Looks like we have a new TB option

[Loe]

Odds are the analog signal can be scaled up or down to match the OEM analog values in a matched, scaled, relationship. I do this all the time with industrial electronics in the controls industry.

However, as someone that tunes in the GM/Ford/Dodge world - this plug n play method may be more of a cheater method than appropriately dialing in the tune for the increased TB size. Normally, in the tune there's a field called "ETC Scaler" which is the calculated area of the throttle body itself. The ECU uses this field to adjust for measured airflow, which, in turn, trickles down to calculations of fueling, timing, etc... With the signal simply modified and scaled at the TB itself then the ECU isn't accurately measuring the airflow anymore which can cause off calculations and a lack of power as well as a lack of adjusting for environmental changes.

I'd be curious to learn a bit more on HOW this plug and play option is actually functioning before I threw it on my car. But then again, I'm overly anal and read far too much into things because I'm weird and need to know how everything works. ;)

I would imagine with us being MAP based and our MAF is calculated, deviating too far from the OEM 70mm TB would increase the chances of the calculation being needed. At any rate, products are marketed in a way sometimes to where the end user gets confused, producers will always push the size of what they have available for a sale, so use your best judgement.

...time to ramp mine up to 90mm soon (Aftermarket Hemi replacements) , or simply remove the back side of the shaft on my 80mm Hemi unit which frees up 4mm for "free"

[Indepth]

I would imagine with us being MAP based and our MAF is calculated, deviating too far from the OEM 70mm TB would increase the chances of the calculation being needed. At any rate, products are marketed in a way sometimes to where the end user gets confused, producers will always push the size of what they have available for a sale, so use your best judgement.

...time to ramp mine up to 90mm soon (Aftermarket Hemi replacements) , or simply remove the back side of the shaft on my 80mm Hemi unit which frees up 4mm for "free"

Our MAF is calculated, correct. Which further proves the point that if we're doing analog scaling to match the OEM scalar it has to be done dead nuts on otherwise you'll have inconsistencies.

I'm not sure me as an end user is confused here. I think I'm more 'in-tune' with what is required to run a larger than OEM TB and because of this want to know how exactly the new part is being incorporated to our cars.

I wonder what the diminishing return point of TB sizing is based on CFM... The TVS1320 can only handle so much air into it before you create more problems than power.

[Loe]

Our MAF is calculated, correct. Which further proves the point that if we're doing analog scaling to match the OEM scalar it has to be done dead nuts on otherwise you'll have inconsistencies.

I'm not sure me as an end user is confused here. I think I'm more 'in-tune' with what is required to run a larger than OEM TB and because of this want to know how exactly the new part is being incorporated to our cars.

I wonder what the diminishing return point of TB sizing is based on CFM... The TVS1320 can only handle so much air into it before you create more problems than power.

IE saw some HP gains and no loss in TQ when they tested their 90mm Hemi unit, without any tuning involved (albeit a small gain). I'm curious to see their findings post-tune, which hasn't been published yet as they are still testing their software/hardware.

[Thurston]

IE saw some HP gains and no loss in TQ when they tested their 90mm Hemi unit, without any tuning involved (albeit a small gain). I'm curious to see their findings post-tune, which hasn't been published yet as they are still testing their software/hardware.

No loss of Torque is surprising. On the dyno, Evan at Tampa AutoSports saw a loss w the testing of this TB or a TB option and i believe w the UC you see a loss of torque. Could be interesting.

[Tony@EPL]

No loss of Torque is surprising. On the dyno, Evan at Tampa AutoSports saw a loss w the testing of this TB or a TB option and i believe w the UC you see a loss of torque. Could be interesting.

We tested several different sizes and definitely saw some pretty significant torque losses once you crosses a certain point. Bigger is not better!

This solution is a truly "tuned" size that is a great match for 98% of the cars that are stage 2 or beyond. I have not tested on stage 1 yet, but my guess would be you would be better off upgrading to stage 2 or dual pulley before doing this.

I have a 82mm TB kit in house as well that we will be testing next time we have a car with a "big set up" on the dyno.

[Thurston]

We tested several different sizes and definitely saw some pretty significant torque losses once you crosses a certain point. Bigger is not better!

This solution is a truly "tuned" size that is a great match for 98% of the cars that are stage 2 or beyond. I have not tested on stage 1 yet, but my guess would be you would be better off upgrading to stage 2 or dual pulley before doing this.

I have a 82mm TB kit in house as well that we will be testing next time we have a car with a "big set up" on the dyno.

cool, thanks for the insight Tony and good luck!

[brs2c]

...time to ramp mine up to 90mm soon (Aftermarket Hemi replacements) , or simply remove the back side of the shaft on my 80mm Hemi unit which frees up 4mm for "free"

With the cast inlet to the supercharger being only 2.75”, my understanding is that the 76mm is the magical diameter that negates the area the butterfly takes up.

Therefore, the total area that the air has to flow through is the same through through the throttle body and into the SC inlet.

The 90mm(3.54”) is the size that I used to think would be ideal. HOWEVER, you still have the same 2.75” SC inlet as the bottleneck. You may be able to port the cast inlet a little, and take 1/16th” out all of the way around. But even with that, I don’t see how a huge 3.54” TB next to a ported 2.88” hole will gain.

This new 3” (76mm) TB or APR’s 3.14” (80mm) connecting into the 2.75” (or ported 2.88”) inlet should be plenty large enough.

That being said, there maybe something I am not considering. I would love to see the 90mm make more power, I just don’t see how it will.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine