Kylar27 said:
The complete engine is the block and head.
I would call it a stroker 1J. Whatever you feel is best to call it is up to you, though.
Nobody has to call it 1.5JZ either. It's just called such so it's obvious it's not a normal 2.5L 1J.
1JZ>1.5JZ<2JZ Discussion
- Thread starter OneJoeZee
- Start date
The complete engine is the block and head.
I would call it a stroker 1J. Whatever you feel is best to call it is up to you, though.
Nobody has to call it 1.5JZ either. It's just called such so it's obvious it's not a normal 2.5L 1J.
OneJoeZee said:
That's the most silly thing I have heard in quite some time... That's almost as bad as comparing a 1J to a 7M. They are NOT the same. To the next wise guy who wants to argue it, go put a 2JZ crank your 1JZ, and make a start-up vid for me.
Collin
IJ. said:LMAO he got me to the point where I slapped 10K on the table and was ready to hop a flight to the US
I remember that. I would have loved to see that scenario play out.
Colin: After reading through the thread, I would adjust my original stance and now say a "hybrid engine" section would be best.
We can debate engine nomenclature all we want but anything that isn't a factory configuration is left open for the owner to name, IMO. If I wanted to put an HKS stroker in a 2J block and put my 1J head on it and call it 2.5JZ, well that would be my choice and no one could tell me I was wrong.
got_boosted said:That's the most silly thing I have heard in quite some time... That's almost as bad as comparing a 1J to a 7M. They are NOT the same. To the next wise guy who wants to argue it, go put a 2JZ crank your 1JZ, and make a start-up vid for me.
Collin
I don't know if you were reading SM at that time, but you would have been thorougly amused.
This guy was 100% sure the .5L difference was in the deck height between the two blocks. I could dig the thread up in search if I wasn't so lazy right now.
OneJoeZee said:I remember that. I would have loved to see that scenario play out.
Colin: After reading through the thread, I would adjust my original stance and now say a "hybrid engine" section would be best.
We can debate engine nomenclature all we want but anything that isn't a factory configuration is left open for the owner to name, IMO. If I wanted to put an HKS stroker in a 2J block and put my 1J head on it and call it 2.5JZ, well that would be my choice and no one could tell me I was wrong.
I can agree with that 100%. And, personally, a 2JZ stroker bottom end with a 1JZ head is still a stroked 1.5JZ.
And with a head like the one Chris Hamilton built, it would be a MONSTER!
OneJoeZee said:
1J crank in 2J block = REALLY low compression and useless engine.
2J crank in 1J block = lots of broken stuff.
A taller deck means nothing if the crank won't allow the pistons to travel the extra distance.
Collin
JustAnotherVictim
Supramania Contributor
1jz and 2jz crank are the same.IJ. said:LMAO he got me to the point where I slapped 10K on the table and was ready to hop a flight to the US
I expect to see you next week. :sarcasm:
got_boosted said:
Are you prepared for funny?
Well are you!?
ok, I warned you...
http://www.supramania.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1653
IJ. said:Collin: In that case you can change to a longer rod and still have a 2.5L displacement 2jz
LMAO! And the point of that would be? :biglaugh:
Collin
Joe, that link makes me want to install rod-proof glass on my windows to protect myself from flying thrown rods. To think that I share the road with people like that terrifies me!
Collin
Collin
IJ. said:
Really, there's one benifit, and that is that the longer the rod the less side loading on the cylinder walls and piston and longer engine life under high load. Honda took a similar approach with their B16 engines.
However, longer rods = more weight = less efficiency. Meh.
Collin
From memory they had an extra ring on the piston.
There was a 366 and a 427 version that each had a .400 taller deck height to accommodate .400 taller pistons using four rings instead of the more usual three rings. These tall-deck engines were used only in medium-duty trucks (NOT in pickup trucks--think in terms of big farm trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, school busses, etc.) The tall-deck blocks all had 4-bolt main caps, forged crankshafts, and the strongest of the 3/8 bolt connecting rods. All-out performance engines used 7/16 bolt connecting rods, along with other changes. This engine family was discontinued in 1990, with the Gen 5 appearing in 1991.
There was a 366 and a 427 version that each had a .400 taller deck height to accommodate .400 taller pistons using four rings instead of the more usual three rings. These tall-deck engines were used only in medium-duty trucks (NOT in pickup trucks--think in terms of big farm trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, school busses, etc.) The tall-deck blocks all had 4-bolt main caps, forged crankshafts, and the strongest of the 3/8 bolt connecting rods. All-out performance engines used 7/16 bolt connecting rods, along with other changes. This engine family was discontinued in 1990, with the Gen 5 appearing in 1991.
IJ. said:
Why? lol Higher compression?
EDIT: Seeing your edit: As I suspected, just a heavier duty engine... Makes sense to me.
Collin
Last edited:
Yes, thats pretty much a 6m. It has a different head, and a different classificationdbsupra90 said:
There is no difference between the 1j and 2j blocks EXCEPT 86mm stroke vs 72 or whatever the 1js is. Other then that they are the same. Well actually no they're ~ and inch taller so they're actually heavier and hurt more then a 1j block..Supraboostin said: