V6 Low End Power Opinions

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by chris4x4

IIRC, Gadget said he saw an increase on a stock X runner.

I might have to give that a shot. As you said, it seems like Toyota did a good job on the RPM range you spend the most time in. I'll give Gadget a call and see if I can pick his brain about different set ups and post up my findings (and maybe results if I go through with it).

[Torspd]

Originally Posted by chris4x4

Sometimes. Ive been at 60% and still in closed loop. In fact,.....the lowest RPM's Ive seen it in open loop, after being warmed up, is about 50%. Driving style will vary. Ive also been at 4500 rpm, and still in closed loop. Too many variables to pin it to one operating condition.

Indeed on the variables. I was just quoting off of what I had witnessed yesterday on the way home.

[chris4x4]

Originally Posted by Torspd

Indeed on the variables. I was just quoting off of what I had witnessed yesterday on the way home.

You also have a turbo, so you might go into open loop sooner than a NA vehicle. Not a good comparison.

[Torspd]

Nope. I am all N/A trim right now. Stock headers. Stock Y-pipe. No catback.. Lol. Don't have one any more. Seriously tired of the droning, but truly it isn't as loud as I thought it would be.

Edit: Also stock ECU.

[Torspd]

Took a little video on the way home the other day. Definitely changes under more than just to select variables like I had originally thought. Chris4x4, you motivated me to do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPJE...ure=plpp_video

It is good for discussion though.

[xxOkieTacoxx]

Just put the V-8 tundra engine in the damn thing or a 350 =D. These trucks aren't really made to pull too much weight, granted I have pulled another truck on a flatbed with mine but if your using a truck for towing a lot of weight and excessive tools in the truck a tacoma isn't really the best option if you want a lot of low end tourqe. Anyhow for more low end tourqe you could always get a set of cams for more low end engine curve and also retard the timing a hair. But regardless your going to lose mpg :/

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by Torspd

Took a little video on the way home the other day. Definitely changes under more than just to select variables like I had originally thought. Chris4x4, you motivated me to do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPJE...ure=plpp_video

It is good for discussion though.

Interesting... I think the URD MAF Calibrator might be more effective than I originally thought.

[Torspd]

The only thing I wish I would have done also, was change one of the other variables to show % Load. I didn't think about that until afterwards though.

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by Torspd

The only thing I wish I would have done also, was change one of the other variables to show % Load. I didn't think about that until afterwards though.

I have an Ultragauge, I haven't messed with the settings much though. I wonder if I can make it show the open/closed loop.

[whippersnapper02]

Originally Posted by Pugga

I have an Ultragauge, I haven't messed with the settings much though. I wonder if I can make it show the open/closed loop.

The circle at one pf the top corners shows that. Broken for open and solid for closed.

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper02

The circle at one pf the top corners shows that. Broken for open and solid for closed.

Thanks, Whipper! I was wondering what that was for. I guess I should probably read the manual I printed off...

[Lurkin]

Keep us updated please.

For most of us, a low end increase is kind of the holy grail. Unfortunately, it's the most elusive, while staying on any kind of a budget. I have been keeping up on the manifold spacer also, along with the open/closed loop discussion for MAF cali usage. I haven't committed any $$$ either, for the reasons you've stated. It's also still not clear to me that short tube headers adds to low end either, I haven't seen any trustworthy documented results at rpms that mean something to me (dynos that start at 3k+ are not useful to me for the power that I want).

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by Lurkin

Keep us updated please.

For most of us, a low end increase is kind of the holy grail. Unfortunately, it's the most elusive, while staying on any kind of a budget. I have been keeping up on the manifold spacer also, along with the open/closed loop discussion for MAF cali usage. I haven't committed any $$$ either, for the reasons you've stated. It's also still not clear to me that short tube headers adds to low end either, I haven't seen any trustworthy documented results at rpms that mean something to me (dynos that start at 3k+ are not useful to me for the power that I want).

I'll post back once I get some results. I think I'm going to give the URD calibrator a shot and see what happens. Unfortunately, my results will be mostly butt dyno, watching shift points, slow acceleration times (ease of acceleration withouth downshifting) and fuel economy. I still haven't thrown out the idea of a snorkel either, they're supposed to be a good intake but I think getting one for that reason might be a little overkill

[Pugga]

Little bit of an update: Thanks to Whippersnapper, I now know how to tell if my truck is running in open or closed loop. I watched my Ultragauge yesterday going home and coming in this morning and I only made it to open loop when coasting with my foot off the gas or when I really got on it at highway speed. Even off the line, when revving up past 2,500 RPM in the first 2 gears, the truck stayed in closed loop. That being said, I don't think the URD MAF Calibrator will do much for me. As I understand it, the MAF Calibrator is only effective when the truck is in open loop.

[Lurkin]

Confirmation on what Pugga just posted, I watched open/closed loop on mine for the last day and only went into open loop as Pugga described.

Yes, the MAF cali basically offers up updated fuel maps to the ECU, which are only read in open loop. In closed loop the ECU primarily uses the O2 sensors.

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by Lurkin

Confirmation on what Pugga just posted, I watched open/closed loop on mine for the last day and only went into open loop as Pugga described.

Yes, the MAF cali basically offers up updated fuel maps to the ECU, which are only read in open loop. In closed loop the ECU primarily uses the O2 sensors.

From watching the manifold spacer thread, again, another contender came into the mix - Pulleys. Altogether, you can replace the pulleys for a few hundred bucks a strip the weight by about 60%. It's a decent amount of rotational mass that's no longer being turned by the engine. I think I'm going to snoope around the XR forums and see what I can find out about them and the URD competition Y-pipe.

[Torspd]

Don't forget about the two options for light weight flywheels. Those will also free up some low end TQ and HP, the same as the pulleys.

[memario1214]

Why so many mods!!!??? My bank account is not happy with TW & XRU...

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by memario1214

Why so many mods!!!??? My bank account is not happy with TW & XRU...

Yeah, I'm beginning to see why people take voluntary bans... it's to save their wallets

[Pugga]

Originally Posted by Torspd

Don't forget about the two options for light weight flywheels. Those will also free up some low end TQ and HP, the same as the pulleys.

I saw those also... I'd like to avoid that kind of install for now though. That's a little more involved than I'm willing to go at this point.