| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
israel
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sat, 31 January 2004 22:43
 
|
 |
I think its a case of the 20v being designed for lighter revvier internals, and the GZE being designed for forced induction.
If you want to spend all that money, then what you've said will work fine, but most people use a GZE block because it already comes with forged pistons etc.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Ademelaide, SA
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sat, 31 January 2004 22:44
|
|
the 4agze crank is also stronger.
but from what i see, you want to spend some $$$.
it would be cheaper to just buy another 4agze bottom end, and make yourself a hybrid.
forged pistons from wiseco go for close to a grand...
it's possible that if you use the 4agze block, you may have to get some forged pistons made up anyway, to allow for the valve cut out that the 20v pistons have, so the 5th valve doesn't hit the top of the gze pistons..
not sure. but i'm sure that ppl will confirm/discredit...
cheers
steve
|
|
|
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 01 February 2004 02:57
|
|
Im not sure if this correct but I read somewhere that you can run the standard 4agze psitons with a 20v head. It said the valve cut outs were only there so you have clearance if you break a timing belt.
I not confident that its true .... has anyone actually checked clearances when you put a 20v head on a 4agze block.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 01 February 2004 03:07
|
|
|
It might be for the fact there isn't as much meat on the GZE pistons (lower compression) that means the valves are unlikely to hit.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 01 February 2004 07:10
|
|
The ae101 20V and AE101 GZE cranks are exactly the same part number, and exactly the same strength.
13401-16020 CRANKSHAFT 01.06.1991-01.08.1998 4AG#..AE101
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 01 February 2004 14:11
|
|
Apparently the 20v bottom ends are balanced too... Well Teddy at toyospares seems to think so!
Oh and yes the 20v crank is the same part number as a GZE, so too are the rods it seems...
13401-16020 CRANKSHAFT 01.06.1991-01.08.1998 4AG#..AE101
13201-19126 ROD SUB-ASSY, CONNECTING 01.10.1991-01.05.1995 4AG#..AE101
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 01 February 2004 14:57
|
|
the flycuts in the 4AGZE pistons are effectively a maximum depth, below the crown, of 4mm for the intakes, and about 3.5mm for the exhaust valve.
this is exactly the same for both the low and high compresison 4AGZE pistons, regardless of the dish depth.
someone else can check, but i think the 4AGZE piston comes up to roughly deck height.. so how far past the head surface do the valves protrude at max lift?? anyone want to check with a 20V head?
bottom ends balanced? as in the crank? or the rods and pistons??
fwiw, my 4K crank was well balance from factory (toyota does a good job with this), my pistons were within 1 gram (i made them 0.1gram), and rods were within 2 grams, total and end for end weight (again, made them to within 0.1gram) the TOSCO spec for racing 3K's was within 2grams...
if they did this on a 4K from the 70's, i imagine they do a slightly better job on all their more recent motors 
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 01 February 2004 17:51
|
|
I am curious, I have thought about the GZE bottom end with a 20V top end, like well most people.
Everyone talks about the fact that the GZE bottome end has forged pistons.
I am a pure amateur with mechanicals and engineering, but.....
(I forget the technical terms)
The pistons have rebates cut in the top for the valves, right? 16V means 4 each piston, 20V means 5 each piston....
So dont the pistons have to be customised anyways? The GZE pistons being made for a 16V not 20V?
And has anyone ever experimented wiht putting a blower on such a setup? Oooooor is that defeating the purpose?
And since it is a high revving engine... it would eat alot of fuel wouldnt it?
|
|
|
Toymods Board Member
I supported Toymods
Location:
Turramurra, Sydney.
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Mon, 02 February 2004 03:28
|
|
|
The 10 second 20v 4AGTE KE70 in New Zealand is using the standard low compression pistons with the 20V head. Dunno how thick the head gasket is though, there's another factor to consider.
|
|
|
Location:
NSW
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Mon, 02 February 2004 04:47
|
|
|
IMO it would be better off to start with the AGZE block and look at the headwork later!!! Dont forget the ceramic coating on the 4agze pistons... MMMMMMM.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
israel
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
|
Location:
Bundaberg, Qld.
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Mon, 02 February 2004 12:36
|
|
 does the 20 valve head really flow more than a 16 valve bigport though? does the extra valve really allow more through than the bigport inlet port size?
i'm with Rex, i like the 16 valve. not worth the hassle IMO.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Mon, 02 February 2004 13:07
|
|
Im positive that the 20V head would flow less than the Big Port.
Sure the 20valve is a great head for natural aspiration. Its has small ports to create high air velocity to optimise cylinder filling under atmospheric pressure/cylinder vacuum. That is why it can make such good power from a relatively small N/A 1600cc.
But what if you have a turbo or supercharger forcing air into the head? Suddenly N/A port tuning and atmospheric pressure cylinder filling become purely academic. When forced induction is added it becomes a case of stuffing as much air into the engine as possible, this is why the bigport head in my opinion is a superior forced induction head
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Mon, 02 February 2004 13:46
|
|
just top throw in my ten cents worth, i would even say that the smallport head would work quite well (possibly) and might even improve off boost response.
thats what i would start with, boost overcomes many porting innefficiencies, and all 4ages are pretty good anyway. the head you use won't be a limiting factor of how much power you can produce, think about how much power you can get out of an internally stock 3TGTE (to compare a 1.6 litre apple to a 1.8 litre orange)
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Tue, 03 February 2004 01:52
|
|
| Quote: |
20v head can flow so much more air then the 16v
|
not true, the 16V does quite well. In N/A applications, a really well set up 16V has come out on top over the 20V.... it's got us scratching our heads. The feeling is the over way around with forced induction, though we wait of a comparison as yet.
|
|
|
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Tue, 03 February 2004 04:40
|
|
|
the 20v head does flow more than the 16v small port and under standard N/A applications better than the 16V bigport....however the 20v would be better under boost as audi an skoda have researched using 20v heads on their production model cars such as the S3 and the skoda fabia WRC which both have 20V heads and gain as much power outta 1.8 litre turbos as japs get from 2.0 litre turbos in some cases more power at lower boost
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Tue, 03 February 2004 07:04
|
|
| Quote: |
the 20v head does flow more than the 16v small port and under standard N/A applications better than the 16V bigport....
|
well why does our 16V race engines produce 10kw more power then that of our 20V? all are built to same spec bottom ends, all run 20V quads, same fuels, etc.... ask Darren what his 16V does if and when you talk to him about that Haltech stuff.
| Quote: |
however the 20v would be better under boost as audi an skoda have researched using 20v heads on their production model cars such as the S3 and the skoda fabia WRC which both have 20V heads and gain as much power outta 1.8 litre turbos as japs get from 2.0 litre turbos in some cases more power at lower boost
|
 anyone ever wondered why I bought and Audi S3? you missed the Variable timing and lift.... bit more boost and a great chassis hmm  .... pity about the traction control...  no h/brake or left foot braking!!
|
|
|
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Tue, 03 February 2004 08:45
|
|
|
If the 16v head is just as good if not better then the 20v head then why do rigoli and that guy in nz that runs 10s use a 20v head and not a 16v head? It seems to be a good combo that works if you have a 4agze bottom and a 20v head.
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Tue, 03 February 2004 10:24
|
|
LOL, this thread is funny 
it is NOT all about the head.
take a look at the "INTAKE TRACT" of a 16V and then a 20V and tell me what do you see...
16V, runners, plenum, TB
20V, short TUNED LENGTH runners, ITB, plenum.
the difference is that the 20V has been refined as a MASS PRODUCTION NA MOTOR. once you start working them, and take away the great factory intake tuning, where is the difference between them?
lol, why do they do it??
so that people who automatically think "20V must be better than 16V" cream their pants when they hear of a 20V in the 10's
hmm, 16V with 30psi? 20V with 30psi??? you tell me which will be better? what is the most restrictive part of a setup like this?
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Tue, 03 February 2004 20:59
|
|
|
Im personally using a 16v big port head for my 4agte conversion with larger cams. Its just interesting why these performance places run the 20v head apposed to the 16v head. Are they doing something special with the head or are they after the WOW! factor?
|
|
|
Toymods Club Treasurer
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 01:01
|
|
I've heard that the big secret for tuning the 20V is in the Injector timing, as due to the extra valve there are swirling differences in the inlet valves at different openings,creating better suction at different times.
This is not an issue with the 16V.
|
|
|
Location:
melbourne
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 01:54
|
|
|
where did they guy that started this thred go?
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 05:45
|
|
| Quote: |
where did they guy that started this thred go?
|
I think he's in a state of shock 
|
|
|
Location:
New Zealand
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 06:01
|
|
Just to stir the pot a little.
http://www.proturbo.fi/gallery/gallery_en.htm
Now you might notice the 16V 4AGE running flat 10's with webers instead of injection.
Or a little further down, a 2AGE 16V (2A 1300cc with 4A head) running 9.8 from 1300cc.
Not a 20 valve in sight.
Callum
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 06:35
|
|
|
What i'm getting from this is for someone not looking to be doing anything other than basic mods (exhaust, air) of a 4a series engine the 20v would be the best go.
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 08:23
|
|
ermm okies i know i am late into this discussion but......
| Quote: |
its just that the 20v head can flow so much more air then the 16v and have more potential.
|
one word.... Bullshit!
if that was the case then why would the formula atlantic guys have stuck with the bigport LONG after the 20V head was available for them to use.. the fact is that in all the testing done on the 20V's the 16V bigport couldnt be beaten for top end flow, especially with oversize valves... which the 20V has issues with because theres not really enough room to go up valve sizes to make any decently representable change in its flow performance.
the fact remains that if you want volume use the bigport, if you want a good all round track engine then by all means use the 20V as thats what it was designed around.
my personal opinion of the 20V on the street is its a waste of time, doesent accelerate fast enough, and has a small power band. dont get me wrong the 20V is very good in its designed application.. it just doesent seem to respond well to high end adaptation.
|
|
|
Location:
melbourne
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 08:40
|
|
| Purple_Beasty wrote on Wed, 04 February 2004 17:01 |
Just to stir the pot a little.
http://www.proturbo.fi/gallery/gallery_en.htm
Now you might notice the 16V 4AGE running flat 10's with webers instead of injection.
Or a little further down, a 2AGE 16V (2A 1300cc with 4A head) running 9.8 from 1300cc.
Not a 20 valve in sight.
Callum
|
Now you have done it lol but ive never herd of a 2A
|
|
|
Location:
israel
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 10:04
|
|
|
well i hate to dissapoint you in advance but i allready know of a 20V engine thats just been built, in assosciation with the rigolis, and from what ive heard it aint exactly mild.. and theyre hoping for 380@rw from the first run... hope youve got a truckload of cash to build your engine to even match it
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 10:05
|
|
|
oh i forgot to add..... they used a (modified) GZE bottom end
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 10:08
|
|
hmmm why do i get the feeling i know who you are all of a sudden Ortahor , how is woolongong these days anyway?
nice distraction with the sig
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 11:27
|
|
I really find these comparisons between different 'built' engines quite funny.
Anyone ever heard of 'ceteris paribus'? essentially it means, 'All else being equal'. What im saying is that one can never hope to draw any reliable conclusions comparing engines which in some cases have vastly different combinations.
For example, a 4AGZE based 20v 4AGTE with GT30, big efficeint I/C and top shelf management will easily murder a 4AGTE with stock management and a simple RB20 turbo conversion. But which is better. Ill tell you now, for the road id rather have a 200Hp 4AGTE with plenty of midrange pull than 400hp of narrow power-band, 6000rpm threshold, laggy, peaky, high-boost, savage delivery piece of shit.
Another point, you say 400 front wheel horses. Do you have any idea what it would take from a 1.6 to make that sort of power? And please dont get me started on its economy, tuning needs, support systems, reliability etc and what a complete undriveable (on the road) mess it would be. Not to mention the cost, Oh the cost!!
Lets be sensible here.
OldCorrolas too, almost took the words from my mouth. Most factory inlet systems generally arent great for performance after a certain point. Sure the factory 16V inlet system may not be great but a decent plenum or some matched itb's will make by far the best flowing inlet.
| Quote: |
Well, the fact remains that I still think the 20v head is better then the 16v anyhead, and...
|
And no offence Ortahor (if that is your real name ), what you think means absolutely nothing in the face of years of engineering and race car experience (The Atlantic guys, not me  ).
And no one has posted yet why the 16V bigport head is so gay
[Updated on: Wed, 04 February 2004 11:33]
|
|
|
Location:
israel
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Wed, 04 February 2004 17:25
|
|
OK, first of my name is really OR and im not from aussie or NZ at all. So i doubt any of you guys know me in person. maybe from toymods or club4ag or twincam, but under the same nick
And, as regards of the 400whp, well thats just an estimate and ill see how high i can get with keeping it street funish. let you all know how it ends up I dont know why i like the 20v better, i just do thats all folks!
|
|
|
Location:
Finland
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sat, 07 February 2004 11:45
|
|
|
Haha! This is tops! A question about bottom ends turns into a debate about top ends. And does anyone know what the regulations are for formula atlantic engines? Just because they use something for a racing category doesn't mean it's the best. Hell, look at our amazing V8 supercars (tongue firmly wedged in cheek). I don't reckon the single TB's on any of the 16V's is going to flow enough for 400Hp. But 400hp at the front is going to torque steer like a bitch anyway. Good luck though, it sounds like it could be fun!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 08 February 2004 09:56
|
|
| Quote: |
Ill have some proof for you when Ill be running my 20v and get 400fwhp!
|
Heard this stuff many times....
| Quote: |
one word.... Bullshit!
|
hate to say Mick, your right!! Only explanation I can come up with when Darren's 16V hit the rollers. My 20V just doesn't do it the same...same builder, same parts.... should flow the heads just to confirm... sorry no dave hasn't got any of those map's either.
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Sun, 08 February 2004 10:40
|
|
No worries Johnny, i dropped my ecu off to Dave tonight... time for an upgrade  , but itll be worth it after Dave throws it across the rollers
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Mon, 23 February 2004 06:32
|
|
|
Sam sold that car a LONG time ago, it's been sold again since then aswell... was last seen being filled with regular unleaded at a service station near Browns Plains...
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Mon, 23 February 2004 21:40
|
|
first of all who the hell puts reg fuel in any rolla,
second if u are going for forced induction with the 20v head u may like to look at getting new stainless inlet valves as u will bend a few other wise.
and no its not all about a head there is more, like the quads, people take them off, why? u can easly run quads on map, u just have to know how to set in up so it idle's, then a nice big inlet plenim, and well u know the rest,
going by what i have just hurd the only difference in these to bottom ends is the pistons, (weather that is correct or not i dont know) so go for it put a set of wisco pistons in and stainless valves and put 25psi into it and let me know how it takes it. then push it till it dont take it, and tell all of us just how much it did take, i would like to know,
regards Craig
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Tue, 24 February 2004 00:29
|
|
| Quote: |
you cant get the same flow out of a bigport head as you can out of a 20v head. otherwise rigoliperformance would have stuck with a 16v and not a 20v
|
Has anyone here flowed them? I guess not..... and pls explain why a fully raced prepped 16V Big Port vs a Fully Race Prepped 20V, both N/A, both built to exact same spec,built by the same reputable builder and tuned by the same tuner, etc and the 16V produces an extra 40Hp?? go figure. But I have a very good feeling that a big port head can have more work done than a 20V head due to the fact of having more room to move due to one less valve. In stock form, 20V for sure, but start playing around, things start to change. But then again F/I could a create different results and it comes down to which allows more air to be stuffed through, not sucked and I'm sure no body has looks at it this way too. Many Places and people like the 20V for the WOW factor, no offence to Tony nor Sam, as it is great acheivement waiting for someone to better, and it will happen, but we all will just have to wait and see, who has the time money to do it and will it be a 16V or a 20V?... Could be someone here...
| Quote: |
I want to make a 4age20v turbo engine
|
We all Know the answer... GZE bottom + 20V
|
|
|
Location:
sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Thu, 03 June 2004 15:17
|
|
|
THERES ANOTHER ROLLA WITH 20 VALVE TURBO ON GZE BOTTOM END I THINK......LAST I HEARD IT PULLED 375 HP AT THE WHEELS.....BUT SMASHED THE OIL PUMP ON THE DYNO DOING IT LUCKY HIS BIG $ MOTOR DIDNT GO DOWN THE DRAIN..THAT MUCH POWER IS REAL RISKY IN A 1.6...REALLY BIG REVS AND SHITLOADS OF BOOST...BUILT IN HIS BACKYARD..
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Ademelaide, SA
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: 4agze bottom Vs. 20V bottom
|
Fri, 04 June 2004 07:44
|
|
| franky wrote on Fri, 04 June 2004 00:47 |
THAT MUCH POWER IS REAL RISKY IN A 1.6 ... BUILT IN HIS BACKYARD..
|
is that a problem? i've built engines in my backyard, and never a problem...
and not just the odd L20B Datto engine, either . i've done 20v's, and others, and not one has come back, and they all get the living shit thrashed out of them..
|
|
|
Location:
sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
|
