RV Camshaft for 22RE

[centralman]

Hi everyone,

I would like to ask if anybody has any experience installing aftermarket performance camshafts on their Toy MH? Please let me know what make & model you used and what kind of experience you have with them on the road. Many thanks.

By the way - do you know why those camshafts are called "RV Camshaft"?

[zero]

Hi everyone,

I would like to ask if anybody has any experience installing aftermarket performance camshafts on their Toy MH? Please let me know what make & model you used and what kind of experience you have with them on the road. Many thanks.

By the way - do you know why those camshafts are called "RV Camshaft"?

I have NO experience putting aftermarket "RV" cams in Toyota. That being said, I have a lot of experience with aftermarket RV cams in other engines. They were the rage and very hyped up back in the 70s-80s. RV cams claimed to increase gas mileage and low to mid-range "pulling" torque for trucks and RVs. Seems once electric fuel injection came out along with all the other microprocessor controlled components - the aftermarket cams kind of disappeared.

I could name many examples of engines we put RV cams in, from Crane, Edelbrock, etc. I cannot think of a single job that really resulted in any gains. Often besides the cam, we'd stick in a custom intake manifold, headers, and sometimes a different carb. Mostly to no avail although headers alone sometimes showed a slight gain IF the original exhaust manifolds were very restrictive (like on many GMs). My work truck at a dealership was a 1983 Chevy 1 ton with a 350 gas engine. When the cam started going bad anyway - we decided on a complete makeover. Headers, new Holley "fuel efficient" carb instead of the Rochester Quadrajet, Crane RV cam, new valve springs, dual-plane intake manifold, etc. The truck averaged 8 MPG before the work with all my tools on it. When all done - it got 8 MPG.

The one that really sticks in my mind was my first motorhome. A 1973 Dodge Champion 21 footer. 318 commercial gas engine, three speed auto, and 4.33 ratio rear. I took it for a trip to Canada and got 6 MPG with it. Totally disgusted, when I got home I spent the winter reworking it. I yanked the low compression commercial heads and pistons and put in some automotive 9.5 to 1 compression parts. Installed a custom intake and carb, Edelbrock RV cam, special lifters, timing set, and headers. Got all done and took it on another trip. Guess what? Got 6 MPG. Got home, sold it and changed over to a diesel RV. Had diesel ever since until recently when I started messing with Toyotas.

A funny memory. When I was a teen I had a 55 Chevy with a 265 V8 and all the aftermarket goodies including a 3/4 cam. A guy in school got . . . for his graduation - a brand new Toyota Corona. Japanese cars were not exactly popular then. But any kid with a new car was kind of impressive. It was a 69 or 70 four-door with a 5 speed and 2 liter engine. Well I got to drive it and that thing ran like a sky-rocket! One day he raced me in my 55 Chevy and he won. That car sold me on Toyotas and Datsuns forever. He drove it for years and drove it to Hell and back and it almost never skipped a beat. I guess my point is - I'd leave Toyota engineering alone if it was mine. Until recently, Toyota has really been on top of their game with engineering. My father-in-law was a Ford auto engineer and told me stories about what Ford did to mimic Toyota and replicated their longevity.

[WME]

I done the cam plus other things. End result was 13.7 mpg at 60-65 W/O OD. I used a 270 degree cam from http://www.engnbldr....a-hotlicks.html

Also new head with O/S valves and a good 3 angle valve job, an oversized throttle butterfly and a good 2.25 exhaust system

It was a little doggie from a standing start up to around 7mph, then things started working. It was much better in the hills, instead of chugging over the top at 40mph I could climb at 55mph. Much better when on the interstate.

I think this engine with a 4.88 rear axle and selective use of the OD would have been perfect on a 18ft Raider. I had a 21 ft Escaper, I thought a lot about the 4.88 but because I pull a trailer I decided to not go there. I don't think the OD would work well with the trailer.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toyota-campers/photos/album/932151036/pic/793345559/view?picmode=large&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&dir=asc

Thats Powder River Pass 9666 ft

[zero]

a good 3 angle valve job, an oversized throttle butterfly and a good 2.25 exhaust system

I've been hearing "three angle valve job" for years and I still don't know what it is supposed to be? OEM or from the machine shop, all standard valve jobs require a seat cut with three angles. Only the middle one does any sealing and the other two are for narrowing and centering the seat so it hits the valve face in the correct spot and with the correct width. The only ones that don't get three angles are those that get brand new seat inserts pressed in. When new they often do not require any narrowing.

What aspect of this am I missing?

[WME]

A 70 degree cut on the seat to help air flow, a 45 degree cut for sealing, then a long 30 degree cut in the intake throat for air flow. A lot of quickie 3 angle jobs are just on the seat to get the margin correct

[WME]

A 70 degree cut on the seat to help air flow, a 45 degree cut for sealing, then a long 30 degree cut in the intake throat for air flow. A lot of quickie 3 angle jobs are just on the seat to get the margin correct

[zero]

A 70 degree cut on the seat to help air flow, a 45 degree cut for sealing, then a long 30 degree cut in the intake throat for air flow. A lot of quickie 3 angle jobs are just on the seat to get the margin correct

OK. I guess I understand the concept but . . . when it comes to worn hammered seats - after cutting the 45 degrees - they get narrowed with a 30 and a 70 anyway. That is except for some turbo diesels that have 30 degree seats and I have to use a 15 degree cutter to narrow. If I was installing new hardened seat inserts - if sized right the inside cannot be touched anyway. Couldn't make it a "three angle" unless it got beat down and widened a bit.

[centralman]

Thank you for your information gentlemen. It's very informative to say the least. I highly appreciate the time you put in responding to my question. I guess to sum it up:

1. In order to gain any significant improvement on performance - Just changing the camshaft will not be enough. You'll need a lot more than that.

2. I was in fact considering to buy the RV Camshaft 270/430 H/O with RV springs set from www.engbldr.com, the one WME is currently using. At least it sounds like that I'll need to buy the cylinder head assembly modified exhaust plus a lot of other stuffs to make this work. Need to rethink before committing to that.

Thanks again, but if I may impose:

3. Would supercharging be a more effective way to improve perofrmance?

[zero]

Thank you for your information gentlemen. It's very informative to say the least. I highly appreciate the time you put in responding to my question. I guess to sum it up:

1. In order to gain any significant improvement on performance - Just changing the camshaft will not be enough. You'll need a lot more than that.

2. I was in fact considering to buy the RV Camshaft 270/430 H/O with RV springs set from www.engbldr.com, the one WME is currently using. At least it sounds like that I'll need to buy the cylinder head assembly modified exhaust plus a lot of other stuffs to make this work. Need to rethink before committing to that.

Thanks again, but if I may impose:

3. Would supercharging be a more effective way to improve perofrmance?

Supercharging - regardless if exhaust driven (turbo), gear or belt driven - puts tremendous stress on an engine. The idea of a charged-engine is to build a small engine with extremely heavy parts. When under boost and/or cooled condensed air and with extra fuel it can behave like an engine twice its size. When not under boost and extra fuel, it can behave like a smaller engine and get good fuel mileage. Sticking any sort of boost-amplifier on an engine not designed for it is asking for disaster - unless that engine happens to be extremely overbuilt to start with. Toyotas ARE well built, but not greatly overbuilt. A typical boosted engine that used to be very popular in the RV world was the Cummins 4BT (3.9 liter) or the Isuzu 3.9. They made near the same power as a non-turbo 6.9 Ford-IH diesel or a GM 6.2 diesel. It is a very heavy engine and I don't think suitable for a little Toyota. Besides the need for heavier parts - adding boost increases the "effective compression" ratio. If the engine is not built for boost, it will have a high mechanical compression ratio. If you add boost - that "effecitive" compression ratio gets dangerously high. For that reason, engines designed to run under boost start out with lower mechancal compression ratios then non-boosted engines. In a boosted engine, this results in less performance when not under boost then a non-boosted engine.

I can't recall if and/or how Toyota done it . . . but Isuzu took one of their non-boosted diesel engines in small trucks and Troopers and added a turbo in the 80s. That was the 2.2 liter that started life as a gas engine. Then it was converted to diesel with heavier parts. Then when a turbo was added it got further beefed up pistons and rods. Even with that they tended to blow to pieces and were not near as long lived as the non-turbo versions.

If I wanted a reliable long-term driver - I'd never consider trying to add boost to a Toyota engine not designed for it. Replacing the engine with something that is - is a different story. But - I hope you don't think adding boost will make your rig more fuel efficient. Not usually the case. Install a modern direct-injected turbo diesel and you will gain MPGs - but lose a lot of wallet. Like a German Sprinter engine maybe?

Back to your camshaft questions. With mechanical controls - it's not possible to make a camshaft the "best" for all uses and RPMs. Anything you do is a trade-off. Toyota spent a lot of time engineering a good compromise and I would not tend to mess with it. Many attempts were made years back with variable mechanical valve timing, Rhodes lifters, variable displacement engines, etc. None worked all that well. Now - with microprocessor controlled anti-detonation that allow high compression, electronic varaible valve timing, etc. - new engines CAN compromise much more.

[centralman]

Supercharging - regardless if exhaust driven (turbo), gear or belt driven - puts tremendous stress on an engine. The idea of a charged-engine is to build a small engine with extremely heavy parts. When under boost and/or cooled condensed air and with extra fuel it can behave like an engine twice its size. When not under boost and extra fuel, it can behave like a smaller engine and get good fuel mileage. Sticking any sort of boost-amplifier on an engine not designed for it is asking for disaster - unless that engine happens to be extremely overbuilt to start with. Toyotas ARE well built, but not greatly overbuilt. A typical boosted engine that used to be very popular in the RV world was the Cummins 4BT (3.9 liter) or the Isuzu 3.9. They made near the same power as a non-turbo 6.9 Ford-IH diesel or a GM 6.2 diesel. It is a very heavy engine and I don't think suitable for a little Toyota. Besides the need for heavier parts - adding boost increases the "effective compression" ratio. If the engine is not built for boost, it will have a high mechanical compression ratio. If you add boost - that "effecitive" compression ratio gets dangerously high. For that reason, engines designed to run under boost start out with lower mechancal compression ratios then non-boosted engines. In a boosted engine, this results in less performance when not under boost then a non-boosted engine.

I can't recall if and/or how Toyota done it . . . but Isuzu took one of their non-boosted diesel engines in small trucks and Troopers and added a turbo in the 80s. That was the 2.2 liter that started life as a gas engine. Then it was converted to diesel with heavier parts. Then when a turbo was added it got further beefed up pistons and rods. Even with that they tended to blow to pieces and were not near as long lived as the non-turbo versions.

If I wanted a reliable long-term driver - I'd never consider trying to add boost to a Toyota engine not designed for it. Replacing the engine with something that is - is a different story. But - I hope you don't think adding boost will make your rig more fuel efficient. Not usually the case. Install a modern direct-injected turbo diesel and you will gain MPGs - but lose a lot of wallet. Like a German Sprinter engine maybe?

Back to your camshaft questions. With mechanical controls - it's not possible to make a camshaft the "best" for all uses and RPMs. Anything you do is a trade-off. Toyota spent a lot of time engineering a good compromise and I would not tend to mess with it. Many attempts were made years back with variable mechanical valve timing, Rhodes lifters, variable displacement engines, etc. None worked all that well. Now - with microprocessor controlled anti-detonation that allow high compression, electronic varaible valve timing, etc. - new engines CAN compromise much more.

Thanks so much for your answer. Looks like it's best to leave this one alone. You cannot actually make the 22RE a variable timing engine operation, hence I understand your point of a trade off. The reason I raised the question of boosting is because I think the 22RE and 22RTE are the same engine, just with an add on turbo, so I deduce that the baseline 22RE is designed for boosting?

[WME]

The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic money. Or as they also say speed cost money how fast is your wallet.

Before i supercharged a 22r, i would just install a bigger engine.

I had warped head so I did what I did to fix the problem and make a little more power. From what I figured out my engine was in the 130-135 hp range. A stock rebuild would have been in the 1000 range, so 20 hp for 200 extra was ok. 20 hp for 1200 wouldnt be such a good deal

[centralman]

The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic money. Or as they also say speed cost money how fast is your wallet.

Before i supercharged a 22r, i would just install a bigger engine.

I had warped head so I did what I did to fix the problem and make a little more power. From what I figured out my engine was in the 130-135 hp range. A stock rebuild would have been in the 1000 range, so 20 hp for 200 extra was ok. 20 hp for 1200 wouldnt be such a good deal

Understood, maybe wait for my 22RE's cylinder head warp first before doing anything else.

[zero]

Thanks so much for your answer. Looks like it's best to leave this one alone. You cannot actually make the 22RE a variable timing engine operation, hence I understand your point of a trade off. The reason I raised the question of boosting is because I think the 22RE and 22RTE are the same engine, just with an add on turbo, so I deduce that the baseline 22RE is designed for boosting?

I don't know much about what Toyota did to the 2RTE to sustain turbo use. I'd read that they used specailly coated pistions, a lower compression ratio, larger cooling system, piston-skirt oil cooling, and a completely resdesigned head. That's with a fairly low boost engine.

[centralman]

I don't know much about what Toyota did to the 2RTE to sustain turbo use. I'd read that they used specailly coated pistions, a lower compression ratio, larger cooling system, piston-skirt oil cooling, and a completely resdesigned head. That's with a fairly low boost engine.

I would like to thank you for your answers to my questions, it's very educational. I would welcome very much on any ideas that could economically make the MH perform better, if you have, please do not hesitate to share.

[Derek up North]

"You can have: Fast, Cheap, Reliable. Which 2 do you want." - Don't remember who said it.

[WME]

The only reason the head was warped was that the PO had overheated it when the infamous bypass hose by the alternator broke and she didn't see the gauge skyrocket. So if you care for your Toy it will be a long time before you have head problems.

WME

Understood, maybe wait for my 22RE's cylinder head warp first before doing anything else.

[zero]

I would welcome very much on any ideas that could economically make the MH perform better, if you have, please do not hesitate to share.

A bigger gas engine would make it go faster and have an engine not working so hard- but also means worse fuel mileage. A diesel is inherently more fuel efficient but a diesel engine also has less power then an equal sized gas engine. That means it takes around a 3 liter diesel to make equal power to a 2.4 liter gas engine. That is unless you start making apples-to-oranges comparisons like a turbo diesel to a non-turbo gas engine. More engine means more money, more weight,etc., &c. All is a compromise so I'm not sure how to answer. A diesel is still more efficient then a gas engine - 15-25% more. But -in my state - diesel fuel costs 20% more per gallon then regular gas. That loses a lot of potential savings. Also, many "mechanics" are really just parts changers at best and very few have the know-how and tools to work on a diesel. For example - next time you're at what you think is a good repair shop - ask if they own a diesel timing light - or better yet see if they know what one is? Or, see if they have a mechanical injector tester or tools to check compression on a diesel engine. My point being that owning a diesel often is not cheaper unless you get it cheap and do your own repair work. I do - and am still shying away from diesels. My full size 1986 Chevy Blazer 4WD with a turbo-diesel 6.2 liter engine can cruise at 65 MPH and get 16 MPG. My 1992 Dodge 3/4 ton 4WD extended cab truck with a pop-up truck-camper on it gets 17 MPG with the Cummins intercooled turbo diesel. My 1994 Ford F250 with extended cab, 4WD, 7.3 IDI turbo diesel and a slide-on camper with a fixed high roof gets 15 MPG. My little 1985 Isuzu 4WD truck (Toyota sized) with a 2.2 liter diesel gets 32 MPG empty. If I had something like a Chinook camper on it I suspect it would get around 22-24 MPG and be dreadfully underpowered climbing any hills.

The Toyota sacrifices room and power but gives back with an easily handled size, ruggedness, and half-way decent fuel mileage. If money was no object, I've have a 18' Sunrader with a German Sprinter turbo diesel. It would get maybe 18 MPG at 65 MPH (note I said maybe). Years back when GM first came out with it's Detroit-Diesel designed 6.2 liter engine - several RV companies stuck the engines in some Class A motorhomes. With 350 or 454 gas engines they typically got 7-8 MPG. When the 6.2 diesels got put in, they tended to get 10-11 MPG and often blew to pieces by 40K miles. Many of those then got retrofitted with 3.9 liter turbo Cummins or isuzu DI diesel engines and got 14 MPG.

I don't know what to tell you. If you waste endless amounts of time trying to redesign things (like I do) - the answer is buy a different motorhome if you want substantially more performance. I've been trying to redesign all sorts of motorhomes and RVs for near 40 years. I've never felt I really got what I wanted yet - but I'm cheap. I've got this 1978 Toyota Chinook I'm working on right now. I couldn't bear to leave it as is - so now it has a dual-wheel full floater rear, getting a 5 speed trans with OD, bigger brakes, 150 amp alternator, 5000 watts in inverters, etc. I'm hoping I can achieve 18-20 MPG on long flat runs when I'm done. If so - I'll be very pleased (I think).

[centralman]

The only reason the head was warped was that the PO had overheated it when the infamous bypass hose by the alternator broke and she didn't see the gauge skyrocket. So if you care for your Toy it will be a long time before you have head problems.

WME

Yes, quite understandable. I was thinking about the bypass hose incident I had. It sort of had a internal crack and developed a tiny hole and I saw coolant droplets started appearing on the hood when I was crossing the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco (Long way from home in Vancouver, Canada) - I was fortunate enough to have gotten the part at a autozone store and performed my first ever roadside repair for the MH.

[centralman]

A bigger gas engine would make it go faster and have an engine not working so hard- but also means worse fuel mileage. A diesel is inherently more fuel efficient but a diesel engine also has less power then an equal sized gas engine. That means it takes around a 3 liter diesel to make equal power to a 2.4 liter gas engine. That is unless you start making apples-to-oranges comparisons like a turbo diesel to a non-turbo gas engine. More engine means more money, more weight,etc., &c. All is a compromise so I'm not sure how to answer. A diesel is still more efficient then a gas engine - 15-25% more. But -in my state - diesel fuel costs 20% more per gallon then regular gas. That loses a lot of potential savings. Also, many "mechanics" are really just parts changers at best and very few have the know-how and tools to work on a diesel. For example - next time you're at what you think is a good repair shop - ask if they own a diesel timing light - or better yet see if they know what one is? Or, see if they have a mechanical injector tester or tools to check compression on a diesel engine. My point being that owning a diesel often is not cheaper unless you get it cheap and do your own repair work. I do - and am still shying away from diesels. My full size 1986 Chevy Blazer 4WD with a turbo-diesel 6.2 liter engine can cruise at 65 MPH and get 16 MPG. My 1992 Dodge 3/4 ton 4WD extended cab truck with a pop-up truck-camper on it gets 17 MPG with the Cummins intercooled turbo diesel. My 1994 Ford F250 with extended cab, 4WD, 7.3 IDI turbo diesel and a slide-on camper with a fixed high roof gets 15 MPG. My little 1985 Isuzu 4WD truck (Toyota sized) with a 2.2 liter diesel gets 32 MPG empty. If I had something like a Chinook camper on it I suspect it would get around 22-24 MPG and be dreadfully underpowered climbing any hills.

The Toyota sacrifices room and power but gives back with an easily handled size, ruggedness, and half-way decent fuel mileage. If money was no object, I've have a 18' Sunrader with a German Sprinter turbo diesel. It would get maybe 18 MPG at 65 MPH (note I said maybe). Years back when GM first came out with it's Detroit-Diesel designed 6.2 liter engine - several RV companies stuck the engines in some Class A motorhomes. With 350 or 454 gas engines they typically got 7-8 MPG. When the 6.2 diesels got put in, they tended to get 10-11 MPG and often blew to pieces by 40K miles. Many of those then got retrofitted with 3.9 liter turbo Cummins or isuzu DI diesel engines and got 14 MPG.

I don't know what to tell you. If you waste endless amounts of time trying to redesign things (like I do) - the answer is buy a different motorhome if you want substantially more performance. I've been trying to redesign all sorts of motorhomes and RVs for near 40 years. I've never felt I really got what I wanted yet - but I'm cheap. I've got this 1978 Toyota Chinook I'm working on right now. I couldn't bear to leave it as is - so now it has a dual-wheel full floater rear, getting a 5 speed trans with OD, bigger brakes, 150 amp alternator, 5000 watts in inverters, etc. I'm hoping I can achieve 18-20 MPG on long flat runs when I'm done. If so - I'll be very pleased (I think).

I wish you luck in your quest for economic performance. Beyond that, I really do not know what more can I say. To be honest, I don't mind to spend some money on the MH to gain more power, but I were to commit anything major into the MH, I must also calculate all related costs that could realistically keep the MH run for another 10 years or so to be economical. That will include both improvements and repairs needed both on the car part and the house part.

[zero]

I wish you luck in your quest for economic performance. Beyond that, I really do not know what more can I say. To be honest, I don't mind to spend some money on the MH to gain more power, but I were to commit anything major into the MH, I must also calculate all related costs that could realistically keep the MH run for another 10 years or so to be economical. That will include both improvements and repairs needed both on the car part and the house part.

Another thing to keep in mind is to use components that have parts availability all around the country. If you stuck some odd-ball engine in an RV and then had a break-down somewhere - you could be waiting a very long time for parts. The LeSharo RVs with the French engines and drivetrains are good examples. Even with USA stuff - some part for diesels are not mainstream and won't be at your local NAPA. That's one thing I really like about the little Toyotas. They did not make a million useless changes every year so parts are somewhat standardized and easy to find.

In regard to my efforts over the years. Some worked out well. The problem is playing "catch up." When I first started messing with diesel RVs, diesel fuel was substantially cheaper then regular gas. Now here in NY it is 20% more. At present a motorhome fueled with CNG (compressed natural gas) would be much more economical to drive then any diesel or gasser. But fueling stations are rare. If it became mainstream - the price of CNG would probably come up as high as all the other fuels and not be worth the bother.