yea... I said "from experience".

To say both are pointless without doing the mods yourself is speculation. I did them because I was excited about have a new (to me) vehicle, and they were cheap and easy.. But after I found they just made driving on a highway a headache..

I'll probably take out the ISR and the deckplate is already plugged. I dont monitor my mpg, but on TTORA a member did a test and found the deckplate to lower fuel efficiency by 1mpg. It does increase flow, but it breathes hot air..

When I have more money down the road and feel the need for some power, I'll just supercharge it and leave it at that..

 

No CAI or deckplate will increase hp or fuel efficiency at stop and go around town/trail driving,those results are usually gained on the highway thus removing the underhood heat better.

 

Wow, i didn't even know this was still going lol. I have not got any e-mails letting me know about updates on any threads the last few days, anyone know why? (yes, i have viewed them since the last one was sent).

And as X-AWdriver said the biggest increase is on th highway when the air is cooler. I have also seen people add a vent above the intake to get cooler air into there as well. In the tuner cars it is not uncommon to see them take out the headlight so that cooler air can get to the intake and that is where the big gain is.

 

My email updates are working normally... which means the email lags the update anywhere from a few minutes to hours.. to a day. I depend on "cp" to keep up-to-date, as I find email relatively slow and unreliable.

As to modding a 4runner for power or mileage... I don't get it. I want reliability. Period. If I want power to weight.. buy a bike. If you want mileage, buy a diesel. Most of these "mods" just cost you money, and don't add to resale, as it makes the buyer suspicious in most cases.

That having been said, I understand the need to do mods... been there.

 

http://www.tacomaterritory.com/forum...ad.php?t=65544

There's the thread from TTORA..

I wonder what effect the snorkel would have on HP and fuel economy.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not act as a "ram-air" intake?

 

I recently replaced my open airbox (crack on the bottom bothered me) so I don't have the deckplate mod on this one and I see 16-17.5mpg with my heavy foot and heavier than stock tires.

I'll be doing the deckplate next month once we get more consistently nice weather and do some testing myself.

The deckplate isn't a bad mod and it's virtually returnable to stock and another buyer most likely wouldn't even notice a capped deckplate.

 

Geez... I don't understand why people constantly fight against this mod.

It's known fact that the 3.4L as implemented in the Tacomas and 4Runners is starved for air. This has been proven over and over again - it's the elbow in the air box. Remove it, and the engine can inhale deeper - that means sucking more air. And you can completely alleviate the issue by doing the deckplate mod, which also gives you an easy way to plug up the hole if you're planning on getting into deep water.


Now, one of the jobs of the ECU is to keep the Air/Fuel ratio at 14.7:1. When it sees more air coming in it will add more fuel - that means more power, and yeah, it means that your mileage will go down - because you're burning more fuel. I hate to be so crass about it, but..
As for dyno charts.. geez people, is there ANY Toyota truck forums in the world that doesn't have "Gadget" all over them?

This page is AT LEAST as old as I've been doing this stuff... call it 5 years:

No.. there's not enough air pressure to make a difference.

 

Well I think a dyno gives you WHP right? so that would be well less than the actual horsepower?? I'm just wondering because this is exactly what I was thinking...

 

To put this back in context, the original comment was a reference to Gadget's dyno sheet here:

http://www.gadgetonline.com/Dyno.htm...20combinations


If you look up above that dyno sheet, Steve says:The HP numbers on the sheet are RWHP. The 3.4L is spec'd at 183 crank HP, which is about 146 at the wheels with an auto (which is what Steve used in the runs). The 202rwhp from the sheet would fit the typical increase seen with a straight install of a SC.

 

[QUOTE=midiwall;50501983]
Comparing NA results to S/C'd results when it comes to the efficiency of a CAI is like comparing apples to oranges. Just to clear up your first comment, are you saying you do not have a dyno chart from your truck?

 

No, I do have a dyno chart... So do a lot of other folks.

 

Where are they?

 

Mine is on a CD at home. I showed you another one, but you found reason to discount it.

Are you really having that hard of a time understanding that getting more air into this engine will increase the power? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Are you trolling on other forums as well?

 

Coming from any other forum member, such a response would hardly warrant a rebuttal. However, coming from a moderator, and a person who has contributed a great deal to this website, I must say I am a little disappointed.

Am I having a hard time understanding? No. Having owned tuned NA's as well as twin-turbo cars in the past, as well as high strung motorcycles, I have a comfortable amount of knowledge about increasing power in a combustion engine. It does concern me that you seem to think there is no difference between a highly tuned (by 3rd gen. standards anyway) dyno chart and a NA truck, which this discussion centers around.

This is a topic that has been debated over and over again. The thing that I find mysterious is that you chime in and say YOU HAVE A DYNO CHART that proves once and for all the kind of #'s the deckplate mod is capable of producing on a NA engine, which 99% of people here are running. My question was simply "Why not post it up and put an end to the debate once and for all?" I never once said I disagreed with what you claim, but reiterate that a S/C'd engine and a NA one are two totally different animals.

There is no disrespect intended, just looking out for the greater good of the community. I am the type of person that formulates opinions off of hard facts, not internet speculation or seat-of-the-pants dynos.

That being said, I'm going to go troll some Honda forums.

 

I never said they weren't. My purpose in pointing to Steve's chart is to show that there IS an issue with the intake on these engines.

As for your playing the "moderator" card... I'm still a person with an opinion, being a mod doesn't mean that I should stay quiet.


I'll dig up my chart for you... I'd hate to have the Honda crowd get itchy.

 

I can't believe how much debate is dedicated to a cheepie mod. I coud see a debate of a $350 Volant CAI which is a rediculous price for the same hp produced by a hole in the airbox but 4th gens are a different story.

 

Well, I'm bored. I've spent a couple of hours looking for the dyno sheet that will confirm our 8th grade physics lesson and I can't find it.

It's on a CD somewhere... from THREE years ago. I didn't even live in this house then.

I found the original thread here on YT. There's a reference to the results in it:
https://www.yotatech.com/forums/show...t=31664&page=4

I found the Web archive of my old web page:
http://web.archive.org/web/200406251...y.html#update1


Whatever. If I find it, I'll be sure to FedEx you a copy Mr. Whitey. I'd hate for you to continue to be so obstinate about this.

 

Oh... lookit what I found.

Looks like it's actually 8.22hp.

 

 

Oh, I wouldn't get too excited. I'm sure he'll be back to say that I feathered it to fake the results, or I drew the graph by hand, or "how do we know that was with/without the deckplate?".

Whatever.