rayofsi
New member
i went from 13mpg to 16.8 after i put a centrifugal supercharger on my hemi..
i talk about that all the time.
Magnuson Supercharger for 2010-Present & 2010-2014 FJ
- Thread starter THESS
- Start date
i went from 13mpg to 16.8 after i put a centrifugal supercharger on my hemi..
i talk about that all the time.
Jetboy
New member
FIFY
MPG is why many of us bought a 4runner over an LC200 (that gets 15mpg and has 400hp/400tq). It's 190 miles from Ely Nevada to Tonopah. There are zero fuel stations between the two. At 12mpg you can probably make it. If you filled up in Elko - you wont make it. Want to go explore anywhere remote? Better add an auxiliary fuel tank because you probably won't be able to make it. Today I'm leaving to head down through cathedral valley overnight and then on to the Grand Staircase via bullfrog basin. If I were getting 12mpg I'd have to leave the trail half way and head about 30 miles out of the way to find gas in Escalante and then backtrack to get back on the trail. Just a few examples of places I've been this year where mpg is important. If your mall has a fuel station in the parking lot - you're probably good to go.
Scharfschütze
New member
No idea what you're talking about and don't care at this point. I'm looking forward to some more real world feed back, reviews and data. Since it doesn't seem like you are going to be jumping on the SC train, you should probably concentrate your energy elsewhere.
Last edited:
wfo9
New member
I can see you are not going to let this go.. the problem is.. you are taking bits and pieces of valid scientific info and making a sandwich of confusion. The entire system and context has to be considered.
To clarify... yes a NA motor is more efficient. In fact, a tiny little 4 cylinder running at steady load would be the most efficient engine possible for mpg in our 4runners. You could get amazing MPG even in the pig brick that it is... Problem is.. we don't have constant load and need things to vary drastically and get driveability. That is the reason forced induction makes sense in many applications...you get the efficiency of the smaller displacement under light loads, with the benefit of more output only when needed. This is the driving force behind all modern internal combustion efficiency improvements (be it cylinder deactivation or spark controlled compression ignition...)
I won't even attempt to suggest that a super charger is more efficient than a turbo.. because physics dictate that is false. I also won't suggest that a supercharger is more efficient than NA, because that is also false. What I will suggest is that a supercharger of this design will have no significant impact on mpg under light loads and normal driving conditions in traffic. Why? because it is basically not doing much of anything. Simple as that. There could even be a minor increase.. but it would just be a side effect of the system as a whole and not really a true improvement in efficiency.
Now you can keep going... but please go read about others experiences first. Start with the Tundra and FJ forums since they are all Toyota's of similar nature running the same basic kit. If you still think MPG will drop in normal diving conditions.. wait for some data on this exact platform.
I'm not sure what your goal is with all this talk, but I really feel it is confusing people. I think anyone in their right mind knows more output = more fuel burned. But let's not throw in same output = more fuel burned. That may be technically true under some conditions... but all that matters in the end is final result and this is not really breaking new ground....
Last edited:
Jetboy
New member
You're right. In this case the throttle body is upstream of the supercharger. But it'll still be compressing 95%+ of the time at highway speeds because the manifold pressure will be low and the bypass will be partially closed. We already know that manifold pressure is low based on the OBD2 output. It's not going to be anything like a Tundra supercharger that's rarely into the boost. This is easy to measure and prove either way. Just measure manifold pressure downstream of the SC with and without.
wfo9
New member
You seem to be using 80mph as some benchmark for hwy speed. Is that what most people consider hwy speed. Honest question. I think EPA still uses an avg speed of 55 for their ratings.
Even out here in Texas where we have a few 80mph speed limit roads, I consider 65-75 the norm for all my hwy driving. I've gone over 80 a few times, but I don't consider that normal driving in the 4runner.
Bottom line I plan to do testing at mostly 65-75, but will see what 80 and 85 does just for info.
Sled Driver
New member
I'm guessing you don't live in Houston...
Jetboy
New member
Most of our highways are posted at 80 - traffic flow is somewhere around 85-90. At 80mph most semis, and almost all the cars and trucks will be passing you. Towing my camper at 70mph is like standing still out there. At least for me my 4runner cruises pretty well at 65. But by 80-85 it struggles. It rarely maintains 5th gear. It's also at higher altitude. With the camper I don't even try to use 5th gear. Empty it's hit or miss depending on any headwind. I've driven to Moab many times in 4th gear the whole way, 3rd gear up the hills.
I do think it's at least possible for the SC to increase mileage, but I think it would - at least for me - be the result of fixing an overworked undersized engine. Not so much bypassing the screws, but rather using them most of the time. It's just not enough engine for comfortable cruising at that speed with anything more than bone stock setup. I love the idea of the SC.
kags1969
New member
Texas here as well. I go 80-85 when I can get away with it.
Crocket
Member
Jetboy, awesome replies man! Professional, courteous and while some may argue (in vain) to the contrary, very logical! Keep it up as it bods well for the 4Runner scene and this forum.
Superwhite17
New member
:snacker:
Scharfschütze
New member
Yeah, I'm done. This is a dumpster fire once again.
chajeesaki
New member
hi [MENTION=139149]THESS[/MENTION], thanks for sharing your experience with your new MAG SC! Man i'm so jealous! i own a 16 sr5, i'm not happy with the factory power it has. don't get me wrong, it runs great 4x4 off-roading, but its gutless. at stop signs and street lights i'm always stepping it to get it going. my MPG is 9mpg. i live 5 ,mins away from work, the runner does't have enough time to warm up. but the main question is, can it burn rubber? will it break loose those tires? Can it boil the rear tires?? post a video or pic of you smoking the tires! that'd be great to see it smoking the tires! im sure everyone else would too. haha
meRockboost
New member
This thread took a turn and went full retard.
Never go full retard.
Never go full retard.
Too many know it all's, jet boy and the ghost of 1engineer . Please don't smell up this thread for all of us please . There are many of us that are seriously interested in this. We don't want to scare away the vendor or people who have actual knowledge and can give us actual feedback that can be helpful not your armchair supercharger warrior experts. Please don't respond to this, I don't care its not personal. I'm only here about the supercharger info trying to keep this thread from being closed.
1engineer
Moderator
I have no interest in this thread other than to keep it civil please.
-mod-
Oh, nobody can break the laws of Thermo. They just can't.
