1FZFE 5.2L Turbo Build (2 Viewers)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Getting ~370awhp and ~500 lb ft torque at wheels...
As before, that's about the LEAST peak torque we can get with this turbo.
Beyond ~12 psi, fuel pressure starts dropping at upper RPM - so we're testing constraints (e.g., fuel lines, regulator, etc.).

20230227_141034.jpg
 
what fuel pump are you running?
Don't know exactly; but it's freshly upgraded with the shop's usual preference...

(When they run an identical spare straight to rail, it holds double the PSI at high RPM. Regulator tests OK as well. So, seems like constraints in the lines between pump and rail.)
 
dang it, no happy ending :bang:
 
dang it, no happy ending :bang:
Now it's me making things hard. I'd like to support more boost up top without losing fuel pressure. Otherwise, it's tuned and done...
 
Don't know exactly; but it's freshly upgraded with the shop's usual preference...

(When they run an identical spare straight to rail, it holds double the PSI at high RPM. Regulator tests OK as well. So, seems like constraints in the lines between pump and rail.)
Yeah looking at the fuel supply it's pretty darn tiny, I ran a -6 to the rail and repurposed the supply line as the return line and have no pressure issues with a walbro 485.
 
I'm glad you asked. Hold my beer... 🤪

The original end goal was that my Cruiser not leak / burn excessive oil. So, gotta rebuild. If you're rebuilding, might as well talk about upgrades. If you're upgrading, might as well talk about forced induction. While we're in there, etc.

Apparently, my new goal is to destroy the transmission with a turbocharged nuke and look cool doing it.

Sounds like so many of my poor financial decisions…

I’ve made mistakes to say the least.

I approve!
 
Surge tank in the engine bay?
We did talk about a booster pump closer to the rail, etc., but it seems like there's a flow constraint in the lines.

I might have them upgrade lines just for extra headroom. I've come this far... 😜
 
We did talk about a booster pump closer to the rail, etc., but it seems like there's a flow constraint in the lines.

I might have them upgrade lines just for extra headroom. I've come this far... 😜
Oh dude, the hemorrhaging is not slowing down it appears 😁
 
Should be in the driveway next week (?) after something like 18 months. Got a proper test drive today; found anything beyond 1/2 throttle to be plain stupid and unnecessary. 🤪 Yes, I will try to get some video soon...

(On road, the stanced "Fast & Furious" crowd seems very confused by noises made. This pleases me.)
 
Fun fact:
We confirmed that 35" mud tires eat around 40-50hp on the acceleration-based dyno due to extra rotational mass versus OEM size. Giant Kumho MT 71s weigh 77.5 lbs EACH; dinky Tacoma tires don't. In this case, well over 10% difference in measured awhp. Consider a Cruiser's viscous auto + FT AWD + mud tires, and we're probably ~30% losses from crank hp to awhp.
 
Fun fact:
We confirmed that 35" mud tires eat around 40-50hp on the acceleration-based dyno due to extra rotational mass versus OEM size. Giant Kumho MT 71s weigh 77.5 lbs EACH; dinky Tacoma tires don't. In this case, well over 10% difference in measured awhp. Consider a Cruiser's viscous auto + FT AWD + mud tires, and we're probably ~30% losses from crank hp to awhp.

That's not entirely true.

What you are seeing is why acceleration based dynos are poor tools for quantifying actual hp/tq. These are good comparison tools. That's it.

Water brake and Eddie current dynos measure torque directly.
 
That's not entirely true.

What you are seeing is why acceleration based dynos are poor tools for quantifying actual hp/tq. These are good comparison tools. That's it.

Water brake and Eddie current dynos measure torque directly.
True... but there are plenty of crank spec to dyno load-cell comparisons showing normalized losses of ~10% to ~20%, depending on drivetrain. Add a squishy set of giant tires and that 212hp OEM hp starts looking pretty anemic. We didn't bother running the load-cell, because we kind of knew the answer (+/-) based on air, fuel, and increased displacement... Everything is built for 600hp+ at the crank, and we've deliberately backed off boost by ~1/3 bar - so we're in the neighborhood targeted for awhp/tq. Transmission life and fuel stability are our only open variables... and I don't really feel like buying another transmission just now. Might do those fuel lines tho; they're like tiny cocktail straws.
 
It's alive! Feathering the throttle onto the freeway is a whole new experience. (Also, looks like I'll get to keep it - at least for a while.)

20230315_185849.jpg
 
dude lets hear some turbo noises!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMM
I'll record something soon...
So far, my short drives are basically:
1) spool very briefly
2) lift and audibly dump pressure
3) laugh + holy sh!t
4) coast for quite a while
5) repeat

So, you spent all that money on a truck that makes you 17 again? :lol: :flipoff2:



I hope you get to enjoy it for a while 👍
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JMM
id spend all my money on a truck that made me 17 again.....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom