You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Forced Induction SystemsDetailed discussions regarding cold-air intake systens, superchargers, turbo chargers, and other induction systems for your vehicle.
This is a discussion thread titled "TRD Supercharger", within the Forced Induction Systems forum, part of the Technical & Vehicle Assistance Forums category.
Well I'll just make this prediction, if they do offer a supercharger for the 5.7L it will require 91 octane for a couple of reasons.
First if they want to make any useful power gains with it they will have to raise manifold pressure over 5psi, combine that with 10.2:1 compression and you have a serious risk of detonation with lower grade fuel.
Second if they don't spec 91 octane or better fuel the engine won't make the desired power due to retarding the timing to avoid detonation.
Third Toyota will look at 91 octane as cheap insurance against detonation problems even if the engine could survive lower octane fuel under most normal driving conditions.
Fourth specifying 91 octane would also give Toyota a way to deny more warranty claims based on fuel grade.
As far as fuel economy on a forced induction gasser, well that's not good news I am afraid. In order to avoid running lean, which can also cause detonation the engine will need to burn more fuel to keep a stoichiometeric air to fuel ratio. More air going in, means more fuel, even if you don't want it. That is the bad thing about a positive displacement supercharger, if the crank is turning over x number of rpms y amount of boost is being produced requiring z amount of fuel. Diesels do not suffer this, as they can run lean with no detonation issues even thought they can also deal with lots of boost.
Sure, BUT I had a NA Supercrew and it's mpg was CRAP compared to a Tundra, so if a SC Tundra is still better than my SC Harley 'Screw then I'm still in the thinking stage
__________________
2007 CM Ltd. Nav/Roof,loaded (Nautical Blue)
2007 DC TRD JBL/Camera, TRD Dual Exhaust/TRD CAI (Super White)
Sure, BUT I had a NA Supercrew and it's mpg was CRAP compared to a Tundra, so if a SC Tundra is still better than my SC Harley 'Screw then I'm still in the thinking stage
With any luck for all the guys waiting for this the economy won't be horrible, but it will not be as good as the naturally aspirated unit.
It could still be really descent if Toyota were to use direct injection on this engine, introducing fuel at the last instant like a diesel would help avoid detonation issues not only for lower grade fuel, but also for lean running with boost.
Well I'll just make this prediction, if they do offer a supercharger for the 5.7L it will require 91 octane for a couple of reasons.
First if they want to make any useful power gains with it they will have to raise manifold pressure over 5psi, combine that with 10.2:1 compression and you have a serious risk of detonation with lower grade fuel.
Second if they don't spec 91 octane or better fuel the engine won't make the desired power due to retarding the timing to avoid detonation.
Third Toyota will look at 91 octane as cheap insurance against detonation problems even if the engine could survive lower octane fuel under most normal driving conditions.
Fourth specifying 91 octane would also give Toyota a way to deny more warranty claims based on fuel grade.
As far as fuel economy on a forced induction gasser, well that's not good news I am afraid. In order to avoid running lean, which can also cause detonation the engine will need to burn more fuel to keep a stoichiometeric air to fuel ratio. More air going in, means more fuel, even if you don't want it. That is the bad thing about a positive displacement supercharger, if the crank is turning over x number of rpms y amount of boost is being produced requiring z amount of fuel. Diesels do not suffer this, as they can run lean with no detonation issues even thought they can also deal with lots of boost.
I think it's a no-brainer that any forced induction WILL require 91 + octane. There is no question about it.
__________________
07 Tundra DC SR5 5.7L
20" Carved Wheels
TRD Package
TRD Cold Air Intake
TRD Sway Bar
Why would I try to pick up 1,000 pounds of fertilizer with a sports car? That is what a truck is for. Driving in a spirited manner is what sports cars are for..
LOL............you just won't give up. So having a truck that will do 70%+ of what a sports car will do while driving in a "spirited manner" and maybe 90% in a straight line when a sports car will do 0% of what a truck will due for utility doesn't appeal to you............I think we all get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coal Dragger
I don't have anything against modding a truck, I just don't see any point in trying to take a truck and turn it into a sports car.
And who here has said that's what they want to do???
And now you're harping on 91 octane.......I may have missed it, but has anyone ever doubted that???
Heck, even a lot of N/A gassers have to run on premium.....the Denali I believe is one of them.
I would be a little more worried if the Tundra required 91 n/a....it doesn't so the upgrade to 91 will allow more compression......forced or otherwise.
You have such a diesel fetish......again, since you won't listen, nobody HERE wants that platform. You keep talking about handling and sports cars and blah, blah, blah....well, that diesel is gonna be even farther away from what you accuse the 1/2 ton to be.
You don't want anyone to S/C their gasser because it won't ever perform like a sports car.....yet bombing a diesel is so much better????
None of us know what the limits of the Toy bottom ends are.....I promise you the Ford Lightning bottom was as stock as they come. (that motor can see 450Hp at the wheels.....over 500 at the crank.....before the stock rods quit)
The S/C 4.6 Cobras used the same bottom end as a n/a Cobra.......500Hp is not uncommon.
The Current 4.6 Ford is very reliable blown with modest amounts of boost (just like I predict the Toy will be)
__________________
'07 Cmax, SR5, 4X4, 5.7......'01 Ford F-250 Crew Cab, V10.....'95 T-100, 2.7L......and about 10 other vehicles that I don't want to bore you with.
Last edited by Time4change; 10-10-2007 at 04:13 AM.
And now you're harping on 91 octane.......I may have missed it, but has anyone ever doubted that???
Heck, even a lot of N/A gassers have to run on premium.....the Denali I believe is one of them.
I would be a little more worried if the Tundra required 91 n/a....it doesn't so the upgrade to 91 will allow more compression......forced or otherwise.
None of us know what the limits of the Toy bottom ends are.....I promise you the Ford Lightning bottom was as stock as they come. (that motor can see 450Hp at the wheels.....over 500 at the crank.....before the stock rods quit)
The S/C 4.6 Cobras used the same bottom end as a n/a Cobra.......500Hp is not uncommon.
The Current 4.6 Ford is very reliable blown with modest amounts of boost (just like I predict the Toy will be)
I don't have anything against 91 octane, that is all I can burn in my current car. I don't like the price, but then again I don't like the price of standard grade gas either. Does anyone?
I was merely addressing a concern another member had about whether or not a supercharger would mean premium fuel, and greater fuel consumption. The answer is yes to the first, and maybe (probably) to the second. Sorry you are so butt hurt over someone daring to point out the downsides to your supercharger fetish. (ha ha ha couldn't resist accusing you of a fetish).
FYI just so you know a little bit more about the bottom ends of the supercharged Fords you cited; the F-150 Lightning used 8.4:1 compression where a stock NA 5.4L uses 9.8:1 compression. That is quite a difference.
Another mistake you make is in claiming the compression ratio for the supercharged 4.6L was the same as the NA 4.6L. The supercharged 4.6L runs 8.4:1 stock, and the NA 4.6L runs 10.25:1 stock. Again quite a difference.
So what we see are the reliable factory supercharged units running reduced compression ratios to safely accommodate boost, not the same bottom ends you though they were. That is from the factory, if the bottom ends didn't need to be different do you think Ford would have spent the money to make them different? Probably not.
Like I have said, you might want to think twice about putting blowers on these high compression ratio NA motors.
Last edited by Coal Dragger; 10-10-2007 at 05:13 PM.
Like I have said, you might want to think twice about putting blowers on these high compression ratio NA motors.
A higher compression ratio engine requires more finess and carefull application of engine tuning to safely run a supercharger. This means you can't run quite as much boost as with a lower CR, but you can achieve better driveability and engine response from the already higher CR. In a low boost application you can get very efficient results from a street vehicle running a higher static CR, given the tuning parameters are correct and you use a higher octane fuel. Lower static CRs accomodate better volumetric efficiency in a higher psi boosted application, but tend to be rather slugish off the line. I know several types of higher CR engines that respond to superchargers very well. E46 M3s run over 10:1 N/A CRs and handle boost very well, as do VQ35 maximas and 350Zs. The trick is not to be too greedy about power gains and finding a reputable tuner.
__________________
2007 Tundra 5.7 4x2 RCSB slate metallic
2005 Corolla - all stock, cause it's the wifes
1986 Mustang GT - the stereo is under the hood
1990 Corolla - cause it was really cheap
A higher compression ratio engine requires more finess and carefull application of engine tuning to safely run a supercharger. This means you can't run quite as much boost as with a lower CR, but you can achieve better driveability and engine response from the already higher CR. In a low boost application you can get very efficient results from a street vehicle running a higher static CR, given the tuning parameters are correct and you use a higher octane fuel. Lower static CRs accomodate better volumetric efficiency in a higher psi boosted application, but tend to be rather slugish off the line. I know several types of higher CR engines that respond to superchargers very well. E46 M3s run over 10:1 N/A CRs and handle boost very well, as do VQ35 maximas and 350Zs. The trick is not to be too greedy about power gains and finding a reputable tuner.
I don't have anything against 91 octane, that is all I can burn in my current car. I don't like the price, but then again I don't like the price of standard grade gas either. Does anyone?
I was merely addressing a concern another member had about whether or not a supercharger would mean premium fuel, and greater fuel consumption. The answer is yes to the first, and maybe (probably) to the second. Sorry you are so butt hurt over someone daring to point out the downsides to your supercharger fetish. (ha ha ha couldn't resist accusing you of a fetish).
FYI just so you know a little bit more about the bottom ends of the supercharged Fords you cited; the F-150 Lightning used 8.4:1 compression where a stock NA 5.4L uses 9.8:1 compression. That is quite a difference.
Another mistake you make is in claiming the compression ratio for the supercharged 4.6L was the same as the NA 4.6L. The supercharged 4.6L runs 8.4:1 stock, and the NA 4.6L runs 10.25:1 stock. Again quite a difference.
So what we see are the reliable factory supercharged units running reduced compression ratios to safely accommodate boost, not the same bottom ends you though they were. That is from the factory, if the bottom ends didn't need to be different do you think Ford would have spent the money to make them different? Probably not.
Like I have said, you might want to think twice about putting blowers on these high compression ratio NA motors.
You are a very mixed up individual and while I was reading your babble with a grain of salt, I now doubt a lot of what you say.
Ummmm.......I NEVER said Ford's blown motors didn't run lower compression......I said they didn't do anything special to the "bottom end" which is what you have claimed many times needs to be addressed. Pistons and rings are "top end" pieces.
There is little difference between lower compression and higher boost and higher compression and lower boost.
The Lightning ran around 8 psi because of the lower compression....anyone with any sense can see that if you add a few points of C/R you HAVE to keep the boost down......5psi is what I predict for the Tundra (which is ironically what I ran on my S/C 502 powered boat which ran for 10 years without a hitch)
This thread is going in circles and you are on a one man crusade to save the world from ourselves..........The TRD supercharger will run low enough boost so as to be able to run pump 91 octane fuel and will inlude an ECM or other device to prevent destructive detonation at boost.
Unless you have a crystal ball, your reliability predictions are a 100% guess.
__________________
'07 Cmax, SR5, 4X4, 5.7......'01 Ford F-250 Crew Cab, V10.....'95 T-100, 2.7L......and about 10 other vehicles that I don't want to bore you with.
Last edited by Time4change; 10-11-2007 at 12:34 AM.
It's official, TRD is putting out a s/c for the 4.0 engine in the tacos and fj cruisers. Those engines also have high compression pistons 10.0:1 compared to our 10.2:1. They should be out in a couple weeks so we'll see how they hold up
You are a very mixed up individual and while I was reading your babble with a grain of salt, I now doubt a lot of what you say.
Ummmm.......I NEVER said Ford's blown motors didn't run lower compression......I said they didn't do anything special to the "bottom end" which is what you have claimed many times needs to be addressed. Pistons and rings are "top end" pieces.
There is little difference between lower compression and higher boost and higher compression and lower boost.
The Lightning ran around 8 psi because of the lower compression....anyone with any sense can see that if you add a few points of C/R you HAVE to keep the boost down......5psi is what I predict for the Tundra (which is ironically what I ran on my S/C 502 powered boat which ran for 10 years without a hitch)
This thread is going in circles and you are on a one man crusade to save the world from ourselves..........The TRD supercharger will run low enough boost so as to be able to run pump 91 octane fuel and will inlude an ECM or other device to prevent destructive detonation at boost.
Unless you have a crystal ball, your reliability predictions are a 100% guess.
If we have been going round and round about what encompasses the bottom end of an engine and what doesn't then no wonder we are not on the same page. I have always though (perhaps incorrectly) that the bottom end of an engine was everything bellow the heads to include pistons, rings, con-rods, crank, bearings, and caps. Well now we both agree that from the factory most forced induction engines run lower static compression ratios.
As I said before, I am not a big fan of TRD superchargers based on my observations of previous applications and my customer's unsatisfactory results with them. I wish everyone that will put one of these on their truck the best of luck. I am settled on buying a Tundra when the time comes, but will probably not do any forced induction on it, unless it comes from the factory with some sort of FI.
Re: TRD Supercharger
Linear Mode
