2010+ TRD Supercharger

[wfo9]

As a point of reference there are currently two superchargers available today for the 1GR dual VVTi motor (the one in the 5th gen). They are both about $8,000usd by the time you get them shipped.


Bullet Cars - Also recommends/requires? upgraded internals to lower compression and add stronger rods and a piggy back ECU. Claims to make 240hp at the wheels
Bullet Cars - Supercharger Kits Toyota* Hilux Prado 2011 - current model DVVTi 4.0 litre V6 (1GRFE) Toyota Prado

And RGM out of South Africa. Toyota Prado
They're claiming 437hp at the crank and 256hp at the wheels. (I suspect the crank calc is WAY off. 40+% driveline losses is hard to believe.) The same dyno claim is from 174rwhp to 256 rwhp. No info on the website on internal upgrades. They also use a piggy back ECU that's supposedly plug and play. They also delete the cats and use a high flow exhaust (not gonna fly in the USA).

Just something to compare as there are alternative superchargers for the 4.0L dual vvti- but none currently easy to source in the USA nor are they EPA/CARB legal.

Also.. they appear to be centrifugal superchargeres. Which are a totally different animal than a positive displacement rotor/roots style. Centrifugal are great for high HP/racing applications. They make great HP and move gobs of air efficiently once spun up to speed. It's more like a belt driven turbo compressor. The positive displacements should have a flatter torque curve, more geared towards drivability vs racing... I would much rather have a positive displacement blower in this application.

 

[Jetboy]

Also.. they appear to be centrifugal superchargeres. Which are a totally different animal than a positive displacement rotor/roots style. Centrifugal are great for high HP/racing applications. They make great HP and move gobs of air efficiently once spun up to speed. It's more like a belt driven turbo compressor. The positive displacements should have a flatter torque curve, more geared towards drivability vs racing... I would much rather have a positive displacement blower in this application.

The centrifugal superchargers are also much easier/cheaper to use because they don't have to fit nicely on top of a manifold. They can be a generic shape/size and be sort of a one-size-fits-all sort of product where one unit can be adapted to a bunch of different vehicles. But, like you said, they're not really ideal for this application. If you look at the dyno numbers they really don't make big power until quite a bit into the RPM range and the huge numbers are at 6K rpms on a 5500rpm redline engine. The 1GR already makes decent power at 5k rpms. What I want is power at 2500rpms. I think you're spot on that the TRD style compressor will offer better output for a daily driver even with lower peak hp. I wish I knew more about the internals and fuel system's ability to keep up with boost. I'm still pretty far into the camp of the juice not being worth the squeeze as compared to other alternatives, but who knows? Maybe these will be a hot item. I hope so. If nothing else it provides options.

 

[wfo9]

What I want is power at 2500rpms. I think you're spot on that the TRD style compressor will offer better output for a daily driver even with lower peak hp. I wish I knew more about the internals and fuel system's ability to keep up with boost. I'm still pretty far into the camp of the juice not being worth the squeeze as compared to other alternatives, but who knows? Maybe these will be a hot item. I hope so. If nothing else it provides options.

Well, in theory... this should provide almost what you want. Full torque should hit around 2k. The peak number will also be improved, but it should not be necessary to wind it up near as much.

As far as the fuel system goes... The more HP the more problems. If you are making torque way down low.. the overall demands on the fuel pump/system is not that great, but the injectors obviously need to be bigger. As you get up into higher hp/rpm is where the fuel pump itself really gets pushed. It's hard to maintain consistent pressure for really high demands. Since most modern fuel systems are return-less at the rail... pressure drops are difficult to manage. I always converted my stuff over to a return style when trying to make big power.. Otherwise... your regulator is 10ft away from the rail.

As far as the durability of the motor and boost. Only time will tell. The key is preventing detonation. If it detonates... it blows.. simple as that. Controlled combustion is almost never a problem. If it has enough fuel and not too much timing... It should be fine. Not as solid as stock.. but plenty good for me. They typically go very conservative on the magnuson kits. A clean piston really helps also... I would at least run a catch can in the PCV.

 

[Jetboy]

I've been curious about what it would be like to design a sort of oddball supercharger that uses a very small centrifugal charger run directly off the existing serpentine belt that would produce low boost of around say 4psi from 1200-4500rpms and run out of breath above that and drop to zero boost by redline, but not restrict air flow. The idea being reducing stress on the internals but improving low-mid range power and only building safe power within the range that the existing fuel system can keep up with without upgrades. It would be hard to sell because you couldn't advertise great improvements in peak power, but I think it would make a huge improvement in overall driveability of the 4runner. And it could be pretty low cost without any major internal or fuel system updates. I'd be curious if the ECU might even handle it as is without any modifications. If I had an older 4runner that wasn't my daily driver I'd be all for giving it a go.

 

[wfo9]

I've been curious about what it would be like to design a sort of oddball supercharger that uses a very small centrifugal charger run directly off the existing serpentine belt that would produce low boost of around say 4psi from 1200-4500rpms and run out of breath above that and drop to zero boost by redline, but not restrict air flow. The idea being reducing stress on the internals but improving low-mid range power and only building safe power within the range that the existing fuel system can keep up with without upgrades. It would be hard to sell because you couldn't advertise great improvements in peak power, but I think it would make a huge improvement in overall driveability of the 4runner. And it could be pretty low cost without any major internal or fuel system updates. I'd be curious if the ECU might even handle it as is without any modifications. If I had an older 4runner that wasn't my daily driver I'd be all for giving it a go.

Not easy to do with a supercharger... what you really want is a turbo and some electronic waste-gate control.

The fixed impeller and step up make centrifugal superchargers very RPM dependent. I played around with trying to manage multiple blow off valves to limit high RPM boost at one point on a centrifugal (which was a waste of time)... You can't blow off enough air.

In avionics. they are several application where they use normalizing turbo charger just to maintain sea level power as altitude increases. This is all done via the waste gate control. The electronic boost control lets you adjust by RPM restricting pressure to the waste gate.... It's steady power in aviation... so very simple to manage compared to throttle management in a car, but I think it could be done. The packaging is a ***** though... I've done it once and it was the project from hell.. Had to relocate tons of stuff in the engine bay and the heat issues never ended. Finally went back to stock.

Never even gave a turbo a thought on a 5th gen since no tuning options... But you are correct that the motor can pretty much find its way for low end power with the MAF doing most the work. But, the injectors would limit your output.... Hard to say what it could support stock. Factory injectors are usually sized as small as possible. The larger ones get sloppy and are expensive.

 

[rayofsi]

fingers crossed this will work with aftermarket bumpers...

 

[Tlowe]

fingers crossed this will work with aftermarket bumpers...

Not sure what part of this wouldn't work with an aftermarket bumper...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rayofsi]

Not sure what part of this wouldn't work with an aftermarket bumper...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i was going to say intercooler placement possibly? then realized magnuson isn't air to air, so it should be ok?

 

[Argyle Edison]

They use air to water so there would still be a heat exchanger up front. It's a valid concern. One could always relocate it though as long as it gets good air flow.

Mine gets a lot of bugs in it but it's been fine for over 50k now.

 

[Jetboy]

Not easy to do with a supercharger... what you really want is a turbo and some electronic waste-gate control.

The fixed impeller and step up make centrifugal superchargers very RPM dependent. I played around with trying to manage multiple blow off valves to limit high RPM boost at one point on a centrifugal (which was a waste of time)... You can't blow off enough air.

In avionics. they are several application where they use normalizing turbo charger just to maintain sea level power as altitude increases. This is all done via the waste gate control. The electronic boost control lets you adjust by RPM restricting pressure to the waste gate.... It's steady power in aviation... so very simple to manage compared to throttle management in a car, but I think it could be done. The packaging is a ***** though... I've done it once and it was the project from hell.. Had to relocate tons of stuff in the engine bay and the heat issues never ended. Finally went back to stock.

Never even gave a turbo a thought on a 5th gen since no tuning options... But you are correct that the motor can pretty much find its way for low end power with the MAF doing most the work. But, the injectors would limit your output.... Hard to say what it could support stock. Factory injectors are usually sized as small as possible. The larger ones get sloppy and are expensive.

Yep. I really do want a turbo. But I don't see any realistic way to make it work fitment wise and/or tuning unless it would run really low boost. There's a few variable pressure superchargers but they're $$$$. The one I've been kinda dreaming of is the Procharger i1. It's not dynamically controlled boost, but you pre-program boost through the rpm range and it uses a transmission to vary compressor speed to match the desired boost. I think it might work - if it weren't so damn expensive. For 10k+, I can swap a ton of different engines with more power - or just trade for a used LC200.

 

[Brandonium]

Every time I see a 5.7 Tundra I can't help but wonder (in a lotto winning scenario) how hard it would be to cram that engine in the 5th Gen and make things work. It might not even be possible but I don't think I've actually seen an engine swap on one of these yet.

Yep. I really do want a turbo. But I don't see any realistic way to make it work fitment wise and/or tuning unless it would run really low boost. There's a few variable pressure superchargers but they're $$$$. The one I've been kinda dreaming of is the Procharger i1. It's not dynamically controlled boost, but you pre-program boost through the rpm range and it uses a transmission to vary compressor speed to match the desired boost. I think it might work - if it weren't so damn expensive. For 10k+, I can swap a ton of different engines with more power - or just trade for a used LC200.

 

[wfo9]

fingers crossed this will work with aftermarket bumpers...

Good point and yet another buzz kill for me. I think it would fit without much hassle for most... but mine is tucked up very tight... great for clearance, not so great for adding another radiator... Hopefully I could figure something out as long as there is enough room for it.

It is an interesting twist that so many people who would consider this are going to have aftermarket plate bumpers with a winch tucked in there.... Would be something very good for Magnuson to consider. I know they could not address all of them.. but possibly see what typical problems arise and size accordingly...

 

[wfo9]

Yep. I really do want a turbo. But I don't see any realistic way to make it work fitment wise and/or tuning unless it would run really low boost. There's a few variable pressure superchargers but they're $$$$. The one I've been kinda dreaming of is the Procharger i1. It's not dynamically controlled boost, but you pre-program boost through the rpm range and it uses a transmission to vary compressor speed to match the desired boost. I think it might work - if it weren't so damn expensive. For 10k+, I can swap a ton of different engines with more power - or just trade for a used LC200.

I had no idea Procharger had such a unit. Much has changed in the last 15 years LOL.

 

[Mkrespke]

Only 25% boost in power? Are the rods really that weak? The magnuson kit for the Tundra 5.7 V8 boosts horsepower from 380 to 550, just over 50%. Similar displacement and DOHC design, the Pentastar kit increases horsepower 80-100hp. I am eagerly waiting to see official details and horsepower/torque gains.

 

[Sound_SS]

Only 25% boost in power? Are the rods really that weak? The magnuson kit for the Tundra 5.7 V8 boosts horsepower from 380 to 550, just over 50%. Similar displacement and DOHC design, the Pentastar kit increases horsepower 80-100hp. I am eagerly waiting to see official details and horsepower/torque gains.

25% is probably referring to peak numbers? what really matters is the numbers down low. this kit doesn't need to produce pretty dyno sheets to make me happy....it needs to get this truck moving of the line!

 

[wfo9]

Only 25% boost in power? Are the rods really that weak? The magnuson kit for the Tundra 5.7 V8 boosts horsepower from 380 to 550, just over 50%. Similar displacement and DOHC design, the Pentastar kit increases horsepower 80-100hp. I am eagerly waiting to see official details and horsepower/torque gains.

I just grabbed 25% as a safe min increase bet. 40% is possible, but it gets more risky...

I'm guessing it will be at least 25%. Probably between 25 and 30%. The drivability should be night and day...

 

[Mkrespke]

I get it, area under the curve. I understand that this isn't a turbo and what the benefits of using this particular type of supercharger are. Especially torque gains at lower rpm. I just hope that at 5 or 6 psi, that there is a decent gain. Price vs performance. I'm assuming this kit is going to be 5 or 6k.

 

[Trixx]

I finally decided to do some research on this. At the risk of stepping into the deep end and getting into trouble, here is what I found:

Magnuson already makes two supercharger kits for the 1GR-FE 4.0L V6, one for the 2007-2009 Toyota FJ and one for the 2005-2015 Toyota Tacoma. They both use an MP90 supercharger and an air/water intercooler, both include an ECU reprogrammer, and both systems have 50-state/CARB smog certification. They appear to be identical to the dear-departed TRD system (Magnuson was probably always the OEM). Most importantly, both kits claim outputs of 305hp and 335lb-ft. The street price for these kits is about $5k.

It looks like this:

In street-legal trim, this setup is running a maximum of 6 psi of boost, and it should be noted that it requires 91 octane fuel.

Based on mostly common sense (/logic/business economics), it seems very likely (pending smog testing and certification) that the 4Runner version should be very similar if not identical.

More information can be found here (including installation manuals):

Toyota FJ Cruiser 1GR-FE 4.0L V6 Supercharger System

Hope the 4Runner version would get more than 305hp, unless that's 305rwhp.. It comes stock with a claimed 270.. 35hp for 5 grand? That is the epitome of polishing a turd.. 350 would be reasonable for 5 grand, but IMO someone would be stupid to drop $5k for 35hp.

 

[Sound_SS]

The 4.0 in the Tacoma and fj were something like 40 hp less than a stock 4Runner now. They are not going to bother selling this kit if it only adds 30-40 hp........obviously no one would buy it. Just be patient for the numbers to come out

 

[wfo9]

Yea, no new info in these last few posts... We have all known about the 1gr non dual VVTI version and the numbers it makes.

But there are differences that are very important.

One is obvious... Variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust cams. This allows for better power up in the higher RPM by by being able to advance both cams dynamically. Anyone who owns a 5th gen can feel it kicking in...

But there is more internal stuff that is relevant to forced induction... First one that jumps out is compression ratio (10.4:1 versus 10.0:1). Not a huge difference, but boost is all about adding to the dynamic compression ratio, so the higher you start statically the less room you have to play with before detonation becomes a problem.

Here are some additional differences I have mostly copied from an article.

For the dual VVT-i 1GR-FE engine, the surface cross-hatching of the cylinder liner was optimised to improve oil retention performance, thereby reducing friction. Furthermore, cylinder block water jacket spacers were added to the water jacket. The cylinder block water jacket spacers prevented water flow in the middle and below the water jacket, and drew coolant above the cylinder bore for uniform temperature distribution. As a result, the viscosity of the engine oil that acted as a lubricant between the bore walls and the pistons could be lowered, thus reducing friction.

For the dual VVT-i 1GR-FE engine, a five balance weight crankshaft was introduced (as per the 2GR-FE); the locations of the balance weights were optimized to reduce vibration and noise.

The 1GR-FE engine had aluminium alloy pistons which had a ‘taper squish’ shape for the piston head. Furthermore, the groove of the top piston ring was coated with anodic oxide to improve wear resistance and rust resistance, while the piston skirt was coated with resin to reduce friction. Oil-cooling jets under the pistons acted to reduce piston temperatures.

For the higher compression ratio of the dual VVT-i 1GR-FE engine (10.4:1 versus 10.0:1), the shape of the pistons was optimized. To reduce weight, cast holes were added on the bottom of the piston head near the pin bosses. The outer surfaces of the second compression ring were also plated with chrome to be compatible with petrol/ethanol blends.

The 1GR-FE engine had an aluminium alloy cylinder head with steel laminate-type head gaskets. To increase the sealing surface for better durability, a shim was added around the cylinder bore. For the dual VVT-i 1GR-FE engine, the structure of the cylinder head was simplified by separating the camshaft housing (cam journal portion) from the cylinder head.

I could not find any info stating the rods were different in the dual VVTI motor. Although I have heard this before. below is the info about the rods:
The 1GR-FE engine had forged connecting rods which used aluminium bearings; for an optimal amount of oil clearance, the lining surface of the connecting rod bearing was micro-grooved. The connecting rods and caps were made of high-strength steel and nutless-type plastic region tightening bolts were used to reduce mass. Furthermore, knock pins were used at the mating surfaces of the bearing caps to minimise movement during assembly.


So, what does all this mean? Not sure. The dual VVTI clearly has more power potential, but The holes in the piston structure + higher compression ratio could make them weaker and more prone to problems under boost.

In fact... there were rumors that a durability test done by TRD on the original dual VVTI motor stopped the program. Not sure how accurate this was, but it sort of makes sense. However, their level of testing was probably very extreme and unrealistic. Plus, they could have just had the tuning wrong and gave up, since the direction of TRD was changing to a trim shop vs a performance shop....

Bottom line, we are just guessing at this point. I think 25-30% increase in peak numbers is a good bet. However, the drivability pleasure increase should be more like 100%. Torque curve should be very flat and satisfying not to mention the removal of the most retarded throttle mapping ever programmed into an ECU.