HP Tuners for 2005-2015

I have been watching this thread for a few weeks now and it seems like the latest transmission tune has really woken up the truck's response. I've tuned my last vehicle to my liking and would like to do the same with my truck but I might wait until more time and revisions have been made to refine things since, from what I remember, each flash requires payment in addition to the initial cost of the hardware/software.

Any opinions on the current/latest tune(s) and usefulness for a DD with occasional overland duty?

 

If you buy the MPVI2 and 4 credits, you can flash till your hearts content, I have flashed easily 50+ times.


With a JustDSM engine tune and my v13 trans tune.... you wont want to go back to stock (even on a stock truck like mine!)

 

I second this. also fully stock, and love the engine and v13 tune. trans mapping is much smoother, throttle is much smoother, feel more power (butt dyno) and even gained ~1mpg (~6-7% increase)

 

Oh great! I was under the impression that is cost credits for each flash. Good to know.

The throttle/pedal mapping and transmission shifting is really poor stock, figured that was to help gain some mpg by keeping the engine rpm down. I'm surprised you have seen increased fuel efficiency. Is that just from calculations made at fuel fill ups or other data?

 

Definitely collective data from all of the tuned crew at this point. Even heavily.modified folks have seen a bump from .8-1 MPG. Just goes to show you how suck the OE tune is.

 

Pretty common for factories to make motors rich for longevity. JustDSM just how rich are these 4.0s from the factory?
I see there are large CSF radiators out there. Pointless for NA applications unless you can improve power/mpg by leaning the mixture significantly. Not sure if any of you cracks looked into this?

 

Looked into CSF?? Yes, quite a few running dual core for the taco and some running single core for the FJ.

 

No, not looked into CSF. I meant the tuning thing, i.e., leaning the mixture more in NA applications. The extra heat then could be compensated for with one of those radiators. Just thinking out loud

 

I am away from my laptop today but the factory TRD calibration targets 9.78:1 at the highest loads/rpm and the N/A cal targets 10.57:1 IIRC.

 

It isn't just leaning. It is also ignition timing, throttle mapping, cam tuning(possibly from cam gears for the exhaust), and all with regard to the octane that you normally use. That octane grade and cam gears can quite significantly move that knock threshold, which means more or less timing. Which can also translate to improvements in fuel consumption.

All inclusive. Not just any one thing.

 

So that’s pig rich, isn’t it??

Also @12TRDTacoma have a PM thread going about shorty vs real long tube headers, particularly the equal tube length ones. He says you have data logs that prove that on NA trucks the shorty headers improve drivability more than the LT ones. Is that true?? If so, I find that very surprising actually. Knowing what I know from motorcycles, long and equally long primary tubes (depending on crank setups of course) yield the best scavenging which produces the most torque at low RPM even though long tubes of course flow less than short ones. But with low revving motors like these I was pretty certain that long tube headers will be beneficial, whereas the results of shortys of the OEM log style manifold would be slim to none.

 

I already have the cam gears but no tune yet. Leaner means hotter. Less fuel to cool cylinder walls. I wasn’t sure if heat was a concern with respect to how lean you can go on NA motors to improve power and when diminishing returns begins to tilt the scales

 

I'm pretty sure that was your findings unless I'm all bassackwards right @JustDSM ?
A quick Google search netted me the same exact thing I was telling HX. So it sort of further solidified what my initial feelings were. Of course I could always be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Also, I sent you an email this morning with my log brother.

 

Even going 12:1 for N/A, your cooling system will handle just fine. 12-12.5 would be far more optimal for N/A.

If you were driving and someone changed that AFR on the fly, it would be instantly noticeable. As if the sluggishness were taken away.

 

Around 12.5 is optimal as indicated above for NA.

10.5 and definitely 9.78 AFRs are considered pig rich and will foul up your plugs very quickly.

As I said, the factory tune is trash and is the epitome of lazy tuning passed off as good to go by Toyota to compensate for the lean conditions in play in order to appease federal and California emissions regulations. Those are just my personal feelings though.

 

fill-up calculations.

 

I can attest to this. At a point in time when I was between tuning, and no turbo, the AFR's were at such. Which prompted me to lower my fuel pressure on my regulator, until in the mid 11's.

 

Do power benefits trail off after 12.5? As in, there’s no benefit to be had going leaner with NA?

 

Does the truck come with an oem wide band O2 sensor? Has anyone checked actual AFR with a calibrated stand alone O2 sensor/controller?

 

No, just the O2 sensors