Magnuson TVS1900 Kit Available Now

[Hellcat2015]

Very nice. Given the ZF scheme, if they label it at 360lbft id guess its probably actually good to 500-550 before failures actually start. They leave a pretty big margin.

My Timken’s arrived today. Thanks for posting. I wasnt expecting the box to be this small though hahahaha.

What are these for?

Sponsored

 

[Hellcat2015]

What am I missing from my shopping list.

• HP Tuner
• 90465 lkr8bhx-s NGK spark plugs
• Timken Bearings to replace bearings in Idler pulleys https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07SR3FZRC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I know there was something else, but the thread has blown up so I struggle to find the correct postings.

Are these bearings worth the upgrade and how many do I need?

 

[KurtP]

What are these for?

Better quality idler pulley bearings..smoother/quieter. You need 2. 6203-2ts-c3

For getting the Bank’s intake to fit the magnuson- what did you have to do?

 

[dcmdon]

Dave has done a great work in getting the maggie kit to work right, but its still very much a tuner kit. (Although some are saying current file from mag is good)

For your case, Id say go with the edelbrock kit. Its a box that shows up at your door ready to go soup to nuts to tune. The only thing you give up is power potential at higher boost levels that it doesnt sound like you want to do anyway.

Thank, you . That's what I suspected. I don't really care if it makes 40 more hp at 5000 rpm. If I do get a Gladiator (waiting to drive a bronco first), I will want a bump in power between 2500 and 4500 rpm.

 

[KurtP]

Thank, you . That's what I suspected. I don't really care if it makes 40 more hp at 5000 rpm. If I do get a Gladiator (waiting to drive a bronco first), I will want a bump in power between 2500 and 4500 rpm.

Unsure how the two would stack up if Dave tuned both of them...the mag would be ahead but i dont know by how much at standard 8psi. Looking at the compressor maps, once Magnuson gets CARB approval and its apples to apples, i doubt there would be much of any difference at all. The limits here are emissions, cyl pressure, and temps before its the blower.

I guess it isnt entirely clear to me why one would cross shop bronco with gladiator and not wrangler....im not anti ford by any means, but id rather have a wrangler and evaluate again after the bronco has been out a couple years.

 

[dcmdon]

These are the plusses and minuses of each choice.

The Ford should make plenty of story stock, and if I decide to tune it, since its already turbocharged, its a $500 project. Not a $6000 project.

The smaller supercharger can't match the output of the larger turbo. So at wide open throttle at high RPMs its going to either fail or create more of a temperature bump in the charge air.

But down at 3500 rpm, where you are looking for a (pulling the numbers out of my butt) bump in hp from 160 to 250. The smaller blower is fine.

 

[KurtP]

These are the plusses and minuses of each choice.

The Ford should make plenty of story stock, and if I decide to tune it, since its already turbocharged, its a $500 project. Not a $6000 project.

The smaller supercharger can't match the output of the larger turbo. So at wide open throttle at high RPMs its going to either fail or create more of a temperature bump in the charge air.

But down at 3500 rpm, where you are looking for a (pulling the numbers out of my butt) bump in hp from 160 to 250. The smaller blower is fine.

I dont know what size turbo is on the bronco to say what it flows or what the power potential is of the motor stock or how much boost they can run. I suspect youll be much less limited by the pistons of a ecoboost motor than the stock pentastar ones as you mentioned.

Youll have higher iat’s from the turbos just as a function of more boost, unless you spray meth injection. TVS blowers actually generate less air heat during compression per psi than centri blowers or turbos, and the turbo bodies run hotter than a tvs body by a lot. TVS blowers generate 12.5-13deg of IAT heat increase per psi compared to 13.5-14deg of a centri or turbo...assuming the units are proper sized for application.

I would guess the bronco will get small turbos than generate a lot of tq low and mid and then fall off. Theres nothing wrong with that in my mind...my concern with ecoboost is they seem to lose compression over less of a time period than id expect. Iirc, car and driver’s long term test raptor lost something like 3mph trapspeed in their 20-30k miles with it.

The bronco is going to be a cool truck.

 

[dcmdon]

Kurt - I made a significant typo there.

I meant to say
The smaller supercharger can't match the output of the larger SUPERCHARGER. Trying to draw a distinction between the Edelbrock and the Magnuson. My point being that a smaller blower is probably fine for me. I'm looking for midrange. Not big peak numbers.

The bronco actually comes with twin Borg Warner K04 turbos. I had a single K04 on a VW turbo I once owned and it was good for 250 hp. So there is definitely room to tune the ford. Stock hp is about 310 and torque about 400 ft-lbs.

The thing is the Jeep doesn't seem like it would need much boost to really transform it. The problem isn't really how it goes when you put your foot all the way down and run it up to 6k. The problem is really mid rpm power. A forced induction system with 7-10 lbs of boost and a smallish intercooler is all you need, with supporting mods obviously. (injectors, tuning, etc)

Don

p.s.

Its funny how brands change their names as society changes and this names become perceived as . . . . . RACIST. Ha.

The original maker of the K04 turbo was a brand called KKK. You can't have that in the marketplace. Also, when I used to race motorcycles there was a high end aftermarket suspension company called WHITE POWER. Now its WP. ha.

 

[KurtP]

Kurt - I made a significant typo there.

I meant to say
The smaller supercharger can't match the output of the larger SUPERCHARGER. Trying to draw a distinction between the Edelbrock and the Magnuson. My point being that a smaller blower is probably fine for me. I'm looking for midrange. Not big peak numbers.

The bronco actually comes with twin Borg Warner K04 turbos. I had a single K04 on a VW turbo I once owned and it was good for 250 hp. So there is definitely room to tune the ford. Stock hp is about 310 and torque about 400 ft-lbs.

The thing is the Jeep doesn't seem like it would need much boost to really transform it. The problem isn't really how it goes when you put your foot all the way down and run it up to 6k. The problem is really mid rpm power. A forced induction system with 7-10 lbs of boost and a smallish intercooler is all you need, with supporting mods obviously. (injectors, tuning, etc)

Don

p.s.

Its funny how brands change their names as society changes and this names become perceived as . . . . . RACIST. Ha.

The original maker of the K04 turbo was a brand called KKK. You can't have that in the marketplace. Also, when I used to race motorcycles there was a high end aftermarket suspension company called WHITE POWER. Now its WP. ha.

Yeah its interesting to watch them react. I worked a VAG/BMW shop for a bit and very familiar with the ko4. Not a bad little unit. I swapped out the WP on my KTM for Tractives...WP just aint the same anymore.

I think a user here added a solid 100+lb/ft in low and midrange over stock with the Edebrock kit. Utah, iirc, not sure if thats a 91 or 93 state. Havent been there in a bit.

 

[DAVECS1]

Yeah not sure if it is an hp tool limitation or the PCM in the jeep, but I was able to command 325 ftlbs from 1800 rpm ip. The problem is some limit would stepnin and rack the cams and 0 out the timing mid acceleration. Was a fun as hell to drive. Except for the stutter. That was EVO 20 listed above. I plan to send out some emails an try to figure that out. I had to play some games with torque management down low. It will only tolerate about 280 ft lbs in the lower rpm sections and maintain a steady throttle timing and cam position once you crest 4000 rpm ot will let me bring in about 370 ftlbs.

 

[KurtP]

Yeah not sure if it is an hp tool limitation or the PCM in the jeep, but I was able to command 325 ftlbs from 1800 rpm ip. The problem is some limit would stepnin and rack the cams and 0 out the timing mid acceleration. Was a fun as hell to drive. Except for the stutter. That was EVO 20 listed above. I plan to send out some emails an try to figure that out. I had to play some games with torque management down low. It will only tolerate about 280 ft lbs in the lower rpm sections and maintain a steady throttle timing and cam position once you crest 4000 rpm ot will let me bring in about 370 ftlbs.

300-350 down low would be awesome. 280 is good. What is it stock for comparison?

 

[dcmdon]

Yeah not sure if it is an hp tool limitation or the PCM in the jeep, but I was able to command 325 ftlbs from 1800 rpm ip. The problem is some limit would stepnin and rack the cams and 0 out the timing mid acceleration. Was a fun as hell to drive. Except for the stutter. That was EVO 20 listed above. I plan to send out some emails an try to figure that out. I had to play some games with torque management down low. It will only tolerate about 280 ft lbs in the lower rpm sections and maintain a steady throttle timing and cam position once you crest 4000 rpm ot will let me bring in about 370 ftlbs.

325 ft lbs at 1800 rpms is FANTASTIC. That is all most of us need or even want.

 

[KurtP]

325 ft lbs at 1800 rpms is FANTASTIC. That is all most of us need or even want. I

@DAVECS1 is OG on the tunes.

 

[DAVECS1]

Might be tipping a few back, but I was pretty stoked today, driving to lunch. I was at 13.6 on EVO11. 600 miles on on EVO2X

 

[KurtP]

Might be tipping a few back, but I was pretty stoked today, driving to lunch. I was at 13.6 on EVO11. 600 miles on on EVO2X

Nice. Does it report accurately with the injector change?

Sponsored