Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r
ITBs don't generate tumble. You block off half the intake port so that all the air is going through the valve on one side, generating tumble flow in the cylinder. You need the wall thingy splitting the port because you can't place a valve right over the port. A throttle body upstream doesn't do the same thing. If you try to get rid of the TGV low end combustion quality will be complete crap. If you put a second valve over the TGV assembly to block the whole intake port, sure you can throttle it like that, but adding that would be even more expensive than a separate ITB setup.
|
True, a conventionally designed ITB is designed NOT to tumble the air. But that doesn't mean I couldn't make it do so.
I get what you're saying, but the FA20 has an inefficiency region that may take unconventional methods to solve. It would be nice if we could keep it simple. Perhaps a dual runner intake would be a better option. Run one set of runners with the wall built into it, with the shorter runners without wall or restriction for the top end.
Low end combustion on the FA20 is good. Mid range is where there is an issue.
You do bring up a good point about cost. The engineers for this engine are going to have to make the accountants happy too. Which begs the question, why add anything at all? You don't NEED the TGVs to solve the torque dip. After all, there's lots of cars out there with no torque dip and no TGVs. Right?
ITBs would be cool, but they aren't likely to happen on production engines in this price range. I'll guarantee that.
Perhaps all this engine needs is a better intake manifold design.