General Supercharger Thread

I am

 

any other lift parts?
asking because i believe i have the pro comp 7" i swapped the rear blocks out to i think 5"
i just ordered the +3s and want to figure out what block size i need to drop down to if its 3"

 

I have the full coachbuilder setup for my pro. So 1” shims in the front and the +3 shackle which equates to 1.75” of lift for the rear.

 

Back to gears got rear kit, now need to pull trigger on a front master kit, IPT VB, locker etc, etc, fluids, install, fuck never ends

 

dude yes.
Also yes, never ending.
Remind me, are you going to try to tackle gears yourself?

 

Probably have Figs engineering/High altitude trucks out here install the gears/locker.....all dependent on the hit though.

 

im guessing install will be 1000+

 

More then likely at least 1k+......maybe I can be a laborer for them and save a couple doll hairs

 

This forum has a unique way of separating me from all of my “disposable” income. This thing better rip with gears or I’m gonna be pissed lol.

 

You can help them, but you won't save a dime...

 

This forums cost me more then my daughters nowadays. How it should be! Lol

 

You're probably right. I can turn a mean wrench though. Lol

 

Another great shop is Colorado Axle and Gear. The Al’s (Albert & Albert Jr.) do awesome work. I had them install my 5.29s and work on another vehicle.

 

Out by Westminster right? I have heard of them from some Tacoma folks i believe.

 

When I looked into the Valvoline ATF, that was one of the things that came up. Apparently WS is thinner than Valvoline. Which just like 0w-20 vs 30 or even 40, is fine for a normal truck not being pushed but once you go SC, me personally, I switched up to 0/5w-40 oil and just recently switched to Valvoline when I did the Sonnax Zip Kit. Our VB tend to leak from wear, which probably can come from the thinner film oil or parts. Some of the Sonnax parts are upgrades with O-rings instead of metal to metal for sealing. Hard to say, since I don't think anyone has done a test to see which one it is, oil or material. This is why what was said by wynnded, about what IPT told him about comparability doesn't sound right to me. To me, obviously I am no expert in the transmission world, but whats in a trans that the fluid makes that big of a deal. The only thing other than metal parts are the clutch material. Since they use aftermarket clutches, I don't see those companies calling for specific specs for the fiction material. I personally don't see why they would recommend a non-synthetic over a synthetic. To me that's like switching to a synthetic blend for engine oil.

 

I'm not sure what the consensus here is on which fluid to run, but after talking to Pat Barrett at Level10, it sounds like WS should be run regardless or power/application/build/etc. Run it and do a drain/fill every 20k miles and the VB will stay healthy. Wait longer and you have too much debris in your fluid, it then slowly eats away at passage ways and you get leaks. I'll be doing a drain and fill every 18mo moving forward, that should put me right around a 18-20k mile interval.

 

Good point. Keep the fluid clean, flush out the flakes. I know when I gun it my transmission shifts pretty hard, especially in T/H at full boost and more so after a fresh tune. Just getting off the throttle wot throws me.

 

Exactly. Keep it clean. As opposed to the Toyota theory/method of 'lifetime' fluid. Yikes. Then the extreme usage interval being 60k miles if towing. I'd do 10k if towing heavy and 20k if not. I say this as someone that did not do this... but I will now!

 

No such thing as a lifetime fluid. Maybe for a Corolla, Camry, hell probably even new tundras. Our SC dinosaurs need shit fresh

 

Can’t comment on the trans but the new tundras have lifetime engine oil. (The oil is still good by the time the engine blows at 10k).

 

That's brutal

 

Aww man. You were my tipping point to get them. At least you got me interested in doing gears again and getting some new tools.

 

This!

 

I've unintentionally fallen into a drain/fill every year (about 9-10k miles). Fingers crossed you are correct. I've also read that I could have been nuking my transmission by doing this because the fluid needs some grit for proper bite and that why were supposed to be resetting the degradation values if we swap out over something like 50 or 60% of the fluid because the computers will compensate for fresh fluid. I haven't seen that part discussed here yet.

 

I’ve heard that too but that seems counterintuitive for the VB health. Maybe for worn clutches needing more debris in the fluid to help grip when they’re on their last leg. But if all is in good shape, I think flushing regularly and semi often is the best bet. Just my opinion. After spending the money on a built transmission, I’ll take whatever recommendation is passed to me from the shop.

 

There's always going to be many options on oil related stuff. Again, why someone would chose a non-synthetic over a synthetic is something I would want to know why. Actually Car Care Nut, is against so many oil changes in a trans. I don't know if he mentioned his opinion on why it's not good on the video I saw of him. That's another thing that I agree with, I don't see an issue with changing the trans oil every 20-30k. It's still an oil that degrades, so why not change it often. Ultimately I think it's all in how you treat a mechanical part and how you maintain it.

 

The degration value is a good point. Does the trans parameters change as the degration goes up? Should we be resetting the degration every so often if so? I have to see if my boot-leg Tech stream software can reset it or HPT.

Also, I believe that was a point made by CCN about changing it often but then it also true that more debris in the trans will make parts wear faster.

 

ok im lost , what WS in comparison to valvoline WTF?

 

This is for why I posted my ATFUOA earlier and requested for other folks to do the same. I had no idea what dirty fluid vs clean fluid looked like from a UOA perspective, but comparing my 183k UOA (with regular 30k mile D&F's using WS) to the 50k UOA posted, they were almost identical. A few more data points would help determine what is dirty and what is regular wear. But I agree with the philosophy, even if my dealership looked at me crosseyed and tried to find a way to NOT sell me 4 quarts of ATF a year and half after I bought my truck...

I believe that is and urban legend based on first generation (and some second generation) automatic transmission designs from the 40's and 50's. With basic hydraulic circuitry, no torque management, and heavy vehicles using light duty components in automatic transmissions, they wore quickly. When you changed the fluid (IF you changed the fluid) it cleaned all that floating grit and the already worn/destroyed clutches lost what little bit of extra grit they had from the fluid and they started slipping. It was perpetuated by hotrodders and sleazy car salesman that would intentionally put the wrong fluid (I think DexMerc, for example, in a GM trans) to give it more bite at the track or extend the life of a slipping trans long enough to push it off the lot.

The clutches and steels are designed to interact at a specific coefficient of friction with a specific range of fluid properties (viscosity, add pack, contamination tolerance, etc); too much or too little bite and you have issues.

I suspect his argument against too many oil changes has more to do with the possibility of introducing contaminants in to the transmission with each fluid exchange - more fluid exchanges equals higher possibility of introducing those contaminants. But that's just my guess. Else, I have no idea why you would recommend agains keeping fluid closer to new spec.

WS = Toyota World Standard transmission fluid. It was introduced to the tundra world with the AB60 in the Gen2 5.7 tundras, IIRC. The 4.7 got the 5 speed and I think it still used the other fluid spec.

Valvoline is referencing Valvoline MaxLife MulitSpec ATF or whatever fluid they offer that is close to WS. It's close to the same viscosity but some would argue that it's not exactly the same and doesn't offer the same additive package, being a universal product rather than a specifically engineered product - or rather, the transmission was designed by Aisin to use WS specifically, if that makes sense.

I'm in the WS camp; I've seen both sides of the coin for from other members here who use Valvoline - some who've run it without issue, some who immediately had shifting issues or had chatter that immediately clears up when switching back to WS. I won't hate on those that use Valvoline, but I'll continue using WS.

Regarding viscosity vs contamination as the focal point for failure: I would guess that contamination has more to do with it than viscosity. Normally, I would point to viscosity as the proposed culprit. But looking at the overall hydraulic circuit nature of interaction between the valve body and clutch packs, I thicker fluid is going to provide more cushion between the plates and steels, but it's also going to delay and elongate the engagement time for those clutch packs which is the exact opposite of what we want. Higher horsepower creates more torque discrepancy between gears that the clutch packs need to mitigate, so if the engagement time is prolonged due to a thicker fluid, the heat generated as the clutches slip would be much higher than a stock application and wear would be accelerated.

The only way to overcome that slower engagement is to either increase the apply piston area (the part that actually smooshed the clutch packs together to lock the up), or increase the pressure seen at the apply piston. The former option is costly and difficult to achieve in many cases as you would need completely new hard parts for the transmission (usually, these hard parts are reused in a rebuild and its the seals, clutches, and steels that are replaced and upgraded). However, even if you could change up those apply pistons, you would need more fluid to apply them, which with a stock VB, you would actually slow down the process even more. So you would need to upgrade the valve body to supply more fluid at a minimum.

So that leaves us with the second option - increase the pressure seen by the apply piston by modifying the valve body. Luckily, this is also an option for unmodified apply pistons that will be effective in virtually all applications. The difficulty, however, is being able to increase the pressure enough to overcome the additional load/heat/fluid film (or any combination of those three) without applying TOO much pressure and giving the end user uncomfortable bang shifts that make the vehicle a pain to drive. Also, increasing total pressure in the transmission increases heat and drag - two things we are trying to minimize.

Luckily, we have an ace in the hole - computer controlled transmission parameters and torque management. We are able to pull timing, match shift points, make adjustments to pressure, and other little tidbits that help mitigate harsh shifts while retaining crisp, clean, quick shifts. I by no means know HOW to make that happen in reality, but good tuners do. I learned a lot from the legend known as SlowNStock on the HP Tuners forum in that regard. Unfortunately for me, my ECU version doesn't allow for the full compliment of transmission tuning parameters, so we've pulled some timing at shifts and made the transmission shifts much cleaner - if making the truck a tick slower.