Toyota Tundra Forums banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
TNK....you are funny. You really think that there are no gains to be made by addiing a filter or intake without tuning??? There are some cases where intakes or filters make little difference but in most cases they make a small increase in power. In some cases up to 40+ hp in turbo applications.
For me is it not about money. I test most of the products that I sell. I am honest about what they do. I have the luxury of having my own dyno so anything that I say can be proven by real world numbers. As far as understanding what a performance increase is...I have built 1500HP cars that run 3.4l motors that came with 320 crank HP stock. IS that a performance increase in your opinion???
 

·
Tire Roasting Member
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
TNK....you are funny. You really think that there are no gains to be made by addiing a filter or intake without tuning??? There are some cases where intakes or filters make little difference but in most cases they make a small increase in power. In some cases up to 40+ hp in turbo applications.
For me is it not about money. I test most of the products that I sell. I am honest about what they do. I have the luxury of having my own dyno so anything that I say can be proven by real world numbers. As far as understanding what a performance increase is...I have built 1500HP cars that run 3.4l motors that came with 320 crank HP stock. IS that a performance increase in your opinion???
Good points. I agree with all of them.

Thanks for sharing your dyno info on the filter. I doubt I dyno with my True Flow I am getting, but I'll let you know if it feels any different...:tu:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,253 Posts
Here is a dyno with the drop in filter vs without.
Interesting. No change to peak torque in the display range, and honestly given the similarity of the runs I wouldn't be willing to claim any difference, personally. Were you able to record the numbers below 3100rpm?

TNK do you mind posting the results of your runs? I'm really interested to see how the engine responds at the base of the power curve, since Toyota's past truck engines lost power at the low end and gained at the high end with CAI and drop-in filters. If it doesn't change at all on the 5.7 then they've built a very well-behaved engine.

Thundra, as far as the filters...I've been running a True Flow for a couple years now, it's working out well. I haven't done any oil analyses so I can't say for certain but based on the throttle body it's equally as effective a filter as OEM paper, and much better than K&N's medium. No more gunk in the T/B or down the intake tube like the K&N had, and it does sound better :D. I'd recommend it...it's done a great job trapping sand and dust, it is foam, the oil is very different from the TRD and K&N oils...it's sticky, like the boogers it emulates. Not sure when/if someone will provide a map for a piggyback on the 5.7L but if you're planning on running forced induction, scavenging headers or anything else it's a great starting point.

BTW I might have been referring to you :p or then again I might not have been ;). Plenty of people in the 07 forum seem to have short fuses if anyone posts dissention...and I've noticed in general if I specifically get on people's cases they feel singled out, threatened, whatever, b/c of the Mod tag and then my input is useless...I'm not the HOFG or something :sleep:. I agree completely, post something good/useful or stay off the terminal. I've also noticed (as have plenty others) that some of the 07 forum crew is missing the difference between a discussion and an argument...someone writing something different than what you think isn't an argument, sometimes it's something you should consider as it may help you reach your goals or avoid mistakes others have made.

-Sean
 

·
Tire Roasting Member
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
...I'm really interested to see how the engine responds at the base of the power curve, since Toyota's past truck engines lost power at the low end and gained at the high end with CAI and drop-in filters. If it doesn't change at all on the 5.7 then they've built a very well-behaved engine.
I noticed this low end drop on the 4.7L 2UZ-FE engine in my 4Runner. After tuning the Air-Fuel ratios, specifically in the lower rpms, all and then some of the torque was gained back and the throttle response was MUCH better. :tu: Interestingly enough, leaning out or reducing fuel in these suffering zones helped the power. My theory is that the ECU was overcorrecting for the additional air at lower RPM, in effect riching out more than it should've been. Leaning to the correct (12.8:1) ratio really helped get the low end torque back, as well as getting a couple more ponies on the top end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
I noticed this low end drop on the 4.7L 2UZ-FE engine in my 4Runner. After tuning the Air-Fuel ratios, specifically in the lower rpms, all and then some of the torque was gained back and the throttle response was MUCH better. :tu: Interestingly enough, leaning out or reducing fuel in these suffering zones helped the power. My theory is that the ECU was overcorrecting for the additional air at lower RPM, in effect riching out more than it should've been. Leaning to the correct (12.8:1) ratio really helped get the low end torque back, as well as getting a couple more ponies on the top end.
COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC: What did you use to tune the 4.7? And since you have some experience, any expectations of tuning available for the 5.7?
 

·
Tire Roasting Member
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC: What did you use to tune the 4.7? And since you have some experience, any expectations of tuning available for the 5.7?
I used the Split Second PSC1-001, its basically a multi-purpose programmable signal calibrator. In the 4Runner I intercepted the signal from the O2 sensor, and using a wideband O2 sensor and a dyno, programmed offset voltages over an array or rpm segments to fine tune the air-fuel ratio. Basically, the ECU was getting an altered signal (voltage) from what it thought was the O2 sensor, but actually was the PSC. This voltage told the engine it was running overly rich (even at less moderate fuel settings) and it safely and effectively reduced the AFR's to around 12.8:1.

I do plan on dynoing the Tundra here before too long to get a baseline. I'd like to see what kind of numbers a full cold air intake make before buying one, but if that doesn't happen, I might be the guinea pig. After both are installed I do plan on tuning the AFR's on the dyno for the 5.7. I will probably use the same unit and process of tuning again because the PSC has a MAF sensor that can be used for supercharged applications which is what I plan on doing when TRD releases the S/C. After supercharging, however, I will be using the PSC to add fuel, not subtract it.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to make the same incremental gains in power on the 5.7 that I did on the 4.7 (very underrated and de-tuned in stock form in the 4Runner), because we all know Toyota has done a good job coaxing as much power from the 5.7 from the factory as reasonably possible, but I'm sure there is a little to be had -- I've seen some dyno sheets with stock AFR's and wow are they rich...:tu:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
Awesome. Be looking forward to when you get a chance to try that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,253 Posts
I noticed this low end drop on the 4.7L 2UZ-FE engine in my 4Runner. After tuning the Air-Fuel ratios, specifically in the lower rpms, all and then some of the torque was gained back and the throttle response was MUCH better. :tu: Interestingly enough, leaning out or reducing fuel in these suffering zones helped the power. My theory is that the ECU was overcorrecting for the additional air at lower RPM, in effect riching out more than it should've been. Leaning to the correct (12.8:1) ratio really helped get the low end torque back, as well as getting a couple more ponies on the top end.
Yeah, that's why I was hoping A/R or TNK had dyno data below 3K rpm, that's where the drop was most noticeable on the 2UZFE. After the ECU went open loop near the top of the power curve, the mix leaned out, and power came up, until the ECU extrapolated the closed loop numbers to open loop and ran the top end rich as well. A few of the guys put ram air to their engines, it dropped the low end torque until the trucks were chipped, then it came back with a vengeance.

I know this is getting off topic...

We used a Unichip IIRC to advance timing in closed loop, and completely remap the mixture in open loop, I don't remember if the chip affected a/f ratios the way the Split Second sounds like it does. The SS sounds like a more effective solution if that's the case.

Did the True Flow info help? Personally having run both I'd recommend their product over the K&N stuff, don't know how it compares to the stock filter but Amsoil, AEM, etc. filter similar to K&N...ie not well. They claim more flow than stock, if you need the additional flow, but like TNK mentioned the stock mill is drawing sufficient air through the stock filter.

Definately post up your work with the 5.7L...looking forward to seeing how well the SS works.

-Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
Let me just throw out this question, as its related. I dont know alot about the workings of an engine really. But isnt the fact the Tundra is an MAF controlled system good as far as adding CAI and exhaust? On dodges, they have a speed density system which hurts performance gains from the same. Seems to me giving it more air w/ less restriction and letting it exhale easier would equal gains in performance. I would think the ECU was set to correspond to the readings being sent to it via the MAF and o2s?
 

·
Tire Roasting Member
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Let me just throw out this question, as its related. I dont know alot about the workings of an engine really. But isnt the fact the Tundra is an MAF controlled system good as far as adding CAI and exhaust? On dodges, they have a speed density system which hurts performance gains from the same. Seems to me giving it more air w/ less restriction and letting it exhale easier would equal gains in performance. I would think the ECU was set to correspond to the readings being sent to it via the MAF and o2s?
I'm not sure I understand your question entirely, but yes, I do think that the system Toyota runs is a good platform to add mods to. The only question is, how much incremental power can you squeeze out of bolt ons?

I'm not too familiar with the speed density systems but with the MAF and the O2's, as far as tuning the AFR, you can get power bone stock just by leaning closer to the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. That means really trimming back the fuel. With the bolt on mods like CAI, and exhaust, you can flow more air easier and this allows more fuel to be added (hence more power) while keeping the more powerful, leaner air-fuel ratio.

Hope that helps...:tu:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
I'm not sure I understand your question entirely, but yes, I do think that the system Toyota runs is a good platform to add mods to. The only question is, how much incremental power can you squeeze out of bolt ons?

I'm not too familiar with the speed density systems but with the MAF and the O2's, as far as tuning the AFR, you can get power bone stock just by leaning closer to the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. That means really trimming back the fuel. With the bolt on mods like CAI, and exhaust, you can flow more air easier and this allows more fuel to be added (hence more power) while keeping the more powerful, leaner air-fuel ratio.

Hope that helps...:tu:
So, are you saying that you think Toyota has squeezed most all the power out of the 5.7 possible?

It was my understanding that an MAF system used its sensors to read the air flow input and how much was exiting and adjusted the fuel map accordingly, whereas the speed density system measured the air density and had preset charts that it forced the engine to adhere to thereby negating much gains by CAI/exhaust w/o tuning. I know the MAF wouldnt have the tune to allow for optimum performance, but still better than stock.

Thanks for the info.
 

·
Tire Roasting Member
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
So, are you saying that you think Toyota has squeezed most all the power out of the 5.7 possible?
Hard to say. As far as volumetric efficiency, I'd say its pretty close. That is obviously one thing they focused on in the design of the Tundra and its 381 HP. You have the short direct intake tube (although that throttle body looks a little small, hmmm...) and basically, a set of factory headers. Aside from maybe a less restrictive filter, the pumping losses may already be minmized here, that's why I'm curious to see an intake dyno (AddictiveRacing are you reading??:D ). 380 HP is alot of power, especially out of a 350 ci block. Yes the DOHC and dual vvt-i help alot, but without swapping out cams and porting/polishing there I just don't see too much more power from easy bolt-ons.

That moves us into the realm of computer control. Timing and air-fuel ratios. I never messed with the timing on my 4Runner and I would have to imagine it becomes somewhat of a Pandora's Box with the dual vvt-i system. As with the AFR's I think they could stand to be leaned out a bit, but I wouldn't do this first without having all of the bolt-ons necessary in place (this includes an intake) because the power and torque characteristics can change with different parts. Also, although a dyno chart may show that an intake makes low HP, after a tune that intake may contribute up to 50% more power than before because now you have a situation where the fuel is being controlled and the faster moving air through the engine won't make the computer freak out and dump in a bunch of fuel; power builds more progressively drawing air in faster, and now you have just gotten you're money's worth for the intake.
 

·
Tire Roasting Member
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
*UPDATE*

I received my TrueFlow filter, and big suprise!!! It doesn't fit...

At first I thought AutoAnything.com sent me the wrong one, but when I reference the part number on the filter that was sent to me on TrueFlow's website it comes up as fitting an '07 Tundra with the 5.7L :confused: Which obviously isn't true because its WAY too small. I will be getting a refund for this filter and buying a TRD drop-in knock off.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top