which engine has more potential for more power?

[kidsharingan]

happy holidays guys,

I have few additional questions here

as I have read in some websites on the net the earlier bigport 4age bluetop is closer in power to the small port, 129 for blue top big port and 140 for small port, but the bigport mkes more torque than the small port 149 (bigport) vs 141 (small port), would somebody tell me why the bigport make more torque?

although they are saying that the small ports are more stronger because of 7 ribs block compare to 3 ribs for big port,, which is better of the 2 engines to modify? I think i have a change of heart, and now I would only choose between the 16 valves versions.. ...

they said that the 3 rib big ports a weaker, how weak is it? is it really that easy to break?

and I don't understand also why they are saying that the MAP sensor are better than the AFM sensor engines? ..

thanks

[burdickjp]

happy holidays guys,

I have few additional questions here

as I have read in some websites on the net the earlier bigport 4age bluetop is closer in power to the small port, 129 for blue top big port and 140 for small port, but the bigport mkes more torque than the small port 149 (bigport) vs 141 (small port), would somebody tell me why the bigport make more torque?

although they are saying that the small ports are more stronger because of 7 ribs block compare to 3 ribs for big port,, which is better of the 2 engines to modify? I think i have a change of heart, and now I would only choose between the 16 valves versions.. ...

they said that the 3 rib big ports a weaker, how weak is it? is it really that easy to break?

and I don't understand also why they are saying that the MAP sensor are better than the AFM sensor engines? ..

thanks

Those torque numbers are wrong.

AFMs just aren't as accurate.

3 ribs aren't terrible for a street build if you don't have a choice, but there's enough 7 ribs around to make it easy finding one.

[kidsharingan]

I checked it at 4age wikipidea , there the small port is the one with 149 torque and the big port makes 131, so which is correct?

this is what confuses me by phil bradshaw

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/phil.bra ... %20RWD.htm

in this link the earlier big port makes moe torque, while on the wiki pedia the small port makes more torque .... in confuses me which is accurate?

and why is it that the 1st gen big port has more power than the 2nd gen bigport? what makes the difference? since they are both TVIS engines and the 2nd gen is with 7 rib.. is it because the first gen has lighter internals?

[yoshimitsuspeed]

I checked it at 4age wikipidea , there the small port is the one with 149 torque and the big port makes 131, so which is correct?

this is what confuses me by phil bradshaw

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/phil.bra ... %20RWD.htm

in this link the earlier big port makes moe torque, while on the wiki pedia the small port makes more torque .... in confuses me which is accurate?

and why is it that the 1st gen big port has more power than the 2nd gen bigport? what makes the difference? since they are both TVIS engines and the 2nd gen is with 7 rib.. is it because the first gen has lighter internals?

You need to remember that this information is all compiled mostly by people who don't know as much as they think they do and by a few people who do the best they can to take the most accurate information they have to put together the most accurate information they can. This does not mean it's always 100% accurate. If you want real factory ratings then you should be looking for old brochures made by Toyota and things like this that have their actual ratings.
Not that those really mean anything at all. Those ratings are more estimates than anything so those numbers really don't mean anything.
You should be looking for dynos.
Here are two largeports, one bone stock, one with mods that really shouldn't make a difference. Don't know if they are 7rib or three rib but that really would make very little difference if they weren't both the same. Yet one makes a lot more low end and one makes a lot more peak.


Why?
Different motors, different cars, different lives, different dynos. The mods the one car has is actually the least of the variables to be concerned with.

Now the other important factor. Torque is meaningless until you apply RPM. Then you can predict power and how much work the motor can do.

One thing you have to pay attention to is that torque is very often reported in NM, KG-m and Lb ft. These are all different units and if you are trying to compare them you will have to convert them to all one unit.

As I said above the torque is meaningless till you add RPM.
Here are some good examples on the Phil Bradshaw page. I'm not saying these numbers are right or wrong. Just using them as examples.

I am going to say they are questionable because they don't get the genrations right which makes any other information questionable. There was an AFM 3 rib. Where is that?

So yes it shows the early 3 rib making the most torque. This may be due to the TVIS and lighter internals, may be due to MAP, may be due to different rating systems in different markets or it could be that guidelines on how they used to rate motors were much looser and have gotten progressively tighter as time goes on.
But if the MAP 3 rib did make 149 NM (109.89 lb ft) at 5200 RPM it makes 108.8 HP at it's torque peak.
Now if the SP does make 141 NM (103.99 lb ft) it is making 118.8 HP at it's torque peak and is making significantly more power than the than the 3 rib.
So even though the 3 rib makes more peak torque the SP makes more power at it's torque peak so at that RPM it does more work (accelerates faster) than the 3 rib.
We can interpret this data and know that the 3 rib (in this example) has a broader power curve. In a race if both motors had to stay under 5500 RPM the 3 rib would be faster. Remove that rule and the smallport would be much faster.

Like I said above though you are putting way too much thought into factory ratings (or peoples guesses at them) when they really mean nothing.
Spend more time studying real dynos. Pay attention to the power curve. Pay attention to the units of measurement.
Pay attention to the power curve.
Always remember that torque is not low end power. Torque is a measurement of force. Power is a measurement of work. They are two separate things that are mathematically tied. They can not and should not be compared.

http://www.epi-eng.com/mechanical_engin ... d_work.htm

http://www.epi-eng.com/mechanical_engin ... torque.htm

http://www.1728.org/mtrtrq.htm

[yoshimitsuspeed]

AFMs just aren't as accurate.

I would not agree with that, especially when paired with an O2 sensor and the ability to remap fuel trims.
My experience with AFMs has shown them to be extremely accurate consistent and adaptable.
As far as stock ECUs go I would take AFM over MAP 9 times out of 10 because you can do a lot more VE mods without throwing it off. You can also do a lot more tuning between the AFM spring, the AFM bypass and the fuel pressure you actually have a ton of control over low, mid and high RPM fuel trim. Not as good as aftermarket engine management but still pretty adaptable.

[kidsharingan]

one more thing ,, is it possible to use the current transmission of my 4AF engine to small port 4age? will it handle the power that the small port gives? ...

im asking this because if it is possible then the money that I will be saving from the transmission will go to new aftermarket cams like the poncams ... I could provably be saving around almost 500 bucks if ever this is possible ...

[burdickjp]

According to an old motorweek video the transverse bigport 4As were down in power because the intake manifold was compromised for packaging.

If I remember correctly, 4A-F transmissions have a taller final drive than the 4A-G. There shouldn't be any problem bolting them up.

[kidsharingan]

According to an old motorweek video the transverse bigport 4As were down in power because the intake manifold was compromised for packaging.

If I remember correctly, 4A-F transmissions have a taller final drive than the 4A-G. There shouldn't be any problem bolting them up.

When you say taller final drive.. what does it mean? Does this mean that 4age tranny is better than 4af?

[oldeskewltoy]

According to an old motorweek video the transverse bigport 4As were down in power because the intake manifold was compromised for packaging.

If I remember correctly, 4A-F transmissions have a taller final drive than the 4A-G. There shouldn't be any problem bolting them up.

When you say taller final drive.. what does it mean? Does this mean that 4age tranny is better than 4af?

"taller"... "shorter" gearing talk STILL confuses the "F" out of me.......

Taller means the numerical number is lower. Hold on to that a second... as an example this means a gear measuring 3.5 is "taller" then a gear measuring 3.9. Shorter is the reverse, the numerical number is higher. the 3.9 gear is "shorter" then the 3.5. Yes... in essence gearing is backwards....

Ok, now the there are 2 types of gears in fwd transmissions, you have the 5, or 6 forward gears(and reverse), and you have the final drive gears. burdickjp mentioned final drive gears. Because the 4AF engine makes its power lower in the RPM band, the final drive can be higher to take advantage of this. A big reason for this is to produce better fuel economy. With the 4AF gearing designed for economy, the 4AG transmission would have gearing more attuned to improve performance


As to what you can, or can't trust.... Below was produced by Toyota for their marketing of the Corolla GTS. There are MINOR intake and exhaust differences, but this is from Toyota for the 4AGE



As to engine generations... Wiki, Bill, and many others info is incomplete, or obsolete. What you need to remember... the BASICS

1) 2 types of 16V heads > one largeport, or TVIS, the other smallport. Smallport 4AGE heads ALWAYS used 10.3 to 1 compression pistons. Largeport 4AGE heads primarily(90+%) uses 9.4 to 1 compression pistons. The other less than 10% used a little known largeport "high compression" piston - it is 10.0 to 1, this piston was available in some areas in Europe, and Singapore - BOTH areas that did not offer catalytic converters. The little known largeport, or TVIS high compression pistoned engines are those making almost smallport power (125hp TVIS, to 130hp smallport), the 115hp(112-115) is the power rating for the 90+% of the rest of the worlds 4AGE engines.

2) OEM 16V 4AGE pistons > 3 basic types 9.4 to 1, and 10.3 to 1 are common, 10.0 to 1 not so common

3) 2 types of OEM crankshafts > one with full counter weights - uses 42mm rod journals, the other partially full counter weighted - uses 40mm rod journals. The full counter weighted crank(42mm rod journals) is capable of rpm levels around 9500 (with proper prep work), the partially full counter weighted crank(40mm rod journals) is capable of about 8500 rpm (with the proper prep work).

4) connecting rods > 3 types in total, 2 found in over 95% of all original 16V 4AGEs. The common 2 are the "small"(40/18) 40mm rod journal rod it fits the partially full counter weight crank, it also uses an 18mm press-fit wrist pin. The 2nd common rod is the biggest, heaviest rod the 4AGE came with. The journal size is designed to fit a 42mm rod journal, while the wrist pin end is 20mm and "floating pin" type.

[sirdeuce]

OST, you forgot the, bleh, 4 speed! A unicorn these days, but it was out there.

[burdickjp]

I would not agree with that, especially when paired with an O2 sensor and the ability to remap fuel trims.
My experience with AFMs has shown them to be extremely accurate consistent and adaptable.
As far as stock ECUs go I would take AFM over MAP 9 times out of 10 because you can do a lot more VE mods without throwing it off. You can also do a lot more tuning between the AFM spring, the AFM bypass and the fuel pressure you actually have a ton of control over low, mid and high RPM fuel trim. Not as good as aftermarket engine management but still pretty adaptable.

None of those things disagree with the truth that AFMs are not as accurate as a MAP system. They are a mechanical system involving friction, inertia, and spring force, all of which add error to the function of the system. This is most apparent in transient response, as the inertia of the flapper door must be overcome for any load changes to be reported to the engine management system. There's a reason they were phased out.

With how inexpensive fully programmable EMSs are, there's very little reason not to run one.

So even though the 3 rib makes more peak torque the SP makes more power at it's torque peak so at that RPM it does more work (accelerates faster) than the 3 rib.

Would you please stop that.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Would you please stop that.

Stop what? Trying to clarify the difference between torque and power?
Is it wrong? If so please explain.

[Rogue-AE95]

3) 2 types of OEM crankshafts > one with full counter weights - uses 42mm rod journals, the other partially full counter weighted - uses 40mm rod journals. The full counter weighted crank(42mm rod journals) is capable of rpm levels around 9500 (with proper prep work), the partially full counter weighted crank(40mm rod journals) is capable of about 8500 rpm (with the proper prep work).

Also everyone says the lighter crank (the 40mm one) isn't good to use for more than 200 HP.

[kidsharingan]

here , I got this pictures of the connecting rods,

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... AyxxmhqH_5

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... vRZ_3iETGa

these pictures says that there are two version of small port 4age?

the small port have two sizes of connecting rod,, the "earlier" small port have a wider (26mm) and thicker (14mm), while the "late" small port has( 21mm) wide and 11.5 mm thick con rod.

so would anybody here knows how to recognize the two versions of small port 4age? are there any codes or numbers or model year that would represent or distinguish the two?

[shandangles]

you are drastically over thinking stuff here man, just but a small port "red top" and leave it stock initially, It will be a decent enough increase over a 4af to keep you happy for a while

[kidsharingan]

you are drastically over thinking stuff here man, just but a small port "red top" and leave it stock initially, It will be a decent enough increase over a 4af to keep you happy for a while

maybe I am, its just that if im going to buy I would like to know the best one so that it would save me money upgrading later on, like going to the one with much stronger internals than the other ....

[kidsharingan]

ok I get it correct me if Im wrong,, I guess that the small port with the thicker and wider con rod is the small port 4AGZE ...

[LongGrain]

No, gze rods are the same as any other small port/7rib rods.

[kidsharingan]

how about this then?



http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j143/ ... grods3.jpg

[kidsharingan]

ive been reading this thread lately and its informative ... thanks to sir oldeskewltoy .....

[tiprock]

im from Philippines by the way ...

so you're going to have a built 4ag just to sit in traffic?
or if you're in the province maybe you'll hit 2nd gear before a scooter cuts you off.
jk. imo get a stock 20v. keep it simple.

[kidsharingan]

im from Philippines by the way ...

so you're going to have a built 4ag just to sit in traffic?
or if you're in the province maybe you'll hit 2nd gear before a scooter cuts you off.
jk. imo get a stock 20v. keep it simple.

its only traffic here in the cities, not in my case as I live in province ... thanks but im going the small port route ...

[kidsharingan]

sir yoshimitsuspeed ... id like to ask if it is WHP or CHP on the chart below?

http://www.matrixgarage.com/products/16 ... nd-pistons

is that a small port engine?

thanks so much ...

[oldeskewltoy]

sir yoshimitsuspeed ... id like to ask if it is WHP or CHP on the chart below?

http://www.matrixgarage.com/products/16 ... nd-pistons

is that a small port engine?

thanks so much ...

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t31.0-8/10014272_665279036841658_382563263_o.jpg

That would be a largeport......

[yoshimitsuspeed]

OST is correct that is WHP on a largeport.

[kidsharingan]

Here is a smallport dyno comparison of stock cams, poncams and then poncams with increased compression.



As you can see the poncams do give a notable gain in the top end. They do have a small loss up to about 4500. The loss is very small because it's a mild cam. A bigger cam will tend to loose you more down low.
20 HP gain is a reasonable expectation from this cam but as you can see that gain is only right at redline and it only starts to grow from about 6k RPM. Below that it has less power on average than it did stock.
Compression raises the power across the board so this brings your power under 4500 back up to around stock power levels. From here it grows much faster and much higher.

Peak power is one concern but from a performance perspective the motor with just poncams would be a bit faster than stock cams but the motor with compression and cams would be considerably faster than both because it makes considerably more power over a much broader range.

so this one above is the small port



https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 3263_o.jpg

and this graph above is a bigport

they are almost the same in power,, its nice to know that small port or big port 4age makes this kind of power with the new pistons and cams.

do you guys happen to know it that is a 3 rib or 7 rib bigport?

and did they delete the TVIS of the bigport to make this kind of power or did they just drop in the cams and piston retain the TVIS? im asking this because ive read in some other threads that some guys deleting the TVIS to make more power ...

[kidsharingan]

as I am looking at both graphs above the bigport has a more linear torque from 4700 rpm to 6900 rpm averaging 20 ft-lb which I think is very nice

and looking at the graph of the small port and converting the KG-M of torque to FT-LBS, I found that the smallport only makes around 116 ft-lb of torque,,

im wondering if these two motors have the same set ups, I mean if they only both replace the cams and the pistons, ans I also notice that the small ports piston in a little bit more high compression 12.2:1 compare to 11:1 of bigport ....

[yoshimitsuspeed]

so this one above is the small port


and this graph above is a bigport

they are almost the same in power,, its nice to know that small port or big port 4age makes this kind of power

This is what we keep trying to tell you.

People have made stupid amounts of power with every 4AGE head that has come to be. You are way over thinking and way over analyzing everything.

If you can find a smallport run a smallport. If you can only find a largeport then run a largeport.

do you guys happen to know it that is a 3 rib or 7 rib bigport?

They are both 7 rib but that in it's self has nothing to do with how much power they made.

and did they delete the TVIS of the bigport to make this kind of power or did they just drop in the cams and piston retain the TVIS? im asking this because ive read in some other threads that some guys deleting the TVIS to make more power ...

The Largeport dyno was with TVIS.
Removing the TVIS on the stock intake would be a waste of time and probably do more harm than good. At the point eliminating the TVIS is a benefit then you need to redo the whole intake.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

as I am looking at both graphs above the bigport has a more linear torque from 4700 rpm to 6900 rpm averaging 20 ft-lb which I think is very nice

and looking at the graph of the small port and converting the KG-M of torque to FT-LBS, I found that the smallport only makes around 116 ft-lb of torque,,

im wondering if these two motors have the same set ups, I mean if they only both replace the cams and the pistons, ans I also notice that the small ports piston in a little bit more high compression 12.2:1 compare to 11:1 of bigport ....

Why are you still bothering with converting torque when you have a power graph to read?

I am not going to bother converting because the power curve will tell me the exact same thing but I think what you are seeing is more the scaling of the graphs.

The SP makes 60 HP at 3000 the LP makes 58
The SP makes 85 hp at 4k and the LP makes 85
The SP makes 140 at 6k with the high comp the LP makes 140.

The power curves are very similar and therefore without needing to do any math I can tell you the torque curves are almost identical as well.

You also have to remember that all chassis dynos will have a good bit of variation.
You could dyno one motor and then drive across town and get numbers that were easily 10% different on another dyno 30 min later.
You could also build two motors perfectly identical and have them dyno 10% different from each other.
Comparing two dynos can be helpful at a glance but it only tells you so much.
Chassis dynos are much better for studying trends. To do this the more you can study the more of a feel you can get for actual trends.
Studying two dynos will not tell you what your power will be before and after.
They can however tell you what the trend will likely be. We can compare these two poncam dynos to two dynos of 4As with stock cams and even though they don't tell you much about what your power will be it will tell you what poncams tend to do to the power curve.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

The other thing to remember is that due to the formula to calculate tq and power in the lower RPM it will take much more change in tq to change power.

You could look at a graph and think oooh this motor makes 40 more lb feet at 1000 RPM but at 1000 RPM that's only 7 more HP. You could strap a Briggs n Stratton on your motor for those kind of gains.
Then again 5 lb ft increase in torque at 8000 RPM gives you 7 more HP. 40 LB ft at 8000 RPM gives you 60 more hp.

To take this to an extreme a gas turbine engine that spins at 200,000 RPM only needs to make 10 lb ft torque to make 380 hp and blow away the vast majority of V8s on the road today.