Main Bearing Oil Clearance for 2AZ-FE Toyota engin

[JohnBrowning]

.0007-.0016 Crank Oil Clearance

.0008-.0017 For Piston to Bore oil clearance

.8662-.8665 Wrist Pin oil clearance

This is engine has more small little pieces to keep track of then past Toyota's. Their are two different pistons used one made by TMC and another by TMMK they look identical in the draw's except for the markings on top of the pistons but they ahve the same specifications.The shop manual does not give a year for the piston squiters as in when they showed up. It also does not give oil pump output and bypass number's! If I still had AllData access I coudl look it up!

For Comparison I have my 1970-1987 Service Manual for Carolla's/Carina/Terrcel and Starlet all Toyota's they had 14 different engine combo's but the specifications are all simalar.


All have main bearing clearances from .0005-.0016 for gasoline engines which is right in line with the uber modern 2AZ-FE.

Piston to bore oil clearance .0010-.0020 again it is in the range of the new engine.


My point is that the more things change the more they stay the same. The clearances which will determine what oils will work in it and what is best practice are determined a lot by clearance although today it is more about CAFE!LOL You do not want to know what oils where recommender for these engines because while their clearances of key parts is still in line with todays most modern engines the oil recommended is not!!!LOL

So anyone that thinks clearance are oh so much tighter today that is probably only true if you drive something made in Detroit, Canada or Mexico the rest of the world has not changed much since the 1970's. Materials have changed,designs have changed, surface finishes have changed and so have oils but not so much clearances!

So anyone that want's to rant about tighter clearances and 5W20 and flow issues etc....better be able to back their junk up with clearance changes. If clearances are the same as 1970 then the SAE Oil Charts that used to come with cars are just as relavent today as then. Obviously one has to look at improvments in base stock of 5W30's and such but the additive pacakges are weaker then the 1970's with reguard to ZDDP and not much has gone into the bottle to replace it that I have seen!

So with the above said who is lieing to whom????? This is not a thick verus thin rant or debate either. It goes to what is truth and what is convient recomendation for OEM? Before we could think for our selfs now we cant? This goes to who is doing the thinking the owner or the seller?

Clearance are science and factual recomendation in an owner manual are just that recommendations and paper will not refuse ink now will it!

I hate it when things are dumbed down like that is what we need more of in America more dumbing down! So question things from time to time.

My 2AZ-FE numbers came from an Offical Toyota Service Manaul my second set of numbers comes from a Chilton Manaul but it has to date been accurate. I do have a Offical Toyota Tacoma Service Manaul around the house some place as well.

 

[Shannow]

JB, just about everything I know of in industry is a thou per inch of journal diameter...completely regardless of ISO 32 or 320.

 

[Silk]

So my 30 year old Plastiguage is still able to be used on a modern engine? A good investment....

 

[Shannow]

Silk, you're probably OK for the time being, but GF-5 plastiguage is right around the corner.

 

[bepperb]

It's pretty obvious by now that a modern engine can run 200,000 miles on 5w-20 oil and be perfectly fine. This happens every day on cars outside my window.

I really doubt that an engine on a early 70's car would fare the same.

Does it really matter why? Your clearance experiment is interesting, but doesn't accomplish anything. Something has changed. Materials would be my guess, but a design emphasis on stable temperatures and flow is probably a factor as well. But who cares. At the end of the day, I'd take a 2009 engine over a 1972 engine. I doubt I'm alone.

 

[JohnBrowning]

bepperb, I said in this that this was not a thick versus thin debate. It is about the unsubstantiated claims and recommendations some people make to other's with no facts to back up their assertions. In fact not once did I make this about thick versus thin. I made this post about thinking for ones self based on facts as opposed to limiting ones self to the decisions of someone else and a vague general recomendation printed with no regard to independent thought!

So unless you have some figures to add to mine then you are off topic.This thread is about oil clearances from 1970 to today so keep that in mind!I assert in my post that materials,designs and surface finish's have changed but clearances are much the same as they where 30+ years ago.

As to your assertion of 5W20 and 200,000 mile car's that is far from a norm as few have used 5W20 that long and if they have that many miles they are all HWY miles. On top of that 200,000 is nothing Toyota's have been going 300,000-500,000 on dino oil since I was about 11 years old as a norm so 200,000 is no big deal. This is not a 5W20 v.s. 20W50 thread. It is not a dino v.s. synthetic thread either it is an oil clearance thread so keep on topic please!

As too an early 70's engine fairing the same do not tell that to Amsoil as they have plenty of Detroit V8's with over 200,000 miles on them! In fact I seem to remember one a 396 I think that had 409,000 miles on it and only something like 6 oil changes that was spotless inside and running like new!

In fact a 1970's Toyota engines where up to task. Honda,Toyota and the rest did not have engine problems they had body rust issues when they first got into the game in.

 

[Ben99GT]

Not a Toyota engine, but two Ford Modular V8s. One is recommended to run 5W-50, the other 5W-20. I removed information that makes it apparent which engine is which.

Engine Specification
Engine Displacement x.xL (xxx CID)
Number of cylinders 8
Bore 90.215 mm (3.552 in)
Stroke xxx.x mm (x.xx in)
Firing order 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8
Oil pressure at 2,000 rpm (engine at normal operating temperature) 276-414 kPa (40-60 psi)
Compression ratio x.x:1
Engine weight xxx kg (xxx lb)
Cylinder Head and Valve Train
Combustion chamber volume 42.45-45.45 cc

(2.59-2.77 cu in)
Valve stem diameter — intake 7.015-6.995 mm (0.2762-0.2754 in)
Valve stem diameter — exhaust 7.00-6.98 mm (0.2756-0.2748 in)
Valve stem-to-guide clearance — intake 0.057-0.023 mm (0.0022-0.0009 in)
Valve stem-to-guide clearance — exhaust 0.072-0.038 mm (0.0028-0.0015 in)
Valve head diameter — intake 37.13-36.87 mm (1.462-1.4516 in)
Valve head diameter — exhaust 32.13-31.87 mm (1.2650-1.2547 in)
Valve face runout 0.05 mm (0.0019 in)
Valve face angle 45.75-45.25 degrees
Valve seat width — intake 1.4-1.2 mm (0.0551-0.0472 in)
Valve seat width — exhaust 1.6-1.4 mm (0.0630-0.0551 in)
Valve face runout 0.05 mm (0.0019 in)
Valve seat angle 45.00-44.50 degrees
Valve spring free length — intake 54.4 mm (2.1417 in)
Valve spring free length — exhaust 50.9 mm (2.0039 in)
Valve spring perpendicularity — intake 1.2 mm (0.0472 in)
Valve spring perpendicularity — exhaust 1.2 mm (0.0472 in)
Valve spring compression force — intake 815 N @ 31.82 mm (1.2528 in)
Valve spring compression force — exhaust 760 N @ 25.5 mm (1.0827 in)
Valve spring installed height — intake 43.00 mm (1.692 in)
Valve spring installed height — exhaust 39.5 mm (1.555 in)
Valve spring installed force — intake 310 N @ 43.00 mm (1.6929 in)
Valve spring installed force — exhaust 320 N @ 39.5 mm

(1.555 in)
Roller follower ratio 1.81:1
Head gasket surface flatness 0.025 mm (0.001 in) in any 25 mm (1 in) x 25 mm (1 in) area; 0.050 mm (0.002 in) in any 150 mm (6 in) x 150 mm (6 in) area; 0.1 mm (0.004 in) overall
Hydraulic Lash Adjuster
Diameter — intake 12.000-11.989 mm (0.4724-0.4720 in)
Diameter — exhaust 16.000-15.9888 mm (0.6299-0.6295 in)
Clearance-to-bore 0.018-0.069 mm (0.0007-0.0027 in)
Service limit — intake 12.000-11.989 mm (0.4724-0.4720 in)
Service limit — exhaust 16.000-15.9888 mm (0.6299-0.6295 in)
Hydraulic leakdown rate — intake 0.45-3 seconds
Hydraulic leakdown rate — exhaust 0.60-4 seconds
Collapsed lash adjuster gap 0.450-0.850 mm (0.0177-0.0335 in)
Camshaft
Lobe lift — intake 6.15674 mm (0.242391 in)
Lobe lift — exhaust 6.5958 mm (0.2597 in)
Journal diameter 26.962-26.936 mm (1.0615-1.0605 in)
Journal bore inside diameter 27.012-26.987 mm (1.0635-1.0625 in)
Journal-to-bearing clearance 0.076-0.025 mm (0.0030-0.0010 in)
Runout 0.09 mm (0.0035 in)

(4 places)
End play 0.027-0.190 mm (0.0011-0.0075 in)
Cylinder Block
Cylinder bore diameter 90.200-90.210 mm (3.5511-3.5515 in)
Cylinder bore maximum taper 0.006 mm (0.0002 in)
Cylinder bore maximum out-of-round 0.020 mm (0.0008 in)
Main bearing bore inside diameter 72.400-72.424 mm (2.850-2.851 in)
Head gasket surface flatness 0.03 mm (0.001 in) in any 40 mm (1.5 in) x 40 mm (1.5 in) area; 0.05 mm (0.002 in) in any 150 mm (6 in) x 150 mm (6 in) area; 0.15 mm (0.006 in) overall
Crankshaft
Main bearing journal diameter 67.481-67.505 mm (2.6567-2.6577 in)
Main bearing journal maximum taper 0.004 mm (0.0002 in)
Main bearing journal maximum out-of-round 0.0075 mm (0.0003 in) between cross sections
Main bearing journal-to-main bearing clearance 0.048-0.024 mm (0.0019-0.0009 in)
Connecting rod journal diameter 53.003-52.983 mm (2.0867-2.0859 in)
Connecting rod journal maximum taper 0.004 mm (0.0002 in)
Crankshaft maximum end play 0.075-0.377 mm (0.003-0.0148 in)
Piston and Connecting Rod
Piston diameter 90.180 ± 0.005 mm (3.5504 ± 0.0002 in)
Piston-to-cylinder bore clearance (at grade size) 0.025-0.045 mm (0.0010-0.0018 in)
Piston ring end gap — top 0.13-0.28 mm (0.0051-0.0111 in)
Piston ring end gap — intermediate 0.25-0.40 mm (0.0098-0.0157 in)
Piston ring gap — oil control 0.15-0.65 mm (0.0059-0.0256 in)
Piston ring groove width — top 1.53-1.55 mm (0.0602-0.061 in)
Piston ring groove width — intermediate 1.52-1.54 mm (0.0598-0.0606 in)
Piston ring groove width — oil control 3.030-3.050 mm (0.1193-0.1201 in)
Piston ring width 1.49-1.46 mm (0.0587-0.0575 in)
Piston ring-to-groove clearance — top 0.030-0.050 mm (0.0012-0.0020 in)
Piston ring-to-groove clearance — intermediate 0.030-0.080 mm (0.0012-0.0031 in)
Piston pin bore diameter 22.008-22.014 mm (0.8665-0.8667 in)
Piston pin diameter 22.0005-22.0030 mm (0.8662-0.8663 in)
Piston pin length 61.8 mm (2.433 in)
Piston pin-to-piston fit (clearance) 0.005-0.0135 mm (0.0002-0.0005 in)
Connecting rod-to-pin clearance 0.009-0.0235 mm (0.0004-0.0093 in)
Connecting rod pin bore diameter 22.012-22.024 mm (0.8666-0.8671 in)
Connecting rod length (centerline bore-to-bore) 169.1 mm (6.6575 in)
Connecting rod maximum allowed bend ± 0.038 mm (0.0015 in)
Connecting rod maximum allowed twist ± 0.05 mm (0.0021 in)
Connecting rod bearing bore diameter (with assembled liners) 53.049-53.027 mm (2.0885-2.0877 in)
Connecting rod bearing-to-crankshaft clearance 0.064-0.026 mm (0.0025-0.001 in)
Connecting rod side clearance (as assembled to crank) — standard play 0.300 ± 0.175 mm (0.0118 ± 0.0069 in)
Connecting rod side clearance (as assembled to crank) — max. play 0.475 mm (0.0187 in)


Engine Specifications
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Displacement x.xL (4V) (xxx CID)
Number of Cylinders 8
Bore and Stroke 90.2 x xx.x mm (3.55 x x.xx inch)
Firing Order 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8
Oil Pressure (HOT 1500 RPM) 138-310 kPa
Drive Belt Tension a
Combustion Chamber Volume (cc) 52.6±0.5 cm c
Valve Seats
· Width—Intake
1.8-2.2 mm (0.071-0.086 inch)
· Width—Exhaust
1.8-2.2 mm (0.071-0.086 inch)
· Angle
45 degrees
· Runout (T.I.R.) Max
0.05 mm (0.002 inch)
Valve Arrangement (Front-to-Rear) c
· (Left Hand) Intake:
S-P-S-P-S-P-S-P
· Exhaust:
E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E
· (Right Hand) Intake:
P-S-P-S-P-S-P-S
· Exhaust: (C)
E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E
Valve Stem to Guide Clearance
· Intake
0.020-0.069 mm (0.00078-0.00272 inch)
· Exhaust
0.046-0.095 mm (0.0018-0.0037 inch)
Valve Head Diameter
· Intake
37 mm (1.46 inch)
· Exhaust
30 mm (1.18 inch)
· Gauge Diameters
35.0 and 28.0 mm (1.378-1.102 inch)
Valve Face Runout Limit 0.05 mm (0.002 inch)
Valve Face Angle 45.5 degrees
Valve Stem Diameter (Std)
· Intake
6.975-6.995 mm (0.2754-0.2746 inch)
· Exhaust
6.949-6.970 mm (0.2744-0.2736 inch)
Valve Springs
· Compression Pressure (N (Lb) @ Spec Length)

· Intake
711.47 N @ 26.19 mm (159.9 Lb-Ft @ 1.031 inch)
· Exhaust
711.47 N @ 26.19 mm (159.9 Lb-Ft @ 1.031 inch)
· Free Length (Approximate)

· Intake
42.16 mm (1.6598 inch)
· Exhaust
42.16 mm (1.6598 inch)
· Installed Pressure (N (Lb-Ft) @ Spec. Length)

· Intake
289.1 N @ 36.14 mm (64.99 Lb-Ft @ 1.4228 inch)
· Exhaust
289.1 N @ 36.14 mm (64.99 Lb-Ft @ 1.4228 inch)
· Service Limit
10% Pressure Loss @ 28.02 mm (1.103 inch)
Roller Follower
· Ratio
1.8:1
Hydraulic Lash Adjuster
· Diameter (Std)
16.000-15.988 mm (0.6299-0.6294 inch)
· Clearance to Bore
0.018-0.069 mm (0.000709-0.002717 inch)
· Service Limit
0.016 mm (1.0006299 inch)
· Hydraulic Leakdown Rated
5-25 seconds
· Collapsed Lash Adjuster Gap—Desired
0.80-1.20 mm (0.0315-0.0472 inch)
CAMSHAFT
Theoretical Valve Lift @ Zero Lash
· Intake (Primary)
10.0 mm (0.3937 inch)
· Intake (Secondary)
10.0 mm (0.3937 inch)
· Exhaust
10.0 mm (0.3937 inch)
End Play 0.025-0.165 mm (0.00098-0.00649 inch)
· Service Limit
0.190 mm (0.007480 inch)
Journal to Bearing Clearance 0.025-0.076 mm (0.00098-0.002992 inch)
· Service Limit
0.100 mm (0.003937 inch) MAX
Journal Diameter (All) 26.962-26.936 mm (1.0615-1.0605 inch)
Bearing Inside Diameter (All) 27.012-26.987 mm (1.0635-1.0625 inch)
Front Bearing Location e
CYLINDER BLOCK
· Head Gasket Face Flatness
0.15 mm (0.006 in) MAX overall
· Head Gasket Surface Finish

Main Bearing Bore Diameter 72.400-72.424 mm (2.8504-2.8513 inch)
CRANKSHAFT
Main Bearing Journal Diameter 67.481-67.505 mm (2.6567269-2.6576718 inch)
Connecting Rod Journal
· Diameter
52.983-53.003 mm (2.085941-2.086728 inch)
Crankshaft Free End Play 0.130-0.301 mm (0.005118-0.011850 inch)
Crankshaft Runout to Rear Face of Block 0.050 mm (0.01969 inch) MAX
Connecting Rod Bearings
Clearance to Crankshaft
· Desired
0.027-0.069 mm (0.0010629-0.0027165 inch)
· Allowable
0.027-0.069 mm (0.0010629-0.0027165 inch)
Bearing Wall Thickness (Std)f 1.920-1.928 mm (0.075591-0.075905 inch)
Main Bearings
Clearance to Crankshaft
· Desired
0.025-0.045 mm (0.00098-0.00177 inch)
· Allowable
0.025-0.050 mm (0.00098-0.00197 inch)
Bearing Wall Thickness (Std) f 2.451 mm (0.0965 inch)
Connecting Rod
· Pin Bore Diameter
22.012-22.024 mm (0.86661-0.86708 inch)
· Crankshaft Bearing Bore Diameter
56.866-56.886 mm (2.23881-2.23960 inch)
· Length (Center-to-Center)
150.7 mm (5.933 inch)
Alignment (Bore-To-Bore Max. Diff.)g
· Twist
0.050 per 25 mm (0.00197 per 0.9843 inch)
· Bend
0.038 per 25 mm (0.00150 per 0.9843 inch)
Side Clearance (Assembled to Crank)
· Standard
0.15-0.45 mm (0.00591-0.01772 inch)
· Service Limit
0.50 mm (0.01969 inch) MAX
CYLINDER BORE AND PISTON
Cylinder Bore
Diameter
· Surface Finish (RMS)
0.2-0.6 Microns
· Out-of-Round Limit
0.015 mm
· Out-of-Round Service Limit
0.020 mm
· Taper Service Limit
0.006 mm
Piston
· Diameter
.028 mm (.0010 inch)
· Coded Red 1
90.167-90.188 mm (3.299-3.5505 inch)
· Coded Blue 2
90.180-90.195 mm (3.5504-3.5510 inch)
· Coded Yellow 3
90.198-90.208 mm
Coated Piston-to-Bore Clearance -0.010/+0.026 mm (-0.0003937/+0.0010236 inch)
Pin Bore Diameter 21.9985-22.0025 mm (0.866081-0.866238 inch)
Ring Groove Width
· Compression (Top)
1.230-1.250 mm (0.484-0.0492 inch)
· Compression (Bottom)
1.520-1.540 mm (0.05984-0.06062 inch)
· Oil Ring
3.030-3.055mm
Piston Pin
· Length
61.601-62.030 mm (2.42523-2.44212 inch)
· Diameter
22.0005-22.0030 mm (0.8661596-0.8662581 inch)
Pin to Piston Fit -0.0045/+0.002 mm (-0.000177/+0.0000787 inch)
Pin to Rod Clearance
· Standard
0.004-0.0175 mm (0.000157-0.00689 inch)
· Service Limit
0.035 mm (0.001378 inch)
Oil Ring 1.15 mm (0.04528 inch) MAX
· Side Clearance
.075-.1000 mm (.0030-.0040 inch)
· Compression (Top)
0.0090-0.0235 mm (0.000354-0.000925 inch)
· Compression (Bottom)
0.030-0.080 mm (0.00118-0.00315 inch)
· Oil Ring
Snug Fit
Ring Gapk
· Compression (Top)
.150-.300 mm (.006-0.0018 inch)
· Compression (Bottom)
0.300-0.550 mm (0.0018-0.0022 inch)
· Oil Ring (Steel Rail)
0.15-0.66 mm (0.00591-0.02598 inch)
Piston Rings
· Ring Gap

· Compression (Top)
1.00 mm (0.03937 inch) MAX
· Compression (Bottom)
1.00 mm (0.03937 inch) MAX
· Service Limit
1.15 mm (0.04528 inch) MAX

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
It's pretty obvious by now that a modern engine can run 200,000 miles on 5w-20 oil and be perfectly fine. This happens every day on cars outside my window.

I really doubt that an engine on a early 70's car would fare the same.

Does it really matter why? Your clearance experiment is interesting, but doesn't accomplish anything. Something has changed. Materials would be my guess, but a design emphasis on stable temperatures and flow is probably a factor as well. But who cares. At the end of the day, I'd take a 2009 engine over a 1972 engine. I doubt I'm alone.


You're not getting it. Some of us aren't interested that we can get 200,000 miles out of a 20wt. Some of us are interested in the absolute best protection under all conditions and more than 200,000 miles.

Every time a thin oil is brought up someone brings up the old "new engines have tighter clearances" myth. I've said for a long time this is not true. Nothing has changed since the '50s. So with that myth out of the way, why all of a sudden are the old viscosity vs temp charts not valid, especially with the better cold flow of modern oils? Why is everyone afraid to run a 10w-30 in a hot climate? Something has changed and it's not engine clearances.

 

[BearZDefect]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Every time a thin oil is brought up someone brings up the old "new engines have tighter clearances" myth. I've said for a long time this is not true. Nothing has changed since the '50s.
Do you mean clearances haven't changed since the '50s?

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
So with that myth out of the way, why all of a sudden are the old viscosity vs temp charts not valid, especially with the better cold flow of modern oils?
Simplification for the masses?

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Why is everyone afraid to run a 10w-30 in a hot climate?
Not everyone.

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Something has changed and it's not engine clearances.
JB himself suggested some other changes:

Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning
Materials have changed,designs have changed, surface finishes have changed and so have oils but not so much clearances!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Nothing has changed since the '50s. So with that myth out of the way, why all of a sudden are the old viscosity vs temp charts not valid, especially with the better cold flow of modern oils? Why is everyone afraid to run a 10w-30 in a hot climate? Something has changed and it's not engine clearances.


Many things have changed since the 50's. While clearances may not have ..tolerances sure have. When they put together an engine in the 50's they may have had 3 or 4 bearing sets to fit them with depending on the variations.

Cold flow isn't the only thing to change since the 50's. While there's no rational fear with using a 10w-30 in a hot climate, there's also no need to do so if it's not necessary. Most of your engine were running on shearing 5w-30 oils for decades and everyone was driving around ignorant and happy. Now they can do the same with 5w-20 and quiver in fear

There is always some shapeable envelope involved here somewhere. Did a 1970 MG 4 banger REALLY NEED 20w-50 ..or was it just because the fuel dilution made that a requirement to avoid changing the oil every two weeks?? Did a 1969 426 Hemi really need a 10w-40? ..or was it that you had to start with a 10w-40 ..that would shear fairly quickly to a 30 grade ..to manage the OEM OCI??

Now oils are far more stable in visc retention ..fuel management is far greater ..and tolerances are much tighter (not clearances). So, you're kinda "stretching out" that envelope. It can have a lower profile and not be a vulnerable cushion.

 

[Colt45ws]

I remember there was somebody here who ran 20W20 in his 50s or 60s Ford for way back when.

 

[BuickGN]

Tolerances.... The machining process may be better now but if we're assuming worse tolerances produced looser clearances we also have to assume it produced some tighter clearances as well.

I don't know how much the process had improved by the mid 80's but I've measured very low mileage GN cranks, bores, pistons, etc and found them all to be within a ten thousanth of an inch of spec and of one another.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who say tolerances are improved, though the piston slapper engines of recent years don't help that argument. I've never seen a paper comparing machining and fitting of something from the 60s vs today. I'll agree that metals are better today.

Back on topic, I don't see anyone disputing that clearances have not changed since the 50s.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who say tolerances are improved, though the piston slapper engines of recent years don't help that argument. I've never seen a paper comparing machining and fitting of something from the 60s vs today. I'll agree that metals are better today.


Process variables and finishes would probably be a better way to say it.