|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 302
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 302 |
if i remove my secondary runners( the throttles) how will make be acting? will the ncheck engine light will turn on? will it start to misfire? or lost of power? thanks guys.
98 svt contour, magnaflows, sho shop intake, sho shop high flow cat, no pre cats, custom cougars short shifter, 3 liter hybird engine woo hoo im happy, and just added a dmd underdrive pulley.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,194
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,194 |
Originally posted by josesvt:
will the ncheck engine light will turn on? will it start to misfire? or lost of power? thanks guys.
All of those will happen. Why would you want to anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,322
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,322 |
Originally posted by JCSVT:
Originally posted by josesvt:
will the ncheck engine light will turn on? will it start to misfire? or lost of power? thanks guys.
All of those will happen. Why would you want to anyway?
I have never read (here) about a misfire problem when the secondaries are removed, and if you keep the linkage intact you will not trigger a CEL. You will lose some performance at low rpm. This has been discussed many times, do some searching and decide for yourself. There are some very quick cars w/o secondaries.
1999 Toreador Red SVT, DOB 4/22/99, 2005 Of 2760.
"Many posted questions are answered by farm boys"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100 |
You are right, Marky.. there are... those that have the base performance to SUPPORT not having any.. in, and of itself, removing the secondaries is NOT a performance mod.
It is a driveability mod for those who already have the performance.
'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276
In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Ray:
You are right, Marky.. there are... those that have the base performance to SUPPORT not having any.. in, and of itself, removing the secondaries is NOT a performance mod.
It is a driveability mod for those who already have the performance.
You have that completely backwards.
The IMRC is a drivability device. It allows for the tiny 2.5L engine (i.e. no low end torque!) to mate up to a slushbox (no control over rpm) and not "feel" like the 2.5L engine it is.
The IMRC is removed for purely performance reasons.
No IMRC flutter!  'nuff said.
No IMRC opening & closing all the time (and it does due to the programming  ) causing horrible airflow quality.
No IMRC cycling under moderate throttle.
No rods & plates causing turbulence right before the head inlets.
The list goes on & on.
Removing the IMRC causes noticeable drivability issues. It requires custom tuning to alleviate this.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,322
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,322 |
Agree with you Ray, I just added info. about the quick car(s) as a side note. My primary reason for responding to the post was a statement about misfires and CEL's
1999 Toreador Red SVT, DOB 4/22/99, 2005 Of 2760.
"Many posted questions are answered by farm boys"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100 |
Greg...
all of those statements are true.. when based on a car such as yours.
Can those be applied as equally to a stock 2.5? the car WILL suffer drivability issues.. it WILL suffer performance issues.. it WILL be a pain to drive.
Absent-mindedly yanking them out based solely on flutter, etc (that you pointed out) will net 99.9% of the users on CEG nothing.. and will make them lose something, as well.
Blanket statements (that are true) may sound really good, but I wanted to include information that would be relevant to those particular users as well, not just information that would be accurate for those in your state of tune.
'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276
In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
You can tune a 2.5L properly by removing them them so that the timing and fuel curves are adjusted below the original IMRC point. With a good bump in fuel and timing from the idle - up, you could make good torque and power with the IMRC - at the cost of fuel mileage.
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: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Ray:
all of those statements are true.. when based on a car such as yours.
Can those be applied as equally to a stock 2.5? the car WILL suffer drivability issues.. it WILL suffer performance issues.. it WILL be a pain to drive.
Absent-mindedly yanking them out based solely on flutter, etc (that you pointed out) will net 99.9% of the users on CEG nothing.. and will make them lose something, as well.
Blanket statements (that are true) may sound really good, but I wanted to include information that would be relevant to those particular users as well, not just information that would be accurate for those in your state of tune.
Are you sure you are not new around here??? 
I've had my IMRC removed for many years now. Long before I had a 3L engine. EVERYTHING I POSTED APPLIES TO BOTH THE 2.5L AND 3L ENGINE!
All those statements are true period. Regardless of engine size.
The 2.5L does suffer a more noticeable low rpm (below 2500 rpm) power drop then the 3L. No shock there & nothing I have not said a million times before. However the majority of this loss is gained back by proper tuning. (again something I've said & proved ad nauseam over the last 5 years)
Also you will find every post I do about this I advise people not to remove them. I do this because the tuning required to remove them is a requirement and most, if not all, places can not tune for it properly. (Yes some can shut it off but never can tune for it - a BIG difference!) I can guarantee you that none of them datalog to see if they are even making changes and that is just worthless tuning. Period.
My real issue was that your reasoning was completely backwards.
The IMRC is only removed for performance reasons. (many of which I posted) There is no other reason to remove it.
It is only kept for drivability reasons. (PITA to tune, requires custom tuning, etc)
That is the opposite of what you stated.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,469
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,469 |
For a few a months my imrc box fryed/shorted and as soon as i turned the key on they would pin open. And i tell you what, it seemed like i had a 500 pound person in the car with me, It makes a huge diff. at low rpm's. Theres No way in hell i would remove them unless like demon said i had a reliable tune that got all the low rpm tq back. If you relocate the imrc box somewere that it doesnt get so hot, you wont have problems with it fluttering. i couldnt imaginge the gains being more than a few hp if you removed the entire linkage and rods, but that i dont know for sure. But i can tell you the car is a dog with a un modded chip and them open all the the time. And the people who say "well i only drive above 4k all the time anyways soo"
that just bs.
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"
|
|
|
|
|
