|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,346
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,346 |
first off i did search some, wasnt finding what i was looking for...
basically when i do my 3L im wondering what size throttle bodies are there available? are they direct bolt-ons?
and which maf would work best with the above recomendations??
p.s i was planning on using an 80mm lightning maf
or if you have any other recommendations...thanks
E1 CSVT
s/c-----x
turbo---x
3L------check
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
You can lake an SVT/Taurus hybrid TB to go onto the plastic UIM.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,346
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,346 |
size?? p.s. i already have an svt one going on there, want more power lol
E1 CSVT
s/c-----x
turbo---x
3L------check
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
Are you staying N/A for sure? I'm assuming you're using the 3.0L UIM? I'd be willing to bet the 65mm 96+ Mustang GT T/B coule be made to work with that UIM. You'll just have to modify the linkage a little bit(which I've yet to do to get mine running).
As for the MAF, definitely stay with your stock SVT MAF. You won't outflow it unless you're running a turbo/supercharger, and it's a hell of a lot easier to tune with it.
Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,097
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,097 |
I am using a 96+ GT TB that has been optimized and ported/polished for my 3L turbo set-up.
98 E0 SVT with some stuff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
An optimized SVT TB (60mm) has enough flow potential to support a 2.5L engine to 7000rpm at 100% VE without being a restriction.
The stock intake piping and MAF can't say that. Sure the SVT MAF can meter to nearly 300 wheels but it is a NA restriction long before that point.
Why do you need a bigger TB again???
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 197
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 197 |
Originally posted by incubusjunkie614:
first off i did search some, wasnt finding what i was looking for...
basically when i do my 3L im wondering what size throttle bodies are there available? are they direct bolt-ons?
and which maf would work best with the above recomendations??
p.s i was planning on using an 80mm lightning maf
or if you have any other recommendations...thanks
Nope no direct bolt ons. Warmonger used a Mac brand 70mm tb which he had to invert the linkage. Most will tell you that 70mm is overkill for a n/a 3L but, if you keep the secondaries functional, I don't think it'd hurt especially up top.
The ONLY 96 (engine) 3L
Build 'em fast. Spray 'em faster.
ricehatersclub.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by giddyup306:
Most will tell you that 70mm is overkill for a n/a 3L but, if you keep the secondaries functional, I don't think it'd hurt especially up top.
Considering the engine can't use but half of it's flow potential and the added size hurts velocity and causes a much greater pressure drop right at the mouth of the intake manifold. Gee why would people say it hurts performance??? 
A widened SVT UIM mouth is 67mm. You would have to port the UIM back a few inches to even allow the 70MM TB to flow properly.
Then do the math.
70mm TB outlet has a 73-75mm inlet.
The stock rubber boot is ~50mm
The SVT boot is ~54mm
The BAT pipe is ~62mm
The "huge" CTA pipe is ~72mm (That's 3" piping folks!!!)
The stock MAF has a flow area around 53-54mm
So large, small, large, small is how the incoming are goes. You can imagine this is not good for conserving energy & velocity. That is lost efficiency plain and simple.
BIGGER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER!!! Far too many people just do not get this novel concept of flow dynamics.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
In the roughest of terms, the 3.0 has 20% more displacement than a 2.5. Assuming that it can use 20% more air, the math would be simple. A throttle body with 20% more area would be between 65 and 66 mm.
With a hotter cam, head porting, larger exhaust, and no restriction from the MAF, a larger throttle body may be more optimal.
With stock exhaust, milder cams, etc, a smaller throttle body may be optimal.
Other factors may also change the results.
As I started to say, in the simplest of terms, a 65 mm throttle body would be a good place to start with a 3.0 with SVT cams. With Escape cams, the 60 mm would be a good palce to start.
You would need a set of cams hotter than the SVT cams to even thk about a 70 mm throttle body.
My $.02.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,469
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,469 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Why do you need a bigger TB again???
Same reason we all need 20" rims, shoping cart wings hanging off our trunks and you cant forget neons 
98 csvt t-red.. sho-shop intake, b&m, fidanza, spec1 clutch, Torsen, DMD,optimized Y& TB, Brullen, rear strut bar,h&r's,17" konig traffik's.
"I say what I mean and I do what i say"
|
|
|
|
|
