An old article I found with some Dyno #'s
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
For example shaving 1/2 a second off of your 0 to 60 time, as slow as it is, is a big improvement.
Trending Topics
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
#9
Registered User
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.
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.
#10
Contributing Member
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.
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.
#11
Contributing Member
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.
Last edited by mt_goat; 01-11-2008 at 05:56 AM.
#12
Contributing Member
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.
#13
Contributing Member
"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?
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?
#14
Registered User
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.
Last edited by Bumpin' Yota; 01-11-2008 at 06:02 AM.
#15
Registered User
"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?
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?
#16
Contributing Member
"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?
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?
#17
Contributing Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: maple ridge, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 9,055
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
5 Posts
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.
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.
#18
Contributing Member
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.
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.
#19
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Last edited by CoedNaked; 01-11-2008 at 03:09 PM.
#20
Contributing Member
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...
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...
Last edited by tc; 01-11-2008 at 03:08 PM.