Greg_Canada

how in the world can you compare a supercharged 3.4 to a N/A 3.0?

CoedNaked

I was giving an example where just peak numbers cited off of a dyno chart into an article don't tell the whole story about gains. My mentioning the S/C 3.4's was merely an example where the entire story isn't told. The S/C dyno charts I've seen on these engines show that while peak number gains aren't bad (if I recall correctly with just the S/C added you gain something like 75 HP and 65-70 foot pounds of torque), the super flat torque curve in my mind is more important to the average user than the peak torque gains. Just like a guy saying that you only got 4 rear wheel horsepower from $1300-ish in mods but yet somehow pulled off half a second shaved off the 0-60 times.

89pickupsr5

this website is pretty funny

mt_goat

Like this one:


It's TRDOLMAN's 2004 SCed 5vzfe

b.miller123

If anybody really wants 3 more hp, I'll do it for only $1992.27, that's a whole $100 less, and all I'll have to do is change your oil and put a new air filter in and do a tune up


Why even bother, the 3.0 is prone to so many problems already, why would you spend money on headers and a k&n FIPK, you're going to need that money for the next headgasket/waterpump/timingbelt/burnt exhaust-valve/random ticking noise

don't get me wrong, I am not a 3.0 hater, I've got one, and I love it compaired to my last truck w/a 22-RE (<<-- better design than a 3.0, but only good if you've got a stock 4x4, 2wd, or a celica) the 22-RE just couldn't get out of it's own way,


save your pennies and get a 3.4 or a new truck w/a 3.4, or my personal favorite of the week: swap in a 2jz-gtte

mr toytech

i paid 800 for my whole exhaust and made my own cold air intake from another car and i love it. it deff. runs better but the main thing is, is that i like it and that is all that matters. so that being said coednaked do what you want to do to your truck as long as you are happy thats all that matters. and my exhaust is 2.5 inch all the way threw and it works just fine with the thorley headers.

Targetnut

I have to wonder how much of their gains were lost with the hot air intake

Isn't it like 7hp/10degrees?

Greg_Canada

agreed.

CoedNaked

I know some Tundra owners with the 2uz-fe (4.7 Liter i-Force) V8 complain that about losing torque from "cold air" intake kits. Many guys say you can't smoke the tires with them and have gone back to their stock air boxes. As soon as they went back to the stock air box they could smoke the tires.

Greg_Canada

dyno also proves that a K&N intake on a s/c'd 3.4 loses HP... copmared to elbow/deckplate mod.
Now, a tuned intake will give you some power, as long as it gives cold air. Look at the 05+ URD intake... it actually gives power without a tune.. .a true cold air intake...

Targetnut

Whenever a commercial magazine "tests" some product it is likely that they are going to give favorable reviews to whatever their sponsors have them test

CoedNaked

I'm thinking it's about time for me to orde those LCE Headers for my 3vze.

Jay351

Yeah, do it I wanna see how they do on a truck with a 5sp

mr toytech

mine is more like the isr mod made from a cold air intake hooked to the stock air box with a k&n drop in air filter and it works and sounds great.

Targetnut

So you actually have a cold air intake.

What we need to see are before and after dyno results from a mod like yours!

Bumpin' Yota

I wasnt speaking of the dyno tests, but rather the 0-60 run. Proof is in the pudding. There is no way that they could get a 0.5 second variance on 0-60 in elevation or temperature.

Temperature swings lead to some variances. On the hottest days down here in florida, it will hit 105-110*F near the center of the state - the farther from water the hotter. My 4runner takes 14.2s to go 0-60 in such conditions. On the coldest nights I can remember driving it, 38*F or so, 13.9. Im sorry but if a 72*F temperature swing cant induce a 0.5s variance, then there is no way it can be attributed to variance.

And if I remember correctly it would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 1800 feet of elevation variance to accomidate for a 0.5s variance...

Besides this was all done at one place. So while I dont necessarily agree on the actual number output results, I DO belive the results from the modifications were measurably helpful.

Could they have written it in a more scientific method, with a pourpose, hypothesis, explaination of controls, methods, results and conclusions so that the experiment could be reapeated? Sure, but other than myself and about 3% of the US population, noone likes reading scientific abstracts and experimental results....

I still want to see dyno graph curves. It's area under the curve not peak power that means most. The 0.5s in the 0-60 speaks to that end - the mods allowed more area under the curve.

TNRabbit

Well, at least they washed the truck...

tc

did the driver miss a shift? Just plain not do something EXACTLY the same?

My point is that the difference is too small to say it's significant and attributable to the mods - there are MANY things that can explain such a small difference.

In legalese, I would say there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

mt_goat

I agree, and given their lack of accuracy about the supercharger and ECU chip info, I'd say a lot of reasonable doubt.

wreckedrex

I see your point but you are unfairly assuming they were inconsistent in their testing. There's nothing in that article that indicates how, where or when they tested, and there are no dyno plots. It's believable that at the very least the truck was run in the same general area at around the same time of year by someone who was at least competent enough to mash the gas and shift. I'd probably agree that it was within the margin of error if we were talking about a tenth or 2. Also, form a HP/$ standpoint there's $895 worth of labor in that $2,040 total and that intake kit was over $300 bucks. I'd imagine you could net the same results for right about $1k if you did the work yourself and home brewed the intake kit. You're not going to pull off a swap for that, but you could probably argue that you'd be better off saving that $$ to put toward one...