LC Engineering cylinder head anyone?

[Totem]

has anyone tried the hi torque cam based 22re performance cylinder head from LC Engineering>?

They claim adds 18-20 HP as a stock bolt on mod and in my book that makes its $1000 price tag worth it.

[Totem]

Linda, JDE, anyone know if anyone put a performance cylinder head actually got any horsepower and escaped the 55-65 MPH max ceiling often experienced in the 22re 4 banger?

[Derek up North]

I don't care what head you put on, once you go over 55mph your mpg will go down the toilet.

[fred heath]

NOX system would be cheaper than a new head.

additionally, to realize that much power gain using the new head, you would also have to modify other systems including spark and exhaust.

Lot of expense for not a lot of gain.

[zero]

2 hours ago, Totem said:

Linda, JDE, anyone know if anyone put a performance cylinder head actually got any horsepower and escaped the 55-65 MPH max ceiling often experienced in the 22re 4 banger?

I haven't tried it. I don't believe it either. I have put many a custom or reworked head , and specialty cam, on many engines.  There is no magic.  Gains at higher RPMs result often IF you want higher RPMs. And that usually means some sacrifice at lower RPMs. Also a big drop in fuel mileage IF you want to use that slight extra power at those higher RPMs.  Such a head can only do two things. Improve flow or raise compression.  The former rarely gives much gain without a different cam.  The latter means fuel problems unless you want to run high test all the time.

[WME]

I'm the guy who did this. Oversized valves, HP cam, reworked exhaust 2.5", oversized throttle body, a "improved" air valve.

 JDE is correct, 0-10 a stock 22re would beat my rig, at 25 mph it was a draw, and then I would pull ahead. On several trips the missus would drive, she thought the speed limits were minimum speeds. After a short nap I would wake up to find the Toy humming along at 75 mph. JDE is further correct that the mpg sucked.

What I built the engine for was to pull my trailer though the Rockies. It did this very well. I would pass stock Toys MHs while pulling the trailer. I'm sure they thought I had a v-8 under the hood.

When driven at 60-65 Toy speeds it would average 12-13 mpg O/D was never used as all of Wy is over 4000ft.

Expensive? for most people but it served me well for 5 years and made several 2,500 mi vacation trips. If I didn't pull the trailer for business I would have had a full manual O/D and a 4:88 rear end 

[Totem]

Thanks wme, yours and Jdes were the only legit responses In this context.

stock bolt on upgrade with nothing else needed. This was from the taco crawlers site advice... 

Jde is skeptical but maybe the page will convince him.

http://www.lceperformance.com/Pro-Cylinder-Head-w-Camshaft-22R-RE-85-95-p/1021024.htm

[Totem]

Note they are replacing the cam... In my case they recommended the "torquer" cam. I was told no normal expectation of mpg was to be expected.

 

[Totem]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 9:19 PM, WME said:

I'm the guy who did this. Oversized valves, HP cam, reworked exhaust 2.5", oversized throttle body, a "improved" air valve.

 JDE is correct, 0-10 a stock 22re would beat my rig, at 25 mph it was a draw, and then I would pull ahead. On several trips the missus would drive, she thought the speed limits were minimum speeds. After a short nap I would wake up to find the Toy humming along at 75 mph. JDE is further correct that the mpg sucked.

What I built the engine for was to pull my trailer though the Rockies. It did this very well. I would pass stock Toys MHs while pulling the trailer. I'm sure they thought I had a v-8 under the hood.

When driven at 60-65 Toy speeds it would average 12-13 mpg O/D was never used as all of Wy is over 4000ft.

Expensive? for most people but it served me well for 5 years and made several 2,500 mi vacation trips. If I didn't pull the trailer for business I would have had a full manual O/D and a 4:88 rear end 

So, being that I am hitting 90k miles this summer and my biggest complaint is top speed; I am thinking I am going to do this mod; while at the same time having water pump, timing chain and metal guides done etc.

How much trailer were you towing WME? what was the weight and size? What was on it>?

 

[WME]

You realize "top speed" and Toyota M/H don't belong in the same sentence. At 75 mph we would get 7-8 mpg, which sorta defeats the whole idea of a Toyota. 

The engine I built was for mid range and up power. The idea was to get over the mountain passes with the trailer. This pass is 9986ft

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/toyota-campers/photos/photostream/lightbox/793345559?orderBy=mtime&sortOrder=asc&photoFilter=ALL#zax/793345559 

[Totem]

21 minutes ago, WME said:

You realize "top speed" and Toyota M/H don't belong in the same sentence. At 75 mph we would get 7-8 mpg, which sorta defeats the whole idea of a Toyota. 

The engine I built was for mid range and up power. The idea was to get over the mountain passes with the trailer. This pass is 9986ft

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/toyota-campers/photos/photostream/lightbox/793345559?orderBy=mtime&sortOrder=asc&photoFilter=ALL#zax/793345559 

hmm, no I don't yahoo, but I do appreciate that you were towing and had more power. I find MPG is highly related to headwinds.

I also plan to swap fuel injectors to the newer four hole bosch ones. Frankly if I lose a couple mpg and get there an hour earlier that's ok with me.

still curious on what you were towing

Edited March 22, 2016 by Totem

[zero]

On 3/2/2016 at 9:28 PM, Totem said:

Thanks wme, yours and Jdes were the only legit responses In this context.

stock bolt on upgrade with nothing else needed. This was from the taco crawlers site advice... 

Jde is skeptical but maybe the page will convince him.

http://www.lceperformance.com/Pro-Cylinder-Head-w-Camshaft-22R-RE-85-95-p/1021024.htm

Convince me of what? I already understand the concept of making near any engine make more power then stock at high RPMs (and sometimes mid-range).  It gives no gain in efficiency. Just enables the engine to make more fuel and burn more fuel and that's not why I have a Toyota RV.  If I want that (more power) - I have a bigger engine or smaller RV (like my little Chinook).  With what we are talking about here - there is nothing new.  The kind of mods being discussed here always result in worse performance at  low RPMs and that is something I don't want to sacrifice.  My focus is a low RPMs as possible for max fuel mileage and less noise.  Adding a 4.56 rear does that job well since it gives me a useful OD.    Now - if I drove with my engine running 3000 RPM or above near all the time - yes - I'd want optimum flow in the heads.  a higher-lift/longer duration cam, etc.

[WME]

8 hours ago, Totem said:

hmm, no I don't yahoo, but I do appreciate that you were towing and had more power. I find MPG is highly related to headwinds.

I also plan to swap fuel injectors to the newer four hole bosch ones. Frankly if I lose a couple mpg and get there an hour earlier that's ok with me.

still curious on what you were towing

Well you need to learn to Yahoo The trailer was a 5x8 enclosed cargo trailer. Trailer and cargo were in the 1600-1900lb range. Because our local little hills are the Rockies the trailer had electric brakes.

With out the trailer the Toy had good getup and go. But 65 mph is still 65 mph and unless your driving in a lot of mountains or bucking headwinds, you only save minutes. One of the "problems" was finding the correct throttle setting to get the power and NOT force a down shift into 2nd gear. Cruise was in the 3500-3600 rpm range.

If your serious about a similar engine you NEED to change the rear ratio too.

According to some computer dynos the engine was in the 135-140 hp range

[Totem]

12 hours ago, WME said:

Well you need to learn to Yahoo The trailer was a 5x8 enclosed cargo trailer. Trailer and cargo were in the 1600-1900lb range. Because our local little hills are the Rockies the trailer had electric brakes.

With out the trailer the Toy had good getup and go. But 65 mph is still 65 mph and unless your driving in a lot of mountains or bucking headwinds, you only save minutes. One of the "problems" was finding the correct throttle setting to get the power and NOT force a down shift into 2nd gear. Cruise was in the 3500-3600 rpm range.

If your serious about a similar engine you NEED to change the rear ratio too.

According to some computer dynos the engine was in the 135-140 hp range

so for the LC as specified do you think the 4.56 rear diff in place of the 4.10 would be good ? what diff did you have? I had thought a ratio of 3.xx would improve top speed with slower turning motor to counter the rpm increase from the head; I confess I am a bit confused.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Totem

[Totem]

16 hours ago, jdemaris said:

Convince me of what? I already understand the concept of making near any engine make more power then stock at high RPMs (and sometimes mid-range).  It gives no gain in efficiency. Just enables the engine to make more fuel and burn more fuel and that's not why I have a Toyota RV.  If I want that (more power) - I have a bigger engine or smaller RV (like my little Chinook).  With what we are talking about here - there is nothing new.  The kind of mods being discussed here always result in worse performance at  low RPMs and that is something I don't want to sacrifice.  My focus is a low RPMs as possible for max fuel mileage and less noise.  Adding a 4.56 rear does that job well since it gives me a useful OD.    Now - if I drove with my engine running 3000 RPM or above near all the time - yes - I'd want optimum flow in the heads.  a higher-lift/longer duration cam, etc.

unfortunately for me I just can only have the one Toyota rv, not multiple and my desire was to improve the power of the motor and its top speed. maybe I should just get a valve job, maintenance items like water pump and chain and different rear diff according to you yes?

[zero]

2 hours ago, Totem said:

unfortunately for me I just can only have the one Toyota rv, not multiple and my desire was to improve the power of the motor and its top speed. maybe I should just get a valve job, maintenance items like water pump and chain and different rear diff according to you yes?

You indicated I might be "convinced" of something and thus my comments. If somebody wants to sacrifice low-end performance to get better top-end performance - good for them.  Not something I personally want in my RV.  If my main goal was to have a 20 foot RV that had all kinds of power - I'd of just started out with something V8 powered and not with a straight 4.  In fact, many V8 powered RVs around that are cheaper then these Toyotas.

There ARE engines being developed that do well at high and low RPMs but that is done with high-tech gadgets like variable valve timing, variable camshaft profiles, etc.  Not something you can do with an old-tech engine like a 22RE.

[Totem]

"I haven't tried it. I don't believe it either"

there you go...if you must only focus on the comment; that's the meaning behind it.

back to my question... lets say I go with this performance head and CAM for the stated goal of better top speed/power at.... you think I should also change rear diff gears? if so which would be good? I value your opine. humor me in the context that I will be making the change and what you think would compliment the head/cam combo.

 

http://www.lceperformance.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=1021024&CartID=1

with the torque cam...

Edited March 23, 2016 by Totem

[WME]

Comments...1. Your cam choice does not match your stated goals. 2. Are you willing to change your rear axle ratio.?

Random thoughts....

Torque vs weight determines acceleration.  HP vs drag determines speed.  More torque means faster acceleration, more HP means you can go faster. With a 22RE you can't have both. What is more important to you cruising speed or quickness?

IMHO the perfect toy MH would be an 18ft Sunrader and my engine. IF you had an automatic use a 4:88 rear ratio, or with a 5 sp use a 4:56 ratio. There gear ratio vs RPM charts all over the net, find one and play with the rear axle ratios to see what happens to your cruise RPM when you swap ratios

O/D... OD works because you have an excess of HP and you can turn the engine slower and still make enough power to maintain speed. A Toyota MH does not have an excess amount of HP. Around 65mph the engine turns about 3600 rpm (3rd gear auto) and its max power at the rear wheel is  about 58 hp, at 2400rpm ( OD automatic) it makes about 40HP. So say it takes 40 hp to go 65 mph, in 3rd you let off the gas a bit and cruise, in OD you have to floor it to maintain speed and any wind or hill and you don't have enough power.  With a ratio change and OD you cruise at 3300 RPM and make 52 HP so you might save gas and have a quicker MH.

My engine had the equivalent of the Pro head and the stage 2 cam. At 65 mph I was making about 65 HP at the rear wheels and made max crankshaft HP at about 4800 rpm. At 2400 rpm I was making about 40 HP, because I was out of the cams power band. I kept the factory 4.10 ratio, because my calculations showed even with a 4:88 rear end I couldn't pull the trailer in OD. I just never used OD.

Check out these guys for  go faster goodies too. http://www.engnbldr.com/index.html

Just for grins and giggles check out the 3RZ-FE swaps here.  http://board.marlincrawler.com/index.php?topic=19275.0

Edited March 23, 2016 by WME

[zero]

I have no idea what a  "torque cam" is supposed to be from the seller you mention.    It can be what any seller wants it to be.  Back in the 70s-80s when "RV high torque" engine parts were being installed in many vehicles - it meant a "mild  RV cam", new dual-plane or high-rise intake manifold, better carb, headers, reprogrammed ignition-advance curve, polished ports in the cylinder head, etc.  In  most every install that I ever seen any real test specs on - they all lost efficiency and power at lower RPMs but gained power at high RPMs. I doubt the results are any different then any kit being offered now for a 80s Toyota.   Before the "RV torque" craze, cams usually just came in "street",  "3/4", or "full race."  The milder the cam, the less low end torque was lost and that was usually the "street" cam.  There are no work-arounds with old engines.  New engines - yes.  The only attempt back in the 70s-80s were the "Rhodes Lifters."  Note - I'm not even sure I'm spelling it correctly.  These were variable lift hydraulic lifters that allowed use of an agressive "full race" type cam that lost some of its valve lift at lower RPMs. I had them in my 1966 396 SS  Chevelle and hated them.

As far as choice of gears go - I doubt it makes any difference for high speed driving.  Just a matter if you want to cruise in 3rd gear with the 4.10 rear, or 4th gear with a 4.56 rear.  The idea is to match the peak performance curve created by whatever parts you add.  If you add a cam and head that is supposed to make your engine run best at 3200 RPM - then that's the revs you want when doing whatever your main cruising speed is.

You need to find actual test specs of engines with the parts you want and see what the dyno shows at various RPMs and loads.

I'll note that I have many published tests done on Chevys, Fords, and Dodges when the same sort of "improvements" were done.   Some just lost fuel mileage and power at low and high revs.  Some showed loss at lower RPMs and gains at higher.  NONE were Toyotas though. If I had to guess, I'd expect even less gains with a 22RE since it has pretty good engineering to start with.  Just a guess. I have no test data.

[Totem]

On 2016-03-23 at 2:55 PM, WME said:

Comments...1. Your cam choice does not match your stated goals. 2. Are you willing to change your rear axle ratio.?

Random thoughts....

Torque vs weight determines acceleration.  HP vs drag determines speed.  More torque means faster acceleration, more HP means you can go faster. With a 22RE you can't have both. What is more important to you cruising speed or quickness?

IMHO the perfect toy MH would be an 18ft Sunrader and my engine. IF you had an automatic use a 4:88 rear ratio, or with a 5 sp use a 4:56 ratio. There gear ratio vs RPM charts all over the net, find one and play with the rear axle ratios to see what happens to your cruise RPM when you swap ratios

O/D... OD works because you have an excess of HP and you can turn the engine slower and still make enough power to maintain speed. A Toyota MH does not have an excess amount of HP. Around 65mph the engine turns about 3600 rpm (3rd gear auto) and its max power at the rear wheel is  about 58 hp, at 2400rpm ( OD automatic) it makes about 40HP. So say it takes 40 hp to go 65 mph, in 3rd you let off the gas a bit and cruise, in OD you have to floor it to maintain speed and any wind or hill and you don't have enough power.  With a ratio change and OD you cruise at 3300 RPM and make 52 HP so you might save gas and have a quicker MH.

My engine had the equivalent of the Pro head and the stage 2 cam. At 65 mph I was making about 65 HP at the rear wheels and made max crankshaft HP at about 4800 rpm. At 2400 rpm I was making about 40 HP, because I was out of the cams power band. I kept the factory 4.10 ratio, because my calculations showed even with a 4:88 rear end I couldn't pull the trailer in OD. I just never used OD.

Check out these guys for  go faster goodies too. http://www.engnbldr.com/index.html

Just for grins and giggles check out the 3RZ-FE swaps here.  http://board.marlincrawler.com/index.php?topic=19275.0

there is no stage 2 cam at LC, do you mean the "mild street cam" second down in the drop list config?

sounds like you are advocating a higher ratio and using overdrive after the pro head with a street cam... to achieve the goal of a higher cruising speed am I correct?

4:88 ratio (I have an automatic) would be what you would recommend yes?

[Totem]

On 3/23/2016 at 3:00 PM, jdemaris said:

I have no idea what a  "torque cam" is supposed to be from the seller you mention.    It can be what any seller wants it to be.  Back in the 70s-80s when "RV high torque" engine parts were being installed in many vehicles - it meant a "mild  RV cam", new dual-plane or high-rise intake manifold, better carb, headers, reprogrammed ignition-advance curve, polished ports in the cylinder head, etc.  In  most every install that I ever seen any real test specs on - they all lost efficiency and power at lower RPMs but gained power at high RPMs. I doubt the results are any different then any kit being offered now for a 80s Toyota.   Before the "RV torque" craze, cams usually just came in "street",  "3/4", or "full race."  The milder the cam, the less low end torque was lost and that was usually the "street" cam.  There are no work-arounds with old engines.  New engines - yes.  The only attempt back in the 70s-80s were the "Rhodes Lifters."  Note - I'm not even sure I'm spelling it correctly.  These were variable lift hydraulic lifters that allowed use of an agressive "full race" type cam that lost some of its valve lift at lower RPMs. I had them in my 1966 396 SS  Chevelle and hated them.

As far as choice of gears go - I doubt it makes any difference for high speed driving.  Just a matter if you want to cruise in 3rd gear with the 4.10 rear, or 4th gear with a 4.56 rear.  The idea is to match the peak performance curve created by whatever parts you add.  If you add a cam and head that is supposed to make your engine run best at 3200 RPM - then that's the revs you want when doing whatever your main cruising speed is.

You need to find actual test specs of engines with the parts you want and see what the dyno shows at various RPMs and loads.

I'll note that I have many published tests done on Chevys, Fords, and Dodges when the same sort of "improvements" were done.   Some just lost fuel mileage and power at low and high revs.  Some showed loss at lower RPMs and gains at higher.  NONE were Toyotas though. If I had to guess, I'd expect even less gains with a 22RE since it has pretty good engineering to start with.  Just a guess. I have no test data.

As far as the Cams, i do believe they post the specs of the various measurements on the various cams for valve lift etc.

[Totem]

http://www.lceperformance.com/EFI-Pro-Camshaft-22RE-RET-p/1022021.htm

here is the stock efi 

and the torquer they also said could improve speed:

http://www.lceperformance.com/Pro-Torquer-Camshaft-20R-22R-RE-RET-p/1022024.htm

[WME]

Stage 2 cam http://www.lceperformance.com/Stage-2-Camshaft-20R-22R-RE-RET-p/1022036.htm.   Use torque cam with stock rear ratio, use hotter cam with rear ratio change.

I spent near $1000 for 25 hp, not real cost effective but that 25 hp did what I needed.

If you want to run 70 mph your going to be building a 9-11 mpg toy house. My 26ft Class A with a 454 Chevy will deliver 9-10 mpg at 65mph. It has a lot more room than any toy.

You may have the wrong tool in mind.

[Maineah]

With the money,time and effort you may as well find a nice 350 CID engine to put in it that will fix your problem.

[Totem]

with the amount of angst I see from some in here I must surely be on the correct path.

1.)  at 96k miles I need water pump chain guides and valves done anyway

2.) I am burning oil so I either have a valve or gasket issue though oil and coolant look good to me

3.) to do these things is the same labor as dropping in the head so this is only an extra $1000 just as WME has stated

4.) dropping a "350" in there would NOT be cheaper.

5.) I posit that I already only get 9-11 MPG sometimes in high winds or worse all while struggling to make 50-55 mph and I am not retired; so its ok to burn the extra gas

6.) I will be keeping the stock head, cam etc and can have it sent off for rebuild if this turns into a gas waster and somewhere down the line when I retire, swap it out.

[zero]

I agree that dropping anything other then a 22RE in there is not cost-effective and would be a huge project with little gain (except for power).
No "angst" on my end.  Just kind of weary of the claims that have been made ad nasuem over the past 30-40 years with custom cams,  better flowing heads, etc.  In most if not all cases - you "rob Peter to pay Paul."   I.e. you sacrifice fuel mileage, engine longevity, and low end performance and fuel mileage - to get more top end power.   If that top end power is your primary motivator - then go for it.   Companies like Toyota have spent a lot of time engineering these engines for the best compromise of low/high speed driving and light/heavy load driving.  Aftermarket parts will not improve on that overall "compromise." But if you target just one load or RPM range and don't care about fuel mileage - then yes - it works.  For me it's not why I bought a Toyota RV. If I wanted more cruising speed and power in a compact size - I'd have something like a Roadtrek with a Ford 302 V8. Or an Astrovan based RV with a 4.3 V6.  But yeah - I get it. You already have your Sunrader and just want to improve upon it without a major retooling.

One "sort-of" comparison. I drove my 1964 SS Chevelle for years as a commuter and family car. Had a 283 V8 and four-speed manual trans.   Got around 15-16 MPG at 60-65 MPH. I tore it all apart. Put headers on it, Crane "high torque" cam, Eldelbrock dual-plane intake manifold, Holley "economy/torque" carb, reworked the heads for better flow, etc.  When done?  Ran kind of ratty at low speeds but had a mean sounding and rough idle that I liked. On the highway? Ran like a finely tuned rocket and got 17-18 MPG so for that it was great.   I have many lists of actual before-and-after road tests when these mods were done on many engines.  I have NONE for Toyotas.   Got to remember that Toyotas came from the factory highly engineered as compared to US products of the 70s.  Oddly - Chevys often got the most positive response from the mods.  Many Dodge 318s and 360s actually got worse at all RPMs (not very good for advertising).

Today's newest engines CAN get the best of low and high end performance.  That is due to microprocessor controls on valve timing, fuel injection, and compression ratios near as high as some diesel engines.  So - in theory - a Toyota sized RV with all this high tech could  be kind of amazing in theory.  That other then the cost.

 

[WME]

Burring oil can also be rings. 

[Totem]

3 hours ago, jdemaris said:

I agree that dropping anything other then a 22RE in there is not cost-effective and would be a huge project with little gain (except for power).
No "angst" on my end.  Just kind of weary of the claims that have been made ad nasuem over the past 30-40 years with custom cams,  better flowing heads, etc.  In most if not all cases - you "rob Peter to pay Paul."   I.e. you sacrifice fuel mileage, engine longevity, and low end performance and fuel mileage - to get more top end power.   If that top end power is your primary motivator - then go for it.   Companies like Toyota have spent a lot of time engineering these engines for the best compromise of low/high speed driving and light/heavy load driving.  Aftermarket parts will not improve on that overall "compromise." But if you target just one load or RPM range and don't care about fuel mileage - then yes - it works.  For me it's not why I bought a Toyota RV. If I wanted more cruising speed and power in a compact size - I'd have something like a Roadtrek with a Ford 302 V8. Or an Astrovan based RV with a 4.3 V6.  But yeah - I get it. You already have your Sunrader and just want to improve upon it without a major retooling.

One "sort-of" comparison. I drove my 1964 SS Chevelle for years as a commuter and family car. Had a 283 V8 and four-speed manual trans.   Got around 15-16 MPG at 60-65 MPH. I tore it all apart. Put headers on it, Crane "high torque" cam, Eldelbrock dual-plane intake manifold, Holley "economy/torque" carb, reworked the heads for better flow, etc.  When done?  Ran kind of ratty at low speeds but had a mean sounding and rough idle that I liked. On the highway? Ran like a finely tuned rocket and got 17-18 MPG so for that it was great.   I have many lists of actual before-and-after road tests when these mods were done on many engines.  I have NONE for Toyotas.   Got to remember that Toyotas came from the factory highly engineered as compared to US products of the 70s.  Oddly - Chevys often got the most positive response from the mods.  Many Dodge 318s and 360s actually got worse at all RPMs (not very good for advertising).

Today's newest engines CAN get the best of low and high end performance.  That is due to microprocessor controls on valve timing, fuel injection, and compression ratios near as high as some diesel engines.  So - in theory - a Toyota sized RV with all this high tech could  be kind of amazing in theory.  That other then the cost.

 

Normally I would agree with you on cylinder heads, but in this case LC engineering has an almost cult like status of their own making with Toyota owners and have had plenty of people put them into rigs as well as crawlers. I even read some reviews of the pro head of theirs being installed on older Toyota based tow trucks whereby fuel economy and power were both increased. I read no negative reviews and the motors that sell on ebay with their heads seem to sell for double even when used ; so that tells me the pro head they make must be decent.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Totem

[zero]

"Cult like status" means nothing to me.  But - I thought we were talking about a cylinder-head AND a different camshafts. I.e. not just a reworked head.  If you believe the cult-like reports - go for it.

[Totem]

7 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

"Cult like status" means nothing to me.  But - I thought we were talking about a cylinder-head AND a different camshafts. I.e. not just a reworked head.  If you believe the cult-like reports - go for it.

correct, its a cam/head package that is configurable based on inputs. The have a computer program that you key in the information such as engine code, year, vehicle, wheel size, rear diff ratio etc and tell them what you are looking to do and they recommend a package.

of course you can always get the standard EFI cam combo on the pro also which is very close to stock but supposedly increases HP.

I do tend to believe ebay reviews on sales of that dollar amount ... folks in ebay generally are venomous if abused and not afraid to show it in product and seller reviews and ratings.

[WME]

Go for it, (you really want to ). Before you start do some test runs. Like 0-60 and 3rd gear climbing speeds on your favorite hill. Keep us posted

[Dunce]

15 hours ago, WME said:

Go for it, (you really want to ). Before you start do some test runs. Like 0-60 and 3rd gear climbing speeds on your favorite hill. Keep us posted

Yeah, I'm really interested in the before and after. I have thought a lot about doing the lce "efi power package". But obviously, 1000 bucks is a good chunk of change. I am (like a lot of us) more invested emotionally than financially in my Toyhome and think it would be cool to get a bit more driveability out of my rig that I already have.

[Totem]

This is not about the money for me; the only extra cash I would be spending is the $1000 on the head/cam combo. the rest of the stuff I would be doing as one must do anyway at this mileage to keep it running correctly.

I have documented my mileage being as good as 19 and as bad as 9 before on trips in my rig.

Always this is based on headwinds. I have had trips take multiple extra hours or even days due to bad headwinds and hopefully 15-25 more HP will improve that. If it does I am willing to pay $1000 to get that time lost on the road converted into time at the destination or be able to unpack during daylight or not roll into a park at 3AM.

I know this goes against the grain for some folks that are in their retirement years but in my case I only get so many days off work and must use them to the max. I am looking forward to the power of this head and seeing what it can do. I have an appointment to have it worked on and installed scheduled. should have my first trip report in may. The main reason I want this is because in my calculations it could allow me to do an out west trip in the near future and grant much more time in yellowstone.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Totem

[payaso del mar]

i'm curious to see your results.  hopefully it will work out as planned.  but if you're hoping for it to take your arrival time from 3 am to a "reasonable" hour, you are planning on it adding a lot more than 18% extra power........    

me, i'm looking into JATO assist for those long upgrades.......

[Totem]

If I can hit and maintain 70 instead of 55; that's 15 mph..at 8 hours of driving that's 120 miles... so yeah there's that.

currently I can do it sometimes but not more often than can; that means I am close to being where I want to be stock. even at 55 MPH that would be reducing things by over 2 hours... so is 1 am more reasonable that 3 AM? - you betcha.