Turbo or not Turbo, that is the question

So Yes, engine has blown out on my severly underpowered, overpriced RHD Import van. A basic local rebuild (pistons, rings, bearings etc is far out costly. Like a new van costly. An alternative is swapping in a used 2.4 turbo for the dead 2.8.

From what I understand the 2.4Turbo has more power, but is almost guaranteed to overheat, and would require an upgraded manifold, and possibly larger exhaust, more accurate heat sensor, and a look at the rad.

mmmmm. turbo in a van....... Is this a way to quickly upgrade, or a bandaid to swap out one feeble motor for another?

I need to make a decision. Turbo, non turbo, or different van.

Why would it be guaranteed to overheat?

Exhaust would be fine, manifold that the turbo is hanging off would be fine.

I would question more as to will the loom fit which ECU to use etc.

Heat sensor likely to be the same, always good to look at the rad.

hi i am in b.c. and have a non turbo 2.8 engine in excellent shape if you need it or if you don't want your van any more let me know

I am definately not a mechanic but as I explore options here is what I have learned:

From what I understand the 2.4 turbo generates more heat, and cracked cylinder head and blown head gaskets are common. 2.8 tends to fail in the bottom end, oil sludges up and ceases, (piston #3 seems to be a notorios problem) which I think is my issue. Both have issues with heat gauge accuracy, potentially leading to over heating problems. Rebuilding is not really feasable or cost effective, so dropping the cradle and putting another engine in is the game plan.

The question I guess is whether to swap in another 2.8, being faster and cheaper, or go with a more common 2.4 turbo, better head, and van manifold. (turbo goes under in the van and in pradas etc goes on top?)

Using a 2LTE Engine would casue issues with injector pump, and this is already cpmlicated and costly enough..

The problem with overheating lies mainly in the cooling system with both the 2 and 3L. Except the original 2L Head is inferior to the 3L head, which is why people put 3L heads on after cooking the 2L cylinder head. That means flushing the rad or recoring the rad or a new one altogether. Also there are two thermostats one that opens at a lower temperature than other. The thermostat has a gasket as well and it is important to use a metal one and not the inferior rubber one. Remember a proper coolant flush also means draining the crap out of the engine not just the rad. ICBC wrote off my my van strictly because of body damage so the drive train is fine. The engine, a 3L, has 113, 000 kms on it and has had over 2000 dollars of work done on it. I also have a recored radiator which cost 600. The list goes on

Hi,
   I avoided the turbo engines as I thought the risk of cooking the top end was higher. I'm not aware of frequent problems with the n/a 2.8l 3L and the 90hp it produces seems adequate to me (I'm not saying it's "plenty", or "generous" or anything). My '94 is a long-wheelbase 4x4 with a high top but it'll do over 70mph happily enough when there isn't much gradient to climb. As long as I don't expect it to have car-like performance I'm OK with it... and to be honest, using enough power to get brisk acceleration and maintain high cruising speeds in a three-tonne truck sounds like a recipe for huge diesel bills, here in the UK!!
 
My working assumption is that the 3L engine should last pretty well, as long as it's maintained properly and the cooling system is good. If you're somewhere hot then the cooling is going to have to work that bit harder, so may need more rigorous attention but I wouldn't have though that would be a major concern in BC, though I imagine you do a fair bit of climbing...
I'm curious about your oil problems- do you think the Previous Owner(s) may have skimped on oil changes, quality or both? It's not something I've come across up to now.
 
My vote would be to replace the 3L, maybe with tamarack's one.... He's "only" 700Km away.... :-)
 
Cheers,
         W.

I am really not sure what maintenance had been done before I bought it, but timing belt was done when it was imported. It looked really clean and didnt smoke, and everything inside and out looked really well taken care. I had the oil changed soon after I bought it, and there are many things that may have contributed to the engine failure, extremly cold weather, and cold starts, me pushing it in the mountains and on the highway. Mechanic who is familiar with these also said he felt that cooling ports were inadequate and oil sometimes didnt make it to cylinder #3, which he considers a bad design. I'll take his word.

The only complaint I have about the van is that it is underpoweredand a bit slow, especially with the long wheel base and all the extra equipment. Granted I had been used to driving my '00 tacoma with the v6 3.4l gas that could almost break your neck.

How many hp can you pump out with the 2.4turbo, like noticable difference in performance over 2.8? I'd like to go with biggger tires, 235-75-15 seems like the biggest that will fit, to get a few more km/hr on the highway without over revving. Will this increase in speed potentially cause further lack of power and stress on the engine?

Right now it seems that the simplest, quickest and most economical solution is to swap in a 2.8 and get rolling again. I will pay special attention to the cooling, and thinking of installing an aux heat gauge and tach, to keep everything in the safe zone. Tamarack, I sent you a pm, how much do you want for your 2.8 from the wrecked van?

Hi again,
I'm no expert, so bear in mind that my advice is only worth what you've paid for it... :-)

The output from stock 2L-TE is about 97bhp, from what I read. It's a bit more than the 3L but probably not enough to really notice on a older vehicle. The three litre 1KZ-TE engines on the later vans had a good bit more power (130bhp) but transplanting would be a headache (different transmission with full-time AWD instead of freewheeling hubs and p/t 4WD+LR).

The other factor which I bring into my thinking is that the "E" in -TE refers to the ECU. In other words the Turbo versions all have an ECU. Now obviously in a modern vehicle that's not an issue, however in a 15 year old import an ECU failure can be a headache, and 15-year old car-electronics are not guaranteed reliable, available or fixable...

AFAIK, the 3L engine is a simpler and lower-stressed beast... If you treat it well I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone!!) that it should chug along happily for a good long while... All engines will ultimately wear out, of course, and it could be that yours has gone sooner that it should because of the issues your mechanic has highlighted... but it didn't suffer a premature head failure, nor is it sitting there useless because a black box isn't doing what it should any more and you can't find anyone to work out why not...

I may be being a bit naive in my thinking, here, but I'm a big fan of the Keep it Simple philosophy, especially in old, complex systems.

Cheers,
W.

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi again,
            I'm no expert, so bear in mind that my advice is only worth what you've paid for it... :-)

The output from stock 2L-TE is about 97bhp, from what I read. It's a bit more than the 3L but probably not enough to really notice on a older vehicle. The three litre 1KZ-TE engines on the later vans had a good bit more power (130bhp) but transplanting would be a headache (different transmission with full-time AWD instead of freewheeling hubs and p/t 4WD+LR).

The other factor which I bring into my thinking is that the "E" in -TE refers to the ECU. In other words the Turbo versions all have an ECU. Now obviously in a modern vehicle that's not an issue, however in a 15 year old import an ECU failure can be a headache, and 15-year old car-electronics are not guaranteed reliable, available or fixable...

AFAIK, the 3L engine is a simpler and lower-stressed beast... If you treat it well I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone!!) that it should chug along happily for a good long while... All engines will ultimately wear out, of course, and it could be that yours has gone sooner that it should because of the issues your mechanic has highlighted... but it didn't suffer a premature head failure, nor is it sitting there useless because a black box isn't doing what it should any more and you can't find anyone to work out why not...

I may be being a bit naive in my thinking, here, but I'm a big fan of the Keep it Simple philosophy, especially in old, complex systems.

Cheers,
          W.

I Agree 100 percent

Is it possible to add an after market turbo charger to my 3L?

Not that I actually know the answer but an alternate option to upgrade a Hiace engine (and possibly transmission) would be to pop a modern engine+ECU+trans in there.

You'll need custom mounts and propshaft but I'm sure they could be made up as custom builders do this type of thing all the time.

This would then allow you a bigger selection - maybe a modern powerful V6 diesel or a turbo petrol?

Well, you can make life easier by looking at your current drivetrain and to see what matches it.

If you want to go petrol, and you live in America/Canada, it is simple: 3RZ-FE engine. 2.7 liter 150hp (from a Tacoma). Still a lot of torque down low, still a 4 cilinder. But nice performance as well.
The big plus is that it will match your current gearbox! You could also do with a 2RZ-FE, which is 2.4 liter and 140hp. The 2RZ-FE has the most guarantee to fit, as the 2RZ-E (different head) has been delivered in our Hiace vans.
So you could even use the engine mounts and bellhousing of it. That will be the most convenient transition to petrol.
You can do V6 or even V8 (ambulance version has it!) but it will be a lot of work. And unsure if it will fit with 4x4 system.

When it comes to sticking with diesel, and keeping things simpel. You could turbo your current engine, but the pistons don't have oil cooling (like turbo version has) so power should be limited and long highway driving at high speed may be bad.
The 2L-T engine or especially the 2L-TE (from Japanese import probably) does have that, and should handle it much better. At 100hp it will be more powerfull than a turbocharged 2.8 diesel (if the 2.8 diesel with turbo built has more power, it won't last long).
And I think the 2L-TE will give you a more "modern" smooth drive. It's not about the 20hp gain, it is also about torque. And more efficient due to the "E".

That is what I would do, but here in Europe old diesels are getting banned from cities and such. And I don't like the noisy diesel too much. So it would go the 2RZ or 3RZ route.
But no need to for now, and the old 2L diesel engine is running very well.