Does anyone know of any online resuorces that describe how to select throttle body size (internal diameter)?
I guess what people do is look at power of the original engine and select TBs from an engine of similar power.
In which case the original 1200 cc carb'ed engine pumps out 145 @ 9,000 so taking TBs from another 1200 cc engine that gives 170 bhp @ 10,000
should work?
Are there any drawbacks with having too large TB when running at low revs, namely issues with fuel vaporisation into slow moving air?
If there is, would selecting smaller TBs, say from a 800 cc engine 110 bhp @ 10,500 but fitting larger volume fuel injectors be better?
[Edited on 6/1/21 by 02GF74]
Bit of a guide here
https://www.jenvey.co.uk/support/faqs/nunc-sit-amet-lorem-at-neque-aliquam-volutpat-eget-in-nisi/
When trying to work out what size I needed when converting my Xflow I found Dave Andrews , tuning Weber’s site very useful
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dave+andrews+tuning+webers&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari
Hope this helps
Using throttle bodies that are too large may cause poor drivability at low throttle openings
quote:
Originally posted by rusty nuts
Using throttle bodies that are too large may cause poor drivability at low throttle openings
I can't see any reason why large TB would be an issue for an injected engine other than throttle sensitivity, which could be eased by an appropriately cammed linkage. What am I missing? Of course that assumes the diam isn't greater than the runner diam.
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
I can't see any reason why large TB would be an issue for an injected engine other than throttle sensitivity, which could be eased by an appropriately cammed linkage. What am I missing? Of course that assumes the diam isn't greater than the runner diam.
My caveat on not making the throttle larger CSA than the port for that reason.
Reducing a small section of an intake tract won't improve torque though, as the gas will expand back out and slow again.
[Edited on 7/1/21 by coyoteboy]
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
My caveat on not making the throttle larger CSA than the port for that reason.
You also can loose a bit of midrange if the speed is too low.
When I changed from Carbs to ATPower throttle bodies I saw a little bit better top end, but a little less in the midrange.
Fuel consumption was massively improved. I also lost the whiff of petrol which followed me around
I didn't do the physical swap. I sent the engine back to Dunnell, so I'm guessing that we're comparing apples with apples.
Don't be too greedy chasing a headline figure unless you're racing it.
As mentioned....main issue is just of idle. To large and will struggle to get a smooth just of throttle delivery.
Bike TB's of 38mm will do 200bhp. but size is certainly not quite as critical as it is with carbs.
When I went from 40's with 36mm chokes to 42mm GSXR throttle bodies torque went up between 16-18 ft.lbs throughout the range. Peak power was just shy of 200bhp. The 42mm bodies are fine at this power level but I was advised to go up to 46mm Hayabusa bodies as my new engine is specced for around 220bhp. To counteract the low throttle sensitivity I have fitted a larger, offset throttle quadrant which gives a rising rate effect, ie. more cable travel at lower openings.
thanks - good to know; you mean something like a snail cam below (I think I've gotthe shape right)
Description
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
My caveat on not making the throttle larger CSA than the port for that reason.
There is lots of clever physics going on here that is outside my area of expertise, whatever that may be, but I'm pretty certain that is not right, the length of the inlet tract that the TBs form a part plays a role.
If you try to breathe through a long garden hose, I'll bet you'll suffocate whereas if the hose was 2 cm long I'll bet you'll be fine. My explanation, and shoot me down if you want, is that the air in a tube acts as a spring. In the long hose, effort trying to inhale is mostly spent stretching the air spring with not much air getting into your lungs.
I would expect the CA area of TBs is larger than the port opening. Unfortunately I don't have any cylinder heads with TBs to measure up.
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
thanks - good to know; you mean something like a snail cam below (I think I've gotthe shape right)
Description
Perfect, thanks for that. That's more extreme than what I thought, shouldn't be that hard to try different profiles.
I was unable to fit a progressive throttle cam due to lack of space between my TBs so I had to make one that fits near the throttle pedal operated by a short cable which then pulls the main cable. Made slow speed driving so much more pleasant rather than jerking every time I hit a bump
Hi, just browsing the forum and came across this question.. I've spent many a happy hour with Megasquirt and a Renault engine in a Lotus Europa,
in the process accumulating some information that may be relevant to this discussion.
I've played mainly with plenum and runner systems, these have to be matched to port spacing as near as possible, that tends to mean the donor
engine will be of a similar capacity, that was the case in my conversion and it was an easy installation. The required throttle, manifold pressure and
temperature sensors were all on the plenum/runner as removed from the donor (k-series), as was the stepper motor valve for idle set-up, injectors and
a fuel regulator. Simple.
I've also played with bike ITBs, in my case they were chosen based upon similar power and came with with constant depression slides, sourced from
a YZF600 R6 Yamaha. They required using a throttle position map rather than the manifold pressure driven plenum/runner setup. Took a little longer to
set-up and guess what, absolutely no difference in performance.. ITBs are really only worth using for engines that produce max torque high in the rev
range where the runners need to be short for optimum inlet pulse tuning. Waste of time below 6000rpm. Looks good, but not necessary.
Which brings me to something else that is absolutely worth its weight, Tunerstudio software for setting up the fuel map. It cost about £60 IIRC but
was sooo useful from Megasquirt (also for Speeduino nowadays). You just get the engine running after a fashion, jump in and drive around with it set
to 'fast change'. It updates your fuel map based upon what it sees coming out of the exhaust registering on the O2 sensor. It's
really simple and a perfect excuse for an enthusiastic drive.
Here's the thing you need to get absolutely right, injector size. Be realistic about the power you expect to get and source injectors from an
engine of the same power/speed. The reason it's so important is setting up the off-idle pickup performance. You'll have trouble with
calibration if the injector is too large. This is due to the turndown in injection pulse duration at idle, it's crucial to keep that pulse as
long as possible to avoid large errors that may exceed the desired duration.
Another key consideration for off-idle pickup is injection pulse timing, not all ECUs are equal in this respect, the Megasquirt 2 I used didn't
have the facility, I soon learnt from those who know that this would have helped a lot. Speeduinos have it as standard I believe.
Any questions..
Almost any engine can benefit from itbs but you need to have an inlet long enough to match the wavelength of the RPM you have. What you're saying
is right in the sense that you need to match your parameters, no point fitting parts optimised for one state to an otherwise unoptimised engine.
I've been watching speeduino for a while but its lack of native 8 cyl sequential ruled it out for me. I think that the latest STM32 support
effectively fixes that, I started designing a board for it.
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
Almost any engine can benefit from itbs but you need to have an inlet long enough to match the wavelength of the RPM you have.