TRD/ Magnuson 4.0 Supercharger Tips, Tricks, and Mods

I am the one that got the 1.18 number. I asked Scott about it a long time ago when I first got the UCON. I figured if anyone knew he would since he designed and programmed the UCON. He told me 1.18 is the correct multiplier for our setup.

Well fpr mod will lean you out in vacuum due to lower fp so maybe by fooling the maf into "thinking" it's getting more air its bringing your fuel trims closer to nominal.

 

Yes, meth is richening it up. I'm just proceeding with caution making wot pulls with all that I'm doing. I owe 33k+ on the truck. Would hate for it to sideways because of the mods

 

Did he explain where the 1.18 came from, or was it just passing by info he gave you when you asked?

I have reason to believe that there are certain combinations that will benefit from this. The URD equipped intake users utilizing the TRD tune are the most inclined to immediately benefit from this as not only the MAF has been redirected to the front of the intake but also the intake realizes airflow gains of up to anywhere from 40-50% over the OE design. I think in seeing that much mass of air flowing immediately through the intake in the front the MAF absolutely hates this as the sample tube is not able to process as much air through it as the intake is flowing which in turns causes a semi haywire condition because now the hotwire resistor is telling the PCM that X amount of air is flowing through when it is really X amount of air that is really going through, which could cause the glitchy code and the knock present in random scenarios.

All of this is just theoretical as of right now and I think the true test of time obviously lies in the real world application which I will be further testing as the miles rack up. I do mixed city and highway driving so I think the style I drive would be one of the better tests as the stop/ go variables are always changing.

 

What are you seeing at WOT, as far as boost and AFR numbers go. I believe you were anywhere from 8-10psi no?

Do you hear any knock at any point? We know you have an issue because you get the P0103 code intermittently. How is it running right now?

If you have a scanner or handheld scanner device, I would highly encourage you hook it up and run it and get datalogs. If you are unable to datalog it, record a video of it during driving. And audibly indicate what you are doing during the changes.

Meth is an unknown variable to me as I have never worked with it, but if i could see it all working in unison that would give me a better insight as to how you should proceed.

One thing is for sure. That code on yours needs to go away. You dont want the truck falling on its face as it is not only dangerous to your immediate safety, but dangerous to the engine as well.

 

It's common on maf equipped vehicles to calculate hp from maf. Different vehicles use a different multiplier usually from 1.0 to 1.25. Scott stated 1.18 is closest for our application.

 

I changed my meth setting to boost readings only. Seems to have cured it. I'll do some wot runs early tmrw and see. But it runs just fine now.

 

And yes, boost 8-10.

 

Interesting. I have owned a few MAF cars and have always modified my vehicles but have never knew about that. It makes a lot of sense though.

I actually ran a SD (speed density) tune on my LS2 GTO back when I was going buckwild on modifying it which allowed the PCM to use volumetric efficiency tables to calculate its airflow rates. So the MAF was more of a decorative dummy item left for state inspection purposes. I don't know how much power that thing was cranking out, but that thing was a HP MONSTER. I always presumed anywhere from 450-470WHP.

If we had the option to speed density on these trucks I would do it in a heartbeat.

Test of time will tell if you will recode or not. The issue still indicates it is MAF based, not rich or lean codes, as you are introducing meth at the TB right? That is why I'm concerned you may still have a lingering issue.

 

Agreed. I'm just being more concious of not introducing new variables just yet. Like, I'll have dinner first then drill out my maf sensor.

 

fair..

I have a rule of thumb when it comes to boosting on an unknown variable. Ease it in slowly (that's what she said). I rely heavily on the AFR gauge as well as the scanner to see where percentages are before I lay heavy into it. In boost I see 0% STFT's which is perfect. Just where I like it, meaning I am neither rich nor lean under boost conditions and there is proper control across the board and running condition. I rely a lot on my ear also. If I hear knock or ping I'll let off. Sometimes the PCM parameters don't give you the whole story your ears can otherwise can tell you.

 

Not sure what STFT's are. To my knowledge I've never heard pinging. My afr's are right about 14.7 until about half throttle then they drop. Unless I'm mistaken they are steadier and drop off later since I've went to the fpr mod.

 

That's how they usually are, yes.

You need to get well acquainted with STFT and LTFT readings. They are paramount in proper engine drivability and even operation diagnostics.

 

Ok. I'll eat some alphabet soup.

 

@12TRDTacoma are you still running the Cali-hi performance setup all 4 cats with stock exhaust manifolds and ypipe?

 

So, I just spent some quality time with three of these sensors. My original. A brand new OE one, and oddly, A brand new OE one off of a 5VZE.

Comparing the 4.0 to the 3.4 they look almost exactly the same. With the exception of the backside of the 4.0 being opened up more. Hole diameter is exactly the same between the two of them as well.



So, being curious if perhaps the sensor for the smaller motor will read different, I decided to swap out my sensor for the 3.4 version for the drive home. Just for shiggles and to see what would happen. What could go wrong?
Well, the truck ran fine. Started right up and seemed to drive just like it did with the correct sensor installed. AFR's look just like they did before. Same 14.5-ish AFR at partial throttle acceleration under low boost.

When I got home, I put the radio into gauge mode and took three readings. 700rpm, 1500rpm, and 2000rpm.



I then shut it down and re-installed my stock sensor. Same test followed.



I then shut it down, removed the sensor and took it over to the workbench where I proceeded to very carefully tape that hole closed with a piece of masking tape. Same tests followed at the same rpm.



I then pulled it again and re-masked it to only be blocking half of the hole.



I got pretty much the same exact numbers as with it completely blocked. Weird. I didn't bother with pics since the numbers were the same.

I tried scooping more air with a little masking tape "bonnet" Same tests. Same numbers.



I guess my conclusion would be that the hole diameter, at least in the lower RPM ranges doesn't change much. Obviously things are likely to change at higher revs. And again, Look at the design of it. The air hits the stalk of it and is diverted up and into the actual sensor. It passes through the sensor then down through the back side of the stalk and then out.

I did see ever so slightly higher numbers from the 5VZ sensor. I may throw that one back in there and give it a longer evaluation.

Point being, If you're gonna stick this sensor into a larger pipe than it was meant for, you're gonna want it to read higher airflow than it is actually measuring.

 

Truth.

 

Still running the same setup I have been for a while now. All OE cats and modified Y pipe and my 2.3 pulley.

 

There are several inputs the MAF gives the PCM. One being 0-5v reference which tells it how much voltage the sensor is pulling.. the lbs/ min, gm/s is another input. Voltage is actually much more important than this reading as it provides a fine tuned up to date read out to the computer as to how much it the sensor is currently reading.

Just to give you an idea of how little I care about this reading in this particular scenario, (although that PID is important for diagnostic reasons) it was actually the very last PID I checked on the scanner, just for fun. I care more about STFT/ LTFT read outs and improvements obtained and also how well the vehicle has responded to the modification in question. Both of which were positives.

If I really want to get sophisticated with my testing I would have to throw back the old sensor with the smaller air sample tube hole and gets a graphing voltmeter over time of what the voltage of the sensor is during multiple scenarios then install the modified sensor and see what difference I find in voltage. Based on the positive improvements I've had, I would be willing to bet that I would find notable differences in the voltage readouts.

 

Bravo on the well detailed post. All data is good data and furthers all of our education.

 

Much agreed!

I consider this thread a trial and error sort of thread. While some of our findings end up being wrong it is all good for the constructively greater well being of the thread and further educates us all on every important aspect as a whole.

Good on you for taking some time on this @BillDaCat8