Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all...

Does anyone know if using a 100mm throttle body with the Greddy plenum for an rb26 will work well???

Will the flow be enough to support over 1000hp??

I have heard that the greddy plenum has been designed for the 6 butterflies but will it still be effective with the 100mm T/B??

Need information about this asap...

Cheers

Do you know if single throttle is better than the 6 butterflies??

Multiple throttle bodies, close to the inlet valves are good for throttle response which is irrelevant on a drag car.:)

I dunno about the extent of your testing, but i know that nissan has gone out of their routine to do a 6 butterflies job for the gtr for response, as for other manufacturers that uses multi throttle bodies on there cars with great results are The m series BMW all porsche-ferraris-maseratis-lamborghinis-lotus-elfins- and most of the alfas and lancias.

the reason the japanese went for the single t/b is that originally they had issues with tunning it as the smaller t/b as the airspeed and pressure some how cause anomalies between cylinders which then inturn made it much harder to tune and a way to solve the problems was go a big single t/b. But Time have taught them a few thing most notably is MOTEC which nails the anomalies on the head, The reason single t/b are still around cause old habits are hard to kick, and if it's on the shelf why not use it.

But as S/K said is true, instant response is a non event for a drag car.

Multi throttles is old hat and race teams know the problems they cause and have slide and barrel setups to now. Wol,f Autronic and Motec all have TPS V MAP for the pulsing problems in tuning but they cant solve the turbulance and restriction this old skool setup causes in ports and as modern multi throttle setups cost HUGE single is next best.

My tested opinion but feel free to have your own.

As usual Steve is right, there are better methods than horizontal throttle butterflies. The SuperTourers use barrell throttles so that there is no spindle in the way at WOT. The V8Dinosaur uses slides, again so that there is no spindle in the way at WOT. I do some work on a car that has verticle spindles, they line up with the port divider between the 2 inlet valves. It shows a small gain in power over the horizontal spindles. The current generation of BM's don't even have a throttle as such, they use variable valve lift to control engine power.

Barrell throttles are expensive to make. Slides don't work very well on forced induction engines, the pressure on the closed slide makes it very difficult to open them. Changing an RB to verticle spindles would be a nightmare to equalise the flow to each cylinder, it is hard enough on a 4 cylinder.

But what design of throttle control device is really secondary to this discussion (which we have had a number of times in numerous threads), the real question is how big and where.

The bottom line for me is pretty simple;

1. For a circuit race car, multiple throttle butterflies close to the inlet valves give better response than a single throttle body many litres of airflow away. This is both logical and well proven in the field. Up to the power levels we have used (~650 bhp) there is a noticeable loss of instant throttle response when a single butterfly is used. I have seen the same result on SR's as well as RB's.

2. For a drag car, I would be chasing every single horsepower, so removing the turbulance and restriction of the multiple throttle butterflies would be on my list. But I am not sure where it would rank on that list, there are so many other things that would rank higher. I have seen a number GTR's in Japan run low 9's using the standard throttle bodies and standard plenums. Theo here has run many, many 9's with the standard throttle bodies. So if I was building a 9 second capable car, then there is an argument that says spend my time and money on the other things on the list first. If I was building an 8 second car, then there is really no question, I would have a large plenum and a big single throttle body. And it would feature pretty early on my list.

3. For a road/combo car I see no reason to give up even the slightest amount of throttle response. Personally I hate lethargic engines (or chassis for that matter), they need to respond to my inputs instantly. Probably comes from too many laps around circuits.

As Steve said, everybody is entitled to their opinion and that's my 20 cents worth:cheers:

If 1000+ horsepower is the goal, a single large throttle body is the way to go. When that much air is being forced into each runner, each individual throttle butterfly and post is a great restriction for such a small area. Like we discussed earlier, I would be more than happy to help you out with a custom plenum. I could machine it to fit any throttle body. I would also knife edge the butterfly blade and rework the butterfly post for you to allow for even greater cfm. I'm not sure what price I quoted you, but pm me again and we'll talk. Odds are it was too high. Like I said before, I would see to it that it out-do anything else out there.

To give you an idea of what it could look like, heres a plenum were doing for a 1000+ hp supra.

http://www.supraforums.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=250040

If 1000+ horsepower is the goal, a single large throttle body is the way to go. When that much air is being forced into each runner, each individual throttle butterfly and post is a great restriction for such a small area. Like we discussed earlier, I would be more than happy to help you out with a custom plenum. I could machine it to fit any throttle body. I would also knife edge the butterfly blade and rework the butterfly post for you to allow for even greater cfm. I'm not sure what price I quoted you, but pm me again and we'll talk. Odds are it was too high. Like I said before, I would see to it that it out-do anything else out there.

To give you an idea of what it could look like, heres a plenum were doing for a 1000+ hp supra.

http://www.supraforums.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=250040

I reckon the toaster would work better :D .....can i order one of those off you?:)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...