MaverickMLFD371

JR,

Here is a pic I took a while back when I experimented with the T/B Spacer......

dcranford

I just want to know if they put the throttle body on there and knew about the delay in the blades....why didnt they tune it correctly to get rid of it, then you could report back to us about their ability to correct the throttle body delay....which apparently is NOT an easy thing to fix with a tuner.

70MACH1OWNER

Good Question Donnie!!
Scott

GOFISCH

Ooops, I need to read more throughly.

thump_rrr

I am neither ignorant nor petty.

I will preface the following statements with the following:

The doubts I have with larger throttlebodies are not aimed at the Granatelli throttle body in particular but with all throttlebodies on a N/A 4.6L 3V engine.

I wish I could find the article which had a 6 page article on the 4.6L 3V engine. It was stated by someone on the design team that the stock throttlebody could flow 140% of the air the engine required.

I simply stated that with only a few pieces of the puzzle we cannot come to our own conclusions. Statistical data can be presented in a multitude of ways to give a favorable outcome to the point being debated.

I simply had doubts with the data or lack of data presented.
I still wonder why they shut down at 6000 rpm since both SCT and Diablosport have found gains up to around 6200-6300 rpm.

I have nothing to gain by an unfavorable outcome for this or any other component.

On the other hand a lot of people have a lot of money to lose if a component doesn't live up to the promised gains.

Mr. Granatelli said he emailed me the a/f maps yet I still haven't received them.

They can be emailed to thump_rrr@hotmail.com

I can tell you the gains I have made with each of my modifications, not on a dyno but on the track.

I have made over 550 1/4mile passes last season alone so it would be to my advantage to know if I can make gains with this or any other modification.

If you have seen any of my other posts on this or any of the other mustang boards you will see that I am not someone who takes pleasure in other peoples failures.

I go out of my way to praise companies whose products I have seen perform well. JDM Engineering is one of those companies. I have seen at least 15 of their customers run all weekend long with not one engine related problem. One person living in my area is running a low 11 sec, Lightning prepared by JDM Engineering. He ran the complete season without one engine problem.

Steeda is another company whose products I can personally recommend. I have in the past criticized Steeda for some problems with a set of early production control arm bushings.
They stepped up to the plate and provided me with a set of updated bushings at no cost to me.
I then publicly thanked Gus for the prompt service.

I believe that when I and others play devils advocate the answers we receive will be beneficial to everyone.

celticstanger

I got them, I'll send them on.

I'm all for neutrality and objectivity, but I thought JR's offer and subsequent follow-up on that offer was good stuff. I just feel that having had the courage of his convictions and put his rep on the line, he deserved some credit.

To say, for no apparent reason (or imply, either directly or by subscribing to a previous post), that JR was 'fudging' the result, was disrespectful. Also, by extension, it implied that, in order to 'dupe' his neutral observer, JR leaned the car out and sent stkdidy away with his car running lean.

I don't know if that was the intent, but it was basically saying JR is both dishonest and has a wreckless disregard for his customers.

thump_rrr

I appologize to JR if it seems that I implied that JR intentionally leaned out the car to dupe stkdidy. It was not my intention.

I received the email with the A/F ratio. It looks good to me.

By installing the larger TB the A/F went up which proves increased airflow, which in turn proves that legit gains were found.

Hatchman

Does anybody know the difference in the LFP TB and the Granatelli TB?

Granatelli

Think of the factory T body like a restrictor plate NASCAR engine. The engine still makes power it just takes longer for it to get there. A larger T Body allows the engine to ramp up (accelerate) faster. A lot of speculation has been made as to changing the internal gear ratio on the T-body. That is not why the cars feel so much stronger in the mid range. Since the blades are larger in diameter, small throttle angle changes yield quicker and larger airflow changes. This is proof positive that the engines like the increased airflow in the middle -

dcranford

granetelli

I thikn the issue is....we see that it allowed more air flow, however it also made it where the TB dosnt close when it should...which you guys said could be correctd with a tune. Why didnt you tune it then instead of sending the guy out with a TB that would show the problem? Also Once you tune it correctly, do you still expect to see the samegains? Maybe because it is open for so long it is leaning out and creating the power, but once the "problem" is tuned out the power wont be there anymore. I guess I would have to see a the numbers on a car that has a fixed tune for the TB issue, than see if there are any gains after that.

stkdidy

I will be going to an SCT master tuner to make the necessary changes to my tune if possible.

update: i've driven about 150miles now since the TB and no engine error codes. if i take it out of gear, rpms remain the same for 4seconds then drop back down to ~1000.

i also received the pdf A/F charts and see approximately a .1 to .2 leaning out of the A/F through most rpm. once again, when previously getting tuned such gains were not found with such slight leaning, though one could argue that the extra air is indeed the reason for the extra power.

Doug@C&L

The issue with the throttle opening between shifts and at idle doesn't have anything to do with top end power.

There is one main goal I want to imply here and that is that everyone seems to think of the new GT's as having a Speed density system that wont adjust for new airflow readings. It doesn't, it has a MAF system that is designed by Ford to adjust for changes in airflow. Sure, it wont adjust enough for when you change the diameter tube that the MAF is in, hence tuning required CAI kits, but going ftom a 58 to a 62mm TB will be fine.

The only tuning I could see that would be necessary would be on the manual cars as my automatic with the LFP 62mm TB acts fine at idle and under normal driving.

Thanks, Doug

dcranford

So can a tune be made to fix the TB issues on manual cars?

I would just like to see it tuned and fixed then lets get on the dyno and see if it has the same gains

dcranford

BUMP

Firedude

Thank you stkdidy for this great write up. Thank you Granatelli for putting your product where your mouth is. Class act.

RRRoamer

Geoff,

Great post!

Granatelli,

Great job stepping up to the plate! I'm very happy to see that the numbers posted are very much inline with expectations (~10hp/lb-ft).

Everyone that posted without double checking the facts,

Bad job! Look before you leap! I wonders about the SCT tune when I first read Geoff's post. It ALMOST sounded like it was tuned for the TB but not for the stock. A careful reread reveiled that he already had the JLT intake instaked, so he HAD to have a tune installed. Which meant he was tuned before and after. The reread also cleared up that Geoff was talking about POSSIBLE gains with an additional tune.

It's easy to jump in when you see something (or think you see something) out of the norm, but please double check first.

dcranford

No I want to see what happens when he retunes to fix the issue where the throttle body stays open for longer than it should on Manual cars. (up to 4 seconds) Id like to see a fixed tune for that, then a re-dyno then we can make our decision.

max2000jp

Read post 52, it answers your question.

dcranford

He doesnt say its been fixed with a tune...just that when it is fixed...you "should" see just as much power. Fine. I just want to see A. it fixed with a tune B. It have the same power gains

max2000jp

Jeez, you need to read. First, he states "Sure, it wont adjust enough for when you change the diameter tube that the MAF is in, hence tuning required CAI kits, but going ftom a 58 to a 62mm TB will be fine. " This means that a Tune isn't needed to adjust the A/F ratio. Coupled with the data above it makes perfect sense.

Next, "The only tuning I could see that would be necessary would be on the manual cars as my automatic with the LFP 62mm TB acts fine at idle and under normal driving." Doug is stating that his tune would simply adjuct the idle problem seen with adding a bigger TB in manual cars.

Doug can correct me if I am interpretting his post incorrectly, but basically he answered both your questions.