I have installed the Mustang 70MM Throttle body. I will get pics as soon as I can find my digital camera.
http://www.svtcontour.net/throttle.html

--Matt

So how hard was the installation?

-James

What are your projected gains?

Well....it wasn't exactly hard. Just a little tweeking if the new throttle body. I'd say it took about an hour.

--Matt

Well...according to for Ford Motorsport, this throttle body has an average gain if 12-15HP to the Mustang. I'm hoping to get about the same.

--Matt

Ok, I am interested...
-Mark

12-15?.....ahhhhh don't hold your breath.

FYI mustangs can see a 20HP gain off an exhuast up grade. Contour guys are jumping up and down when they get 8HP on any mod ,but I could be wrong

I think many people forget that its hard to get much more HP out of the Duratec without major modifications. It already puts out a good amount of horsepower for its size. That is why people jump at a claimed 8hp gain. Don't forget.....that is the manufacturer claim and is probably inflated about 400%.

The 70mm TB on a stock 4.6 adds about 1-2hp in the real world. This said, the Duratec flows a lot more air for its displacement than the 4.6, so it is possible that it may get a few more hp than that (especially since you already have the 80mm MAF). To get any real gains with a bigger TB, you'll need forced induction. Hmm, guess Mark should try that out, eh?

We have done some research at work and the optimal size for my car with stock injectors & MAF is 73mm... As soon as I get some more funds I will invest in this and try it out.
-Mark

I just realized I have an old Mustang TB on my desk at work, I think its a 65mm though, I'll have to measure it.

Hey, you don't happen to have an old 5.0 block on your desk, do you? My Ranger needs some more torque

I think you would probable see a deseint gain seeing how us se people switch to the svt throttle body even with it not being port matched and see a noticable gain,snappier throttle response,and theres dyno evidence I think its 5 hp.

Well...I drove it with the new throttle body in today. There definitly is a performance gain. How much I'm not sure of. It also feels like I'm getting more torque out of it, both low end and high end.

--Matt

hate to burst your bubble but i would get that think dyno'd before you go spreading ideas in peoples heads about huge gains. a larger throttle body on a 2.5L n/a duratec engine will most likely cause a drop in hp/tq espcially in the low end tq range due to a decrease in air velocity. svt used a 60mm tb for a reason, they didn't just pick numbers out of a hat. now mistergrym might actually find a good use for that considering he is probably loosing 10-20 hp from that tb bottle neck on his... but like i said forced induction is a whole other animal...

I'm not intentionally trying to put ideas into peoples heads. All I am going by here is what I am seeing in my car. I do drive it everyday and with the new throttle body, I have to say that there definitly an increase. As to how much I don't know. And yes I will be getting it dyno'd soon. I want to make my intake pipe first. I should be finished with that by the end of the week.

--Matt

Now the big question.

Did you hog out the intake manifold?
Otherwise that larger throttle body is worthless as the opening size is now the restriction! Food for thought...

Even the SVT 60mm TB could benefit from this port matching... Also I don't see how much larger you could go. 10mm is a ton to try and hog out... Don't remember seeing that much meat, but then I was looking at it compared to the 60mm unit???

gutting out the manifold or not, i still think you are loosing way too much air velocity with a larger tb. 70mm is probably too much for even the 3L, but like mark(mistergrym) said 73 would be ideal for the vortech. in size vs. velocity there is a peak point at which velocity is greatest, and an increase in size will cause a loss in velocity. Just think of it this way, if mcdonalds gave you a straw or a 4 inch (diamete) pipe, which do you think you could get more coke through in the same amount of time? The straw, you probably couldn't even the the coke to your mouth with the pipe, it is the same principal with your car's engine. Now if you hooked a blower to the bottom of your coke cup then the straw becomes a bottle neck and the 4 inch pipe becomes more ideal. just some food for thought... hehe

I am ver interested too. I want one!
Like the other guy asked, did you port match the intake manifold to the new TB or was the opening big enough already.
Did you buy yours new from a dealer?
Can't wait to see more pics showing the modification to the brackets.
Keep us all informed.

my .02

I don't think putting in a larger TB will reduce velocity. Changing the size of the TB is not like changing the size of a straw.

Think of the TB like a washer at the end of the straw. Keeping the straw (this would be the manifold) the same size and then increase the size of the the washer (this would be the TB) would only decrease the amount of air flow restriction.

What I'm wondering is if the intake manifold inlet has to be enlarged to match the size of the TB.

Mmars have any pix of the TB?

I just want to know where I can get a blower for my McDonald's cups, I want my Coke, and I want it NOW!!!!!!

also theres 1.8L hondas getting 10hp at the wheels from 68mm thrittle bodies I have mono and just finished reading the honda bolt on performance manual. saw some nice dyno numbers from various throttle bodies.

Ahh... I just mentioned that...

I don't think the intake manifold has to be enlarged. If it does, it probably isn't more than a few MMs. I know it's definitly bigger than 60MM. I will measure the opening sometime this week when I take the TB off to do a couple more adjustments.

Yes, I did buy the TB from my local dealership.

I should get some pics later today. It's raining now and I don't want to melt.

--Matt

only a few mm..... a 1mm "step" in an air stream can hurt performance considerably....
you need to port match your intake to the back of the TB.
-Mark

lol

I'm trying to get hold of a stock 65mm unit from a modular V8. Only problem is those Mustang boys are kinda slow at replying to emails! :p
Where are the rest of those pictures? I want to see the mods that have to be done to make the TB work on the SVT.

I should have them up tomorrow.

--Matt

Which 65MM TB? What's the part number?

--Matt

go get that car on the dyno. i really want to see the results... don't forget to bring along your old 60mm tb for comparison, otherwise the dyno will be useless...

Yes, I'm anxious to see the results!!!1

-James

MMARS i understand you idea and concept of the larger throttle body.. Me for one, was wondering the same type of things that the doubters are griping at.. I saw a honda crx wipe an M3 in a qtr mile with just a throttle body mod.. unbelievable to see but it was true.. this gave the honda more hp and torque on low and high ends.. They way i look at it.., You try it and see if it works for the duratec.. I'll be putting mine on next week.. if it works , the haters will envy you and want to learn how to do what you did.. If it doesn't , take the 'L' on the TB money & just go back to stock, at least you tried right?? more than the hates did

:rolleyes:

and just what times did this uncharacteristically slow M3 run, and just how fast was this CRX?

-jason

Take the 'L'?? WTF does that mean?
The 65mm TB is stock from a modular GT.

"L"=loss.

first off, i am not hating... for two reasons, one that word sucks, two just posting my opinion on what i think. i just doubt roush would go thorugh the trouble of using a larger tb to obtain more hp, and not max it out... what purpose would they have not to use the most efficient tb? don't you think they would have loved to pull another 5-10 hp out of the engine with something as easy as a larger tb? Don't you think they didn't use plots, and anayalsis for choosing the proper size of the tb? using a larger tb doesn't cause any noise, or driveablity issues that they might be avoiding. it just doesn't add up. even sho-shop only went to a 63mm throttle body and they upped displacement by a half litre. I would love to see the dyno plots for this, because i bet this thing really bogs from 0-3250 rpm in the torque range, and then looses hp from there on out... just get the graph over the original tb on the same car at the same time...

Bret, your logic is wrong on many counts. If I have time later tonight I'll sit down and point out the flaws in your thinking, but I've got a hub/brake job to do right now....

-edit-
No time tonight, will update tomorrow at work.

No real trouble at all using the 60mm on the SVT. The SVT throttle body is just the 3L Duratec TB casting with a different bracket for use in the Contour. Design costs were minimal, production costs were minimal. Saying that "Roush gave us a 60mm TB, it must be the correct one for max power on our cars" is like saying "We don't need an LSD or baffled oil pan, because Roush didn't give us one". The determining factor in designing ANY car is never what will give it the most performance/reliability, it is the bottom line ($$).



Like I said, "Hey, if we use this TB from the 3L, we won't have to make up a new casting for this project".



"Hey look, according to this, a higher output 2.5L just happens to require the same size TB that we're using on the Taurus, that's great!"

Boy, that'd be a hell of a coincidence.



Roush started with a 53mm TB on the standard 2.5L and upped it 7mm to 60 for the "HO". The SHO-Shop stared with a 60mm and upped it 3mm for the "HO" version of their 3L. Are you implying that the same principle applied to the 2.5L won't work for the 3L?

Moreover, I too would like to see a dyno plot for the 3L using both size TB's. You refer to expecting to see "bogging" in the lower rpms from a dropping in torque. The overall size of the TB has nothing to do with low-end air velocity on a Duratec. The primary intake runners determine air velocity, because they are the point of restriction on the induction side of the engine. It doesn't matter what size the TB is, be it 53mm or 100mm, the engine will still be pulling air through the primary runners, which will only be able to pull a fixed volume/velocity of air through them at a given time. Those are the McDonalds straws that you refer to. Increase the diameter of the runners and air velocity during low-speed operation will fall, which in turn will drop torque. You comment about it loosing HP from there on is ludicrous. High-end power is determined by one thing only, air volume. You?ve got 2 intake runners at your disposal from ~3500rpms and up. One is significantly shorter than the other. The engine at this point is limited by how much air it has at its disposal. The TB is the determining factor, as both runners have the potential of pulling more air than the TB can supply. If someone were to dyno a flow optimized car (headers, catback, air filter, etc.) with a chip, this would be shown by a HP falloff around 7100rpms. To imply that an engine of more displacement would be better suited with a smaller TB is crazy.

The air velocity in the intake runners/cylinder ports will be much more important than that at the TB. Use the larger TB and see if you get gains. I suspect you will see some, though whether or not it will be enough to "feel", I don't know.

Also, you didn't mention anything about the TPS. Did you use the Mustang unit, or did the stock TPS from your SVT bolt right up?

I used the TPS from the Mustang unit. The only modifications to the TB were; 1) A little shaving off of the plastic Throttle cable holder, 2) Drilled out the hole that the Throttle cable connects to, 3) A slight bending of the metal piece which stops the TB from over opening. Other than those things it bolted up just fine. I have the pics. I just want to doctor them up with arrows so they can be clear as what to modify.

--Matt

I'm wondering (hoping that) if the Mustang TPS is correctly calibrated for the 2.5L computer. It's amazing that it would even plug in, you would think that they would have different shapes on the connectors.

Drive it some and let us know if you have any driveability problems.

most Ford TPS are similar. Idle reading is ~1.0V and WOT is roughly 5.0V (but never over 5V) a Mustang TPS should more than likely work fine (though checking just to be sure isn't a bad idea)

If the TPS was incompatable the ECU would have thrown out a MIL and a code.

Rara- I new that, but even minor differences in calibration could cause problems.

David- That's what I am afraid of, getting a MIL code, especially with OBD - II. Of course, I have OBD - I (1995 model ).

What I'm most surprised about is that the plugs were compatible. I would have thought that you would have to splice it to make it work.

I am definately interested in both the pics and any dynoed results you may have..
alex

A minor problem with my catalytic converters have put this on hold for about another week.
I will post back when I have everything complete.

--Matt

Any update on this yet?

Steve Bassen, sorry I'm late to this topic. If you're serious about wanting a 5.0 for your ranger, email me. I'm just a little north of you and my uncle has a rebuilt 302 (306 now) with all new rotating parts for Dirt Cheap. Let me know. Anybody else feel free to email me.

LOL, thanks for the offer Jon, but I doubt I'll be going that route anytime soon. The 5.0 swap on a 4x4 ranger is more trouble than I'm ready to get into. If anything I'll just do a 4L swap sometime next year....

Actually, I heard it wasn't that bad. LOL! Anyway, if you're feeling froggy anytime soon, the offer still stands.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks!

still waiting on pics or performance gains on this setup....um has something gone wrong

No...Nothing has gone wrong. I just had to deal with a week long fiasco at the dealership. They couldn't seem to get the right main cat. I just got my car back on thursday. I have a dyno appointment this Friday.

--Matt

Steve- not sure if you are aware of this but casting a larger tb is a hell of a lot cheaper then dumping a LSD in all the svts... also i don't think we didn't get a baffeled oil pan because of cost issues... maybe more because of design flaw...

the way i see it the car is sucking in more air then it can use effiently right now, so how would pumping even more air in help? you might see some small gains with a larger tb on a car with some extensive exhaust work done, and a dyno tune. but i doubt just adding a larger tb is going to give you anything... like i said before, i bet he sees a nice loss in low end torque.

[sarcasim]
Gee, I wasen't aware that it would be cheaper to design a new TB than it would be to get a LSD.
[/sarcasim]

You totally missed the point of my post. I was saying that your reasoning of "i just doubt roush would go thorugh the trouble of using a larger tb to obtain more hp, and not max it out..." was totally stupid. They had a larger TB at their disposal with essentially no design costs other than bolting on a new cable bracket, so they used it. It was hardly a breakthrough in engine flow dynamics when they said "hey, let's use a 60mm TB on the SVT". My comment of a(n) LSD or baffled pan was purposely exaggerated to prove a point (just because they didn?t do something dosen?t mean it isn?t worth doing).



First off, don?t use the term ?pumping? when describing a naturally aspirated engine.

Go back to my previous post. At low speeds, when the primary intake runners are being used exclusively, the engine is limited in the torque it can produce by the size and potential flow velocity of the primary intake runners. For the time being, let us say that the 2.5L Duratec has primary runners that are correctly sized for the engine?s displacement. Make them larger and velocity slows down, (theoretically) decreasing low-end torque. As long as the TB is supplying sufficient air volume to the intake manifold to feed the runners, TB size is a non-issue.



Um, drugs are bad, mm-kay?

I guess I'll have to get with Steve B. and AussieSVT about the TB mods. I'm wondering if both the 65mm and 70mm have the same gains. Can you guys tell me what the partnumbers I need are? I would like to look into this since I have some extensive exhaust mods.

I'd say go for the 65mm, you can get them for cheap from the 4.6 Mustang guys.

Nice thing about 65mm is that the SVT upper intake is already 66mm (measyured by someone) so no opening it up is required.

Some thoughts on "optimal size" for T.B. (which I admit I do not know)
1) stock exhaust is 57mm (2.25 inch), so going to 65mm may need to be accompanied by a 2.5 inch (63mm) exhaust. So this may suggest that 70mm may not add anything over 65 with >2.5 inch exhaust.

2) The stock 70mm MAF actually has a bar in the middle (holding the sensor) that looks about 10mm wide. Thus the MAF may only flow like a 60mm. Again would think that upping MAF size may be important in gaining benifit from >60mm T. Bodies.

Just throwing stuff out, this is an interesting thread.

You are correct, Dan.

I'm running an 80mm maf with my 70mm tb, and the combo works quite nicely.

Midrange improvement is amazing, but the top end is still kinda soft. I expect that when I install headers in a couple of weeks and possibly yank the imrc, the top end will get very sweet indeed. As it is, my catless euro manifolds, as nice as they are over stock, are limiting upper rpm breathing.

We'll see...

Dan Beggs
99 Cougar V6, lottamods

Dan,

You maf & tb are off of what year range of stang?? (Off of any 2V 4.6??) And did you put the 19lb injectors also, and if so, are they from the 4.6 too??

I just want to make sure that what I have in my head is what I've read.....there's been allot of posts and I'm just double checking.

Thanks in advance

Mike - 2V GT MAF is already calibrated for 19lbs, so it should be compatible with the stock 19lbs injectors in the SVT

Mike, yes, most any 2v 4.6 parts should work. I need to post the exact part numbers I have so people will be able to duplicate this setup without discovering the maf they just bought is the wrong one. Heh.

And yes, I'm running the 19# 'Stang injectors, although really it appears Ford uses the same injector in lots of different vehicles - so it's a standard part. Got a set of 8 from FleaBay for about $50.

hth,
dan

ok... well let me put it to you this way... mark had some people at his work crunch some numbers on the optimal size for a 2.5L duratec engine with the vortech supercharger. They said optimal size would be 73mm. You are telling me the only differene between the optimal size for a forced induction engine and a n/a engine is 3mm? I highly doubt that. All i am saying is that i am sure roush did not just pick 60mm out of a hat, or the parts bin for that matter. Just like nearly every other part designed for the svt contour research was done... all i have heard from the people that have done this mod is "it feels faster" no before and after dyno plots, not real information to back it up. i am not saying this is 100% not going to make an improvement, but the smart money is on something more like 63 or 65mm tb, even then i would have to see before/after plots before i was convinced. If someone is willing to send me the 70mm/65mm/63mm tb (any or all) i will glady have them put on the dyno and then return them. Also unless you have some knowledge of flow dynamics (or whatever is necessary to full understand the effects of adding a larger tb) i really don't want to argue about this because neither one of us will be able to provide any solid proof regaurding this.

also you keep saying $$$ is the bottom line... well wouldn't it be cheaper not to offer an svt vehicle at all or any model variations? why even offer options... money is not ALWAYS the bottom line, but it is definatly a pretty big factor. i just don't see why roush would do some of the things it did (more costly then a larger tb) that yeilded small returns... ( < 5 hp at the crank )

Never compare natural aspiration to forced induction.



Is that your opinion? Let us look at the facts:

1) A 15% power increase was needed over the standard 170hp Duratec
2) Airflow was increased else ware in the engine, so more incoming air was needed
3) They already had a larger TB casting available from the 3L Duratec

Now let?s go back to Economics 101. If you already have a larger TB, would it be practical to design and manufacture a larger TB solely for the use in 10,000 SVT Contours? They already were spending enough money on proprietary cams, as well as extrude honed intakes and higher compression pistons. This was a simple case of ?what we already have at our disposal is good enough for stock?.



Wait a minute! Weren?t you just saying in a previous post that the 63mm TB used on the SHOShop?s project car, which uses a maxed out 3L, will loose power as compared to the 60mm TB!? Pick on stance and stick with it!

For the sake of argument, let us go over this one more time.
Disclaimer: The following is strictly ?in optimal conditions? and does not necessarily reflect real world circumstances
Facts:

- low end torque is determined by air velocity and fuel atomization as a result of said velocity
- high end hp is determined by overall air volume

Hmm, that said, let us look at how a 2 valve per cylinder, single runner per cylinder, pushrod V8 would work.

If this engine were to use a set of short, wide diameter intake runners, then it would be allowed to breath well at higher rpms (given that the cam/heads were setup accordingly, of course), giving it better high end HP. Well, that?s fine, but what about the low-end? Well, with that intake, low-speed air velocity would suck (pun intended). It leads back to your McDonalds straw analogy. OMG! You?ve actually said something correct! Wait a minute, you were referring to the TB, and I?m referring to the IR?s! Anyways, air velocity wouldn?t be that great, and fuel atomization would be poor at best.

Now let?s give this same engine an intake comprised of long, smaller diameter runners. Well, now we have tremendous air velocity during low speed operation, giving us excellent low end torque. Uh oh, now the engine is starved for air higher up, limiting high rpms power. I wonder if there were a way to combine both of these principles??

Duh, let?s look at the Duratec now:

4 valves per cylinder, on short and one long runner on the intake side per cylinder

During low-speed operation we have the single, long runner being used. Like I said before, it is already matched to give us optimum (for our displacement) torque down low. Increase TB size and what do we have? More disposable air for the cylinder to draw air from. If the runners were significantly wider, then there would be the possibility of lower air velocity, but that isn?t the case here.

High speed operation. The secondary (short) intake runners open up. Air flows in the path of least restriction, which is the shorter runners, since they have a shorter distance to travel to the intake valves. This means the secondary runners are doing the job that the primaries were before. If the engine needs more air than the secondary runners can supply, then the primary runners will still flow additional air. Now we have the engine breathing in as much as possible. What holds it back from breathing better is?.the TB!

Hmm, so here we have a setup that will still benefit from a larger TB, despite whether the engine is stock or not. On a stock SVT a 63mm TB would be ideal. Open it up with an intake and headers, and go for 65mm. On a 3L with 34/35 runners, bolt on a 70mm.

Is there the possibility of decreased low-end torque with a larger primary runner? Yes. That has already been demonstrated. Look at the dynos of a stock SVT vs. a stock SE. The larger primary runners combined with the longer duration cams on the SVT dropped low-end torque a very slight amount. Going by that, there is the possibility that the 98 and 98.5?s have 1 or 2 more ft. lbs. than the 99+?s due to the extrude honing of the primaries that the 99+?s have. Then again, that was responsible for the 5hp increase up top.



Do I have formal training on this subject matter? No. Do I have first hand experience with all the aforementioned? Hell yes. Even if I didn?t, there?s plenty of legitimate sources of tech at the local Borders or Barns and Noble. Your tech on the other hand seems to be based off of what you read in Motortrend or MM&FF. Your little disclaimer in your .sig isn?t an excuse to go touting your opinion as fact when you have nothing to base your ill-formed findings on.



That is a lame argument. If you want to know why SVT exists, go read their mission statement or something.



Yeah, because Roush knows all, right? Roush does good in NASCAR, and they did a decent job with the Contour, while the ?00 Cobra R will be described as ?interesting? by me, but you won?t see me leg humping their production cars. Regarding the TB comment. Like I said, why start from scratch if you can get ?almost as good? at 0% of the cost of a new product.

I?m done with the thread. The tech in here was otherwise good until you started running your mouth. You don?t like it? Then STFU.

wow Steve...that was one hell of a post! :p

Yea Steve, what he said

Bottom line:

Until we see the dyno of before and after, this is all for not.

Steve is right on, more air in has got to do some positive, question is how much.

look, all i am saying is that i am sure there is going to be a sacrifice... and most likely it is going to be in the area of low end torque. fwiw, roush does have several different sized tb that fit the contour... so obivously they looked into it... apparently the ends did not justify the means... but i think we should both just stop arguing until the data comes out... i am more then happy to be proved wrong... i just don't think i am...

also i don't use my signature as a means to say whatever i want... just letting people know to take what i say with a grain of salt.

Amen Brother Steve...

Oh yes you do.

If you want us to take everything you say with a grain of salt, why the hell did you flame people for posting their opinions? Sure, they were unproven, but that's exactly what you're doing here. You gonna flame yourself as well? Or you gonna tell yourself to STFU?

Don't make me dig up that post.

I could go on and on about you, but I won't. Don't want to start anything, and it would turn into a flamewar.

John

no sense in even responding to that... nothing is gained, no new information... if you really think i have no clue what i am talking about, just ignore me. but i am sick of people passing off bad advice without dyno testing mods to new comers. i spent too much of my own time and money on these wasteless mods... i just don't want the same thing happening to other people... i will gladly eat my words and apologize to anyone i have upset over this, if i am dyno proven wrong. i hope you all will do the same...

just one more thing... so that you don't waste your time... and to rule out any possibilites of loss of power. make sure you port match your tb.

Bret, I've been meaning to ask, what are crudentials anyway? They aren't related to credentials are they?



dan

I wasn't talking about this thread.

More like the thread about people blowing up SCd Duratecs, and when people made suggestions why it blew up, you went off on them, telling them to shut up, that they don't know what they're talking about, and to keep it to themselves.

Again, I won't go into detail.

Thanks for the apology anyway.

John

So where's mmars? I want some info on the throttle body!

-James

they might be

ok, well it just bothers me when people try and start a scare over something that they know nothing about, they just repeat something they heard in another thread and act like it is fact... i am not trying to scare anyone away from doing this mod by saying it will damage their car... i just doubt it will yeild any gains. i don't feel i have been hostile to anyone on this thread, but feel i have been treated with alot of hostility just because i don't agree with the idea of a larger tb... i also don't like the way everyone seems to "jump on the bandwagon" of attacking me... that is just childish. the only person i feel that has any right to really attack me is steve, cause he is actually providing some sort of rational. attacking my past and my signature is just childish... even if it is just a joke...


however, if anyone feels i have treated them wrongly, i apologize... i just am not going to give up my side of the argument because someone insults me, or says i am wrong without any real proof.

I am almost complete with the howto. However, I am going to be getting a Mustang Throttle Cable today and try that out. If it does, perhaps some of the steps can be eliminated. Like cutting the shroud of the throttle cable and drilling the TB cam.

I will keep folks posted.

Thanks,
--Matt

Are you using the stock diameter MAF with your new TB? Any error codes yet? I'm way interested in this mod. Seems like a larger TB/injectors/MAF combo works great for the stang guys. I know our motors have a very high specific output, but I think there's more in it. Thanks a ton for taking pics and putting together some instructions.


Oh and here's my $0.02:

I just think its funny how skeptical people are on this website, especially when it comes to new mods. I mean, if folks would just be patient while this guy finishes up testing and tweaking his mod and tests it, then maybe some of this arguing could be avoided. Seems like if we put all of our knowledge together rather than arguing about air velocity, inner diameters, and Roush's modification strategy, we can come up with a solid modification to help keep our cars faster than the pack....in case you haven't forgotten about the new breed of imports soon to hit our shores from honda/acura and nissan.

Keep us posted man...I'm all ears...and thanks!

Nope. I'm using 80mm MAF w/ optimizer from Pro-Flow.

--Matt

First: Steve, if ya ever make me read something that long ever again........LOL
Second: Bret as far as flow dynamics is concerned 3mm is huge. There is alot of air that can flow through a 3mm increase in tube size. As far as why is the TB the size it is? Well lets see, something about epa rings a bell....
Third: someone out there is working on a dual throttle body setup (not sure who ) and we will see how that works....xchang you know who is doing it?

judge- well considering the proposed tb for a n/a engine is an increase of 10mm, i wasn't considering another 3mm for the same engine with forced induction a great jump.

something else to think about... shoshop tested tb's for the 3.0L and decided 63mm was the right size for them, you don't think they tried to use a larger tb then 63mm? not saying shoshop is the greatest tuner out there, but i am sure they dyno tested a vareity of tb sizes before choosing 63mm. they don't have to worry about emissions or anything like that... so why is theirs so (relatively) small?

"something else to think about... shoshop tested tb's for the 3.0L and decided 63mm was the right size for them, you don't think they tried to use a larger tb then 63mm?"

Actually this is a bit odd...
63mm has 31.1 cm2 of flow area or only about 10% more than the 28.3 cm2 flow area of the SVT 60mm
So why only increase TB size 10% with an increase in displacement of 20% (not to mention increased CR, headers, porting/polishing etc)?
Bret, are you SURE they checked larger T.bodies on the dyno. Id guess that if they had, a bigger T.body may work better. But this is just a guess.

Re: 63mm TB

Is this even an available size from Ford or elsewhere? Seems to me that maybe Sho Shop simply bored out a 60 and made a new plate for it. In terms of wanting to offer something for sale that would sure be a lot easier than having to fab up a new cable or do more involved mods to make another tb work. Chances are they didn't know the 65 could apparently be made to work so easily.

Just my $0.02...

dan

well.. what happend i thought today was 'd' day? i thought you had a dyno appointment? let's see those scanned results...

by that logic the proper tb size for a 10.0:1 5.0L would be like 100mm...

Well..I had to postpone the dyno runs. I had to take the SVT back to the dealer because the alternator was over charging. It fried the wiring and the battery. I should be able to get it done next week.

Sorry for the delays.

--Matt

just to put some things in here if you bore the 54mm you can only go to 57mm difference of 3mm sho shops throttle body is also 3mm larger. when you bore a mustang tb from 65 you get 68

coincidence? no

If a naturally asppirated honda gets a PROVEN dyno gain from a 68mm on a 1.8L engine

How can you concieve theres a lose why do these companys only go this much larger COST. I believe there will be nice numbers.

I just thought I would chime in here to let people know that you DO NOT NEED TO MODIFY YOUR CONTOUR'S THROTTLE CABLE. If you clock the throttle shaft through 180°, the stock Contour throttle cable AND cruise control cable all hook up to the Mustang TB's connectors in the same way as the Contour TB. Trust me I have done it. And if you check my write up in the 65mm TB install in this Performance section, you will see clear pics showing everything you need to do to make the 65mm TB work perfectly on the cContour, which I can guarantee carries over to installing the 70mm TB.

Does that go for non-SVT versions as well?

Fuel for the Fire!!!

The Duttweiler (sp?) turbo'd Duratec used the STOCK 60mm throttle body and made 450HP @ 6900rpm...

Wonder why he didn't use a bigger one? Definitely wasn't lack of funds or resources...

he obviously knows nothing about flow dynamics or how to properly tune a duratech engine... and yes, i am being sarcastic.

A: Maybe he did not think of using a Mustang one
B: How do you know it won't make more power if a 65mm or 70mm unit was used?
C: It is probably less critical because the engine has forced-induction.

My .02

I know I promised to stay out of this thread, but I feel compelled to touch on this latest topic.

The fact that Duttweiler used the stock TB is irrelevant. Aside from forged rods/pistons and a mild cleanup of the heads, the Duratec used in the "Beast" Focus was, for all practical purposes, a stock mechanicals SVT longblock. Assuming that the stock TB is good enough for that application is like saying that the stock SVT cams are ideal for turbo applications since they didn't do a custom grind.

BTW, Demon, I realize that you only mentioned this as a "FWIW" side-note and nothing more.

Does anyone think that the larger TB can be made to work with the traction control on a 96 SE? If a simple rotation allows the use of cruise and throttle cables, can the TC be saved if at all possible? thanks

OK, when I first started looking into turboing my SVT I called them at KD performance. They told me directly that all they did was bend up the headers, make the Y pipe, and attach the Turbo. The car was done and engine built when it came to them. They had nothign to do with the TB, or internals for that matter.

That's not true. You have to modify the throttle cable. The cam on the 70mm is different than the 65mm. On the mustang, the throttle cable actually comes from behind and connects to the throttle body. Unlike the Contour where it is infront of the throttle body.

--Matt

I know of a 200SX (turbo 2L 4cyl) thats making 500hp on its stock 60MM TB

I honestly dont care what FI cars are making with their TB's....as long as this TB makes me more power on the top end for racing, then i will be happy....If my times go up because of it, then i will take it off and sell it to someone else who wants to try it on their car. If it works, then i will be glad that i did the upgrade. I should know how things work out in about 1 1/2 weeks from now...


Nikolas

I know why he used it...

Because it acts like intercooler pipe size does. A larger diameter "throttle body in this instance" would decrease the amount of boost generated (or PSI drop) and also increase the boost lag.

This is another example of when larger isn't always better.

Also this only applies to forced induction engines. A N/A engine pulls air in and then a larger opening would allow for more air flow. Velocity & pressure drop are not a factor.

Actually, boost is only a measure of back pressure. If you open the intake and lose 1# of boost, are you getting any less air in? No, you are getting more air in, just less back pressure.

Please don't correlate more boost = more HP. More boost does = more backpressure.

Regards,

ding ding ding

The best example in recent memory of this is when we did a headswap on a Vortech'ed 4.6 2V Mustang a few months back. The car was running ~9lbs with stock 97 heads, and after the swap to ported 99 heads it dropped to ~7lbs, due to the significantly better flow of the heads. Naturally, HP went up even with a reported loss of boost.

Mmars, I am sorry to be rude, but I KNOW you're wrong.
Yu are tryng to tell me that Mustang owners need to modify their throttle cables when going from a 65mm TB to a 70mm TB?. I don't think so (I know so!) as that mod is supposed to be a plug in plug out. I think I smell BS! :rolleyes:
And if you don't believe me, read this: http://www.corral.net/tech/powerplant/sohctb.htm
Trust me if you CLOCK the throttle shaft and cam through 180° (for fitment to a Contour), I assure you NO MOD TO THE THROTTLE CABLE IS REQUIRED, as the throttle cam will be in the EXACT SAME POSITION AS THE CONTOUR REQUIRES. I've done it.
I think you don't realise what "clocking" means. I am not talking about flipping the TB upside down to hae the throttle cam facing the firewall, but rotating the shaft to flip the throttle cam upside down.
Like I said before to someone else. READ MY INSTRUCTIONS FOR FITTING A 65mm TB CAREFULLY , LOOK AT THE PICS and you will see that the Contour throttle cable can be used "as is".

Lol - ease off Aussie and MMars, I'll try that this weekend with my 70.

So Aussie - you did say pedal throw is not any shorter with your 65?

Thanks,
Dan

With the bracket on the throttle cam adjusted so that it makes the dead stop (@ 90°) on the intake manifold. You lose maybe 1" off the floor off total pedal throw.

Thanks Aussie, that sounds better than what I have now, which is that the throw is less than half what it should be. Actually had me contemplating fitting a motorcycle grip.

dan

Mmars, I am sorry to be rude, but I KNOW you're wrong.
Yu are tryng to tell me that Mustang owners need to modify their throttle cables when going from a 65mm TB to a 70mm TB?. I don't think so (I know so!) as that mod is supposed to be a plug in plug out. I think I smell BS! :rolleyes:
And if you don't believe me, read this: http://www.corral.net/tech/powerplant/sohctb.htm
Trust me if you CLOCK the throttle shaft and cam through 180° (for fitment to a Contour), I assure you NO MOD TO THE THROTTLE CABLE IS REQUIRED, as the throttle cam will be in the EXACT SAME POSITION AS THE CONTOUR REQUIRES. I've done it.
I think you don't realise what "clocking" means. I am not talking about flipping the TB upside down to hae the throttle cam facing the firewall, but rotating the shaft to flip the throttle cam upside down.
Like I said before to someone else. READ MY INSTRUCTIONS FOR FITTING A 65mm TB CAREFULLY , LOOK AT THE PICS and you will see that the Contour throttle cable can be used "as is".[/QB][/QUOTE]


Ooooohh....I see what you mean now. I didn't realize that you turned the cam upsidedown.

Thanks for being rude.

--Matt

A turbo's CFM rate is directly related to it's psi level. (boost) (Why turbos are rated like: TD-05H-20G ~ 650CFM@15psi)
Thereby when lowering the boost achieved the turbo's CFM rate drops as well.
I never made mention of horsepower anywhere.

However. If you'd like to...

Set engine makes 300HP at 6psi.
Same said engine will make more horsepower at a higher boost level.

Now a different engine at 4psi might make 400HP. But that's not the same engine (or one with different heads)

more boost = greater cfm capability = greater power achievable

so... anything happening on the dyno?

Okay, I saw something really wrong in here. Someone (not mentioning names) said that they were going to swap in a 4.6 stang maf and use 4.6 stang injectors. That is wrong. Ford control's injector sizing inside the computer. Us Tauri peeps have tried this going from our stock 14# up to the flex fuel 24# by swapping maf/injectors with NO luck. Custom burned chip is needed for that swap. I'm sure you could get away with 19# since its only a little bit larger then stock but its not optimum. I did a maf mod (not recommended by RARA so I won't go into detail about it) and increased my fuel pressure to compensate for the extra air.

I'm probably the guy you are calling wrong. I've been running the 19# injectors with the 80mm MAF and 70mm TB for several months now and the whole setup works just fine. Needs tuning for WOT, but doesn't for "normal" driving. Dunno what's going on with the Taurus 24# issue, but I do know that the transfer function used in the MAF for the Cobra(which uses 24# injectors) is not compatible with the stock contique pcm program.

dan

Yes, it will work, but is not the right way to go about it. Its patch work.

This coming from a guy drag racing a taurus?

You funny man. I never claimed that this was the right or best way to do things. Merely correcting an invalid assertation you made.

dan

Ford does not control injector size through maf size. They do it all in the pcm. The aftermarket tries to adjust by changing the size of the sample tube in order to work with the factory programing FOOLING the computer. Larger sample tube, more cooling on the maf wires, shorter injector pulses. You installed a larger diameter maf (leaning out mixture) and larger injectors (richining out the mixture) and some how came out CLOSE to where you should be. You can throw a larger set of injectors on any car and it will run somewhat good, maybe even better in some cases, but with the talk of everyone running rich at wot you might want to consider something like a SAFC.

As for the shot at me drag racing a Taurus that was a cheap shot.

However the MAF IS calibrated to a specific Injector size. They are NOT a one size fits all electronics...

Therefore he used a MAF calibrated for the larger 19lbs injectors so the PCM would basically see nothing changed. (Just would dump a lot more fuel)

The PCM may control fuel enrichment, but it's based on the signal from the MAF and the PCM's preset tables. (Why an MAF optimizer or S-AFC works!)

...don't worry about the Taurus shot. He's just jealous you have more doors than he does...

Demon,

The MAF DOES NOT HANDLE INJECTOR SIZE all the MAF does is send a signal to the PCM indicating how much air is flowing through it. "Re-calibrating" a MAF for different injectors, and MAF "optimizers" alter the signal from the MAF to the PCM, to trick the PCM into thinking a DIFFERENT amount of air is flowing through it. This is used to compensate for injectors that are the wrong size. Regardless, this method is a half-arsed way of tuning, the injector size should be changed at the PCM either via a re-flash, or a custom "chip"

furthermore, wtf is "fuel enrichment" ???? The A/F ratio is either correct or it isn't. The term "fuel enrichment" historically implies a dump of an indiscriminant amount of fuel; this is dumb.

Been following this thread a while. Interested in knowing what the "best" setup for MAF and TB is for our cars. Taking into consideration daily driving vs. WOT. I know there are a bungh of other variables such as air filter, exhaust and chipped. Just interested in what the general consensus is with all the bolt on's but no internal mods.

Getting a 75 and an 80mm on Mondayish. I need to order a 65mm tb and I'll let you know. The guys at the dyno are just as curious so I think that they are going to cut me a break on $$$$. By the way I have an afc to tune these parts