91BrutePU

Has anyone used these chips and do they work? They sound too good to be true.

http://www.gfchips.com/toyotapickup.aspx

Elton

no there junk

iamsuperbleeder

yup; pure junk, and anyone trying to convince you otherwise is full of it

the computer system in these trucks is so basic that there literally is no room for a computer programming upgrade without replacing the computer with new stand-alone systems

it would be like trying to supe up a calculator... why? there's really nothing that's so complicated that you have to improve upon it

xxxtreme22r

"The GForce module installs into your TOYOTA PICKUP's engine bay and is connected via 2 wires that plug into the IAT sensor. "

Junk. Pure junk.

These things do not reprogram anything. They fool the ECU into thinking the air is cooler than it really is. It's funny they show a computer chip. Because all this thing really is is a 10 cent resistor. Same thing can be basically done by turning the screw on the AFM.

Only thing I would ever use is a reprogrammed ECU or drop in chip. And to my knowledge none have been made for the 22re's.

I would also like to add, they have an option to select 1984 as the model year. Did Toyota even put out an EFI into these trucks. I don't think so. I believe 85 was the first year for the 22re.

tried4x2signN

A cold T-stat will make it run rich... oops, I mean "use more gas" too...

More gas = more power... 2MK, exactly how chips work...

Napa has a 160 for a 22R. They're the same between a 20/22/22RE ex the rubber o-ring gasket the RE needs...

wii_tarded

There was a thread on here...(have link somewhere) about using an adjustable resistor to fool the ECU into thinking that the engine is still cold. It advances timing and adjusts fuel flow, etc. I'll see if I can find it

wii_tarded

try this

www.midiwall.com/4Runner/ect.

91BrutePU

Alright, thanks for the feed back! I definitely thought it was hog wash but wanted to make sure.

91BrutePU

The url sends me to a non-working page

MudHippy

IAT sensor mod(google it). Nearly identical in principle to the ECT sensor mod. Nothing new. And not ineffective in any way shape or form. They actually DO work, despite popular opinion.
https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f130...ect-mod-75163/


Here's the link that was posted previously.
http://www.midiwall.com/4Runner/ect.html

wii_tarded

oops. didn't get it all. thanks for the cover hippy.

Blue 89 Runner

IIRC, a while back, there was some outfit advertising on here about reprogramming your stock computer. They would send out a neat litle box to securely ship your computer back to them, then they would ship back. I think the place was in Florida, sound familiar to anyone ???

MudHippy

Downey used to provide the service via JET Performance Products™. They would take your ECU and send it to JET for the upgrade then have them send it back to you. The whole process needn't include the middle-man though. As you can contact JET directly for the same results at a price of $399 + shipping.

Here's the link.
http://www.jetchip.com/imports.asp

Blue 89 Runner

Thanks Hippy ! Pretty sure thats what I was remembering. But, $400 + for 13-14 HP .....

iamsuperbleeder

yes, the HP of the 22re isn't as responsive to tons of money thrown at it as most other motors I spent over 2k on my rebuild and came out with maybe 30-40 more HP (at best) than stock

MudHippy

Exactly. That's why I haven't gotten around to it myself.

And in actually, even their dyno results don't match the supposed HP gains from their products.

For example, they say that you can net between a 15-17 HP gain with the 3VZE V6. But even their dyno chart says they were only able to increase the rear wheel HP from a maximum of 129 to 140. That's +11 HP, NOT +15-17!



http://www.jetchip.com/dyno.asp?folder=Toyota

So, $400 for 11 extra HP. Really worth it?

xxxtreme22r

Maybe that 15 HP is supposed to be at the crank and not the wheels. Typically you loose about maybe 15-20% ??? through the driveline?

MudHippy

While it's true that you'll lose some HP through the drivetrain, any HP added at the crank will ultimately be available at the rear wheels. However, the percentage of that HP loss at the rear wheels vs. the HP at the crank is completely unrelated to what the rear wheel HP output actually is and/or how it's measured. How's that you say?

Look at it like this:

The 3VZE makes a maximium of 150 HP at the crank, according to Toyota. On their dyno it made 129 HP at the rear wheels. There's your drivetrain power loss right there, -21 HP via the drivetrain(slighty more at lower rpms). That amount of power loss is going to remain a near constant. So no matter what amount of HP you add at the crank, you'll lose ~21 HP by the time it gets to the rear wheels. What I mean by "a near constant" is that at higher rpms the drivetrain takes less power turn(or rather keep turning). One word, momentum. The same concept applies to why you get better gas milage at highway speeds than during city driving speeds. Or get more torque output with a heavier flywheel. It's not so much that it's easier to turn per say, but that it's harder to stop turning at any given speed. And the higher the rpm, the more momentum is retained, and the harder it is to slow down. Notice in the dyno chart above that at lower rpms the HP gains where only +10 HP. It wasn't until 5000 rpm that +11 HP was achieved. But pay no mind to that though, it's not what's important to what I'm trying to explain here. Just forget I mentioned it.

So a better way to put it, that's alot more easily understood is this:

The drivetrain takes 21 HP to turn at 5000 rpms(150 - 21 = 129 right?). That amount of HP needed to turn the drivetrain at that speed isn't going to change. It's always going to take 21 HP to turn the drivetrain at 5000 rpms. It's not going to take any more or less than that EVER!

To say that you lose such and such % HP via the drivetrain isn't really an accurate statement then. Why? Because that would mean that the drivetrain would need MORE than 21 HP to turn at 5000 rpms if you added HP at the crank. And LESS than 21 HP to turn at 5000 rpms if you subtracted HP at the crank. Now would that make any sense? No it wouldn't, would it?

Like I said, it's ALWAYS going to take 21 HP to turn the drivetrain at 5000 rpms. Though 129 HP is a certain percentage less than 150 HP, that's totally irrelevant.

Bottom line:

Whatever HP you make at the crank minus whatever HP it takes to turn the drivetrain at whichever rpm is whatever rear wheel HP you'll get. It's ALL about whatever HP it takes to turn the drivetrain at whichever rpm. The percentage of HP loss though the drivetrain is truly meaningless. Sure, it exists as an empiricallity. Meaning, IT'S JUST A NUMBER, and it doesn't really tell you anything important in determining crank vs. rear wheel HP.

SO...IF YOU ADD 15-17 HP AT THE CRANK, YOU ADD 15-17 HP AT THE REAR WHEELS. IF YOU ADD 15-17 HP TO 129 HP THAT = 144-146 HP. NOT 140 HP LIKE THE DYNO CHART PROVES! MEANING, THEY OVERSTATED THEIR CLAIMED HP GAIN BY 4-6 HP! SIMPLE AS THAT!

xxxtreme22r

Point taken MudHippy.

VA07

I hate to disagree with you MudHippy but your logic is not correct. The parasitic loss is partially due to the amount of HP taken to turn the driveline, known as coulomb friction. Which is represented by a constant number when regarding power loss. But you are forgetting about viscous friction where the losses increase nonlinear between 2 parts.

Taken from another site:
So the percentage of drivetrain loss for a factory truck is 120/150=.86
1-0.86=0.14 or a 14% loss
Now taking their number of 140, this would equate to an at crank hp of 163 assuming the same 14% loss and ALL other conditions being exactly the same.

I agree that the cost for the product seems high for the gained HP. But assuming that a truck with 150hp will see the same 21hp loss as say a 1000hp truck with the same driveline is incorrect.