MK2+7M+v160+5.29 final drive

IndigoMKII

New Member
May 9, 2011
2,181
0
0
Madison, Virginia
I'm interested in this as well because I'd love to mate the v160 to my 7mgte. I'm also curious to see how this setup with work. I know there will be a LOT of banging on the transmission tunnel with the v160 in there. I remember reading a thread where someone shoehorned a 2jz/v160 into a mk2. They had to cut the transmission tunnel and re-weld patches in then make a shifter extension to make the shifter in the right place. IIRC the length of the w58/v160 is WAY different. http://www.norbie.net/Project2JZ/SixSpeed/default.htm
 

NAscreamer

clutch kick
Dec 23, 2011
42
0
0
36
chicago(south side)
I was thinking the same thing in regards to the length of the trans. That would work great because I did want the shifter further back. I’m completely gutting out the car, dash included. I’m going to make my own dash and I like the MKIV dash’s style. I wanted to make one similar. Also the further back I can get the seat, the better the weight distribution will be. (I hope)
 

funky_monkey58

Closing in on 200+MPH
Apr 3, 2006
1,307
0
36
St.cloud MN
NAscreamer;1789976 said:
It’s funny that all the new people to this thread only have negative things to say. If this thread gives you a headache, DONT READ IT. If you want to contribute something helpful to this, it’s easy..... 7M mated to a v160. ??? Anything to say about that??...... No?... Ok, then. People act like they have to comment on everything posted, like we can’t live without their opinion. Sorry to disappoint, but we can. I’m running a NA 7M. I hope everyone knows what that means..... IM NOT RUNNING A GTE, NO TURBO, AND I LIKE THE THE SETUP THAT I WILL BE USING. That means that I won’t be putting in a 4.1 or a 4.3 rear end. This thread is intended to know if anyone has put a v160 on a 7M. If you have a question for me about my setup I would more than willing to answer them. If you don’t think my setup is a good idea, OH WELL. TOO BAD. That’s why you have your own car to do whatever the hell you want to do to it. Sorry if this comes across the wrong way. Really I am. I have my reasons why I’m running the setup that I am, just like you, you have reasons why you ran the setup that you did. My setup won’t work for you just like your setup won’t work for me. I’m trying something different that has never been done before or that has rarely been done with success and that’s the end of that.

It's funny how little power the 7mge makes, and how difficult you want to make things for yourself.
 

NAscreamer

clutch kick
Dec 23, 2011
42
0
0
36
chicago(south side)
It’s also funny how much you care about my build. I’m touched!


Obviously, I’m not after a lot of power. The fact that I’m going all motor should give that away. The fact that you can’t wrap your head around it is astounding. But not surprising. The only thing that I’ve made difficult is making people understand that I’m not trying to set a land speed record or have bragging rights to how much power I’m making or a fast ¼ mile time. Once more in case you didn’t comprehend it the first time around.

7m over stock 5M- I chose the 7M due to the fact that it has a four valve head over the two valve. It should be able to be worked over to flow significantly more than the two valve.

V160 over W58/R154- both the W58 and R154 are five speed where I would like a six speed. Also the gearing is much closer together on the v160. This is a great benefit to my setup due to the fact that this engine is all motor. Also, this engine’s power band will be starting at about 4K RPM or so. So the fact that the gearing is so close, it will guarantee that I’ll never be out of my power band.

5.29 FD over other FD ratio- Due to the fact that the engine will not have a lot of torque, the 5.29 should be able to compensate for this. Also, because I will turning the engine over significantly higher than 7K RPM I won’t be shifting as much as most people think. And because it’s not a turbo I won’t be roasting the tires every time I open the throttle.

When I get a chance Ill make an excel sheet that will show the MPH at every RPM in every gear with the setup that I plan to use. That might help some people get a better idea of my setup. I’ll have it go from 1K RPM all the way to 11K RPM in increments of 500 RPM just for demonstration.
 

funky_monkey58

Closing in on 200+MPH
Apr 3, 2006
1,307
0
36
St.cloud MN
NAscreamer;1790021 said:
It’s also funny how much you care about my build. I’m touched!


Obviously, I’m not after a lot of power. The fact that I’m going all motor should give that away. The fact that you can’t wrap your head around it is astounding. But not surprising. The only thing that I’ve made difficult is making people understand that I’m not trying to set a land speed record or have bragging rights to how much power I’m making or a fast ¼ mile time. Once more in case you didn’t comprehend it the first time around.

7m over stock 5M- I chose the 7M due to the fact that it has a four valve head over the two valve. It should be able to be worked over to flow significantly more than the two valve.

V160 over W58/R154- both the W58 and R154 are five speed where I would like a six speed. Also the gearing is much closer together on the v160. This is a great benefit to my setup due to the fact that this engine is all motor. Also, this engine’s power band will be starting at about 4K RPM or so. So the fact that the gearing is so close, it will guarantee that I’ll never be out of my power band.

5.29 FD over other FD ratio- Due to the fact that the engine will not have a lot of torque, the 5.29 should be able to compensate for this. Also, because I will turning the engine over significantly higher than 7K RPM I won’t be shifting as much as most people think. And because it’s not a turbo I won’t be roasting the tires every time I open the throttle.

When I get a chance Ill make an excel sheet that will show the MPH at every RPM in every gear with the setup that I plan to use. That might help some people get a better idea of my setup. I’ll have it go from 1K RPM all the way to 11K RPM in increments of 500 RPM just for demonstration.
you are aware the 1jz will bolt up to a v160 right? And has a better oil system and bore to stroke ratio for your 11k rpm 7m.

Can I have some of what you are smoking?
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Mar 26, 2006
6,603
2
38
40
WHYoming
NAscreamer;1789424 said:
Do you know what specific issues you are refering to?
Oiling, mostly. The 7m oiling system has known issues, that can be corrected with a bit of work. I've also heard that the 7m likes to cavitate at higher rpm's, but I believe IJ found/made a fix for that as well. Also, it's been mentioned, piston speed. It's going to be rather high above 7500 or so... if you plan on rebuilding them once in a while, no big deal, but you're pushing the thing awfully hard past a certain rpm.

mecevans;1789657 said:
With the high piston speed of a 7M, i would make sure the bottom end could handle it. Have you thought of de-stroking it, or forged the bottom end? There is a member on here with a 5M 2.8L block and 7M head. He mad some impressive numbers before it blew up.
This is an option I've seen for guys wanting to stay NA and high rpm.

NAscreamer;1789934 said:
Well, I plan on using BFGoodridge g-Force T/A KDW 2 tires. 245/40/17. They are 24.7 in tall. And also remember, my engine is all motor. NA, so there wont be alot of torque. I shouldn't have to worry about spinning the tires. Thats were the 5.29 rear end will make up for that and once out of first gear, i will no longer be low in the RPM range. Thats why the v160 is perfect with this rear end combo and the engine output. I hope to get as close to 300 hp as I can to the wheels but more realistically Ill be between 240 and 270 hp. I know not many people have seen that hp with a NA 7M but im sure it can be done. I will be going to a manual rack, no A/C, and a dry sump system as well as a racing vacuum pump, under drive pullies and a electric water pump. With this setup Im hoping to achieve as close to 300hp as possible.
If all you're looking for is ~300whp, I think a 1uz would be a better option all around. Not to mention, it sounds like you're using the car for auto cross, I get that, and approve. :)

My reasoning for going with the 1uz?
-It's significantly lighter than the 7m, even the NA 7m.
-It's shorter in length than the 7m, which will be better for weight distribution.
-It will make more torque than the 7m, somewhat eliminating the need for such super high revving.

Plus, there's the sound. Check out the Youtube videos of the 1uz with ITB's. You can thank me when you're done changing. ;)

NAscreamer;1789976 said:
It’s funny that all the new people to this thread only have negative things to say. If this thread gives you a headache, DONT READ IT. If you want to contribute something helpful to this, it’s easy..... 7M mated to a v160. ??? Anything to say about that??...... No?... Ok, then. People act like they have to comment on everything posted, like we can’t live without their opinion. Sorry to disappoint, but we can. I’m running a NA 7M. I hope everyone knows what that means..... IM NOT RUNNING A GTE, NO TURBO, AND I LIKE THE THE SETUP THAT I WILL BE USING. That means that I won’t be putting in a 4.1 or a 4.3 rear end. This thread is intended to know if anyone has put a v160 on a 7M. If you have a question for me about my setup I would more than willing to answer them. If you don’t think my setup is a good idea, OH WELL. TOO BAD. That’s why you have your own car to do whatever the hell you want to do to it. Sorry if this comes across the wrong way. Really I am. I have my reasons why I’m running the setup that I am, just like you, you have reasons why you ran the setup that you did. My setup won’t work for you just like your setup won’t work for me. I’m trying something different that has never been done before or that has rarely been done with success and that’s the end of that.
I'm more or less indifferent to the project, but I like your attitude. Obviously, you're going to have people try to sway you away (some with good ideas, others with just good intentions, some just being asses...), but I like how you're handling it. If nobody believes it's possible, but hasn't proven it or have damn good backup on why it won't work, I say go for it, prove us wrong. Just be prepared for even more headaches (both financially and emotionally) than you've seen in this thread...

mecevans;1790033 said:
5M crank in a 7M, or 5/6M block with 7M head and custom pistons.
A 6m block with a 7m head and custom pistons *is* a 7m. ;)
 

NAscreamer

clutch kick
Dec 23, 2011
42
0
0
36
chicago(south side)
funky_monkey58;1790029 said:
you are aware the 1jz will bolt up to a v160 right? And has a better oil system and bore to stroke ratio for your 11k rpm 7m.

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

I knew you didn’t know how to read and comprehend what you were reading at the same time. The excel chart was for demonstration purposes ONLY, not that I was spinning the engine to 11K RPM. If you read the rest of the thread, you would notice that I said I was going to use 7K as a starting point and try to shoot as high as I could from there. As far as the 1JZ engine goes, I have thought about it and have not completely ruled it out yet, but I’m defiantly leaning towards the 7M.
 

NAscreamer

clutch kick
Dec 23, 2011
42
0
0
36
chicago(south side)
te72;1790042 said:
Oiling, mostly. The 7m oiling system has known issues, that can be corrected with a bit of work. I've also heard that the 7m likes to cavitate at higher rpm's, but I believe IJ found/made a fix for that as well. Also, it's been mentioned, piston speed. It's going to be rather high above 7500 or so... if you plan on rebuilding them once in a while, no big deal, but you're pushing the thing awfully hard past a certain rpm.


This is an option I've seen for guys wanting to stay NA and high rpm.


If all you're looking for is ~300whp, I think a 1uz would be a better option all around. Not to mention, it sounds like you're using the car for auto cross, I get that, and approve. :)

My reasoning for going with the 1uz?
-It's significantly lighter than the 7m, even the NA 7m.
-It's shorter in length than the 7m, which will be better for weight distribution.
-It will make more torque than the 7m, somewhat eliminating the need for such super high revving.

Plus, there's the sound. Check out the Youtube videos of the 1uz with ITB's. You can thank me when you're done changing. ;)


I'm more or less indifferent to the project, but I like your attitude. Obviously, you're going to have people try to sway you away (some with good ideas, others with just good intentions, some just being asses...), but I like how you're handling it. If nobody believes it's possible, but hasn't proven it or have damn good backup on why it won't work, I say go for it, prove us wrong. Just be prepared for even more headaches (both financially and emotionally) than you've seen in this thread...


A 6m block with a 7m head and custom pistons *is* a 7m. ;)
REALLY!?!?! How much does the 1UZ weigh in comparison to 7M? I must say though, V8 or inline 6, there is something about a high rev engine that is just intoxicating. Ultimately, that’s what I would like. Has to go 7-8K RPM, at least!
 

IndigoMKII

New Member
May 9, 2011
2,181
0
0
Madison, Virginia
Here's the mph of v160 with a 24.7 diameter tire running 5.29 rear end through all the gears to 8k.

1st
8000 RPM 29.04 MPH
7500 RPM 27.22 MPH
7000 RPM 25.41 MPH
6500 RPM 23.59 MPH
6000 RPM 21.78 MPH
5500 RPM 19.96 MPH
5000 RPM 18.15 MPH
4500 RPM 16.33 MPH
4000 RPM 14.52 MPH
3500 RPM 12.70 MPH
3000 RPM 10.89 MPH
2500 RPM 9.07 MPH
2000 RPM 7.26 MPH
1500 RPM 5.44 MPH
1000 RPM 3.63 MPH

2nd
8000 RPM 47.09 MPH
7500 RPM 44.14 MPH
7000 RPM 41.20 MPH
6500 RPM 38.26 MPH
6000 RPM 35.32 MPH
5500 RPM 32.37 MPH
5000 RPM 29.43 MPH
4500 RPM 26.49 MPH
4000 RPM 23.54 MPH
3500 RPM 20.60 MPH
3000 RPM 17.66 MPH
2500 RPM 14.71 MPH
2000 RPM 11.77 MPH
1500 RPM 8.83 MPH
1000 RPM 5.89 MPH

3rd
8000 RPM 65.95 MPH
7500 RPM 61.83 MPH
7000 RPM 57.71 MPH
6500 RPM 53.58 MPH
6000 RPM 49.46 MPH
5500 RPM 45.34 MPH
5000 RPM 41.22 MPH
4500 RPM 37.10 MPH
4000 RPM 32.98 MPH
3500 RPM 28.85 MPH
3000 RPM 24.73 MPH
2500 RPM 20.61 MPH
2000 RPM 16.49 MPH
1500 RPM 12.37 MPH
1000 RPM 8.24 MPH

4th
8000 RPM 84.70 MPH
7500 RPM 79.41 MPH
7000 RPM 74.11 MPH
6500 RPM 68.82 MPH
6000 RPM 63.53 MPH
5500 RPM 58.23 MPH
5000 RPM 52.94 MPH
4500 RPM 47.64 MPH
4000 RPM 42.35 MPH
3500 RPM 37.06 MPH
3000 RPM 31.76 MPH
2500 RPM 26.47 MPH
2000 RPM 21.18 MPH
1500 RPM 15.88 MPH
1000 RPM 10.59 MPH

5th
8000 RPM 111.13 MPH
7500 RPM 104.18 MPH
7000 RPM 97.24 MPH
6500 RPM 90.29 MPH
6000 RPM 83.34 MPH
5500 RPM 76.40 MPH
5000 RPM 69.45 MPH
4500 RPM 62.51 MPH
4000 RPM 55.56 MPH
3500 RPM 48.62 MPH
3000 RPM 41.67 MPH
2500 RPM 34.73 MPH
2000 RPM 27.78 MPH
1500 RPM 20.84 MPH
1000 RPM 13.89 MPH

6th
8000 RPM 140.13 MPH
7500 RPM 131.38 MPH
7000 RPM 122.62 MPH
6500 RPM 113.86 MPH
6000 RPM 105.10 MPH
5500 RPM 96.34 MPH
5000 RPM 87.58 MPH
4500 RPM 78.83 MPH
4000 RPM 70.07 MPH
3500 RPM 61.31 MPH
3000 RPM 52.55 MPH
2500 RPM 43.79 MPH
2000 RPM 35.03 MPH
1500 RPM 26.28 MPH
1000 RPM 17.52 MPH
 

mecevans

Supramania Contributor
Jan 18, 2009
1,295
0
0
M-bay, cali
NAscreamer;1790048 said:
REALLY!?!?! How much does the 1UZ weigh in comparison to 7M? I must say though, V8 or inline 6, there is something about a high rev engine that is just intoxicating. Ultimately, that’s what I would like. Has to go 7-8K RPM, at least!

1uz is ~100 pounds lighter iirc.
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Mar 26, 2006
6,603
2
38
40
WHYoming
NAscreamer;1790048 said:
REALLY!?!?! How much does the 1UZ weigh in comparison to 7M? I must say though, V8 or inline 6, there is something about a high rev engine that is just intoxicating. Ultimately, that’s what I would like. Has to go 7-8K RPM, at least!
According to the site linked below, the 1uz is around 330 lbs. Granted, give or take a few, since this seems to be a race setup, there may be minor differences. Generally speaking, I'd say 350 lbs is a good starting point for weight. A 7m weighs around 440 lbs in NA form, around 463 lbs in turbo form. Again, 1uz is shorter, and Supras are fairly nose heavy. Slap in the 1uz, build the bottom end for an 8500k redline, move the battery to the back seat, and don't look back. :)

1uz info:
http://www.race-cars.com/engsales/other/1200038700/1200038700ss.htm

7m info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_M_engine#7M-GE

toyotanos;1790051 said:
Just realize that RPM alone will not make a car perform. Sounding cool is one thing, but there is something to be said about having the thing stay together.

Watch a couple of this guy's videos- you may be swayed into the 1UZ direction ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm5k1ntJNBU&feature=related
This is a good point. You do seem to have an appreciation for balance in a car, but I understand the appeal of the higher rpm engines, even if I rarely rev mine past 6k. Thanks for the link Steve, this was exactly the video I was talking about...

mecevans;1790082 said:
1uz is ~100 pounds lighter iirc.
Give or take, yep. not to mention more centered over the axle, if not mostly behind it. :)
 

NashMan

WTF did he just wright ?
Aug 5, 2005
4,940
17
38
42
Victoria BC
I have all way wanted to try this but frankly it would be alot of money

1jz itb with the new vvti head in a high reving n/a froum in a mk2 or gts ceicla and have the the fire wall cut and the motor moved back as much as possible

makeing the car kinda like a mid ship


and the best part is no one has done this at all maken a rev happy 1jz itb


as far as i know and been around a long time


but this all cost's to much money
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Mar 26, 2006
6,603
2
38
40
WHYoming
There are a handful of NA 2jz's that have went the high revving ITB route Nash. Saw a beautiful red widebody Mk4 at SILV 2010, car TOTALLY looked like a turbo car, but then the hood popped... still a great sounding car, and laid down respectable power considering the rear wheels were huge!

You're right though... these sorts of projects tend to have a snowballing effect on the wallet. ;)
 

NAscreamer

clutch kick
Dec 23, 2011
42
0
0
36
chicago(south side)
WOW, those 1UZ’s are ridiculous! I won’t lie and say I’m not tempted to go that route. But….. I’m still going to go with the 7MGE. There are a few reasons why. First, I would like to fully build the engine that I choose to the MAX in NA form. If I do that with the 1UZ, I think it will be too much power for what I’ll be using my car for. I know there technically is no such thing as “too much power”. Let’s just say there will be too much power for what I want. On the other hand, a fully built 7MGE in NA form fits the ticket perfectly. Besides, that is a route that people rarely take. I think I would feel much better saying I have achieved what most people dared not to try than trying something most people are dying to try. But I do appreciate the fact that you all gave me good advice. We will just have to see how high I can get the RPM’s and make power out of it! That’s well worth it I think.
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Mar 26, 2006
6,603
2
38
40
WHYoming
Well, I commend your bravery sir, good luck with your build, and prove us all wrong.

7m revving:
7000: No problem
7500: stressing things...
8000: Better be balanced within a half gram...
8500: You're pushing it...
9000+: You are either brave, crazy, or some combination of the above, with a sprinkling of audacity just for fun. :p
 

IndigoMKII

New Member
May 9, 2011
2,181
0
0
Madison, Virginia
te72;1792075 said:
Well, I commend your bravery sir, good luck with your build, and prove us all wrong.

7m revving:
7000: No problem
7500: stressing things...
8000: Better be balanced within a half gram...
8500: You're pushing it...
9000+: You are either brave, crazy, or some combination of the above, with a sprinkling of audacity just for fun. :p

Look at Mibrum.