</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by PhoRunnaBrotha:
<strong>I FINALLY found a great supercharger for the 3.0 finally! After months of searching, I found a guy who makes superchargers/turbos etc. for Vortech, Ford, Mazda, Saturn, Mitsubishi, Sebring/Avenger/Eclipse and the list goes on.

I'm not too sure about the cost of 3.4L superchargers (I think they are somewhere around 2,500 or so) but these will run 3,000 to 3,500. I'm sure we can get a group discount if we order at once... I'll find out for sure...

They come with warranty and everything you need.

Anyway, let me know if anyone out there is interested in this deal. I know I'm getting one for sure, just thought I'd see if anyone else wanted to get in on this!

Let me know if you have any questions.

CT</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">>>>*Well, I read all the posts, lots of good thoughts an opinions.
Here are a couple of mine: For one thing, the 3.0L V-6 runs exhaust gas temps that are pretty high, a turbo will increase this.
The head gasket failures were partly due to this, partly due to other control system failures, etc.
Toyota had no choice with the recall due to Federal Emission Control regulations, which while expensive for the OEM's, has been a boon to the consumer. The new design Graphite impregnated gaskets (*Eeek! afermarket!)..*LOL** seem to be a solution.

My main concern with supercharging is the other items needed to make it really effective. A forced aspirated engine doesn't need compression, it needs space to put fuel/air mixture.
*So the first step would be to change the pistons if supercharging is considered, otherwise real boost is going to be limited, or detonation would be gauranteed. The increase in expected cylinder pressure would surely dictate a forged or much heavier cast piston.
Then there is one other common failure, and that is the exhaust valve burning problem, usually on cylinders #5 or # 6. (Don't know why yet, got a suspicion, working on that, don't ask....)
So this suggests that the valves be replaced, the new Black Max valves are a likely candidate, since they feature some nice Black Nitriding and are harder than he**...But I would be thinking stainless in an Eaton S/S piece at least..
So one could assume that it isn't likely that anyone has come up with a simple "bolton" system that won't just break parts on the original engine design. *Possible, of course, there is always some clever young tech out there doing things that surprise this old man...
But my experience tells me I need to take the engine completely apart, then build to suit for maximum effect and strength..
This kinda boots the ideas of an economy bolton setup right out the window..
*But I will not go so far as to say, "Can't be done", because every time I do that, some kid shows up doing it and beats me with it!
So I say, "show me!" because I really am interested......*EB

Lets get back to the original post, has ANYONE heard anything more about this yet?

Hmmm, interesting about the exhaust valves on 5 and 6. I have what is probably a dumb question: How are the cylinders numbered on the 3.0? I'm just curious, if they were the rear two cylinders it wouldn't be the first time I've seen some weird things having to do with temperature gradients in engines ranging from burnt valves to massive carbon build up in some while others are squeeky clean.

On that note, temperature gradients like that might even have something to do with uneven expansion maybe making the HG's more vulnerable.

Watch some super charges their engine and bumps up the EGR or something weird to keep the temps down.....

But yeah, anything more on this? It's an interesting thought.

Frank.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by DirtyHarry:
<strong>22REs don't have to be slow. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

<img src="http://www.4x4wire.com/toyota/toystaff/harry/Exhaug" alt=" - " /></strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Could you please re-size the pic in this original post so that page 2 and all its legnthy posts are readable? That would totally rock, thanks.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
<img src="http://pics.montypics.com/jx94148/2003-06-23/1056349939_Exhaust2.jpg" alt=" - " />

<small>[ June 23, 2003, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: jx94148 ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by Brian894X4:
<strong> Oh, and while I might weigh around 5000lbs, and I might not be as fast as most other vehicles out there, I still get 18+ mpg and even better if I slow it down. Doesn't that about equal an "empty" 3.0 V-6 truck? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by Brian894X4:
<strong>Also, the marginal power increase is not worth the the signficant decrease in fuel mileage.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Well, this is just my example, but my 3vze is sitting right at 175k miles. The HG was replaced for free under V06 at 60k miles (no symptoms, purely precautionary). Only other work it has needed is a new A/C compressor and engine pulleys due to mud destroying the pulley bearings (hence why I HATE mud). Keep in mind that I did hydro-lock the engine about 125k miles ago with no damage and apparently no lasting effects. I have never seen my temp gauge go above half way, even in 95+ degree weather, sitting in traffic with the A/C on.

On the way up to the EC4RJ this weekend, I got a hair under 17 mpg with the A/C on, loaded with camping gear and pulling a trailer with all my tools, cooler, and spare parts in the back, cruising along at about 60-65mph. It did drop a little to a smidge over 15 mpg when I got to the highways and was running 70-80 mph. This is with 33's, 4.88's and lots of heavy mods. Doesn't sound like a "significant" decrease in fuel mileage to me. Of course, I'm running a 4 cyl. t-case, so maybe that's why. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

YMMV....literally.

#5 & 6 on the 3.0 are the rear cylinders on each bank by the stock crossover.
Somewhere (nearby?) I think a dead horse is still being beaten.

I think 5&6 are also the typical failure locations for the HG. 3&4 are for the I4, if the cooling system is neglected, an important variable not yet discussed.

I'm with Ted, you could blow the 3.0 but the cost, plus an inefficient intake system, would make it less attractive than just swapping in a 3.4 - painless (from what I hear) with the 3.0 drivetrain.

I never got good mileage or good service from the 3.0 *IN A 4RUNNER* (an important variable) and it never made enough more power than the 22RE to justify it in my mind - bad mileage AND low power AND a pain to work on, just didn't keep me from wanting to unload my .45 into it on a daily basis. Just my opinion, having owned several examples.

#1 & #6 were the common failure points (coolant wise) ttbomk, as it is the same locaiton on each head where the the coolant passage is.