SC Install Results
#1
SC Install Results
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
Before
After
#3
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.
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nor, CAL
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get those fuel mods asap...that 14.7 AFR is a little high. You should be able to hit your mark then.
#7
Contributing Member
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...
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...
Trending Topics
#8
^^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.)
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.)
#9
^^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.)
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.)
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
#10
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
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nor, CAL
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boston, MA area
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
#18
Contributing Member
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boston, MA area
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#20
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central, Arkansas
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!