Burton

I installed a supercharger in my 2002 4Runner this weekend. These are the results measured on a Mustang Dyno. Do they look about right. I am getting ready to do the fuel upgrades in the next month or so. The truck had plenty of fuel at WOT but on the highway when you roll in to it at about 70 MPH it is going lean.

Before







After

NickP

I guess this might have been answered elsewhere, however do you have any other supporting mods to go with this. Or is it a setup with just a SC bolted on?

Burton

This is just the SC everything else is stock. I want to get to 200 Wheel HP and then I will be happy. I think i will get there with the URD fuel kit and a smaller pule.

okie81

Great info, thanks for sharing. At first glance, your numbers looks good. It's amazing how much the torque curve drops off after 4k on the stock motor.

Get those fuel mods asap...that 14.7 AFR is a little high. You should be able to hit your mark then.

NickP

You'll probably net another 10whp just by adding a less restrictive exhaust. That added with the fuel kid and a tune, and im sure you'll EASILY see 200whp.

camo31_10.50

this is disappointing...i thought the 3.4 had around 170hp stock

mastacox

You should be getting closer to 250whp with the SC, URD kit, 2.2" pulley, and a good tune.

The numbers you're getting do seem a bit on the low side to me... how's your engine's health? What altitude was the dyno done at? You should be pretty close to 200 whp right now...

NickP

^^im sure you know this already, Mustang dynos read roughly 10-15% lower than DynoJets and the like. Take into account 15% difference in dyno's and you have your 200whp.

camo31. They have 190hp (to the crank) rear wheels is MUCH lower (150whp)

Now after crunching numbers though. Your numbers do seem rather low (unless your at a very high alititude. (colorado, ect.)

Burton

Yes, the mustang dyno tends to be on the low side. That is why I did the first run because I figured a net gain would be of greater use than just a final number with the SC.

I am not at that high of an altitude only 200-300 ft above sea level. I had to run the dyno in AWD mode so the front wheels would turn to trick the traction control. This may account for the lower HP numbers. I do know that is you put a 1000hp supra as measured on a DynoJet on a Mustang you are lucky to see 850 HP so I am not to worried about it being a little low.

Ben

Burton

14.7 is more than a little high. That would destroy the motor under WOT. The 14.7 is just the highest the AF ratio went. This was at the point where the SC begins to make boost it quickly falls to 11.8 - 12.0 which should be safe but is a little lean for my taste.

Ben

mastacox

Running in AWD mode accounts for the low numbers.

NickP

running in awd will give you roughly a 25% driveline loss. So yup. Thats why your numbers seem low. Problems solved

j-money$$$

my 4runner is so much slower in 4wd hi. I bet your well over 200 in 2wd.

okie81

You'd be suprised what the 3.4 can handle. At full throttle, low RPM (a key problem with the S/C) the AFR's can get rediculous, yet the motor holds tough. Not that it's good for the engine, but a few folks around here have been running superchargers on their rigs for 150-200k miles without any other mods to speak of!

mastacox

You can disable your traction control with the "andy mod," which would allow you to do your dyno tests in 2WD.

SkidPalace

I'd be one of those guys. 130,000 miles of "free FMU" driving. Very rare pinging. Even with regular gas driven for ~90,000 of those miles. I did, however start using super unleaded again two or three tankfulls ago. I can honestly attest that using super will yield a noticeable (seat of the pants) increase in power. I assume because the engine knocks less, allowing the knock sensors to allow timing to be advanced a bit higher than what was probably full retard using 87 octane. I have read here that a degree of timing will take away 5-7hp. The extra cost of the super is a wash as I went from ~14.5 mpg on 87 to as high as 18.5 mpg on 93. @ 15 gals, 23 cents extra per gal is $3.45 per tank. Let's say an extra 3 mpg per 15 gal = 45 miles. That's like getting an extra 2+ gallons of fuel which would have cost over $5. It's cheaper to run 93 octane. If I had access to the dyno, I'd be real interested to see what the real difference is between regular and super unleaded.
Anyway, back on topic... My non-fuel-added SC has been trouble free with the exception of two burnt A/F sensors (first at ~80K miles and the second at ~125K), which I assume to be the result of high EGTs from running lean.

slacker

iTrader: (1)

skidplace , just wondering what spark plugs your running ?

and do you think ceramic coating the manifolds and crossover would cure EGT's ?


.

mastacox

No, EGT's will cook your valves, not your headers.

SkidPalace

I am running stock Denso K16TR11s with about 40K on them believe it or not. I have K20TR11s and new NGK wires ready to go for when I get some decent weather. The one-step colder plugs should only help get the timing a liitle further into the right direction. Spending $10 a plug makes no sense to me. You can be sure I will be posting pics of the old plugs when I pull 'em.
Sorry, I may have been speaking above my pay grade about the EGTs. I have no way to test for such things. I am only going on what I've read on these forums and Gadget's site. I have read that running lean casues your exhaust to run very hot, causing all sorts of burnt exhaust components. Well, the only significant repairs on my truck have been rotted (burnt) exhaust front pipes (twice) and two blown A/F sensors. Sounds like a connection to me.
I'm not complaining though, I've loved every minute of having the supercharger.

JWaldz

iTrader: (1)

boltting on a SC and going with it? Sounds pretty nice to me. Although I'll spend the extra cheese to make it run to it's max if im paying the money for a sc already Thats good info to know though if I ever want to bolt one up and add my other stuff later. Nice addition Burton, get that thing dynod in 2wheel for sure and lets see the numbers!