Supra Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Like most of you know our biggest set backs are our intake manifolds and our heads. Our manifolds we use the 2JZ upper half and thats fixed. But as for the head, the 2JZ wont it. But I talked to my friends at MAXX (I live close) and they have a way to make it flow better than the 2JZ. 1mm oversize titanium valves on both side and some serious porting that they have access to. They custom grind the stock cams to flow more. Supposed to be better than the 272 cams. A few little things here and there and boom. You got some serious flow.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
the cost of the titanium valve train is somewhere near $2,000. The ports need to be redesigned a bit and the cams are completly custom. Re-worked stock cams. It took over a year for them to figure out all the numbers, designs and valve sizes, etc.
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
the 2jz manifold doesnt really flow more than the stock one, if not even as much
 

·
the clever guy
Joined
·
782 Posts
the 2jz manifold doesnt really flow more than the stock one, if not even as much
And the 7m design provides better distribution to all of the runners. The 2j style manifold looks better and makes IC piping simpler.

You could save on cost by not using titanium valves but still going oversized. Dual springs and titanium retainers would be good. The porting and cams will probably have the most impact. Any specs available?
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)

·
the clever guy
Joined
·
782 Posts
Sweet. I had been told the 2j valves were compatible. Those valves alone on a 7mgte would make a world of difference. I can only imagine what a high comp, nasty cammed NA 7m would sound like. I think it would be a thing of beauty :D
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
sccasupra said:
Like most of you know our biggest set backs are our intake manifolds and our heads.
How did we arrive at this conclusion?
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The stock 7M intake manifold does not flow better or distrubute better because the air hitts a wall and has to back flow. And the head is what holds us 7M users back from getting really high numbers. The cam spec numbers I dont think they want to release. But I might be able to get flow specs compared to a 2JZ and maybe even a ported/polished 2JZ.
:ak47: :fruit:
 

·
the clever guy
Joined
·
782 Posts
The stock 7M intake manifold does not flow better or distrubute better because the air hitts a wall and has to back flow.
Actually, that "wall" is what distributes the air evenly into the runners. Aerodynamics, my dear watson, aerodynamics. I don't think manifold flow capabilities is the issue, but like you said, it is the head that is restrictive.
 

·
25psi = 14" brakes :)
Joined
·
2,306 Posts
The 7M design is the better than the 1J or 2J intakes.
However at some point in a pressureized engine, it really does not matter much. (runner length is the key to Tq, and larger short runners are better for top end Hp, but either design seems to be a good compromise.)
I'd actually like to see a upper enlarged 7M design with longer runners for even better low and mid-range power. (Tourqe.)
I've heard running the NA intake upper is a better deal, but with the coil packs on the turbo, it becomes a problem.
From what I've read, having the "wall" actually makes for more even distribution of the intake charge to every cyc. (Explain to me how #1 can get anywhere close to the same flow amount as #6 with the 1 or 2JZ intake designs? The air actually has to completely reverse, right after the TB to get into the runner for the forward cyc's.) The exact opposite is true of the rear ports, they are in a position to have intake air rammed down them. I'd have to belive the design causes real differences in cyc filling, especially at low engine speeds. (Like when your just poking along at 60 on cruise control....)
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top