Cool, thanks. I'll save the money then.

 

Bingo. They do nothing at all.

Swirls:
The swirls are supposed to "atomize air and compress it." They don't compress crap. They create turbulance, slowing down the air and creating dead spots/vacuums behind the lumps, similar to driving behind a truck. On top of that, the added material decreases the intake diameter. The swirling effect, if it worked, would also immediately disappear on the next bend into the plenum.

Heat Dissipation
Another intent is to isolate the throttlebody from the heat of the engine using this spacer. Of course, you'd need a plastic composite for this to work. A cooler Throttlebody should result in a cooler charge, but does it? At the speed the air is moving, you really don't see a gain. My previous community was for a supercharged car. The supercharger generates massive heat, so gains would be best in this application, where the throttlebody is separated from that heat. However, dynos have proven time and time again that there is no gain, even with a supercharger, blocking hot coolant flow to the throttlebody.

Actual Uses
I have a few throttlebody spacers laying around. I use them to mount injectors for methonal / water injection. It's intended to better seal the gaps in the supercharger rotors, and cool the air charge in the intake manifold. Alcohol injection is also sketchy in terms of results, but gains have been made from it. The only use for a spacer on G35's would be mounting nozzles for nitrous or alky injection. But, even so, there are better places to mount the nozzles.


From my research and experience, I'd pass. If you really insist on picking one up, at least skip on the gimmicky swirl design.

 

Actually, the throttle body spacers are pretty good for getting extra vacuum ports, which is what I have one for. One port for the boost gauge, one port for the MAP for my UTEC, and one extra port, if I decide to up the boost, for a boost controller.

Other than that, they are useless.

 

You would be a perfect candidate for our beta testing... where are you located? Would you be willing to install this unit and report your driving impressions? Many of your comments above do not apply, as this piece is not designed in a way to restrict or impede air flow, it is not designed to affect heat or dissipate heat, and there is only one bend to the plenum after this unit... I’m not a manufacturer and have no reason to convince anyone of anything... I dismissed this particular unit at first... upon further evaluation it seems there is much more to this. Several cars are beta testing at this time (including me) - Since you have pre-determined opinion (like I had) it would be great to get one on your car and test it out. PM me if you are interested...

 

I really don't know what happened at Shawns test, but I'll go on record as saying these things don't work at all.

I know it will be easy to dyno a shift in ECU performance which may end up looking like a TB spacer gain, but I've seen enough controlled testing of my own to know (for myself) they are effective as turbonators.

Mike,
I don't understand. You saw the dyno results on your own car. You took the TB spacer out, dynod it again, and it made absolutely no difference on the curve. Zero.

If it made even one scientifically verifyable HP, you know I would totally support it.

 

Indeed Tony, I dismissed this after the day of dynoing... DaveO had it on his car and didn't tell me much about his impressions - but implied I should drive with the mod instead of going solely off dyno. I wasn’t expecting anything and will keep my detailed impressions to myself for now.

This is why I want to get it on other cars. Shawn’s tests have merit - and now I feel it warrants considerable attention to determine it’s worth.

Tony, I would love to see what your driving impressions are. Would you like to put one on the Z or sedan? (call me or I will call you to discuss)

This can be poo poo'd all day. I'm none the worse for it. But if anyone local to LA/OC would like to do beta testing let me know. Put it on your car - and report your impressions. Simple. If it's crap we will have plenty of people that will give first hand reports. If it has merit we will have plenty of reviews giving it credit.

 

I know Shawn Church well. He is definitely not one to fabricate stories that does not exist. He merely reported what he saw and measured, but that is all. The source of the claimed gained is not and cannot be that of the throttle body spacer. The gain is nothing more than the mirage of having not executed the basic ECU resetting procedure for both pre- and post- test cases, a concept I have preached for many years.

The throttle body spacer is a gimmick!

I don't know what more empirical proof one would ask than Tony's independent dyno study. On the positive note, the results from the dyno study have only re-affirmed the ECU behavior and the need to perform resets.

There's no free energy folks. The so called "swirl" takes valuable kinetic energy away from the advancing air mass, expressed in Reynolds number (fluid mechanics), to generate. It's a classic case of what NOT to do in Aero-101. Be very fortunate that the lost in Reynolds figure did not equate to signficant performance loss (based on Tony's dyno study), which tend to support the ineffectiveness of the "rifling" at stirring the air.

Just about the only thing this contraption can theoretically be of benefit is the marginal volume increase to the intake tract, which may or may not have a favorable impact on intake resonance frequency. In the case that it would be of favor, at approximately 100cc of displacement, I'm affraid it is as effective as placebo.

Save your bucks folks. The throttle body spacer is best kept in the bin where the "Tornado" also lives.

 

Clint, Tony's test was on my car (and it did not show performance loss)... Shawn's test did not include an ECU reset... the test cars that are currently giving driving impressions were installed without an ECU reset... This particular unit merits further testing.

BTW - I am not selling these... I'm asking for beta testers... put it on your car with no expectations. Give it back when you are done. The end.

 

Yes Mike I've gathered that much; that Tony used your car as the test host, which boggles me ever more. What further testing could possibly be of merit beyond a properly conducted load-based dyno? Equally puzzling to me still is the ECU-reset-LESS road "seat of the pants" test you're conducting.

Sorry, I just don't see the logic in that.

If you want to be scientific about this. A random blindfold test should be implemented (along w. ECU resets of course).

No worries. I understand you have no financial interest in this product, just the urge to "know".

Regards,

 

Understood that as well, which I noted in my original reply.

Furthermore I have implied that based on basic fluid mechanics, the non performance impact meant the "rifling" did next to nothing to "stir" the air (not that "stirring" the air is a good thing to begin with).

 

I don't see the logic in performing an ecu reset either, in this case at least. When I've reset my ecu in the past, I could tell the car had more power in the midrange, but lost a little in the top end. I could also tell the car was running very rich, as I could smell the fuel(no cats) and my mpg went to crap.

So if your only change is the introduction of this spacer, the effects of resetting the ecu might be misunderstood as instead being the effects of the spacer.

 

Trey,
The idea of resetting the ECU is none other than for normalizing one of the largest x-factor of the comparison/impression test. Point being, it isn't truely a scientific testing approach unless you start out each comparisons with equal ECU behavior, if not for a brief time. Among the parameters expected to be normalized at the very least are active ignition map, ignition timing advance factor, short/long term fuel trims, facty x, factor y, etc.

Again the implication for resetting the ECU isn't about optimizing performance, although more often than not that happens to be the case. Should the outcome be less favorable immediately following an ECU reset, well that's okay too, because you'll have started each test with equal treatment or handicap. "Normalization" is what we're after here.

 

Hey Guys

I was going to say nothing about this... but just had to, after the last few posts.

As Clint said, the placebo effect of doing mods to our cars is something that truly has to be considered. I have experienced this many times over, and you will be surprised how different you think your gains feel if you take the initial impressions out of the equation. Hence, butt dyno simply cannot be trusted, period. That's why objective testing, one that is VERY well controlled (read: Tony's testing - as I am familiar with his methodology first hand), MUST be the only source evidence in evaluating power gains/losses.

On the subject of objectivity and methodology:
ECU resets are ABSOLUTELY VITAL to preserving the scientific method in testing for gains. I have witnessed MORE THAN A DOZEN times how much the timing can change on these cars under different driving conditions. When I say driving conditions, I don't mean just the process of dynoing.. I mean monitoring the timing for days upon days in real time on the street (on my Innovate! hardware/software). It can change after a single run, after several runs...all due to knock sensor's feedback and the ECU's processing of the information. Whether driving habits (granny vs. aggressive) affects the 5AT sedans, at least the type I cars, I also pretty much confirmed. One thing that we do know is that it's a HUGE X-factor. Not controlling for this is a considerable mistake.

As far as the spacer is concerned....are you guys kidding me? How can one take someone else's subjective evaluation on this over an objective dyno evaluation? To drive the car for a while and not trust the dyno? The only way that extensive driving can make a difference (i.e. produce gains down the line, ignoring the placebo effect for a moment) is if the AFR was in fact affected when the spacer was installed, and the ECU is applying a long term trim correction to bring the AFR back to "normal". This scenario is a stretch for me to even conjure, as there are many more variables to consider. But all that is really IRRELEVANT, as the AFR did not change at the time of testing.

This mod obviously does NOTHING, and there is no parallel universe in existence in which it can. Trust the objective evidence, that's all i can say.

 

I'd like to revisit the scenario that was posted earlier (quoted at the very bottom).

Consider the following timeline during Tony's dyno study :

Test 1 - Baseline - 254hp
No ECU reset. No TB spacer.

Test 2 - Spacer test - 265-267hp
ECU was reset. TB spacer installed.

Test 3 - Baseline (ecu reset): 264-267hp
ECU was reset. TB spacer de-insatlled.


In test 1, the un-reset ECU is in an "unkown" adapted state and presumably an unfavorable one as shown by the lowest dyno output. Because the "unkown" ECU state cannot be reprodued exactly for test 2, this data point is effectively consider invalid as a baseline. It wouldn't have been a 1:1 test otherwise. This can however be used as a data point for ECU that has adapted and later compared to the result of test 3 for cross reference.

In test 2, the ECU state was normalized via a rest. Although it wasn't their original intention, the ECU was reset non the less when they disconnected the main battery. The result from this run is now the baseline.

In test 3, the ECU state was also normalized vis reset from having disconnected the battery. The result here is consider the experimental data to which the baseline can be compared to. Delta between baseline data and experimental data is, not shockingly, a ZERO.

The only thing that's different between test 1 and test 2 is the one ECU reset. The approx. 10hp delta was attributed to the ECU.

Conclusions:
1. The throttle body spacer makes no gains.
2. ECU normalization process (via reset) has been substantiated.


Guys I'm all for mods that make honest power. I'm affraid this just isn't one of it.

Mike (OCG35). I would be more than happy to assist you with your continual case studies by infusing the proper scientific testing methodology. I do this for a living. I don't discredit the user impression test approach, but if you're going to do it then it ought to be done right (i.e. blind fold method). If anyone can correctly "feel" the presence of the TB spacer, then I'll be the first to stamp the product with approval.

 

I wouldn't mind doing this to help out the community, but I'm not sure that I have the right tools for the job. My previous car was a supercharged GM, and my scanning/programming tools were specific for that application. So, all my observations would be on the unproven butt-dyno. I've also only had the car for two weeks, so my "butt dyno" isn't really broken in yet, either.

I'm under warranty, and don't want to void that for a change, though this is easy enough to swap in and out under their nose. I guess what it really comes down to is money. For any kind of results, I'd need at least two sets of dyno pulls on separate days, the spacer, longer bolts for the spacer, and gaskets. It's just too much money and time to waste on something that I'm pretty sure won't work anyway.

But, I bought this car to have a warrantied daily driver without modifying it to hell and back. Just the irony and hilarity of doing beta testing 2 weeks later may be worth it. Let me know roughly what I'd be looking at in expenses, I may just do some community service for you guys