Originally posted by bret:
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...
[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).
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?
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.
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.
Um, drugs are bad, mm-kay?
