It's either the R1900 or R2300 which adds 1.9L or 2.3L, respectively.
So the addition of the blower essentialy makes the 5.7 an 8L engine?
Thats pretty wicked and definetly has my mind working, when I get some spare cash do I want a bike, another skyline or a trd blower hmmm
The biggest draw back though for me is that with 6" of lift it sure doesnt corner well and I love to canyon carve lol
So the addition of the blower essentialy makes the 5.7 an 8L engine?
Thats pretty wicked and definetly has my mind working, when I get some spare cash do I want a bike, another skyline or a trd blower hmmm
The biggest draw back though for me is that with 6" of lift it sure doesnt corner well and I love to canyon carve lol
No, the supercharger increases the plenum volume, not the volume of the cylinders.
__________________
2007 Tundra 5.7 6-spd 2wd
Silver, double cab, short bed
TRD package
All the air in the cylinders are eventually filled + a certain amount of additional pressure just like atmospheric pressure. If it's cylinder's contain an additional 8PSI before the compression stroke then it's not much unlike having a cylinder with a to scale larger bore and stroke. It would have over half an atmosphere more air making the displacement of the 5.7L act a lot like a similarly flowing and to scale 8.8L engine(at sea level, larger VS naturally aspirated at higher elevations).
293HP from 5.7L = 51.40HP at the rear wheels per Liter
466HP from 8.8L = 52.95HP at the rear wheels per Liter
Sounds about right to me!
__________________
2007 Toyota Tundra 4X2
5.7L Regular Cab/Short Bed
Sport package two seater
All manufacturers state HP at the crank. Toyota's rating of 381 HP is SAE certified at the crank. 293 HP at the wheels is a 24% reduction in power from 381 which should be about right for the drivetrain loss on this truck given the mods I have done.
The new Dodge Ram is stated to have 390 HP so it probably puts down 290-300 hp at the wheels...
I think some of the 24% loss is the difference is the altitude loss. Typical HP loss at 6000ft is 18-20% loss compared to see level.
I think some of the 24% loss is the difference is the altitude loss. Typical HP loss at 6000ft is 18-20% loss compared to see level.
How many times do I have to explain this?? The 293 is corrected to sea level. The 24% loss is parasitic loss. Uncorrected or at altitude it was putting down about 180hp before the S/C. We correct everything to sea level to compare apples to apples. If I were to drive to sea level and dyno again I would be making 293 hp corrected AND uncorrected.
Thats 4wd too. A 2wd would be more to the rear wheels too. Some 2wd are getting over 320 to the rear wheels.
Humm,,, is there that much loss in the transfercase even when it is not in 4x4??? It is just a pass through when it is not selected into 4x4 right??
The 4x4 is going to give the better launch though! :
__________________
2007 RCSB 5.7 4x4 Black Sport
Tundra Racing 2/5 Drop, TRD Brakes, Wheels, Swaybar, Exhaust
Morel Elate 3 Way Speakers, Alpine PDX amplifiers, Phoenix Gold Ti 15" Subwoofer in custom enclosure, K40 Laser/Radar Detector, Seat Rail Modification, Back up Camera, Full LED Interior upgrade from VLEDS.com, Homelink Rear View Mirror, http://s116.photobucket.com/albums/o4/sq60ss/
Dont know exact numbers of loss but side by side I have run RCSB 4X4s and smoked them. But when it comes to a SC you sure would be able to put that HP to the ground MUCH better than 2wd. Ever seen an all wheel drive SS Trailblazer launch? Dont forget the 4X4 weighs more too. Yes there is a loss even when not engaged.
~20% is an approximate drivetrain loss for vehicles, and is going to be different on all cars. Its kinda like taking a average.
Obviously vehicles(like the tundra) with larger diameter/heavier tires, larger brakes, larger driveshafts,bigger differentials, transmissions, etc. are going to have more drivetrain loss than say a manual transmission honda civic. Just the nature of the beast.
With that being said his drivetrain loss seems pretty darn accurate, as he stated he does have larger tires. As well as my experiences from having my truck dyno tuned as well. My truck also dyno'd 293 to rear wheels before tuning with similar bolt ons (no forced induction). Not sure what kind of dyno either but mine was on a mustang which was corrected, meaning it should dyno the ~same regardless of the day of the year or location as long as mod's remain the same. I have dyno graph in my albums.
On the plus side mustang dynos typically read 10% lower, so if that is taken into account we would of had less drivetrain loss.
Great numbers by the way! I am impressed....and must admit jealous .
I would say the truck would definitely be good for low 13's with traction if not 12's. See member beboff in 1/4 mile thread for his numbers for comparison. Definitely better than 14's though, my truck ran a 14.4 with much less power.
Mods-True Flow XDI intake, DT tri-Y headers, 2 magna flow hi-flow cats, custom y pipe with crossover, Corsa Sport side exit exhaust, UniChip custom tune.
~20% is an approximate drivetrain loss for vehicles, and is going to be different on all cars. Its kinda like taking a average.
Obviously vehicles(like the tundra) with larger diameter/heavier tires, larger brakes, larger driveshafts,bigger differentials, transmissions, etc. are going to have more drivetrain loss than say a manual transmission honda civic. Just the nature of the beast.
With that being said his drivetrain loss seems pretty darn accurate, as he stated he does have larger tires. As well as my experiences from having my truck dyno tuned as well. My truck also dyno'd 293 to rear wheels before tuning with similar bolt ons (no forced induction). Not sure what kind of dyno either but mine was on a mustang which was corrected, meaning it should dyno the ~same regardless of the day of the year or location as long as mod's remain the same. I have dyno graph in my albums.
On the plus side mustang dynos typically read 10% lower, so if that is taken into account we would of had less drivetrain loss.
Great numbers by the way! I am impressed....and must admit jealous .
I would say the truck would definitely be good for low 13's with traction if not 12's. See member beboff in 1/4 mile thread for his numbers for comparison. Definitely better than 14's though, my truck ran a 14.4 with much less power.
Right on just about all accounts. Thanks for the compliments! I'm just hoping to hit mid 14's here at Bandimere!!
Re: TRD 5.7L Supercharger - Dyno Test & Tune
.
Linear Mode
