Throttle Body Spacer Review
#61
09-13-2007, 09:52 AM
#64
09-13-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by rockd
how would this work if I already have a copper throttle body spacer from MotorDyne installed? (it came with the 5/16 ISO Thermal kit)
#65
09-15-2007, 03:13 PM
I recently came across this very interesting online article regarding TB spacer reviews, worth, etc… it is very apropos for this particular unit.
http://www.articleclick.com/Article/...Spacers/918947
http://www.articleclick.com/Article/...Spacers/918947
#66
09-18-2007, 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by andy2434
LOL . . . Good point, Jon. I don't know where this particular part originated from. And even if I did, I would not mention it. LOL . . . I don't want to be accused of being a salesperson for this particular mod. I was simply asked to try it out. I had no expectations on this part. It cost me some $90.00. Compared to a Z tube, filters, etc. . . . It was definitely a worthwhile mod for me.
It definitely gave me better throttle response in the lower ranges, as I had mentioned. It wasn't difficult for me to determine the results, because I had little to no throttle response in the said rpm range and under the said scenario.
I trust that you Bar exam studies are going well.
It definitely gave me better throttle response in the lower ranges, as I had mentioned. It wasn't difficult for me to determine the results, because I had little to no throttle response in the said rpm range and under the said scenario.
I trust that you Bar exam studies are going well.
#69
09-21-2007, 06:43 PM
#70
09-25-2007, 09:53 AM
I have no idea if this will fit with my JWT TT kit, but I'll try it out... paypal sent. thx for setting this up ocg35. I'm not going to do a before/after dyno for this little thing, but I will log some data using Cipher and do a before/after with my Gtech-RR.
Last edited by rcdash; 09-25-2007 at 09:56 AM.
#71
09-25-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by rcdash
I have no idea if this will fit with my JWT TT kit, but I'll try it out... paypal sent. thx for setting this up ocg35. I'm not going to do a before/after dyno for this little thing, but I will log some data using Cipher and do a before/after with my Gtech-RR.
#72
09-25-2007, 05:12 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Philly
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to bring an old topic back to this thread, it's not likely that the spacer grooves (which likely creates the necessary air turbulence for better air/fuel mixture) are the only factor in the performance enhancement, but the fact that intake runner length is increased.
The VQ30DE (95-99 maxima model) had "long" intake runners, helping it to create more tourque than HP (205 lb/ft & 190 hp), but fell on it's face after 5k rpms. After learning that the VQ30DE-k (2000+ maxima model) had a variable intake that opened around 4.5k rpms, thus giving it a "short" intake runner to increase hp when needed, the VQ30DE guys started using a MEVI intake to give them better top end power, but it lost a little low end tourque.
In any case, intake runner tunning is real and has been around for a while. Find more about it here > http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question517.htm
I would like to see a Dyno of the before and after not just for peak gains, but to see the impact across the entire curve. It's likely that this longer intake runner helped to gain low end torque at the lose of top end HP.
The VQ30DE (95-99 maxima model) had "long" intake runners, helping it to create more tourque than HP (205 lb/ft & 190 hp), but fell on it's face after 5k rpms. After learning that the VQ30DE-k (2000+ maxima model) had a variable intake that opened around 4.5k rpms, thus giving it a "short" intake runner to increase hp when needed, the VQ30DE guys started using a MEVI intake to give them better top end power, but it lost a little low end tourque.
In any case, intake runner tunning is real and has been around for a while. Find more about it here > http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question517.htm
I would like to see a Dyno of the before and after not just for peak gains, but to see the impact across the entire curve. It's likely that this longer intake runner helped to gain low end torque at the lose of top end HP.
#73
09-25-2007, 06:22 PM
hey ocg35. sorry its taken me soooooooo long to post my review about the spacer. ocg35 already knows my opinion about the spacer, but to everyone else, i felt a slight improvement around the 2800-3500 rpm range. the spacer also made the whistling a little louder from the intake. personally, i didnt seem to feel that the spacer hurt my car in anyway, but its not going to give you anykind of headjerking power either, but for $90, you cant go wrong with this thing. sorry it took me so long ocg35. it would be a little more indepth, but i have to get back to work. lata. darren
oh by the way, im glad to see that you were able to get these things on the market.
oh by the way, im glad to see that you were able to get these things on the market.
Last edited by deeznutts23; 09-25-2007 at 06:26 PM.
#74
09-26-2007, 11:28 AM
I understand that the spacer possibly has increased the intake runner length and thus potentially give better low to mid end torque characteristics.
However, I am interested to see if people who have tried this spacer has had a plenum spacer already?
The reason that I am asking is that if you have two spacers, one at the plenum & one at the TB, I am afraid that they are increasing the effective runner length by too much? (I dunno what is too much.. I am just throwing some ideas out there)
Anyhow, kudos to everyone that has written a review for the TB spacer!!
However, I am interested to see if people who have tried this spacer has had a plenum spacer already?
The reason that I am asking is that if you have two spacers, one at the plenum & one at the TB, I am afraid that they are increasing the effective runner length by too much? (I dunno what is too much.. I am just throwing some ideas out there)
Anyhow, kudos to everyone that has written a review for the TB spacer!!
Last edited by godmans; 09-26-2007 at 11:32 AM.
#75
09-26-2007, 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by godmans
I understand that the spacer possibly has increased the intake runner length and thus potentially give better low to mid end torque characteristics.
However, I am interested to see if people who have tried this spacer has had a plenum spacer already?
The reason that I am asking is that if you have two spacers, one at the plenum & one at the TB, I am afraid that they are increasing the effective runner length by too much? (I dunno what is too much.. I am just throwing some ideas out there)
Anyhow, kudos to everyone that has written a review for the TB spacer!!
However, I am interested to see if people who have tried this spacer has had a plenum spacer already?
The reason that I am asking is that if you have two spacers, one at the plenum & one at the TB, I am afraid that they are increasing the effective runner length by too much? (I dunno what is too much.. I am just throwing some ideas out there)
Anyhow, kudos to everyone that has written a review for the TB spacer!!