Magnuson Supercharger for 2010-Present & 2010-2014 FJ

[npottala]

I had a Magnuson SC installed only my 2014 Limited.
So far so good. Here are some of my thoughts:
Overall I'm happy with it. Love the "vacuum cleaner" sound when I punch it.
Gas mileage not too bad. Loss of about 1mpg if driven hard. I do have to put premium now. No mpg loss when driving Miss Daisy. It will not beat a Porsche on a drag race, but can definitely feel extra power.
No issues (so far). Mechanically speaking. Is it a must get? No. But if you have the funds and enjoy the additional power, go for it. It works. FWIW, I don't go around hot rodding, but I don't hesitate to punch when I need/want to.
SC was installed by 4WheelParts of Norcross, GA. Excellent work.

What's your experience with traveling down the interstate at 70-75MPH? I was curious if the SC gets rid of the constant shift from 5 to 4 and back? I have the OK from my wife to place my order so looking for more feedback.

Thanks.

 

[guitarsail]

What's your experience with traveling down the interstate at 70-75MPH? I was curious if the SC gets rid of the constant shift from 5 to 4 and back? I have the OK from my wife to place my order so looking for more feedback.

Thanks.

That would require a re-gear really. The axles are just too tall really.

 

[Havik]

I can tell you that my 4Runner no longer hunts for gears on the highway. That was one of the biggest improvements with this supercharger. Of course, my 4Runner is far from stock with 35" tires, 4.88 gears, and a whole lot of extra weight.

 

[charlatan]

Sounds like the conditions that are required almost dictate you buy a different vehicle. It's only a conundrum if you make it one.

I appreciate your input... but it wouldn't be a conundrum if there were no SC option for the 4runner. With it, I think I'd get the passing and climbing power I need for the Colorado mountains.

I go back and forth on GX460 / Nissan Titan (straight up V8s), but damn the 4runner is the vehicle of choice in every other respect (as long as I have heated seats ).

Anyone in Colorado running the Magnuson? I guess the main concern running it and driving the mountains is the wear / tear on the drivetrain... the hills here are not easy on any vehicle.

 

[Jetboy]

I appreciate your input... but it wouldn't be a conundrum if there were no SC option for the 4runner. With it, I think I'd get the passing and climbing power I need for the Colorado mountains.

I go back and forth on GX460 / Nissan Titan (straight up V8s), but damn the 4runner is the vehicle of choice in every other respect (as long as I have heated seats ).

Anyone in Colorado running the Magnuson? I guess the main concern running it and driving the mountains is the wear / tear on the drivetrain... the hills here are not easy on any vehicle.

If you want to go fast - there are a lot of better vehicles. With respect to elevation compensation, turbos are better than superchargers. Superchargers are not dynamic in that capacity.

At high elevation the power output is lower, both with and without a supercharger. Peak torque is what matters most in terms of drive line stress. If you estimate 3% per 1000 feet of elevation loss, you'd estimate something like 278 ft/lb being 235 ft/lb by 5,000 ft. If the S/C has 400 ft/lb at sea level, you'd also expect that to be more like 340 by 5000 ft. That's basically the same as the GX has at sea level. At 8000 ft the S/C torque is only around 304 ft/lb. That's not far off from the stock 278. And it's less than the sea level tq from the 4.6L in the GX that uses the same drive train in most part.

The point is that at higher elevation the majority of the added power from the supercharger is erasing the elevation deficit. You're not going a lot further into positive gains over what the N/A motor has at sea level. So the drive train should be just fine.

 

[shakazulu12]

What I am most curious about is whether it holds overdrive on the highway at 70 MPH or so. Honestly, they acceleration in day to day traffic is fine on the stock motor to me. But the constant gear hunting on road trips with a cargo box on top is insanely annoying. I'm coming from a 2005 GX470, and while it will downshift on really steep grades at altitude, it pretty much just sits in 5th the rest of the time until I need to pass. I swapped for nearly a month with a friend who had a 2014 limited and the transmission behavior on the highway was really annoying. I know I'm being nitpicky on this, but it really got to me.

I would like to get a 5th Gen as I hate the way the GX460 looks, the third row and I'm sick of the rear door opening. But my reservations on power are holding me back. Unfortunately, there are almost no other options out there that have all the other attributes of size, capability and build quality.

 

[sn_85]

If you want to go fast - there are a lot of better vehicles. With respect to elevation compensation, turbos are better than superchargers. Superchargers are not dynamic in that capacity.

At high elevation the power output is lower, both with and without a supercharger. Peak torque is what matters most in terms of drive line stress. If you estimate 3% per 1000 feet of elevation loss, you'd estimate something like 278 ft/lb being 235 ft/lb by 5,000 ft. If the S/C has 400 ft/lb at sea level, you'd also expect that to be more like 340 by 5000 ft. That's basically the same as the GX has at sea level. At 8000 ft the S/C torque is only around 304 ft/lb. That's not far off from the stock 278. And it's less than the sea level tq from the 4.6L in the GX that uses the same drive train in most part.

The point is that at higher elevation the majority of the added power from the supercharger is erasing the elevation deficit. You're not going a lot further into positive gains over what the N/A motor has at sea level. So the drive train should be just fine.

I won't get into numbers and specs since that is not my thing and I'm not knowledgeable enough on topic to get into that. I'll compare my experience from my gf's 2nd gen Taco with the TRD SC and my 5th Gen 4R. I live at 5,550ft and drive to about 6,600ft daily for work. In my 4R I'll frequently need to drop to 3rd gear to pass a Semi or gain speed going up the mountain. Usually will hit around 4k rpm on 3rd gear. I try to keep it in 4th gear as much as possible but will get a dead peddle feeling and drop it into 3rd when I need to climb.

In the 2nd Gen Taco with the TRD SC it never seems to struggle. I don't get the dead peddle feeling. Can easily climb and accelerate from 2-3k rpm. I mean it is effortless. I press the gas and it climbs on demand. It's really quite nice and smooth.

Now that's "only" at 6,600ft and I'm sure there are some areas in Colorado which are much higher. But after driving with a TRD SC it sure has me thinking Magnuson...

 

[Jetboy]

I don't think there's any question a SC engine will produce more power than the NA version at every elevation. It will unless something is wrong with it.

The question was regarding the stress on the drive train. A SC engine at elevation, while certainly making more power than the NA engine may not make more power than the NA engine does at sea level. The drive train doesn't get weaker at elevation. So the loading on the drive train is significantly reduced at elevation. Sometimes even below that of the NA engine when used at sea level. As a result you have less to worry about drive train wise at elevation than you might at sea level.

What's often ignored is the specific fuel consumption map. Is a SC more efficient at producing 200hp than the NA engine? Hard to say without comparing maps. For a Toyota tuning engineer - this map is far more informative than a dyno graph.

 

[Charlievee]

New to the thread and working in reading all of it, but does anyone know what the stock internal rotating assembly is made out of in motors? How much boost can they take?

 

[Jetboy]

New to the thread and working in reading all of it, but does anyone know what the stock internal rotating assembly is made out of in motors? How much boost can they take?

I don't think any engines are made anymore that aren't forged cranks. I don't know off the top of my head about rods or pistons. I don't think anyone is pushing enough boost to have found the limit yet. I suspect the compression is the limiting factor and you can't run enough boost to damage the internals without first detonation happening first and destroying the pistons. And no-one I know of is currently modifying these engines with shorter strokes or shorter rods to drop the compression enough to find out.

The URD supercharger is setup to let you find out what the limit is and whether I'm right about the compression being the limiting factor.

Practically about 400hp 400tq seems to be a ballpark estimate of the safe limit with a supercharger. I'm not aware of any turbo systems, but you'd generally expect another 50-80hp with the same boost given the lower parasitic loss compared to the SC.

For a point of reference the supercharged IS350's with a very close cousin to the 4Runner engine are running as high as 9psi and making around 450rwhp, so over 500hp at the crank. But that doesn't work on pump gas. You need a higher ethanol blend with high octane. On pump gas they're limited to about 410 rwhp.

If you need more I think a LC200 would would be a more cost effective choice. The TRD SC will work, produce 550+hp and you can buy used ones in the $35k range plus the cost of the SC. And they have a drive train that can handle the power.

 

[Charlievee]

Well, if I was to talk mustang then it would depend on the model. Cobras are forged internals, Machs are cast cranks with cast rods. I have not seen seen a yota with more than a 6lbs pulley listed. That's why I ask

 

[Jetboy]

Well, if I was to talk mustang then it would depend on the model. Cobras are forged internals, Machs are cast cranks with cast rods. I have not seen seen a yota with more than a 6lbs pulley listed. That's why I ask

Toyota likes to forge stuff. Most current engines are forged crank and rods. Aluminum pistons. 6 bolt main bearings. And wide bore spacing with water jackets between the cylinders. The 4runner has 10.4:1 compression. They have a lot of power potential. With pistons and lower compression they could probably take a lot of boost. But as they are the compression and lack of the direct injection cooling I think 5-6 psi is the max.

I'd love to have a few engines to blow up and see what they can take!

 

[charlatan]

I won't get into numbers and specs since that is not my thing and I'm not knowledgeable enough on topic to get into that. I'll compare my experience from my gf's 2nd gen Taco with the TRD SC and my 5th Gen 4R. I live at 5,550ft and drive to about 6,600ft daily for work. In my 4R I'll frequently need to drop to 3rd gear to pass a Semi or gain speed going up the mountain. Usually will hit around 4k rpm on 3rd gear. I try to keep it in 4th gear as much as possible but will get a dead peddle feeling and drop it into 3rd when I need to climb.

In the 2nd Gen Taco with the TRD SC it never seems to struggle. I don't get the dead peddle feeling. Can easily climb and accelerate from 2-3k rpm. I mean it is effortless. I press the gas and it climbs on demand. It's really quite nice and smooth.

Now that's "only" at 6,600ft and I'm sure there are some areas in Colorado which are much higher. But after driving with a TRD SC it sure has me thinking Magnuson...

That's great to know, and is kind of what I'd expect with the SC. I don't need it to be off the line fast, but I need it to pull around the heavy I-70 commercial traffic... on a 7% grade no less.

If you want to go fast - there are a lot of better vehicles. With respect to elevation compensation, turbos are better than superchargers. Superchargers are not dynamic in that capacity.

At high elevation the power output is lower, both with and without a supercharger. Peak torque is what matters most in terms of drive line stress. If you estimate 3% per 1000 feet of elevation loss, you'd estimate something like 278 ft/lb being 235 ft/lb by 5,000 ft. If the S/C has 400 ft/lb at sea level, you'd also expect that to be more like 340 by 5000 ft. That's basically the same as the GX has at sea level. At 8000 ft the S/C torque is only around 304 ft/lb. That's not far off from the stock 278. And it's less than the sea level tq from the 4.6L in the GX that uses the same drive train in most part.

The point is that at higher elevation the majority of the added power from the supercharger is erasing the elevation deficit. You're not going a lot further into positive gains over what the N/A motor has at sea level. So the drive train should be just fine.

Thanks! I don't want to go fast... I want torque! Climbing. I don't plan on towing anything either, but it'd be full to the gills with gear and humans.

What I am most curious about is whether it holds overdrive on the highway at 70 MPH or so. Honestly, they acceleration in day to day traffic is fine on the stock motor to me. But the constant gear hunting on road trips with a cargo box on top is insanely annoying. I'm coming from a 2005 GX470, and while it will downshift on really steep grades at altitude, it pretty much just sits in 5th the rest of the time until I need to pass. I swapped for nearly a month with a friend who had a 2014 limited and the transmission behavior on the highway was really annoying. I know I'm being nitpicky on this, but it really got to me.

I would like to get a 5th Gen as I hate the way the GX460 looks, the third row and I'm sick of the rear door opening. But my reservations on power are holding me back. Unfortunately, there are almost no other options out there that have all the other attributes of size, capability and build quality.

I kinda like the look of the newer 460's, but they're not like 'wow cool'. Yet another reason I like the 4runner. FWIW, nearly everyone in Denver that I've asked - to a person - responds with "I wish it had more power." Colorado just exacerbates the issue.

I don't think there's any question a SC engine will produce more power than the NA version at every elevation. It will unless something is wrong with it.

The question was regarding the stress on the drive train. A SC engine at elevation, while certainly making more power than the NA engine may not make more power than the NA engine does at sea level. The drive train doesn't get weaker at elevation. So the loading on the drive train is significantly reduced at elevation. Sometimes even below that of the NA engine when used at sea level. As a result you have less to worry about drive train wise at elevation than you might at sea level.

What's often ignored is the specific fuel consumption map. Is a SC more efficient at producing 200hp than the NA engine? Hard to say without comparing maps. For a Toyota tuning engineer - this map is far more informative than a dyno graph.

Thanks for the info!

 

[eHaze]

Will installing a pedal commander or like product require a different tune/map file from Magnuson?

 

[Jetboy]

Will installing a pedal commander or like product require a different tune/map file from Magnuson?

I'm sure someone with one will tell you more, but part of the magnuson tune probably remaps the throttle and I think the performance is going to be so much better off idle that you won't need a pedal commander type device.

 

[eHaze]

you'd think they would roll it into the tune just to get a little extra pop out of the package.

 

[Jetboy]

The throttle response is all part of the ECU. Magnuson can tune it any way they want. So they can make the tune do anything the pedal commanders do within the tune. The pedal commander type products are a work around because they can't tune the ECU. The ECU tune is the ideal way to fix it.

 

[eHaze]

i'm going off the posts that [MENTION=106176]wfo9[/MENTION] made in this thread and this post exactly: http://www.toyota-4runner.org/5th-gen-t4rs/249785-urd-maf-sensor-calibrator-5.html#post2935391

yes, the SC provides plenty of power, but a little more never hurts.

 

[Havik]

Will installing a pedal commander or like product require a different tune/map file from Magnuson?

No, I have the pedal commander and am using the standard tune that comes with the Magnuson.

 

[wfo9]

i'm going off the posts that [MENTION=106176]wfo9[/MENTION] made in this thread and this post exactly: http://www.toyota-4runner.org/5th-gen-t4rs/249785-urd-maf-sensor-calibrator-5.html#post2935391

yes, the SC provides plenty of power, but a little more never hurts.

To be clear... the MAF calibrater is probably not something you want to run with the blower unless you really know what you are doing and plan to dial it in on a dyno... It is a tuning device.

As far as pedal commander.. sure you could run that with no issue. It just tricks your brain and makes no real difference on actual engine performance. The MAF calibrator does change engine performance because it is one of the main inputs to the ECU for fueling calcs. The pedal commander just makes the throttle input more sensitive giving the illusion of better drivability.