Ok i'm currently having a turbocharge 2.2 ecotec (l61) and i'm asking myself , shoul I put a 62mm TB or keep my stock tb(i'm not sure of the exaxt size...) I am using 2 inch piping for my turbo system! will I feel more power on high rpm range??? will I see any difference?? does it worth the price...?
http://cavalierdomination.monchar.com
i'd like to see the outcome of this because I've been debating this myself, currently turbo'd with stock TB
You will notice a difference with a throttle body especially on a turbocharged setup. Good luck.
*2012 mazdaspeed3*
bigger tb = better flow. better flow = more power.
make sure to get one that is really 62mm or more though, i remember a thread where people bought an RSM 62MM T/B and it was not 62MM...
RSM also recently changed there name too... I forget what to, but there is a thread about it in the General Forum I think...
|Forged 8.9:1 Wiseco Pistons|Forged Eagle Rods|HPTuners|60trim|Tial Wastegate|
|Precision Intercooler|2.5" Exhaust|2.5" Charge Pipes|630CC Mototron Injectors|
|Stock: Fuel Pump, Transmission, Manifold, TB, Head, Head Gasket, Ignition, Suspension...|
Yeah RSM changed their name to Z Spec, annnnnnd the TB measured out to something like 61.4mm if i remember correctly.
I agree with everyone else as far as what Ive seen from the more brilliant members or the org (myself not included), but i dunno where VE(volumetric efficiency) plays into all of this just cause ive never seen anyone work a formula for a turbocharged car that i can remember. However, that being said... I dont see why a 62mm throttle body wouldnt help a turbocharged car.
Quote:
MadJack
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 4:02 PM
To begin to know where any changes are to be made you must know what you have. You must be able to figure out how much air flow you have and/or what the section area of a port or runner is. Here's a few of the fomulas that have help out alot and where they came from:
From HP Book'sAuto Math Handbook by John Lawlor,
Theoretical CFM:
rpm * displacement / 3456 = theoretical cfm
example: 6000 * 134cid / 3456 = 232.6 cfm (as seen by Event's other post)
Volumetric Efficieny:
actual cfm / theoretical cfm * 100 = VE
example: 212 / 232.6 * 100 = 91.14%
From Edelbrock's web site and many catalogs:
CFM:
CID * RPM * VE / 3456 = CFM (note: this is the same as above but now we have included the VE to figure the actual CFM)
example: 134 * 6000 * 85 / 3456 = 197.7
Note: They also give carb rules, which can also apply the Throttle Body,
CFM * 110% to 130% for sinle plane intakes or plenums (such as the 2.2L/2200s) example: 232.6 * 1.1= 256cfm
CFM * 120% to 150% for dual plane intakes (or Hilborn type fuel injection systems)
All of the previous formulas have all been posted ans/or demonstrated in other forum posts. You will notice that in my examples, I used figures for the 2.2L/2200 motor.
OK, theres the VE formula i was talking about.... God, i love madjack
I just ordered a 62 mm TB from MRZ performance for my RSM Kit, Matthew has a been a good guy to deal with so far, and I can post up some results when I install it, its due to arrive any day now.
I noticed a difference with my bored out throttle body.
mrz tb is 60mm.. does it have a new plate? or is it a stock tb plate?
i want a 62mm, that is not rsm
|Forged 8.9:1 Wiseco Pistons|Forged Eagle Rods|HPTuners|60trim|Tial Wastegate|
|Precision Intercooler|2.5" Exhaust|2.5" Charge Pipes|630CC Mototron Injectors|
|Stock: Fuel Pump, Transmission, Manifold, TB, Head, Head Gasket, Ignition, Suspension...|
Acer wrote:mrz tb is 60mm.. does it have a new plate? or is it a stock tb plate?
i want a 62mm, that is not rsm
MRZ just made me a 62 mm TB with a new plate, I'm picking it up tomorrow morning from the post office.
They def have to help, but do they help enough to justify spending $300+ on?
I work on SRT-4's all the time! As you may know they are turbo chargered. We had the intake mani/thrtle body ported we gain 27hp and 32lbs. On 21lbs of boost spike and holding 17lbs!
Just an FYI....If it was my car i would go bigger!
Play hard, Drive fast, and Be safe...
