ProCharger Supercharger Kit Installation & First Start-Up on 2021 Gladiator Rubicon

[Dickster]

I have had the same procharger set up on my 2020 for about a year now. Have not noticed any problems yet. It has developed a whine that it did not have in the beginning, Gas mileage sucks, but it always has with this vehicle. I wish the power curve came on quicker. 3500 is too late for me. I like to play a round with larger trucks when they mess with me, I bought it for the torque as I haul a lot with my trailer. Just remember to change the oil in the SC at 500 miles. They had to retune mine 3 times the initial programing.

I was hoping the same a little more gain at lower RPMs. I noticed some but was hoping for more. I got mine just for the smile if I pull anything significant it will be behind my Ram 3500. Yeah i changed it at 500 miles then at 3000. Plan to change my oil every 3k with procharger oil.

Sponsored

 

[Zachanadandy]

I was hoping the same a little more gain at lower RPMs. I noticed some but was hoping for more. I got mine just for the smile if I pull anything significant it will be behind my Ram 3500. Yeah i changed it at 500 miles then at 3000. Plan to change my oil every 3k with procharger oil.

I think if low end is the goal a roots style blower is probably the better bet. Magnuson or edlebrock or Whipple. I mean it's still a pentastar so the peak power is going to be pretty high in the rpms but positive displacement blowers tend to make more low end power.

 

[Dickster]

I think if low end is the goal a roots style blower is probably the better bet. Magnuson or edlebrock or Whipple. I mean it's still a pentastar so the peak power is going to be pretty high in the rpms but positive displacement blowers tend to make more low end power.

They are still belt driven.. I've looked at the power curve and it's about the same. It's purely the 3.6l and to change that you will probably need to rebuild the engine. Tuning will help a lot I had them play with my tune 4 times before I gave it the green light. I might have them write another to see if it can get a touch better. Don't get me wrong though, you do gain some low end power boost kicks in around 2k for me but I had them play with the tune.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I think if low end is the goal a roots style blower is probably the better bet. Magnuson or edlebrock or Whipple. I mean it's still a pentastar so the peak power is going to be pretty high in the rpms but positive displacement blowers tend to make more low end power.

Definitely - part of the design - more cam/valve lift and duration driven leading to low pumping at lower RPM.
Under 3,000 RPM the intake valves are in low lift mode. Only a blower increasing the pressure to overcome that low valve lift at low RPM would help there.

 

[Greg_L]

Technically, there's no such thing as "low rpm power". Low rpm stuff is torque and torque is completely dependent on engine size. Horsepower is dependent on RPMs. A mediocre small engine like a 3.6L is simply incapable of stump pulling torque. Superchargers definitely can help, but really if you want instant smiles from a small engine you need to get into transmission and diff gearing. Or start messing with stall speeds and revs. But then you're getting into things that hurt general drivability.

 

[Zachanadandy]

Technically, there's no such thing as "low rpm power". Low rpm stuff is torque and torque is completely dependent on engine size. Horsepower is dependent on RPMs. A mediocre small engine like a 3.6L is simply incapable of stump pulling torque. Superchargers definitely can help, but really if you want instant smiles from a small engine you need to get into transmission and diff gearing. Or start messing with stall speeds and revs. But then you're getting into things that hurt general drivability.

400ftlbs to the wheels by 2500rpm... from a 2.0t. Nobody is trying to idle around and it is clearly very possible to make low rpm power from a small displacement engine.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Technically, there's no such thing as "low rpm power". Low rpm stuff is torque and torque is completely dependent on engine size. Horsepower is dependent on RPMs. A mediocre small engine like a 3.6L is simply incapable of stump pulling torque. Superchargers definitely can help, but really if you want instant smiles from a small engine you need to get into transmission and diff gearing. Or start messing with stall speeds and revs. But then you're getting into things that hurt general drivability.

Shifting cam timing and lift can shift the horsepower down, or up, in the curve.
Advancing the cam will typically add slightly more hp at lower RPM, while reducing the hp by a similar amount at higher RPM.


Generically -
Torque is the ability to do work, HP is work done over a given time. So all you can do is shift the HP and torque curves a bit downward, but lose it on the top end - and maximum is always at higher RPM.
Longer stroke engines are high torque engines - these don't meet that definition. So at lower RPM, they can't actually do as much "work".
You would have to swap out cams and followers and get rid of the low lift system for maximizing the potential power at lower RPMs. It would never be great, but the fact that the intake is restricted at lower RPMs prevents any real meaningful gains below 3,000 RPM no matter what else you do.
It would be very interesting to see how they would work out with performance intake cams, more LSA, higher intake lift at lower RPM, maybe a more radical ramp.

 

[Greg_L]

400ftlbs to the wheels by 2500rpm... from a 2.0t. Nobody is trying to idle around and it is clearly very possible to make low rpm power from a small displacement engine.

That's not really useful "power". And I'm not saying it's impossible. There are always exceptions and examples that defy common tactics for torque vs horsepower. I've dyno'd them all. But physics and math don't lie. Neither does that graph. And an engine peaking at 3k and then runs out of air well before 5k rpm is a fucking pig.

 

[Greg_L]

Shifting cam timing and lift can shift the horsepower down, or up, in the curve.
Advancing the cam will typically add slightly more hp at lower RPM, while reducing the hp by a similar amount at higher RPM.


Generically -
Torque is the ability to do work, HP is work done over a given time. So all you can do is shift the HP and torque curves a bit downward, but lose it on the top end - and maximum is always at higher RPM.
Longer stroke engines are high torque engines - these don't meet that definition. So at lower RPM, they can't actually do as much "work".
You would have to swap out cams and followers and get rid of the low lift system for maximizing the potential power at lower RPMs. It would never be great, but the fact that the intake is restricted at lower RPMs prevents any real meaningful gains below 3,000 RPM no matter what else you do.
It would be very interesting to see how they would work out with performance intake cams, more LSA, higher intake lift at lower RPM, maybe a more radical ramp.

I agree. Horsepower is torque x RPM/5252. If you want more power you need to shift torque higher into the RPM range and spin more RPMs. That's how tiny F1 engines make 800+ hp - they spin 18k RPMs. Cam timing, and most importantly - the intake valve closing point - is a good way to achieve this, but not practical for some guy that just Jeeps for fun. There's not a good way to make our Jeep engines more powerful through conventional means, so turbos and blowers have to come into play.

 

[Zachanadandy]

That's not really useful "power". And I'm not saying it's impossible. There are always exceptions and examples that defy common tactics for torque vs horsepower. I've dyno'd them all. But physics and math don't lie. Neither does that graph. And an engine peaking at 3k and then runs out of air well before 5k rpm is a fucking pig.

165hp and 235ftlbs per liter to the wheels is a pig? And it's in a Jeep so nobody wants or can use horsepower at 7k rpms.

 

[Greg_L]

165hp and 235ftlbs per liter to the wheels is a pig? And it's in a Jeep so nobody wants or can use horsepower at 7k rpms.

Yeah, it's a pig. I've looked at thousands of dyno graphs. That one you posted is all about hitting a number and nothing else. That engine falls on it's face really fast. If you can stay at one specific RPM forever then that graph is awesome.

Now, is it better than a stock naturally aspirated 2.0L small banger? Sure. Great. If the customer is happy then cool.

 

[Greg_L]

Also @Zachanadandy I'm not saying I'm some Jeep engine expert and you're wrong or I'm right or anything. But I have machined and built many many many very high horsepower engines in all makes and shapes and sizes and dyno tested them on actual engine dynos. I've seen them scream, I've seen them explode. I crewed on drag race teams for years. I machined and ported cylinder heads that sat on blocks that resided in cars that set speed records. My experience is with edge-of-death racing engines and offshore powerboat engines so maybe I'm a little off with slightly hopped up commuter engines. But the same rules apply everywhere. The internal combustion process and burning air/fuel has not changed. Higher RPM power still beats torque every single time no matter what vehicle is doing it. That's why we don't race diesels. And that's why a flatter power curve that extends higher in to RPMs will always be better than a quick peak and nothing after that.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

diesel for truck pulls or tractor pulls.
Gas for go really fast and get there really fast.

I love listening to this and how Kevin keeps that Gremlin 401 in the right RPM range shifting almost faster than you can see.


It was fun to watch my friend take his Dodge Ram diesel down the track, though -just for kicks as he was prodded into it for kicks.

 

[Zachanadandy]

Also @Zachanadandy I'm not saying I'm some Jeep engine expert and you're wrong or I'm right or anything. But I have machined and built many many many very high horsepower engines in all makes and shapes and sizes and dyno tested them on actual engine dynos. I've seen them scream, I've seen them explode. I crewed on drag race teams for years. I machined and ported cylinder heads that sat on blocks that resided in cars that set speed records. My experience is with edge-of-death racing engines and offshore powerboat engines so maybe I'm a little off with slightly hopped up commuter engines. But the same rules apply everywhere. The internal combustion process and burning air/fuel has not changed. Higher RPM power still beats torque every single time no matter what vehicle is doing it. That's why we don't race diesels. And that's why a flatter power curve that extends higher in to RPMs will always be better than a quick peak and nothing after that.

Again it's a Jeep so no I don't want 18k or even 7k rpms. Power that comes in quick and peaks before 5k, especially mated to an 8 speed auto is perfect. Is it a drag build? Of course not. Will it work great in all types of terrain? Absolutely. Only the Toyota guys are ever out here bouncing off the rev limiter rock crawling.... and that's because they only make their 100hp at 6k rpms.

 

[Greg_L]

We used to do exercises like say a medium performance generic 454 Chevy big block makes 600 hp at 5500 RPM. A 377 Chevy SB makes the same 600 hp at 7500 RPM. Who is faster? The 377 will run far away from that big block because it makes it's horsepower much faster.

Sponsored