SARD ITB (4 Throttle) News!
 

Just saw this posted by SARD on FB:

http://www.sard.co.jp/pdf/1710_4Throttle.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/SARD.Customize/

Seems to be an updated, final production version that is actually available. Anyone want to translate the Japanese for us?

:thumbup:

So they are putting it out at about the same time as the Greedy version. Two ITB kits at the same time, I wonder if we are about to see some interesting changes in NA tuning for our cars.

I'm hoping to see some of the top-tier companies jump on these and see what sort of extra jam and response we get!

I'm imagining an E85 full bolt on ACE powered car would be preeeetty righteous.

Inb4 no gains.

Most likely minimal, if any gains seen on a dyno sheet, with substantial gains felt from the drivers seat, and small gains seen in lap times. :iono:

Good ol' placebo effect never disappoints.

4x the potential problems. I don't understand the benefits. The MAF is in the stock position even.

ITB's don't improve throttle response by reducing the distance between your air metering device and the throttle body, the idea is to reduce the distance between the throttle body and the combustion chamber. In the strictest sense MAF placement doesn't really impact throttle response as much as you might think. To increase throttle response you want to reduce the delay between opening the throttle and an increase in charge air pressure. Now, of course you need to add more fuel to match the added air and if you relied only on the signal from your MAF then the fuel would lag behind the increased air pressure. However, pretty much all modern engine management systems provide numerous adjustments to handle tip-in enrichment. This is specifically due to the delay between the increased fuel demand and the MAF signal. This delay is present on pretty much ALL MAF systems, even our stock system. ITBs cause other difficulties in tuning but handling lag in MAF signal is not a big deal.

Heck... full-out race systems will often use Alpha-N tuning which bases fuel purely on TPS and RPM. Horrible for a street setup but it is a very simple system for cars that operate at high load most of the time and don't have to worry about stop and go traffic or other moderate load scenarios that trip up Alpha-N.

Yes, we heard you the first time you posted in this thread.

The more you spend the more you have to justify to yourself of what a good deal it was.

Looking at the photos, I suspect both brands use the same throttles and manifolds to the heads but with their own runners and plenum.

Both brands have a fairly abrupt angle of runner just about the throttles.

Sorry, who are you?

Curious what this or the Greddy achieves. If slight gains, then maybe some great sounds?

It says ...


· Each cylinder intake is longer and the throttle area is enlarged. There is an improvement in responsiveness and intermediate power
· Φ 45 Throttle × 4 / Surge tank / piping etc. required for installation
· Genuine injector can be installed


An ECU setting is needed.