Looking for help with TRD Superchager & FIC set up probl
Yeah the quality of the supercharger is crap but they do stand behind their "limited" warranty. You may go through 3 superchargers in 2 yrs time but hey, its free 
My local scion buddy has had one for 2 years now and he's ready to shoot it with a 12 gauge. He's already ordered his turbo kit. I was more or less referencing how you can retain your 3 year 36000 mile warranty and still add power. If you go turbo or nitrous, the powertrain portion is done for. Hell, some dealers void your warranty if you don't have TRD intake and exhaust. Mine here in FL is pretty lenient in regards to mods but my list is too long for them to even want to touch my car... and I've only got <20k miles 
My local scion buddy has had one for 2 years now and he's ready to shoot it with a 12 gauge. He's already ordered his turbo kit. I was more or less referencing how you can retain your 3 year 36000 mile warranty and still add power. If you go turbo or nitrous, the powertrain portion is done for. Hell, some dealers void your warranty if you don't have TRD intake and exhaust. Mine here in FL is pretty lenient in regards to mods but my list is too long for them to even want to touch my car... and I've only got <20k miles
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 14
From: Chicago, Illinois
You said that most OEM's build cars with turbos and not S/C. True for diesels yes, but gasoline powered cars no. With the exception of Dodge, most performance minded cars & trucks are powered S/C. Look at Ford, Toyota, Mini-Cooper, Chevy Cobalt (okay, was S/C now turbo). Ford dropped the turbo on the 80's SVO Mustang & Thunderbird Turbo Coupes because of turbo and engine failures. In fact, a large number of high end exotics use S/C like the Ford GT, Corvette Z06, and a plethora of others. Yea, I know Porshe and Audi love turbos though…
To clarify, YES, boost is by definition exactly what you stated. What I eluded to was the fact that boost on a S/C is inherently different not in physical properties but in the aspect that it presents the combustion chamber pressure. Reverting back to the old adage of the physics experiment with a fresh egg; if you to take a certain weight that would be sure to crush the egg and very carefully laid this weight on the focal point of the eggshell's elliptic (center), the eggshell's structure would be able to support the weight by spreading out the load throughout its structure. Now, take the same weight and lower it quickly onto the same point and the eggshell's structure cannot compensate fast enough to absorb the load and the shell breaks. The same goes with building up cylinder pressures with forced induction. Too fast and you cause undue internal stress on the cylinder walls, rotating assemblies, gaskets, valve seats and such. The linear fashion of the S/C does make it safe.
True, numerous motor failures on turbo cars are from detonation either from improper tuning, poor gas, or a nut-job cranking up the boost to beat his buddies ride. To clarify, YES I agree and comprehend that detonation does cause stress from a marked increase in cylinder pressure My point is, that although detonation IS a killer, a large part of turbo/engine failures are a direct result of over-boost. This happens mainly on stock engines that were not designed for forced induction. Simply put, automakers design a motor to make X amount of power so they build its parts to handle X amount of power + a percentage above. You wouldn't design a motor to only make 160BHP but build it out of parts able to withstand 300BHP or more. It would be cost prohibitive. Although the 2AZ-FE is quite strong, the piston ring lands do fail at a certain point. This is stress caused by increased cylinder pressures. Another example; filling a 3000PSI gaseous O2 bottle. Fill it slow n steady and you will live to see another day. Crank the fill port valve wide-open and you won’t need an x-ray to see your insides.
OK, how about one more? Using my fist example, I slowly build up 20lbs per square inch across your face. That is roughly the equivalent of a 60-80lbs weight on your jaw. It wouldn't hurt you and probably just push you off balance. Now just imagine fisticuffs with Mike Tyson. He gives you a love tap using the same exact 20lbs per square inch force. After about 5 seconds you start to wonder, "Damn, why is my face hurting so bad and why am I starring at the ceiling?"
Yes, you’re correct. It does take power to make power while a turbocharger reclaims energy from waste heat. But stating that the S/C is causing stress on the motor because it is belt driven? It is a load on the rotating assembly. It and of itself is not inducing stress on the motor until it produces enough boost to raise the cylinder pressures substantially. So, is your alternator, power steering, water pump, oil pump, balance shafts, and timing chain putting stress on the motor?
Most tuner's worth their weight will also tell you that the OEM's have a better understanding of modern engine specifics & needs to operate efficiently, safely, and produce usable power. This wasn't always true back in the 80's, 90's, and the early part of the 21 Century. Today, though, OEM's have raised then bar. A 1987 Mustang GT was only making 225 ponies at the flywheel. A car like a TC would have smoked it. Heck, it wasn't too long ago that a 270BHP car was considered “high performance”. Now cars like a 2007 Camry SE with 268 BHP are just common place. Check under the hood of that Carry and---No turbo. Hmm, the OEM's must know what they are doing.
This is why master Tuners like Kenny Tran will tell you (to answer your question; “who the hell told you to perform the re-flash and then tune the car) to load the TRD maps and THEN tune on top of it. Maybe you can cram a little more power out of your motor without the re-flash, but where is that ECM safety net at now? Maybe that is why you know of so many blown motors with TRD's? That is because people push the mantra of no TRD reflash. It is ill-advised for a reason, NOT a presumption. As I said before, there is way more to operating a fuel injected engine than just the few options that a piggyback offers. Even as extensive as the Greddy Ultimate is, it can't run the engine by itself. This is why standalone computers and the tuning thereof cost mega bucks.
It is common knowledge that a TC can run the TRD up to 10PSI with just the TRD map. It does run lean and the ECM pulls back timing to compensate. Does the TRD map retain more control than the stock maps? I highly doubt it. To do so would require a change in the algorithms that makes the calculations and that would be an extensive/expensive venture for TRD. All they did was shift data points on certain maps to compensate for the increase in airflow read by the MAF and the larger injectors. A piggyback should still have the same exact amount of altering signals to the ECM as any other method.
Still, it is not double tuning! It is a PRE-TUNED MAP. Hence the term “map-module”. No one is tuning it for you. Secondly, it came as part of the kit and would have normally been part of the Dealer install. I am not paying for the install of the kit just the labor of the re-flash which is far cheaper.
I have read plenty:
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...6464981&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...d_bxgy_b_img_a
You guys are NOT totally off your rockers, but honestly, we’re all just talking semantics. I thought the topic here was about the TRD tune & re-flash. How did you guys all end up on all of the same tangents? This is why I left this forum the first time around over a year and a half ago and went elsewhere. I thought I’d give it another shot, but It’s cluttered and bloated with too much arrogance and no moderation done by anyone. This is the ONLY forum I have been a part of where I walk away from conversations feeling like I have been belittled. And I have to say, I was warned prior to joining. This forum’s reputation precedes itself.
With that I bid you farewell and good luck.
To clarify, YES, boost is by definition exactly what you stated. What I eluded to was the fact that boost on a S/C is inherently different not in physical properties but in the aspect that it presents the combustion chamber pressure. Reverting back to the old adage of the physics experiment with a fresh egg; if you to take a certain weight that would be sure to crush the egg and very carefully laid this weight on the focal point of the eggshell's elliptic (center), the eggshell's structure would be able to support the weight by spreading out the load throughout its structure. Now, take the same weight and lower it quickly onto the same point and the eggshell's structure cannot compensate fast enough to absorb the load and the shell breaks. The same goes with building up cylinder pressures with forced induction. Too fast and you cause undue internal stress on the cylinder walls, rotating assemblies, gaskets, valve seats and such. The linear fashion of the S/C does make it safe.
True, numerous motor failures on turbo cars are from detonation either from improper tuning, poor gas, or a nut-job cranking up the boost to beat his buddies ride. To clarify, YES I agree and comprehend that detonation does cause stress from a marked increase in cylinder pressure My point is, that although detonation IS a killer, a large part of turbo/engine failures are a direct result of over-boost. This happens mainly on stock engines that were not designed for forced induction. Simply put, automakers design a motor to make X amount of power so they build its parts to handle X amount of power + a percentage above. You wouldn't design a motor to only make 160BHP but build it out of parts able to withstand 300BHP or more. It would be cost prohibitive. Although the 2AZ-FE is quite strong, the piston ring lands do fail at a certain point. This is stress caused by increased cylinder pressures. Another example; filling a 3000PSI gaseous O2 bottle. Fill it slow n steady and you will live to see another day. Crank the fill port valve wide-open and you won’t need an x-ray to see your insides.
OK, how about one more? Using my fist example, I slowly build up 20lbs per square inch across your face. That is roughly the equivalent of a 60-80lbs weight on your jaw. It wouldn't hurt you and probably just push you off balance. Now just imagine fisticuffs with Mike Tyson. He gives you a love tap using the same exact 20lbs per square inch force. After about 5 seconds you start to wonder, "Damn, why is my face hurting so bad and why am I starring at the ceiling?"
Yes, you’re correct. It does take power to make power while a turbocharger reclaims energy from waste heat. But stating that the S/C is causing stress on the motor because it is belt driven? It is a load on the rotating assembly. It and of itself is not inducing stress on the motor until it produces enough boost to raise the cylinder pressures substantially. So, is your alternator, power steering, water pump, oil pump, balance shafts, and timing chain putting stress on the motor?
Most tuner's worth their weight will also tell you that the OEM's have a better understanding of modern engine specifics & needs to operate efficiently, safely, and produce usable power. This wasn't always true back in the 80's, 90's, and the early part of the 21 Century. Today, though, OEM's have raised then bar. A 1987 Mustang GT was only making 225 ponies at the flywheel. A car like a TC would have smoked it. Heck, it wasn't too long ago that a 270BHP car was considered “high performance”. Now cars like a 2007 Camry SE with 268 BHP are just common place. Check under the hood of that Carry and---No turbo. Hmm, the OEM's must know what they are doing.
This is why master Tuners like Kenny Tran will tell you (to answer your question; “who the hell told you to perform the re-flash and then tune the car) to load the TRD maps and THEN tune on top of it. Maybe you can cram a little more power out of your motor without the re-flash, but where is that ECM safety net at now? Maybe that is why you know of so many blown motors with TRD's? That is because people push the mantra of no TRD reflash. It is ill-advised for a reason, NOT a presumption. As I said before, there is way more to operating a fuel injected engine than just the few options that a piggyback offers. Even as extensive as the Greddy Ultimate is, it can't run the engine by itself. This is why standalone computers and the tuning thereof cost mega bucks.
It is common knowledge that a TC can run the TRD up to 10PSI with just the TRD map. It does run lean and the ECM pulls back timing to compensate. Does the TRD map retain more control than the stock maps? I highly doubt it. To do so would require a change in the algorithms that makes the calculations and that would be an extensive/expensive venture for TRD. All they did was shift data points on certain maps to compensate for the increase in airflow read by the MAF and the larger injectors. A piggyback should still have the same exact amount of altering signals to the ECM as any other method.
Still, it is not double tuning! It is a PRE-TUNED MAP. Hence the term “map-module”. No one is tuning it for you. Secondly, it came as part of the kit and would have normally been part of the Dealer install. I am not paying for the install of the kit just the labor of the re-flash which is far cheaper.
I have read plenty:
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...6464981&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...d_bxgy_b_img_a
You guys are NOT totally off your rockers, but honestly, we’re all just talking semantics. I thought the topic here was about the TRD tune & re-flash. How did you guys all end up on all of the same tangents? This is why I left this forum the first time around over a year and a half ago and went elsewhere. I thought I’d give it another shot, but It’s cluttered and bloated with too much arrogance and no moderation done by anyone. This is the ONLY forum I have been a part of where I walk away from conversations feeling like I have been belittled. And I have to say, I was warned prior to joining. This forum’s reputation precedes itself.
With that I bid you farewell and good luck.
Originally Posted by Jay666
You said that most OEM's build cars with turbos and not S/C. True for diesels yes, but gasoline powered cars no. With the exception of Dodge, most performance minded cars & trucks are powered S/C. Look at Ford, Toyota, Mini-Cooper, Chevy Cobalt (okay, was S/C now turbo). Ford dropped the turbo on the 80's SVO Mustang & Thunderbird Turbo Coupes because of turbo and engine failures. In fact, a large number of high end exotics use S/C like the Ford GT, Corvette Z06, and a plethora of others. Yea, I know Porshe and Audi love turbos though…
To clarify, YES, boost is by definition exactly what you stated. What I eluded to was the fact that boost on a S/C is inherently different not in physical properties but in the aspect that it presents the combustion chamber pressure. Reverting back to the old adage of the physics experiment with a fresh egg; if you to take a certain weight that would be sure to crush the egg and very carefully laid this weight on the focal point of the eggshell's elliptic (center), the eggshell's structure would be able to support the weight by spreading out the load throughout its structure. Now, take the same weight and lower it quickly onto the same point and the eggshell's structure cannot compensate fast enough to absorb the load and the shell breaks. The same goes with building up cylinder pressures with forced induction. Too fast and you cause undue internal stress on the cylinder walls, rotating assemblies, gaskets, valve seats and such. The linear fashion of the S/C does make it safe.
True, numerous motor failures on turbo cars are from detonation either from improper tuning, poor gas, or a nut-job cranking up the boost to beat his buddies ride. To clarify, YES I agree and comprehend that detonation does cause stress from a marked increase in cylinder pressure My point is, that although detonation IS a killer, a large part of turbo/engine failures are a direct result of over-boost. This happens mainly on stock engines that were not designed for forced induction. Simply put, automakers design a motor to make X amount of power so they build its parts to handle X amount of power + a percentage above. You wouldn't design a motor to only make 160BHP but build it out of parts able to withstand 300BHP or more. It would be cost prohibitive. Although the 2AZ-FE is quite strong, the piston ring lands do fail at a certain point. This is stress caused by increased cylinder pressures. Another example; filling a 3000PSI gaseous O2 bottle. Fill it slow n steady and you will live to see another day. Crank the fill port valve wide-open and you won’t need an x-ray to see your insides.
OK, how about one more? Using my fist example, I slowly build up 20lbs per square inch across your face. That is roughly the equivalent of a 60-80lbs weight on your jaw. It wouldn't hurt you and probably just push you off balance. Now just imagine fisticuffs with Mike Tyson. He gives you a love tap using the same exact 20lbs per square inch force. After about 5 seconds you start to wonder, "Damn, why is my face hurting so bad and why am I starring at the ceiling?"
Yes, you’re correct. It does take power to make power while a turbocharger reclaims energy from waste heat. But stating that the S/C is causing stress on the motor because it is belt driven? It is a load on the rotating assembly. It and of itself is not inducing stress on the motor until it produces enough boost to raise the cylinder pressures substantially. So, is your alternator, power steering, water pump, oil pump, balance shafts, and timing chain putting stress on the motor?
Most tuner's worth their weight will also tell you that the OEM's have a better understanding of modern engine specifics & needs to operate efficiently, safely, and produce usable power. This wasn't always true back in the 80's, 90's, and the early part of the 21 Century. Today, though, OEM's have raised then bar. A 1987 Mustang GT was only making 225 ponies at the flywheel. A car like a TC would have smoked it. Heck, it wasn't too long ago that a 270BHP car was considered “high performance”. Now cars like a 2007 Camry SE with 268 BHP are just common place. Check under the hood of that Carry and---No turbo. Hmm, the OEM's must know what they are doing.
This is why master Tuners like Kenny Tran will tell you (to answer your question; “who the hell told you to perform the re-flash and then tune the car) to load the TRD maps and THEN tune on top of it. Maybe you can cram a little more power out of your motor without the re-flash, but where is that ECM safety net at now? Maybe that is why you know of so many blown motors with TRD's? That is because people push the mantra of no TRD reflash. It is ill-advised for a reason, NOT a presumption. As I said before, there is way more to operating a fuel injected engine than just the few options that a piggyback offers. Even as extensive as the Greddy Ultimate is, it can't run the engine by itself. This is why standalone computers and the tuning thereof cost mega bucks.
It is common knowledge that a TC can run the TRD up to 10PSI with just the TRD map. It does run lean and the ECM pulls back timing to compensate. Does the TRD map retain more control than the stock maps? I highly doubt it. To do so would require a change in the algorithms that makes the calculations and that would be an extensive/expensive venture for TRD. All they did was shift data points on certain maps to compensate for the increase in airflow read by the MAF and the larger injectors. A piggyback should still have the same exact amount of altering signals to the ECM as any other method.
Still, it is not double tuning! It is a PRE-TUNED MAP. Hence the term “map-module”. No one is tuning it for you. Secondly, it came as part of the kit and would have normally been part of the Dealer install. I am not paying for the install of the kit just the labor of the re-flash which is far cheaper.
I have read plenty:
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...6464981&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...d_bxgy_b_img_a
You guys are NOT totally off your rockers, but honestly, we’re all just talking semantics. I thought the topic here was about the TRD tune & re-flash. How did you guys all end up on all of the same tangents? This is why I left this forum the first time around over a year and a half ago and went elsewhere. I thought I’d give it another shot, but It’s cluttered and bloated with too much arrogance and no moderation done by anyone. This is the ONLY forum I have been a part of where I walk away from conversations feeling like I have been belittled. And I have to say, I was warned prior to joining. This forum’s reputation precedes itself.
With that I bid you farewell and good luck.
To clarify, YES, boost is by definition exactly what you stated. What I eluded to was the fact that boost on a S/C is inherently different not in physical properties but in the aspect that it presents the combustion chamber pressure. Reverting back to the old adage of the physics experiment with a fresh egg; if you to take a certain weight that would be sure to crush the egg and very carefully laid this weight on the focal point of the eggshell's elliptic (center), the eggshell's structure would be able to support the weight by spreading out the load throughout its structure. Now, take the same weight and lower it quickly onto the same point and the eggshell's structure cannot compensate fast enough to absorb the load and the shell breaks. The same goes with building up cylinder pressures with forced induction. Too fast and you cause undue internal stress on the cylinder walls, rotating assemblies, gaskets, valve seats and such. The linear fashion of the S/C does make it safe.
True, numerous motor failures on turbo cars are from detonation either from improper tuning, poor gas, or a nut-job cranking up the boost to beat his buddies ride. To clarify, YES I agree and comprehend that detonation does cause stress from a marked increase in cylinder pressure My point is, that although detonation IS a killer, a large part of turbo/engine failures are a direct result of over-boost. This happens mainly on stock engines that were not designed for forced induction. Simply put, automakers design a motor to make X amount of power so they build its parts to handle X amount of power + a percentage above. You wouldn't design a motor to only make 160BHP but build it out of parts able to withstand 300BHP or more. It would be cost prohibitive. Although the 2AZ-FE is quite strong, the piston ring lands do fail at a certain point. This is stress caused by increased cylinder pressures. Another example; filling a 3000PSI gaseous O2 bottle. Fill it slow n steady and you will live to see another day. Crank the fill port valve wide-open and you won’t need an x-ray to see your insides.
OK, how about one more? Using my fist example, I slowly build up 20lbs per square inch across your face. That is roughly the equivalent of a 60-80lbs weight on your jaw. It wouldn't hurt you and probably just push you off balance. Now just imagine fisticuffs with Mike Tyson. He gives you a love tap using the same exact 20lbs per square inch force. After about 5 seconds you start to wonder, "Damn, why is my face hurting so bad and why am I starring at the ceiling?"
Yes, you’re correct. It does take power to make power while a turbocharger reclaims energy from waste heat. But stating that the S/C is causing stress on the motor because it is belt driven? It is a load on the rotating assembly. It and of itself is not inducing stress on the motor until it produces enough boost to raise the cylinder pressures substantially. So, is your alternator, power steering, water pump, oil pump, balance shafts, and timing chain putting stress on the motor?
Most tuner's worth their weight will also tell you that the OEM's have a better understanding of modern engine specifics & needs to operate efficiently, safely, and produce usable power. This wasn't always true back in the 80's, 90's, and the early part of the 21 Century. Today, though, OEM's have raised then bar. A 1987 Mustang GT was only making 225 ponies at the flywheel. A car like a TC would have smoked it. Heck, it wasn't too long ago that a 270BHP car was considered “high performance”. Now cars like a 2007 Camry SE with 268 BHP are just common place. Check under the hood of that Carry and---No turbo. Hmm, the OEM's must know what they are doing.
This is why master Tuners like Kenny Tran will tell you (to answer your question; “who the hell told you to perform the re-flash and then tune the car) to load the TRD maps and THEN tune on top of it. Maybe you can cram a little more power out of your motor without the re-flash, but where is that ECM safety net at now? Maybe that is why you know of so many blown motors with TRD's? That is because people push the mantra of no TRD reflash. It is ill-advised for a reason, NOT a presumption. As I said before, there is way more to operating a fuel injected engine than just the few options that a piggyback offers. Even as extensive as the Greddy Ultimate is, it can't run the engine by itself. This is why standalone computers and the tuning thereof cost mega bucks.
It is common knowledge that a TC can run the TRD up to 10PSI with just the TRD map. It does run lean and the ECM pulls back timing to compensate. Does the TRD map retain more control than the stock maps? I highly doubt it. To do so would require a change in the algorithms that makes the calculations and that would be an extensive/expensive venture for TRD. All they did was shift data points on certain maps to compensate for the increase in airflow read by the MAF and the larger injectors. A piggyback should still have the same exact amount of altering signals to the ECM as any other method.
Still, it is not double tuning! It is a PRE-TUNED MAP. Hence the term “map-module”. No one is tuning it for you. Secondly, it came as part of the kit and would have normally been part of the Dealer install. I am not paying for the install of the kit just the labor of the re-flash which is far cheaper.
I have read plenty:
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...6464981&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Managem...d_bxgy_b_img_a
You guys are NOT totally off your rockers, but honestly, we’re all just talking semantics. I thought the topic here was about the TRD tune & re-flash. How did you guys all end up on all of the same tangents? This is why I left this forum the first time around over a year and a half ago and went elsewhere. I thought I’d give it another shot, but It’s cluttered and bloated with too much arrogance and no moderation done by anyone. This is the ONLY forum I have been a part of where I walk away from conversations feeling like I have been belittled. And I have to say, I was warned prior to joining. This forum’s reputation precedes itself.
With that I bid you farewell and good luck.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,638
From: Parsippany, NJ
lmfao.
Let's see who has turbo'd vehicle vs S/C...
Manufacturers with turbo'd vehicles from the factory:
Audi, VW, Porsche, Toyota, Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Mini, BMW, Saab, Volvo, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, Acura, Saturn...and I probably missed 1 or 2.
S/C:
Ford, Chevy, Pontiac...can't seem to name anything else.
I won't even bother with the rest of your post.
Let's see who has turbo'd vehicle vs S/C...
Manufacturers with turbo'd vehicles from the factory:
Audi, VW, Porsche, Toyota, Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Mini, BMW, Saab, Volvo, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes, Acura, Saturn...and I probably missed 1 or 2.
S/C:
Ford, Chevy, Pontiac...can't seem to name anything else.
I won't even bother with the rest of your post.
It's a good thing I don't know how to read. Otherwise, I would have wasted my life reading what was probably already said in previous posts. Something tells me we haven't seen the last of him. By bashing this forum, you in turn offend anyone who posts on it and most of them belong to other forums too.... tread lightly young grasshopper...
I havnt been following this thread very carefully so i went back and read page 1 and 2......I cant help but to shake my head.......he will learn eventualy but its going to have to be on his own.....he was just a newb who got ahold of a couple of books but didnt fully understand them and prolly got most of his ideas from a stoner tuner who is about to rape him for a few hundred bux...this is the kind of stuff i try to prevent...
so i leave you guys with this
"you can fix a dent, you can fix an engine, but you cant fix stupid"
so i leave you guys with this
"you can fix a dent, you can fix an engine, but you cant fix stupid"
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,638
From: Parsippany, NJ
I love how he actually tried to rebut against factory turbos being more common than factory S/C. 
I think Subaru ALONE offers more turbo vehicles than ALL manufacturers offer S/C vehicles 
I bet he was going for the pity vote with that last post. Everyone does when they give up. "YOU GUIZ BELITTEL ME!" Lmfao, you belittle yourself by not listening to people who know more.
I think Subaru ALONE offers more turbo vehicles than ALL manufacturers offer S/C vehicles I bet he was going for the pity vote with that last post. Everyone does when they give up. "YOU GUIZ BELITTEL ME!" Lmfao, you belittle yourself by not listening to people who know more.
Well if he knows so much why is he paying someone to do all this for him? And why cant he answer the questions he has himself? He shouldve at least been able to install the s/c himself... I apparently am not near as smart as this guy but i fabb'd a turbo setup and tuned myself :/
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
airmankevin1
Scion tC 1G Owners Lounge
26
Feb 14, 2018 01:23 PM
TheTripleC
PPC: Vehicles
1
Jan 4, 2015 06:46 PM