toyota 1gr 76mm throttlr body

[s2d4]

Originally Posted by fooddude

I get your point..but I find that very hard to believe. 1 TB will be much easier to make a car more drivable and have better drivability, from a single maf sensor standpoint. ITB's are very difficult to tune and make drivable - the exact reason 99% of manufactured cars have 1 TB and also the exact reason why you haven't seen a single video of ITB's working on a BRZ/FRS yet. If ITBs were so easy to make them work...then, please, show me a video of one working on a twin, driving on the street with no idle nor drivability problems. Heck, show me a video with one even working, even with idle/drivability problems. None??

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by Fear

four throttle bodies operated by one "modual" and a cable to sync them ... doesn;t sound too complicated to me...

Yes, this is how it's always been done. For inline 4's, all the 4 butterflys in their individual ports were always connected to the same shaft...for a boxer engine, same thing and nothing a little mechanical linkage cannot work out.

[fooddude]

You can see the linkage here...most likely being controlled by the same and by only 1 PID and electronic TB controller.

Good luck with "easily" making it "better DD/street drivability than 1 tb" though, hahahaha ...maybe in a couple more months or a year or so..which isn't exactly "easy"

[LavosTRD]

i just looked at the wiring diagrams for a 1gr tb and a frs tb. the terminal positions are identical as far signals go. it appears that the problem would be inside where the two tps are measured. the 1gr and fa20 read different voltages @ the same throttle position. I have personally never taken one apart, but it seems theoretically feasible to take the electronics from the fa20 and Frankenstein them to the 1gr mechanical throttle portion

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

What?

@s2d4 @Boxer486

Are you deaf? Exactly what I said - the closest thing to an ITB

If it isn't the closet thing ..then please tell me, what is? They both let in more air right?

If you want to be a dckhead about it, a nerdy know it all wanting to prove everyone is completely wrong and be literally correct - obviously, and of course, it isn't even the same thing - one uses a large plenum and intake manifold and 1 tb..the other uses short stack runners and indv butterflies and ports ...but from a certain standpoint, they both do let more air in. Do I really need to explain that? Probably not..you 2 are just dckheads

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by fooddude

@s2d4 @Boxer486

Are you deaf? Exactly what I said - the closest thing to an ITB

If it isn't the closet thing ..then please tell me, what is? They both let in more air right?

Not necessarily. Your understanding of how airflow works is primitive at best. Bigger is not always better and the two are quite different in how they flow leaving all the BS spouted about drivability and syncing butterflies out of the picture.


I wish you hadn't quoted me as I had already unsub'd to this thread for obvious reasons. Unless someone has flow bench numbers from actual testing I'd rather not get involved in random out of ass speculation about how airflow works with people who have never measured it or studied it in physics. No offence but you don't know how a venturi works or what Bernoulli's principle is.


Btw, if one can't understand what you write that's your poor communication on your part. I think your point was clear though it was just wrong. And we read posts, we don't hear them so aren't deaf. But that's a biology discussion so I don't want to argue with your expertise on that matter either.


Oh, if you don't like my ****ish response, too bad because you post like a d-bag so that's what you get. Enjoy.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by fooddude

"OMG DUUUUDE, GNARLY BRO"



Anyways..

@wu_dot_com: But ya, I can understand the need of 4 separate PIDs into a single readout to even make it work ..but aren't, a lot of the "older" cable driven ITBs on inline 4's and even the modern electronic controlled ones too, just a single shared/the same long TB shaft, but with individual butterfly's connected to it and individual ports and used only 1 TPS sensor on one end of the 4 butterfly/port manifold/stack... (did that make sense?)...meaning, for modern electronic controlled TBs, wouldn't it still use a single PID?

Aren't ITB's NOT truly and totally individual? ...they just have individual butterfly's and ports/horns..but they share the same TB shaft, TPS and I guess the same electronic TB motor that operates the shaft. If our cars were inline 4, then wouldn't it really be just 1 PID still?

...I guess for these new boxer engines, I can see it would be just a tad diff; but still similar in concept - 2 butterfly's/ports (on each side of the boxer engine) sharing the same single shaft and sharing the same TPS and TB control motor...and hence..the same PIDs..?

the problem with connecting rod and 1 TPs is that, you can never know for sure the exact amount of volumetric air that is going into each individual TB.

when you have 1 PID, 1 TB and 1 TPS, you have a close loop feedback. the benefit of close loop feedback is that the computer can infinitely adjust the command to get exactly what you want. When you have 1PID, 4TB, 1TPS, and connecting rods, you now have an open loop system. You are relying on the preset calibrated information to determine the estimated amount of air that is going into each butterfly/port manifold/stack. There is an error in the assumption for this connecting rod system, and that is you have to assume each throttle body have identical micro performance behavior. Yet in reality they don’t. When you go with an open loop system, you lose the ability to adjust each TB individually to meet the unique condition each TB creates. Lets say the TPS is at the central cam that actuates the connecting rod, depending in the kinematic geometry of the TB relative to the rod then to the cam, the gain for each individual TB could be different.

Im not saying it couldn’t be done, but in order to do it with connecting rods, every part in this ITB system needs to be held to very tight tolerance in order to ensure similar performance that are within acceptable tolerance across the board. this system will be costly to manufacture and frequent tuning and recalibration is require.

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

No offence but you don't know how a venturi works or what Bernoulli's principle is.

Btw, if one can't understand what you write that's your poor communication on your part. I think your point was clear though it was just wrong. And we read posts, we don't hear them so aren't deaf. But that's a biology discussion so I don't want to argue with your expertise on that matter either.

Oh, if you don't like my ****ish response, too bad because you post like a d-bag so that's what you get. Enjoy.

Yes, I don't know anything and you are the smartest person in the world. I never even said I knew how a venturi works or even mentioned Bernoulli's principle (even though I studied it in school in the past). I just mentioned Spoon's gasket and asked a question about it..I never implied I was the expert on it. Where do you get off on accusing people and putting them down and blaming them? You maybe booksmart;but, you are very immature.


Sorry I cannot communicate. You are #1. Maybe you should THINK as well, instead of just reading. You knew exactly what I was getting at....but, you just had to be that guy and try putting down anyone you can to make yourself feel good.

Thank you for putting me down and shtting on me like a typical American dbag (lemme guess - your personality and subconscious goal is to sht on everyone and anyone whenever you can get the chance, to elevate yourself and make you feel better about yourself). You are very modest and humble *sarcasm*

Yes, that was a simple typo and I should've wrote "read" instead. Thank you for pointing that minuscule mistake out. Sure, I don't know how to communicate; even though you knew exactly what I said. Thank you. Maybe I should write every single one of these casual internet posts as if it was a thesis, with the utmost proper literary writing. Biological discussion? ...there you go again..you are so smart. I wish I was as smart and educated as you. Is there anything else you would like to point out that I am doing wrong?

I post like a dbag? Sure, whatever you say. You were the first to antagonize me with a tone of animosity.. The guilty one is always the first one to point the finger.



....and, if you want me to be like you.... it's "offense" not "offence"

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

There is an error in the assumption for this connecting rod system, and that is you have to assume each throttle body have identical micro performance behavior. Yet in reality they don’t. When you go with an open loop system, you lose the ability to adjust each TB individually to meet the unique condition each TB creates.

Thanks for the insight/education and I understand your points.

But, isn't a regular 1 TB intake manifold design system kind of the same thing? ..in that- each intake port/runner per cylinder is actually not perfectly getting the same exact amount of air/performance, due to the intake manifold's design and other factors (like, which ports/runner/cylinders are getting the most or least air flow, distance and which is closest to the main 1 TB, temperature changes, etc.)?

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by fooddude

@s2d4 @Boxer486

Are you deaf? Exactly what I said - the closest thing to an ITB

If it isn't the closet thing ..then please tell me, what is? They both let in more air right?

If you want to be a dckhead about it, a nerdy know it all wanting to prove everyone is completely wrong and be literally correct - obviously, and of course, it isn't even the same thing - one uses a large plenum and intake manifold and 1 tb..the other uses short stack runners and indv butterflies and ports ...but from a certain standpoint, they both do let more air in. Do I really need to explain that? Probably not..you 2 are just dckheads

No.

What ITB's do is get rid of the plenum entirely, and create as little air space as possible between the throttle plate(s) and the cylinders. This is to create better throttle response, not just flow more air. The big reason for ITB's is response, not ultimate power.

With a single TB there is a big vacuum chamber (the whole intake manifold) when the throttle plate is closed. Before the engine can rev up that air space has to be filled after the throttle plate is opened. That lag delays throttle response.

If you really want to be more efficient, you want no throttle bodies. Then you have no pumping losses, and much better throttle response. Just control engine speed/output by controlling valve lift and duration (BMW double VANOS with valvetronic).

Like I said before, bigger TB (or TB's) doesn't mean more airflow. You need velocity, not just flow. Think of trying to drink pop through a 1" diameter pipe vs drinking through a normal straw. Yes the 1" pipe can flow more, but in practice what will you get more pop through?

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by fooddude

Thanks for the insight/education and I understand your points.

But, isn't a regular 1 TB intake manifold design system kind of the same thing? ..in that- each intake port/runner per cylinder is actually not perfectly getting the same exact amount of air/performance, due to the intake manifold's design and other factors (like, which ports/runner/cylinders are getting the most or least air flow, distance and which is closest to the main 1 TB, temperature changes, etc.)?

you are too kind by calling my post education. thank you.

you are right, in a 1 TB design, the intake manifold, operating condition (temperature), internal drag can all cause different pressure distribution. however, in a typical manifold design, all those factors should be consider where the pressure drop between each port are within tolerance of one another given the same mass flow rate control from the main TB. When it comes to temperature stratification effects, the major heat source will come from conduction from the engine headers, convictions from the little air movement within the engine bay, and radiation from the engine block. Between those heat sources, the temperature delta between each ports are all relatively homogeneous. In addition, within those parameters, the biggest temperature differential will be the air temp at the inlet of the TB vs the back of the manifold (farthest away from the TB). However even with this temperature differential, we are talking in the magnitude of less than 3-5F before that mass of moving air is consume. Ambient air will experience relatively little pressure increase when subject to a 3-5 F temperature difference.

in the case of ITB, the sum of mass flow rates going into each port needs to be equal to the mass flow rate of 1 TB. thus the changes in each ITB butterfly valve will contribute up to 25% of the total mass flow rate required at any given throttle position. this sensitivity will be much greater than the combine environmental sensitivity than the 1 TB manifold design.

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by wparsons

No.

What ITB's do is get rid of the plenum entirely, and create as little air space as possible between the throttle plate(s) and the cylinders. This is to create better throttle response, not just flow more air. The big reason for ITB's is response, not ultimate power.

With a single TB there is a big vacuum chamber (the whole intake manifold) when the throttle plate is closed. Before the engine can rev up that air space has to be filled after the throttle plate is opened. That lag delays throttle response.

If you really want to be more efficient, you want no throttle bodies. Then you have no pumping losses, and much better throttle response. Just control engine speed/output by controlling valve lift and duration (BMW double VANOS with valvetronic).

Like I said before, bigger TB (or TB's) doesn't mean more airflow. You need velocity, not just flow. Think of trying to drink pop through a 1" diameter pipe vs drinking through a normal straw. Yes the 1" pipe can flow more, but in practice what will you get more pop through?

Yes..that's what I meant - ITBs are obviously short stack and short distance from the head's ports, and have no manifold. Which obviously results in better response like a supercar or F1.

As for velocity, yes, I already get that...it's like running/jogging - people don't breath with their mouth wide open, but only sip higher velocity air..venturi effect. Same thing with intakes...a huge oversized intake tube will lose so much velocity(and power) compared to an intake tube the exact same size as the TB diameter. I had several experimental intake for my EG in the early 90s (before AEM cold air even existed)..my fabricator made one that had 3" piping and later another that had 2.5" piping (roughly the same diameter as my TB)...the much smaller 2.5" piping I could actually feel the huge difference in improvement from my seat...as where the 3" intake felt like stock or actually worse than stock.

BUT, with ITB's...don't you ultimately lose a great deal of velocity too, same as with a big 1 TB? ...ITB's are HUGE, just like the concept of a bigger 1 TB... they are similar in that they are both bigger and can let more air in and ultimately both lose velocity. My point is they are similar in that they both increase air and are more capable of increased air flow (and they both also lose the velocity that you mention)...but yes, ITBs will obviously be more responsive too.

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Like I said before, bigger TB (or TB's) doesn't mean more airflow. You need velocity, not just flow. Think of trying to drink pop through a 1" diameter pipe vs drinking through a normal straw. Yes the 1" pipe can flow more, but in practice what will you get more pop through?

Yes, I see your point...but, both ITB's and a bigger 1 TB will have the same effect - "a big 1" straw for your soda" and also both losing velocity.

Response(the reason you say ITBs are most wanted/desired)....Velocity(a factor in intake design) ..2 different opinions on 2 different subjects.

But I get all your points. People will have different opinions on why ITB's are first/really needed. It's subjective at this point. Response isn't always the most #1 desired feature for some (ie: high rpm output), while for others it may be (ie: rally, or other racing that needs faster response)...maybe some just want more air flow and higher powerband horsepower. Or, maybe response is just 1 of the several advantages to ITB's..but not, the only advantage.

You can't really just nail it down to a single reason why ITBs are used..there are several reasons. ..air flow is one of them...response is another.. being a jdm riceboy having the latest and greatest in parts...etc..

[michael336]

In hk, there has a soda comes with a special straw. It's straight but has some small holes at the end. They says it help to drink more by sucking the straw with same speed. Is this just same concept as mutil tb? I will go buy one and take you guys a pic.

我從使用 Tapatalk 的 HTC Desire 700 dual sim 發送