CoedNaked

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/t...ect/index.html

Jay351

Wow... 3hp from a full exhaust with headers!

CoedNaked

I'd be interested in seeing the exact dyno charts and to see if the torque/hp curves were affected in any way. Also, the dyno #'s don't tell the entire story.

For example shaving 1/2 a second off of your 0 to 60 time, as slow as it is, is a big improvement.

Jay351

Thats true... but 3hp? Thats pretty lame for the cost!

notanymore

yeah, just because the peak only increased a small amount, doesnt mean that the rest of the power curve changes more

89macrunner

haha $2k for 5hp

woo.

although doing intake and catback made my truck seem faster...maybe it was just the sound. Atleast I only spent like $250 or so

CJM

iTs a 3.slow... I found it funny they spent about 3 grand on it and only got a decent hit. A cam woulda really done the trick..

CoedNaked

I don't know - call me quirky but I'm a little more optimistic about this engine and modifications.

For example, look at a supercharged 3.4 liter V6 (5vzfe). It picks up a decent power & torque gain, but the most amazing thing from dyno curves I've seen is the torque curve is SUPER FLAT in S/C versions. Like we're talking it climbs from idle to it's peak range at around 1800-2000 RPM's and stays flat right up until 4500-5000 RPM's. Maybe not a fair comparison, but like I said numbers in an article don't tell the entire story about dyno improvements neccessarily and like I said a half second picked up in 0-60 times is a pretty decent improvement. A flatter torque curve and more midrange horsepower would be a bigger improvement in my opinion than higher peak gains. It would also be much more noticeable to the average guy.

There is also some question as to whether or not the Downey system is really "the best" for the 3vze. It is 2 1/2" in size and mandrel bent so it will flow well - maybe too well. That is definately the largest you would want to go and not optimal for increasing power from idle throughout the entire RPM band but more popular for guys who want more pull up top.

ovrrdrive

There's a lot more information to a dyno run than peak horsepower...

As mentioned, if it was only 5hp the 0-60 time would not have dropped by .5 second.

That was actually a nice read. Thanks for the link.

tc

Here's the fact of the matter:

They spent $2k. They still have a 3.0 with potential headgasket issues. poor power, and crappy mileage.

What I would like to see is not the curves, but the results of numerous runs - I am willing to bet that you could claim that amount difference just between two consecutive runs, with no changes.

For another $500 - $1000 (less if you count what they could get for a running 3.0), they could have dropped in a 3.4 and SMOKED those numbers.

Great find - finally the DATA to show it doesn't pay to polish the 3.0 turd.

mt_goat

So...only 121 RWHP but at least it "sounded like a hungry predator". Kind of reminds me of a little neighbor boy that put playing cards to flap in the spokes of his bicycle.

Belize Off Road Team

i don't know why everyone wants to put the 3.0 down? its a nice and powerful engine. it's old, and it dont comare to the newer 4Runner engines. but it has more than enough power to take you down the same trails as the 3.4L. great find by the way. i'm saving for some Downey ceramic headers. and i might even follow what they did, gain some more power with my new exhaust.

Belize Off Road Team

"A basic setup that could've been taken to the max with the addition of a TRD supercharger, performance chip, cams, heads, and so on, but in the interest of keeping the project basic, inexpensive, and maintaining the daily-driver reliability and friendliness meant this was all the work necessary."


Do they know something we dont? a TRD supercharger for the 3.0? and what brand of cams and heads would improve performance on a 3.0?

Bumpin' Yota

They were still getting 16.5 average which is probably all city. Throw it on a highway, cruise at 65 and it would get 21+ mpg. Hell mine STILL gets 20mpg and its over 4800lbs.

Actaully having timed mine, no you cant claim that. The slushbox, while slow compared to other trannys, is dead on consistant. Mine does the naught to 60 climb in 13.8-13.9 pending the temperature outside.

so? And for another 1500 over what they spent they could drop in a bored and stroked rat with 500+hp and 500+tq.

There is no actual "data" as you speak of. The only "data" would be the dyno charts, which will tell all, and I can garuntee you there is a hell of a lot more area under the curve with those mods. Loosing 0.5s on a 0-60 run in a 4100lb pickup is HUGE.

Bumpin' Yota

Cams were only available late in '06. I have a set and love em.

mt_goat

No, they obviously don't know much about the 3VZE or Toyotas in general.

Jay351

I was thinkin about the supercharge comment. It seems they really didn't know much about the truck.

Im sure if they added a nice cam, now that the engine was breathing better and had a free flowing exhaust ( seems a little big though IMO) then you have all the needed mods to truly get the most of the cam upgrade.

tc

So, then bumpin, what exactly IS the repeatability and reproducibility of a dyno test?

I stand by my statement that these "improvements" are within the variation of the test itself.

They said they gained a .5 second - was that due to the mods, the weather, the track, altitude, the fuel, tailwind?

Basically, I doubt they could PROVE scientifically/statistically that the "improvements" were due to the modifications, not just measurement variation.

CoedNaked

I HIGHLY doubt that.

You are also not comparing apples to apples.

They PAID someone to install the headers - if you noticed the quote they paid about $700 for the install of the headers, cat & exhaust.

You know as well as I that to do a 3.4 swap for $3000 which you have mentioned, you need to do all the work yourself, and you need to get a hell of a deal on a 3.4, PLUS you have to have a lot of your own tools and some good knowledge of what you're doing. If you paid someone to do a 3.4 swap for you, you're probably looking at minimum $8000, and probably $10000. For example Offroad solutions who KNOWS a thing or two about doing 3.4 swaps (you'd think since they build the kits for these swaps) quote something like 50 shop hours to do this swap. That's professionals who have intense background knowledge of the process who take 50 hours. So if you wanted to compare apples to apples - you can do a $8000+ versus $2000.

tc

What do you doubt?

That you could do a 3.4 swap for $4000? ($3000 after selling your 3.0 for $1000)

That a 3.4L will make well over 121 HP at the wheels?

Both of these are sure things!


Just noticed ... it's interesting there's not ONE torque reading in the whole article...