Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner

41 - 60 of 228 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
OK for my OCD little brain, I had to bring this altogether in one post. Here is what I am seeing based on what has been posted in this thread and only using figures as reported by others (not by me):

Horsepower / Torque (ft/lbs)
  • Stock '10-'14 FJ * 259 / 270
  • SuperSiick's Stock '14 FJ ** 193 / 197
  • SuperSiicks '14 FJ w Magnuson SC # 286 / 270

    Net Increase (HP / Ft Lbs) 93 / 73
    % Increase 48% / 37%
Notes:
* Measured at Crankshaft and provided by Toyota in various literature
** Baseline HP and Torque as measured at rear wheels on dyno. This equates to approx a 25.5% drop in HP and 27.0% drop in torque from crankshaft rating specs due to driveline drag, different temperature, gasoline octane, different elevation, different humidity, etc. from when measured by Toyota for publication.
# Improved HP and Torque as measured at rear wheels on dyno using new Magnuson SC and Bully Dog Tuner. Standard pulley size.


SuperSiick let me know if I didnt capture correctly. For comparison purposes I used the Baseline HP and Torque at rear wheels for calculating the % increases
 

·
トヨタ Master
Joined
·
5,833 Posts
OK for my OCD little brain, I had to bring this altogether in one post. Here is what I am seeing based on what has been posted in this thread and only using figures as reported by others (not by me):

Horsepower / Torque (ft/lbs)

Stock '10-'14 FJ* 259 / 270

SuperSiick's Stock '14 FJ** 193 / 197
SuperSiicks '14 FJ w Magnuson SC# 286 / 270
Net Increase (HP / Ft Lbs) 93 / 73
% Increase 48% / 37%

Notes:
* Measured at Crankshaft and provided by Toyota in various literature
** Measured at rear wheels on dyno. This equates to approx a 25.5% drop in HP and 27.0% drop in torque from crankshaft rating specs due to driveline drag, different temperature, gasoline octane, different elevation, different humidity, etc. from when measured by Toyota for publication.
# Measured at rear wheels on dyno with new Magnuson SC and Bully Dog Tuner. Standard pulley size.
Ok, now reverse engineer the math back to the flywheel. >:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Discussion Starter #43
@SilvFx i dont mean to get u all mixed up but just proving as much info as i can. Now on the Dyno Dynamics dyno we came in at 301rwhp 293 rwtq. So you guys can expect good numbers on this kit. Overall it was consistent. Numbers can be expected to be in the high 2's low 3's at least in low altitude environments

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
@SilvFx i dont mean to get u all mixed up but just proving as much info as i can. Now on the Dyno Dynamics dyno we came in at 301rwhp 293 rwtq. So you guys can expect good numbers on this kit. Overall it was consistent. Numbers can be expected to be in the high 2's low 3's at least in low altitude environments

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
OK....but what was the baseline HP/Torque as measured on the Dyno Dynamics dyno?

The other thing that I think we be VERY useful is the HP and Torque curves from idle to 5500 RPM for baseline vs. modified that way people can see the difference in power all along the power curve. Any idea if you have that data?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
OK for my OCD little brain, I had to bring this altogether in one post. Here is what I am seeing based on what has been posted in this thread and only using figures as reported by others (not by me):

Horsepower / Torque (ft/lbs)
  • Stock '10-'14 FJ * 259 / 270
  • SuperSiick's Stock '14 FJ ** 193 / 197
  • SuperSiicks '14 FJ w Magnuson SC # 286 / 270

    Net Increase (HP / Ft Lbs) 93 / 73
    % Increase 48% / 37%
Notes:
* Measured at Crankshaft and provided by Toyota in various literature
** Baseline HP and Torque as measured at rear wheels on dyno. This equates to approx a 25.5% drop in HP and 27.0% drop in torque from crankshaft rating specs due to driveline drag, different temperature, gasoline octane, different elevation, different humidity, etc. from when measured by Toyota for publication.
# Improved HP and Torque as measured at rear wheels on dyno using new Magnuson SC and Bully Dog Tuner. Standard pulley size.


SuperSiick let me know if I didnt capture correctly. For comparison purposes I used the Baseline HP and Torque at rear wheels for calculating the % increases
Looks good to me. Not bad right? >:)

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Does anyone know or have experience with having a SC and also having regeared the FJ?? Perhaps an 07-09 example? Is more power to the rear problematic on a rear regear with a SC? How about high rpms/ power... does it accentuate hi revs and keep you from experiencing all a SC can give you on the high end?

Thx

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
With my SC on my MT '08, I feel like the truck is now geared a little bit too low, with all the power it now has. Often, I start out in 2nd gear, and rarely change down below 3rd when cruising around slow corners / yield intersections.

Have sort of wondered what it would be like to fit the taller AT diff gears to drop the rpms at 80mph and get a little bit of my mpg back! (went from 16~17mpg down to 15 or so, after fitting the SC).


N
 

·
トヨタ Master
Joined
·
5,833 Posts
With my SC on my MT '08, I feel like the truck is now geared a little bit too low, with all the power it now has. Often, I start out in 2nd gear, and rarely change down below 3rd when cruising around slow corners / yield intersections.

Have sort of wondered what it would be like to fit the taller AT diff gears to drop the rpms at 80mph and get a little bit of my mpg back! (went from 16~17mpg down to 15 or so, after fitting the SC).


N
What gears and tire size?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
249 Posts
Too many variables for results to be meaningful for "average" FJ owner who does not have elaborate header/exhaust system with fewer cats (carb rated without all cats?), "standard" gearing, not modified, non standard tire size; and certainly not using race gas? All these things help pump up your numbers: but skew results for "average" owner! A "stock" FJ with auto would have "crank" hp to be 270, per Toyota , so with usual 20% driveline loss, net to wheels should be 216, not 193? Assuming premium gas, not race, for "stock", not required: but would be for forced induction. Through out my education was taught for test/experiments, you began with a set of
"constants" to establish "baseline", then introduced "variables", one at a time to show impact of each variable?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
Too many variables for results to be meaningful for "average" FJ owner who does not have elaborate header/exhaust system with fewer cats (carb rated without all cats?), "standard" gearing, not modified, non standard tire size; and certainly not using race gas? All these things help pump up your numbers: but skew results for "average" owner! A "stock" FJ with auto would have "crank" hp to be 270, per Toyota , so with usual 20% driveline loss, net to wheels should be 216, not 193? Assuming premium gas, not race, for "stock", not required: but would be for forced induction. Through out my education was taught for test/experiments, you began with a set of
"constants" to establish "baseline", then introduced "variables", one at a time to show impact of each variable?
The only thing different was the y pipes on the truck. The numbers provided were on 91 premium pump gas. I didnt go into posting numbers on race gas for sake of keeping things more realistic. As for gearing, the truck has stock gearing. Like most here it doesnt have stock size tires (285s) so that also plays a role on the dyno. Fj hp is 260 as advertised by toyota and 270 for the latest year 4runner. 20% loss would be with ideal condition. As i have already put the fj on the dyno the results state differently. Like i said we are are 700 ft sea level so of course results would vary from someone thats at a higher elevation & or maybe lower elevation. The 4runner that Magnuson did thier testing on the dyno it made for 336 rwhp and 301 rwtq, they are like right at sea level by the beach. Im just sharing info of our testing and work on our fj in collaboration w/ magnuson.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
Does anyone know or have experience with having a SC and also having regeared the FJ?? Perhaps an 07-09 example? Is more power to the rear problematic on a rear regear with a SC? How about high rpms/ power... does it accentuate hi revs and keep you from experiencing all a SC can give you on the high end?

Thx

Mike
Mike the closest example to this would be a 2016 4runner who also has one if these newer superchargers on. He has his 4runner regeared and had a positive experience with the new gears. 4.88

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
It's more than bad! I need some forced induction in my life!!
I feel you man. After having the fj like this i wouldnt drive it without being supercharged. Unfortunately for cali ppl they wont be for sale till like around beggining of march. Thats when are the carb numbers will be given to maguson. Until then i cant even received my orders placed or even sell them in cali.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Discussion Starter #54
OK....but what was the baseline HP/Torque as measured on the Dyno Dynamics dyno?

The other thing that I think we be VERY useful is the HP and Torque curves from idle to 5500 RPM for baseline vs. modified that way people can see the difference in power all along the power curve. Any idea if you have that data?
208 hp / 204 tq rear wheel baseline bumbers. On dyno dynamics. Hp & tq gains are pretty similar between both dynos. Its not like one is giving u 100+ and the other dyno 50+ increase. So u can see end results are nearing 300 rear wheel numbers.

As for graphs for baseline numbers and even w/ sc graphs i dont have have as it was done while i was t the Sema show and my boy at the dyno shop was snaping my the base and s/c numbers while at the show. I however belive i still have the graph on the dyno jet (w/ supercharger). Id have to go back to the LA Auto Show DUB booth where there fj is at right now to see if its still in there.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
トヨタ Master
Joined
·
5,833 Posts
With my SC on my MT '08, I feel like the truck is now geared a little bit too low, with all the power it now has. Often, I start out in 2nd gear, and rarely change down below 3rd when cruising around slow corners / yield intersections.

Have sort of wondered what it would be like to fit the taller AT diff gears to drop the rpms at 80mph and get a little bit of my mpg back! (went from 16~17mpg down to 15 or so, after fitting the SC).


N
"What gears and tire size? "

Stock
208 hp / 204 tq rear wheel baseline bumbers. On dyno dynamics. Hp & tq gains are pretty similar between both dynos. Its not like one is giving u 100+ and the other dyno 50+ increase. So u can see end results are nearing 300 rear wheel numbers.

As for graphs for baseline numbers and even w/ sc graphs i dont have have as it was done while i was t the Sema show and my boy at the dyno shop was snaping my the base and s/c numbers while at the show. I however belive i still have the graph on the dyno jet (w/ supercharger). Id have to go back to the LA Auto Show DUB booth where there fj is at right now to see if its still in there.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
It would be nice to have more information, such as being able to see the whole graph with baseline and then altered induction. That way we could see the HP & torque curves at a given RPM with X amount of boost. This would help with figuring out ideal gear ratios as well as find the sweet spot in RPMs.

I'm sure the homework was done in figuring out the best CFM and boost to work as proficiently with a stock engine as possible because changing camshafts in order to really wake up a supercharger isn't really practical for most buyers, and with that being said, Magnuson would be losing out on sales of a relatively affordable product.

Horsepower and torque are relative numbers and most people, with the exception of true racers, probably have no real idea of what horsepower and torque feels like. The seat of the pants is really what a person feels and if it accelerates well, produces good torque for pulling or loading the engine and having a said change in fuel mileage are what consumers will be buying. If it makes us (consumers) feel good and it does what we want, then it's well worth the money. I for one, am looking forward to these. :bigthumb:
 

·
Forum Beer Miester
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Mike the closest example to this would be a 2016 4runner who also has one if these newer superchargers on. He has his 4runner regeared and had a positive experience with the new gears. 4.88

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
That’s good to know since I’m rocking 4.88’s now, may have to go up to 37’s like CC recommended to me if I installed a SC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
Does anyone know or have experience with having a SC and also having regeared the FJ?? Perhaps an 07-09 example? Is more power to the rear problematic on a rear regear with a SC? How about high rpms/ power... does it accentuate hi revs and keep you from experiencing all a SC can give you on the high end?

Thx

Mike
I had 4.56 gears and Magnuson SC with 2.825 pulley and ucon. I think it ran like a beast with all the gear it had.

OP you said kit comes with bd tuner, however your pics show unichip. Which did you use? Dyno chart with afr mapped?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
41 - 60 of 228 Posts
Top