Pre and Post Supercharger Dyno tests - Data

[hzavarce]

I did Pre-Supercharger and Post-Supercharger dyno tests.

Here is some info that may (or may not) affect the data, but thought about letting everybody know to clear some of the potential questions.

I bought the LC on March 01, 2007 with 153,000 miles on it (all stock). It was in great shape and ran great. I immediately changed all the fluids to synthetic, and did some initial PM.

Some of the things that I did that may be relevant to this thread: At 154,635 miles changed thermostat, new radiator cap, flushed Toyota Red and installed Freeztone Green, installed new spark plugs, installed K&N Air Filter, new fuel filter. Installed Yellow Top battery(160,300 miles). Installed Blue Fan Clutch (165,191 miles).

Before the S/C (at aprox 100F outside temp) the Water Temp was consistently 200F +/- 5F, even after I installed the Blue Fan Clutch (I did not see a huge improvement). In average I was getting 11.28 MPG, and were using regular unleaded fuel (87 oct)

When I installed the S/C I did some “while I was there PM”, this included: changed crankshaft seal, fixed Oil pump cover leak, new valve cover gasket, new spark plug grommets, new PVC valve, distributor shaft o-ring, cleaned K&N filter, recalibrated spark plugs, and changed Eng Oil and filter.

I installed the entire S/C kit with no mods (166,022 miles). With the S/C I have not seen the Water Temp change too much (during the same 100F outside temp). However, cruising at 70 MPH (aprox 2,400 RPM) the water temp is consistently at 205F, but comes back down a few degrees at lower RPMs. With the S/C I am getting 11.07 MPG and now I use 91 oct or better.

 

[hzavarce]

Here is the Chart

I did the dyno tests here: www.enginelogics.com

I got a consistent 29% increase in HP. What do you guys think ?

Pre test is Blue, and Post is Red. HP Curves are dotted, and torque are solid

 

[concretejungle]

awesome!! i think you are one of the first to actually get data instead of "speculating" what is going on.

 

[SF80]

Hmmm. @ 30% increase in power for 30% total cost of my LC (pre mods)? That doesn't sound too unreasonable. Not sure I cn take the premium fuel hit. Especially considering gas prices in SF.

 

[concretejungle]

Hmmm. @ 30% increase in power for 30% total cost of my LC (pre mods)? That doesn't sound too unreasonable. Not sure I cn take the premium fuel hit. Especially considering gas prices in SF.

Brian, thought the same thing. Talked to jfz80 who has a supercharger on his. He explained it that he is really only paying between $5-8 per fill up. so, if you are spending $100 to fill up the truck, now you will spend $105. That's not too bad to me.

 

[SF80]

There you go, confusing the matter with facts and numbers. Damn you science!!!!

No, not too bad.

 

[hzavarce]

awesome!! i think you are one of the first to actually get data instead of "speculating" what is going on.

Yeap, I like numbers and objective data. It did cost me $80 per test but I think it was worthwhile. I can sleep better with my $3300 investment for more power.

Thanks !

 

[Box Rocket]

Is it just me or do those HP # seem incredibly low both pre and post test?

 

[Nay]

Is it just me or do those HP # seem incredibly low both pre and post test?

Apparently now he has a naturally aspirated 3FE

 

[sleeoffroad]

They do seem low, I do not have exact specs re: temp etc when we did these, but here is a 93 truck that had a supercharger then we replaced it with a turbo.

and here is a graph of a stock 97 vs turbo 97 vs supercharged 93

 

[Lka1988]

Is it just me or do those HP # seem incredibly low both pre and post test?

I think it's power to the wheels, not at the flywheel. There's a lot of power lost in the drivetrain, apparently.

 

[hzavarce]

The tests were done on an AWD dyno. I was also concerned with the low numbers at first, but I bet you if I take it to another dyno I will get different numbers. Also, the shop owner (before we even did the test) warned me that their numbers were usually low because their dyno is properly calibrated and very accurate.

After I learned more about dyno tests, I found out that there any many, many, factors that could make a difference... even the type of dyno itself.

I am pretty sure that my engine is in good shape, and I stopped worrying about the absolute numbers. The whole point of the testing is to see what net gain the S/C can do.

I tried to keep as many variables constant as possible.

I also heard that the fact that I have bigger tires makes a difference when measuring the Power at the wheels. Which I am still confused about. Power is Power, and it should not matter what tires you have, and it should not make a big difference. The power at the wheels should equal the power at the engine minus losses. I guess this has to do with the way this kind of dynos work.

 

[landtank]

Good stuff, doesn't the size of the tires act as another gearing ratio in this type of test. Smaller tires will effectively turn the dyno with less effort.

 

[Dusty]

what a valuable post. better than 100 threads of speculation

independent of starting hp it is interesting that Slee off road saw a change of 24% in torque and 18% in hp with the addition of a supercharger THAT HAD A RISING RATE FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR.

these relative increases seen by Slee are not as favorable as those seen with hzavarce's supercharged truck. perhaps his trucks lack of external fuel management made for the better power?

The data also supports that hzavarce's truck realized its relative gains at much lower rpms than slee's. also favorable

 

[Dusty]

Good stuff, doesn't the size of the tires act as another gearing ratio in this type of test. Smaller tires will effectively turn the dyno with less effort.

but cant you just find another gear to compensate to an extent. but certainly the advantage would go to the smaller tired truck

 

[lowtops]

Is it just me or do those HP # seem incredibly low both pre and post test?

Did you have the A/C on during your dyno runs? I've seen it happen. Turning the A/C off on a 2004 Corvette is good for 20hp!

 

[sleeoffroad]

what a valuable post. better than 100 threads of speculation

independent of starting hp it is interesting that Slee off road saw a change of 24% in torque and 18% in hp with the addition of a supercharger THAT HAD A RISING RATE FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR.

these relative increases seen by Slee are not as favorable as those seen with hzavarce's supercharged truck. perhaps his trucks lack of external fuel management made for the better power?

The data also supports that hzavarce's truck realized its relative gains at much lower rpms than slee's. also favorable

His truck is a 97 and they do better with forced induction. The 93 had to have external fuel management otherwise it would detonate itself to pieces. I do not think the rising rate was the cause of the less power, but just the fuel management in general on the 93. The owner was never happy with the SC and that is why it was replaced with a turbo.

 

[FJBen]

His truck is a 97 and they do better with forced induction. The 93 had to have external fuel management otherwise it would detonate itself to pieces. I do not think the rising rate was the cause of the less power, but just the fuel management in general on the 93. The owner was never happy with the SC and that is why it was replaced with a turbo.

so turbo is about the only option for a 93-94? Sounds like you can make the SC work but in the end, money would be much better spent and better utilized on a turbo setup for the OBD1 trucks?

 

[Dusty]

His truck is a 97 and they do better with forced induction. The 93 had to have external fuel management otherwise it would detonate itself to pieces. I do not think the rising rate was the cause of the less power, but just the fuel management in general on the 93. The owner was never happy with the SC and that is why it was replaced with a turbo.

good point.

 

[Ting]

Thanks for doing this!!