Sponsored

Kielly

Well-known member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Threads
7
Messages
252
Reaction score
227
Vehicle(s)
2018 Camry - Impatiently awaiting Sport+ 6M
That rev limit is weighing hard on my mind. Why would they possibly put it so low? It ain't a diesel lol. I'm not a mechanic but transmission and gear ratio shouldn't be a factor at all when it comes to rev limits correct? If the automatic can have a higher limit I can't see why the manual can't.

Kinda disappointing, the rev hang I can get over, the RPM limit is probably going to get cursed on one too many times.
 

Mrknowitall

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
134
Reaction score
107
Location
SE MI
Vehicle(s)
20 Silverado, 14 JKUR
That rev limit is weighing hard on my mind. Why would they possibly put it so low? It ain't a diesel lol. I'm not a mechanic but transmission and gear ratio shouldn't be a factor at all when it comes to rev limits correct? If the automatic can have a higher limit I can't see why the manual can't.

Kinda disappointing, the rev hang I can get over, the RPM limit is probably going to get cursed on one too many times.
IN the Truck King interview with Sheldon Brown, he sheds some light on the matter:
 

Kielly

Well-known member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Threads
7
Messages
252
Reaction score
227
Vehicle(s)
2018 Camry - Impatiently awaiting Sport+ 6M
IN the Truck King interview with Sheldon Brown, he sheds some light on the matter:
Interesting, curious now how much HP you'd actually loose with the other fixes he mentioned. I'd almost prefer a loss of HP depending how much than I would loosing that extra 1500rpms. Seems like a very good watch though, going to have to allocate some time to watch it all.
 

Mrknowitall

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
134
Reaction score
107
Location
SE MI
Vehicle(s)
20 Silverado, 14 JKUR
Interesting, curious now how much HP you'd actually loose with the other fixes he mentioned. I'd almost prefer a loss of HP depending how much than I would loosing that extra 1500rpms. Seems like a very good watch though, going to have to allocate some time to watch it all.
Well, its only maybe 900rpm, and they pass up about 7hp vs the automatic.
 

Bob

New member
First Name
Bob
Joined
Dec 5, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois, United States
Vehicle(s)
Bronco
IN the Truck King interview with Sheldon Brown, he sheds some light on the matter:
Crankshaft hammering cost 600 rpm and the 9 hp loss? I think that's what he said. If it's just noise and vibration concerns (NV) again, what I think he said, then not a big deal. But does that indicate a long-term durability issue? My 7sp Bronco has no such restriction although the sound at 6000rpm is not pleasant.
 

Mrknowitall

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
134
Reaction score
107
Location
SE MI
Vehicle(s)
20 Silverado, 14 JKUR
Crankshaft hammering cost 600 rpm and the 9 hp loss? I think that's what he said. If it's just noise and vibration concerns (NV) again, what I think he said, then not a big deal. But does that indicate a long-term durability issue? My 7sp Bronco has no such restriction although the sound at 6000rpm is not pleasant.
So they gave away a little bit of peak HP that hardly anyone would ever use to prevent long term reliability issues. Ford may run into problems on MT units that really get flogged- like mud holes on the limiter.
 

Bob

New member
First Name
Bob
Joined
Dec 5, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois, United States
Vehicle(s)
Bronco
So they gave away a little bit of peak HP that hardly anyone would ever use to prevent long term reliability issues. Ford may run into problems on MT units that really get flogged- like mud holes on the limiter.
I agree that the last 600 rpm will be rarely used, but still, it's interesting that the auto version of the same engine does not have the lower redline. Main difference is a flywheel vs flexplate and transmission. I think it's a NVH issue. I find it hard to believe Toyota would produce a truck engine with insufficient support for the crankshaft/weak main bearing caps. 5400 rpm limit in a modern 4 cyl is awfully low. The Ford Motor has been in thousands of Mustangs and Rangers, and I haven't heard of widespread concerns regarding damage due to revving to 6000 rpm. I have 22,000 miles on mine with no problems.
 

Mrknowitall

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
134
Reaction score
107
Location
SE MI
Vehicle(s)
20 Silverado, 14 JKUR
I agree that the last 600 rpm will be rarely used, but still, it's interesting that the auto version of the same engine does not have the lower redline. Main difference is a flywheel vs flexplate and transmission. I think it's a NVH issue. I find it hard to believe Toyota would produce a truck engine with insufficient support for the crankshaft/weak main bearing caps. 5400 rpm limit in a modern 4 cyl is awfully low. The Ford Motor has been in thousands of Mustangs and Rangers, and I haven't heard of widespread concerns regarding damage due to revving to 6000 rpm. I have 22,000 miles on mine with no problems.
The AT application in both Ranger and Tacoma will dampen those vibrations in the Converter. I don't know if the Ranger is available anywhere with the 2.3EB/MT. In the Mustang, the engine would spend very little time in that top band, while in a truck application, the driver could easily hold the engine on the rev limiter for extended periods. I really don't see it as a weakness in the T24, as much as an abundance of caution. Take a look at this pdf. Its for the transverse application, and the crank is definitely well supported. I haven't seen details yet, but the longitudinal truck application has extensive durability improvements over the pass-car version.
 

Attachments

 


Top