The way I see it, the 1jz is actually a stronger platform.
Forget the 2j nutswinging for just a sec while you read this:
So you have two engines with the same size main and rod bearings, and the same diameter cams. Now on one engine you make the rods longer, the crank journals further apart for more stroke, and the deck taller. Isn't that going to make it physically weaker in terms of maximum hp per liter? You also have higher piston speeds at any given rpm, and the pistons/rings also travel more distance per crank revolution (read:more wear). The only way the 2jz would be proportionately stronger is if the dimensions of all the engine internals were increased.
Remember, the 1jz was first, and then Toyota decided to make an engine with more displacement to keep up with the hp output of other manufacturers engines. The only other way would have been more boost on the 1j, but that was obviously not an option for a production engine already at ~12psi stock.
For this reason, I argue, the 1jz is better from an overall strength and longevity standpoint at the hp levels most peoples engines will be at.
The 1jz,to me, is closer to the optimum piston engine design. When I think optimum engine design, I also think rb26.
I invite any well thought out arguements to this.
but its not what you say its how you say it
