Has anyone had a "built motor" last?

This count as built?

Rod bearings are my biggest concern, I'm not wanting to go crazy, shooting for 300-350whp from a toyota 1zzfe/ 2zzge (1.8 liters both and both will make those figures with <20psi) . The latter will do that on stock internals but it's getting hard to find ones that aren't used and abused at this point. 1zz rods are not too strong so my thought was if you're going to rebuild one anyway, why not lighten and/or strengthen the rotating assembly while you're in there? 

Sorry if it bores anyone who has heard it a million times, but the old engine build adage is still true: 

“You can have cheap, fast and reliable.  Pick two.”

not even lookin for cheap. 

When I built 4AGE motors for endurance racing we found that they needed a refresh after about 35 hours or one season. The ware item was the rings but this was good as it just meant we busted the glaze and installed new rings and we were back on track.  I wanted rings to ware out and not the block. I could swap rings in about 12 hours keeping the block crank and trans in the car. The cars were MR2s 

In reply to Carbon :

13:1-1 compression pistons, full racing camshafts,  wildly ported head.  Dry sump oil pump crank oil scrapper,  balanced and blue printed.  On the other hand the crank was already ground .020 under, and was over 20 years old when installed as were the stock connecting rods. 

That engine lasted for 4 decades of racing as many as 12 race weekends a year and two separate week  long events in the Bahamas.   Engine went 1000 rpm past factory redline and on rare occasions 1500 rpm past factory redline.  

To be fair the 7 gallons of oil were changed after every race weekend, along with 2 Fram HP1 filters and 9 inline screen filters washed.  

Intake air was kept clean with an overly large oiled filter. 

Carbon said:

Rod bearings are my biggest concern, I'm not wanting to go crazy, shooting for 300-350whp from a toyota 1zzfe/ 2zzge (1.8 liters both and both will make those figures with <20psi) . The latter will do that on stock internals but it's getting hard to find ones that aren't used and abused at this point. 1zz rods are not too strong so my thought was if you're going to rebuild one anyway, why not lighten and/or strengthen the rotating assembly while you're in there? 

Seems like balancing the bottom end would help if it's not already done. Being an inline 4 cylinder, you aren't likely to see/feel massive gains, but it can't hurt to try and reduce any imbalances that might lead to premature bearing wear. Maybe use stronger fasteners/studs to keep clamping forces consistent for the same reasons.

I'm trying to weigh the cost of a nice rebuild with high end rods and pistons vs a new from toyota short block. At least I know I got 150k miles at 1.5x factory power out of the last one, and what hurt that one was an oil feed line to the turbo bursting and having to drive to the nearest fire extinguisher with no oil pressure on fire at the track lol. Both options are approximately the same money. But I have more faith in the factory short block because I keep seeing people have early failures of their what I consider to be fairly lightly stressed rebuilt with forged rods/ pistons engines. Not to mention the fact that the "builders" dont seem to stand behind their work very well.

Using “built” to describe an engine is the same as using the word “big” or “loud”.

You sort of have to define your parameters: percentage of compression over stock. Percentage of hp over stock etc.

A cam and lifters and a Flowmaster is “built to some people.

Carbon said:

Not to mention the fact that the "builders" dont seem to stand behind their work very well.

It makes total sense, disclaimer you are racing, but yeah it kind of stings to see people lose big money on a spectacular failure sometimes more than once. You kind of want to pull your hair out for them. I don't know if places have any kind of contract in place say if your new engine blows on the dyno. I would imagine reputation is important. If I were you I would probably risk it on a set of forged rods and either different stock thicker cast OEM pistons or forged, whatever is applicable/good/cheap/etc.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Carbon :

That engine lasted for 4 decades of racing as many as 12 race weekends a year and two separate week  long events in the Bahamas.   Engine went 1000 rpm past factory redline and on rare occasions 1500 rpm past factory redline.  

To be fair the 7 gallons of oil were changed after every race weekend, along with 2 Fram HP1 filters and 9 inline screen filters washed.  

Intake air was kept clean with an overly large oiled filter. 

Here it is ladies and gentlemen.

I'm defining built as an engine with upgraded internal components. I'm not looking to gain power from the internal components just longevity under a bit more boost. Not looking to break records. Just want a but more than the spindly (designed for mileage in a carolla not boost in an mr2) rods can withstand. Honestly, I'm pretty happy at the power level that lasted 150k miles, but +50-100hp would be delightful. A 300whp 1.8 turbo is a little bit of an ask but shouldn't be on the bleeding edge with forged internals. 

In reply to Carbon :

Builders can’t stand by their work. They have no control of what happens after it leaves the shop. 

Plus I don’t know of a single racer who doesn’t compromise based on his budget.  If the rules allow it titaimiun rods will be used but  someone is bound to try to race with stock rods. Times the thousands of other decisions and compromises made in a given engine. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to Carbon :

13:1-1 compression pistons, full racing camshafts,  wildly ported head.  Dry sump oil pump crank oil scrapper,  balanced and blue printed.  On the other hand the crank was already ground .020 under, and was over 20 years old when installed as were the stock connecting rods. 

That engine lasted for 4 decades of racing as many as 12 race weekends a year and two separate week  long events in the Bahamas.   Engine went 1000 rpm past factory redline and on rare occasions 1500 rpm past factory redline.  

To be fair the 7 gallons of oil were changed after every race weekend, along with 2 Fram HP1 filters and 9 inline screen filters washed.  

Intake air was kept clean with an overly large oiled filter. 

That's a good result. Thanks for sharing.  

In reply to Carbon :

At the peak of vintage racing guys with worn out junkyard engines that had a lick and spit refreshing were racing guys who’s idea of a vintage racing budget  was greater than some third world countries budget.  In  the end  it’s really hard to compete with a lot of money with very little money. 

My budget for  week in the Bahamas was $500 and I got home with $140. Left in my pocket and the car as good a shape as when I loaded it.  For that I came in second to the famous Sir Stirling Moss and the factory Aston Martin DBR1 with factory mechanics .  This was an event Aston Martin did with a massive budget.  Rumor had it Sir Moss was paid $50,000 plus expenses for his driving skill.  Plus the cost of a total restoration of the car.  All to impress Ford Motor company. It resulted in the sale of Aston Martin  to Ford  

The  third place driver did it out of his own pocket  ( but he owned the only Chevrolet dealership in Minneapolis) but I suspect his budget counting  the $22,000 engine that he bought from a competitor after he blew up his first two engines  was probably well north of $100,000 .  

Built properly absolutely. There are 700hp vipers running around with 100K miles on them. There are LS motors with heads and cam packages and proper internals doing the same thing.

Now when you add BOOOST. Then yeah they blow. I have seen more 800hp Evos go boom at the track then I care to admit. Same with 500hp or so STI's. But I have seen forged internal EJ25 running at the 440-450 range at the track that never even get cracked open year after year. 

Its just not cheap.

docwyte said:

In my experience, most engine builders can't put the motor together as well as the factory can.  So, no, "built" motors don't last better than factory.

Unless it's British from the 70's. I am currently having an engine built for my Spitfire.  At 81K miles, the engine just doesn't feel that "happy" any more, which I've read is about right for engines of this era.  Remember when getting 100K miles out of a car was a big deal?  My instructions were to essentially build to Euro specs, with some various improvements they've learned over 40+ years of building Triumph engines. In the case of these engines, just getting the rotating assembly better balanced will pay dividends in smoothness and longevity. I figure I'll probably drive the car maybe 2-3K miles per year, so it should easily last for the rest of the time I own the car.

docwyte said:

In my experience, most engine builders can't put the motor together as well as the factory can.  So, no, "built" motors don't last better than factory.

Yes, they can if they want ot put the money and effort in to it.  The 1275 motor I built for this in 1968 is still going strong.

It is on its 6th owner and 8th car now and I don't know what the mileage might be because some of the cars have been DD's and some were racecars.

I built the engine as a 0 tolerance engine.  I started by having the block line-bored to make sure everything was straight.  Then I measured all 6 sets of pistons we had on the shelf to find 4 with the exact same(no +/- tolerances)measurements.  Then i did some grinding to match the weights.  Then the cylinders were bored to an exact fit for the pistons.  I followed this procedure with every part of that engine that I could( all 4 intake valves were exact matches, etc.).

The engine has a little higher compression(0.010 off the block) and a longer duration and lift cam so it is a little hotter than stock.

Point is that a "built " engine can last if it is done properly.

There should be a $100k Pinto engine challenge. re: the Triumph I'll go out on a limb and say that modern balancing and finishing machines can be applied to the old engine.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Carbon :

Builders can’t stand by their work. They have no control of what happens after it leaves the shop. 

That’s why we don’t ship built engines anymore. Too many bad experiences with, ahem, post-install problems. We want to be able to install it and break it in, then we know it’ll be good for a decade or two. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

So people asked you to sell them a “built” engine and then couldn’t understand why it didn’t last as long as thier stock, moderate-compression daily driver?

I cant even get stock engines to last let alone built motors.

ebonyandivory said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

So people asked you to sell them a “built” engine and then couldn’t understand why it didn’t last as long as thier stock, moderate-compression daily driver?

It’s never been a long term durability issue, it was more a matter of bad installation or improper break-in. 

We have FM-built engines running around the US happily with high mileage numbers. We have a few in-house that are just used for everyday cars. But the reality is that if you want to drive a stock engine, you’ll use a stock engine. If you want something for high power or hard use, you’ll build the engine. And you can’t compare durability of a highly stressed engine to one that’s just being used for normal use. Take a stock engine and work it hard, and it’ll suffer. We’ve got a few of those at FM as well, cars that were used for R&D and have very tired engines much earlier than you seem to imply. 

So, built engines can do things that stock engines can’t do, and any engine being asked to do those things will wear faster than one that isn’t. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I think my post wasn’t written clearly. I was supporting you (and you’re engine-build quality). I wouldn’t say defending as I’m sure you don’t need me to do that!

In reply to plain92 :

Call esslinger. Spendy  spendy pinto motors is their deal.