :wiggle:

ciento44
11-26-2008, 04:53 PM
this is like comparing honda B18C5 with B18B1... im sure everyone already knows whos better.

Oooo OOOO i know the answer!!

If you're boosting, it doesn't matter at all!!!!

If anything.... i'd prefer the B18B1.... just so i'm not dicking around with that compression.

T-spoon
11-26-2008, 05:32 PM
Toyotas pistons are usually the weak point... unless it's a 3VZ because then everything is a weak point....


Speaking of 3VZ.. helped a co-worker change his PCV on his older 4runner on Saturday. I've never seen a PCV valve buried like that, it was poo.

joe's gt
11-26-2008, 09:51 PM
why would they build a rod with such small cross-sectional area. seems stupid to me. thats just asking for failure. i know its not meant for major power, but come on, those look so weak. thats horrible engineering IMO.

T-spoon
11-27-2008, 12:51 AM
why would they build a rod with such small cross-sectional area. seems stupid to me. thats just asking for failure. i know its not meant for major power, but come on, those look so weak. thats horrible engineering IMO.

Well I'm sure it's plenty strong for what it was designed to do. We're just used to Toyota over engineering and then de-tuning.

Luni
11-27-2008, 01:59 AM
Joey is talking about the 3VZ not the 3VZFE

2 totally different engines. One is garbage, one is awesome.

T-spoon
11-27-2008, 05:14 AM
Joey is talking about the 3VZ not the 3VZFE

2 totally different engines. One is garbage, one is awesome.

Ah, well, I was talkin' about the 3vzfe obviously, my mistake. But yeah, PCV location is still fail :hehe:

burnyd
11-27-2008, 06:26 AM
Toyotas pistons are usually the weak point... unless it's a 3VZ because then everything is a weak point....
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

vip09
11-27-2008, 06:50 AM
We have a 3VZE in our truck.. haven't had any problems with 225k on it. Well, no problems since the head gasket recall YEARS ago. It's what I learned to drive on, and I beat the living hell out of it

Luni
11-27-2008, 07:14 AM
We have a 3VZE in our truck.. haven't had any problems with 225k on it. Well, no problems since the head gasket recall YEARS ago. It's what I learned to drive 14.7s on, and I beat the living hell out of it

fixed

85gtsblackman
11-27-2008, 07:25 AM
use a 22r rod n crank :wiggle:

joe's gt
11-27-2008, 07:46 AM
Well I'm sure it's plenty strong for what it was designed to do. We're just used to Toyota over engineering and then de-tuning.

True, which I is why I said I know its not meant for major power. And by failure I am also factoring in fatigue. Inevitably a lot of users want more power out of their engine. The smaller cross-sectional area results in more stress than the other 2 rods. That increased stress that could have been avoided by increasing the cross sectional area of the rod, decreases the number of cycles it is effective for and therefore fatigues faster. It may be able to withstand more power initially, but the greater stress decreases longevity. Even on stock power, the longevity is decreased due to fatigue by the smaller area.

T-spoon
11-27-2008, 06:00 PM
True, which I is why I said I know its not meant for major power. And by failure I am also factoring in fatigue. Inevitably a lot of users want more power out of their engine. The smaller cross-sectional area results in more stress than the other 2 rods. That increased stress that could have been avoided by increasing the cross sectional area of the rod, decreases the number of cycles it is effective for and therefore fatigues faster. It may be able to withstand more power initially, but the greater stress decreases longevity. Even on stock power, the longevity is decreased due to fatigue by the smaller area.

Heh, yes, it's perfectly obvious that a thicker rod will typically be stronger and last longer, but when you're building thousands of engines to go into corollas/Matrix, MRS and Celica GTs and you've made it clear you're not interested in the aftermarket power adding groups anymore, then you cut down on manufacturing costs and do things like making internals to fit their application. I've heard of a lot more 1ZZs having problems with blowby and 02 sensor problems than with rods failing (I've never heard of a 1zz bending rods yet). Toyota didn't have any reason to make the 1zz rods stronger, it's not a high performance engine and if people blow them up by turboing, they don't really care, it's not their problem. Toyota is all business these days, and they're on top because of it, however much we don't like their lack of performance orientation.

vip09
11-27-2008, 06:26 PM
Go read up on newcelica.org and you will see all the threads about 1zz rod failure. 10psi is pretty much the limit on those engines.

T-spoon
11-27-2008, 06:56 PM
Go read up on newcelica.org and you will see all the threads about 1zz rod failure. 10psi is pretty much the limit on those engines.

Holy crap, reading comprehension FTW. I'm sure plenty of 1zz rods and other componants have failed when boosted. I just wrote a whole paragraph about how Toyota doesn't care if they can handle boost or not, they weren't intended to. I'm quite sure the 2zz is better for boost even with the higher compression because they have internals intended for high performance applications.

hyoctane
11-27-2008, 07:08 PM
It's kind of nice to see the internals of the 2ZZ, makes you appriciate the engineering that Yamaha did even more. Any additional pictures?

vip09
11-27-2008, 07:36 PM
Holy crap, reading comprehension FTW. I'm sure plenty of 1zz rods and other componants have failed when boosted. I just wrote a whole paragraph about how Toyota doesn't care if they can handle boost or not, they weren't intended to. I'm quite sure the 2zz is better for boost even with the higher compression because they have internals intended for high performance applications.

Well, with the way it was in parentheses it seemed like you were saying you've never seen a 1zz rod failure EVER. I knew the point you were trying to get across with the post though. :)

vip09
11-27-2008, 07:38 PM
It's kind of nice to see the internals of the 2ZZ, makes you appriciate the engineering that Yamaha did even more. Any additional pictures?


Yamaha helped design the head.. on all the G heads. I don't think they had anything to do with the rods. I could be wrong however.

hyoctane
11-27-2008, 08:05 PM
Yamaha helped design the head.. on all the G heads. I don't think they had anything to do with the rods. I could be wrong however.

That has always been a question of mine, how much work did both companies do on the engine? Its just such an odd engine for Toyota to develop by themselves... I always thought that it was mostly Yamaha?