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.

and who are you? :iono:

I'm a nobody wondering why another nobody is quoting my post.

If there are gains to be had, it would be in the 8500+ rev range where the stock plenum has restrictions.

I wonder what the guys will say now, when they where questioning in the past that the stock throttle body is large enough and it does not create any restriction.

This engine does not like to rev that high without more work.

Brilliant. Never would've thought that.

Wow very different ideas on plenum sized between them and Greddy.

It should sound different at the very least.

I don't think one can draw any sort of worthwhile conclusions just from looking at it. This is a wholesale change to a part of the intake tract that is more sensitive to geometry than whatever miniscule flow restrictions are in the stock manifold. If they made calculated changes based on the engine harmonics then this could have some surprising results and changes to the power curve.

Tell that to Nissan, who put this type of system on the R32-34 Skyline GT-R as a factory design with a rev limit of 7500, same as our engines.

This type of mod isn't for the average end user, it's for specific types of people that have some need that can't be addressed via other aftermarket parts. Judging by the type of responses these two ITB threads have given, it's safe to say 99% of the end users will be happy with a good header paired up with a tune and factory intake box.

Apples to oranges.
You're neglecting the fact that's a boosted motor.

@mav1178 isn't neglecting anything in his statement. Right off the bat he's addressing that what he's saying is for the average 86 owner, and what this really means for that type of customer in terms of cost/benefit. He's been in the industry for a very long time, and his statements are typically not geared towards selling products as much as they are to steer people modifying their cars in the right direction.

The potential gains from an ITB setup on a boosted car are SUBSTANTIALLY different than in a small displacement NA car. ESPECIALLY in the rev ranges below 8500rpm.
It’s an apples to oranges comparison, full stop.
Maybe you missed the entire first paragraph of his comment.

Having a hard time figuring out why you're even trying to "contribute" to this thread. You obviously don't like the idea of ITB's on this car.. there are plenty of other threads and people you can harass.

I brought up the RB26DETT because it's a factory car. Boosted or not, the engine revs to 7500 so it's ESPECIALLY relevant in the RPM range you listed.

Tell me, what was Nissan's reasoning for including this on the RB26DETT but not have it on the RB25DET?

I wasn't trying to compare gains from an ITB setup on a 2.0L FA20 to the factory ITB setup on a 2.6L RB26DETT. I was merely pointing out that it doesn't take 8500RPMs for there to be some type of benefit from ITBs.

Whether the gains are worth the price paid is up to the end user, which is not 99% of people wanting to mod the FA20.

Totally worth it. Absolutely on my na build list!

I believe the point he's trying to make is that you are comparing two VERY different engines.
There are so many differences between the two it isn't really logical to even compare.
Straight 6 vs boxer.
There is sooo much more that determines weather or not ITB's/IRTB's will be worthwhile and where they will add power/response.
Just because its useful on one engine doesn't mean it's useful on another.

RPM has very little to do with it.
His original point was that most have figured out that there is very little to gain power wise below 8,500 the airflow restriction just isn't a factor below that RPM in our engines with the stock manifold.

His second point was since the engine doesn't like RPM above that 8,500 mark anyway its kind of a moot point.

I can see slightly better throttle response but not much beyond that.
Some minuscule gains here and there.

I think to get real gains the car would either need to be high revving (above 8,500) or have a bunch of boost being thrown down its throat to be worth the investment.
^ At least in my eyes.

Only way to really know is for someone to do it.

There's more to it than the ITBs. Notable plenum volume has been added.

And cylinder layout has absolutely zero to do with it.

Their reasoning was they knew they could charge more for the rb26 than the 25.
And you’ve completely missed my point. Again. It doesn’t take 8500rpm for gains from an ITB, on a boosted car. Apples to oranges.

I didn't miss your point when you wrote "placebo effect" in your second post in this thread. I got it. No gains.

As for more money for RB26 than 25, that's a cute statement but that's not why the engine was built the way it was. The RB26 was essentially built to maximize the impact of the car/engine in FIA Group A competition. The engine displacement had a multiplier (1.7x) and with 2.6L the car would be able to run 11" wide tires with the vehicle minimum weight similar to other cars in the class.

This was a conscious decision as the R31 GTS-R was not very competitive in Group A.

But yes, it was to charge more for the RB26. Nice way of putting it.

I wonder how much you're trying to justify your throttle body purchase at the moment.

ITBs are good and all, but when are we going to get variable length runners?

Never?

I think with Cole will end up like this:

http://i65.tinypic.com/m92hc1.jpg

I've effectively stopped reading your posts now.
They're so far from being on topic it's ridiculous.
We get it. You're a GTR fanboi.
Moving along.
inb4 no gains.