General Supercharger Thread

I'm running a joying android unit with torque and have all those temps. You just have to add a toyota pid pack or manually enter the pids. I'm running the cheapie elm 257 or whatever it is, blue one, from Amazon. Working great for years now.

 

Damn I’ll have to check. Been a couple years since I installed the app. Maybe need to update and see what is available. Would love to see trans temps on the go like that.

 

Ordered Mag 2650 for my 21 yesterday...

I think I'm just going to run OTT tune after everything settles in since I already have their NA tune and Im not planning to mod up.

Any basic things I should be doing other than Wide Band AFR? Im assuming Mag provides CAI... I will boost reference the the fuel regulator

Still trying to figure how to do AFR monitoring. I really want to keep the interior sterile and clean. Not a fan of adding aftermarket gauges and trinkets in view.

 

Some use the left dash vent for the psb-1.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/158800...ad_webview=1&bid=hnhYAkKStS13JGyXpv8tQMY_QSgQ

https://www.tundras.com/threads/general-supercharger-thread.85513/page-209#post-3109261

 

Engine builders I assume the block is toast (I already have a new block being set up for the oversized pistons,) can the head be fixed?

The valves and combustion chamber feel gritty in #2

 

What's wrong with the head? Looks fine to me. Drop it off at a machine shop and have them go through it.

 

The chamber and valves in all the other cylinders are smooth. These are coarse, feel "bumpy" the piston in the dead cylinder is broken and there's a large flaw in the cylinder wall.

I have a block already at the machine shop, the head will go tomorrow. I was hoping for a preview of what to expect. Do you think the valves need to be replaced? (Happy to get away with just needing 4 valves.

Thanks!

 

I don't know how compromised a valve can be before it needs replacing compared to some elbow grease to make it work. But they'll check for cracks, surface the head, maybe cut new valve seats, install new seals, etc. I've only had a couple instances where a valve needed to be replaced, but I haven't rebuilt a ton of engines.

 

Valve body install

https://youtu.be/DxbvobUqcI8?si=a_Eo7_5-iBM97asw

 

Thanks!

 

great video... makes it seem a little less daunting.

 

All of their videos are amazing, thanks to whoever (sorry I have severe can't remember shit) posted it in the first place.

 

Great video! I wish I had that video when I did mine in 2021 in my driveway, the tips about cleaning out the o-ring housings with solvent and using flat stock to keep the actuators in place are key! That, and you can use Vaseline, instead of the more expensive transmission assembly lube that I purchased.

 

The first time was a bit messy trying to keep everything in place. The more you do it the easier it is...but hopefully only once!

 

If you’re not “going for broke” and keeping the kit stock, no need to boost reference the FPR. The kit as supplied and our calibration will adequately fuel the engine.

 

I see what you did there.

 

Interesting comment about boost referencing. This probably only takes about 10 minutes to do and it seems like a comment that comes up with every SC install discussion.

I wasn't thinking this as a performance mod, but rather just "bolts and braces" for a more robust setup.

Is there any downside or reason not to to boost reference FPR?

 

One thing I like him showing is the trickle on fluid level. When it goes right from a straight stream to a slight bend and calls it good.
I've seen people have it where it's almost a dribble and that can lead to getting a p2757 , or similar code or drivability issues. It's better to have a company come out with their process instead of some random peep stating what they do...haha
Good stuff!

 

When I learned to tune engines back in the SDS and Mega squirt days (early 2000's) boost referencing was just what you did. Otherwise you lose fueling with increased intake pressure, as the injector sees the pressure differential.

I know lots of tunes are done without it, but if starting from scratch, and you have the capability, I'd always boost reference.

 

I thought Whipple recommended boost referencing in their initial setup? Not sure Whipple mentioned when @blenton called them?

 

The fuel model Toyota uses assumes a static fuel pressure. If you don’t need the additional fuel, there’s nothing to be gained by doing it.

It can however be addressed in the calibration to properly deal with a 1:1 ratio, but unless it’s needed, I generally advise folks to install the kit per mfg instructions.

 

pinned my trans t-stat and did some around town driving and a couple pulls. temps stayed way lower than they normally were before. Maxed out around 160 in stop and go traffic and didnt get above 180 after a bunch of full throttle pulls. It would have been up to at least 200 after all that with it un-pinned.

 

Generally speaking 100% agree.

Toyota employed a much different fuel model than the Megasquirt. They handle fuel calculations differently. Megasquirt assumes a 1:1 ratio, whereas Toyota’s strategy assumes a fixed fuel pressure.

Same-Same, but different

 

The printed instructions don’t mention it (or maybe it doesn’t show it boost referenced; I wimped out and paid to have the blower installed..) but when I inquired about it along with a few other small things, they replied ‘oh ya, you should definitely have the fuel pressure regulator boost referenced’.

I’m pretty sure that was in an email so I’ll try to find it.

 

The irony is non boost referenced is “fixed pressure” but results in effectively declining fuel pressure as boost rises. Boost referenced on the other hand actually keeps the pressure more steady, or “fixed” upon a rise in boost pressure.

 

Relative to the inlet manifold pressure, yes. Actual fuel pressure remains constant, and that's what the ECU expects in its fueling calculations to meet targets.

I'm not trying to change your POV here; I'm just sharing what the ECU is actually doing. You guys do you; we do what we do

 

No intent here to argue, obviously you know way more about this than I do so this is just for my knowledge, but I have questions anyway. So, of course the tundra ECU doesn’t look at boost since it’s a factory NA engine, so to my brain it makes more sense that using BR to help the “effective” fuel pressure stay flatlined in relation to manifold pressure would be more natural and predictable to the Toyota ECU than for the effective pressure and flow to be decreasing as boost rises? Without BR the flow is declining as there is more load and boost, but the ECU doesn’t comprehend the boost. Wouldn’t this cause it to think “oh wow I’m leaning out so I need to add more fuel than I expected”? I could see if it were a factory boosted engine and Toyota normally does not boost reference fuel pressure for factory boosted engines, that then it would make sense to not boost reference. Does my thought process make any sense? Just wondering what am I missing in understanding it?

 

The boost-reference is meant to even the pressure back out so that it is a set pressure as far as the ECU is concerned. Instead of your pressure going down 1PSI for every 1PSI of boost, it is adding 1PSI to keep you at your base pressure setting.

 

What exactly did you have done?

Just trying to figure out if there's something else on the to-do list.

 

Healthy discussion is welcome!

Forgive me some ramblings ahead, but I promise to get to the point And I should probably preface this, that I'm not against boost referencing your FPR. My comment and suggestion to @nasher75 was about HIS setup and intended use (as we had a lite conversation privately prior, I was simply providing my input as he indicated he was interested in having us tune his truck) NOT general philosophy or any other application. Just want to make that abundantly clear as the discussion seem to be shifting away from HIS use to general philosophy/strategy.

There is no "need" (on a standard install) to use boost referencing to keep the "effective" pressure constant as this ECU has the mathematical compensations 'baked into the code' to derive the appropriate IPW, assuming your airflow and fuel models are accurate (more on that in a moment).

I understand where your logic and reasoning is coming from, and it's not incorrect at all! What I'm attempting to share is what is being missed, which I've learned through the patents Toyota has filed on their fuel injection strategy. The logic you're describing is not how the Toyota ECU works. I'm pretty well-read in the patents filed for the vehicles we tune. I don't claim or intend to come off as an "I know everything" here, so please don't take this as such.

But with that said, many of the methods and strategies I see mentioned and discussed here do undermine the ECU's ability to react, adapt, and compensate for the varied and dynamic conditions present in a road vehicle. I'm not trying to say you guys are doing this and that wrong, as there is more than one way to skin a cat and achieve a specific observed afr, timing advance value, or what have you. But there is a way to work WITH the way the ECU was designed and a way to fight it, and force it and manipulate it to get it to do what you want. At the end of the day, it's if they both run the same afr, timing, etc. the end result is the same - can't argue that. But what is missing is how do they stack up in dynamic conditions over time, with varying fuel blends/octane, environmental factors etc? The factory strategies are the result of significant vetting and $ invested into developing a pretty dynamic and flexible operating system that is quite adaptable. It's still pretty archaic when compared to something like a Ford EcoBoost strategy, but none the less.. We configure our ECU calibrations to work WITH the OE strategy and retain all adaptive functions to allow the ECU the flexibility and freedom to compensate. Anyway, I state this because the context for what I'll share next is necessary.

You can break the Toyota strategy down here into two different models. You have an airflow model and a fuel model. Simply put, if the ECU knows PRECISELY how much airmass is entering the engine at a given time, and you have an ACCURATE fuel model that provides the arbitration code a good model of the injector characterization, you should be able to target a specific target mixture via PE or COT and the ECU will meet that target. It's as simple as that. If you have to fudge your PE or COT values to get a specific mixture you desire (that doesn't align with the value your PE is targeting), you've got issues with your modeling. Be that on the airflow side or fuel side.

The "old school" ECU's and standalone ECU's employ a completely different fueling strategy and calculation. This ECU literally has the mathematical compensations 'baked into the code' to derive the appropriate IPW (again, assuming your airflow and fuel models are correct) for any given airmass at any RPM. Again, all of this is if you retain the OE fueling strategy, which we do on our standard files as that's how the TRD/Magnuson kits are designed and intended to be installed. Other manufacturers may require/recommend other methods; follow their instructions if you're using our base files, as they are configured to run properly on a kit installed per the instructions. (Let us know if you've got a different configuration so we can adequately compensate for that)

If you're simply installing a TRD/Magnuson kit (be that 1900 or 2650) in stock form, you are NOT running out of fuel. There is no functional 'need' to change the orientation unless you just want to deviate and mod it. If you sleep better or like the idea, by all means, it extends the headroom of the supplied kit injectors. But on the stock kit, it's not a 'need'. Explore further and behind and that's an entirely different conversation.

*Edit* As an odball fact, even factory Toyota boosted engines run fixed fuel pressure. Our 2024 Tacoma at over 20psi has a fixed constant fuel pressure under load (it does vary, being a PWM configuration).