Hey Bruce:
Got any computer video of one of your throttle bodies being machined? I saw
a program about tools on the History channel some weeks back and they showed
some machining center video. Just amazing! Looking forward to your 69mm
TB.
And for anyone on the list:
I finally got my 2001 4.7L quad cab 3 weeks ago. It's *really* nice. +700
miles and no problems whatsoever so far. Well, a rock or something from the
freeway did take a little chip out of my windshield within the first couple
hundred miles. But other than that...it's perfect.
I'm going to switch to synthetic at some point relatively soon. Then I'll
try opening up the intake. Dunno what I'm going to do yet. Looks like the
K&N gen II isn't available for the 4.7L yet? I sent them email but haven't
heard back yet. Maybe I'll just start by replacing the factory filter with
a high flow K&N. You know, sort of get my wife used to the idea of me
spending money on mods. :-)
Oh...about the 180 degree thermostat... Lotsa folks here have said 183
degrees is optimal for the engine, but 195 was chosen for emissions. So
does that mean going with the 180 degree thermostat is bad for the
environment? Or only a little bit? I want what's good for my engine, but I
do also care about the environment. And yes, this is coming from a guy who
in high school went up to Canada to get a Canadian head for his 79' Honda
Accord to replace is slower burning but better for the environment 3 valve
per cylinder (CVCC) U.S. cylinder head. And then swapped the old head back
on and then off to get it through DEQ. Pretty bad... :-)
But back to the present.... No...wait... Off to the future.... Some year
soon, I would absolutely love to have a supercharger, and all the stuff to
support it. But without getting radical like Will (either Will :) ). Gonna
have to stick with the relatively cheaper performance mods until then
though. -Tod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Bridges" <bbridges@flometrics.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: DML: RE: Hughes Engines 4.7L 68mm flow data is in......
> Matt,
> Im going to be more expensive than $150.00 thats for sure! 750cfm is
aVERY
> conservative number for the 69mm billet....Well see what the bench says
once
> I get the first one finished! Theres no way I can compete on a cost basis
> re: ported TB vs new Billet TB...Ive got to make it up in performance,
> looks, and getting more than a ported TB can get (and showing that it
works
> better due to that...) Those walls on the Hughes unit must be getting
mighty
> thin!
> Bruce
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <WMBARRET@aol.com>
> To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: DML: RE: Hughes Engines 4.7L 68mm flow data is in......
>
>
> > Thanks Bruce, for clarifying! Yesterday, Hughes had the 68mm TB up to
> 712cfm+-, and they were still working on it. It sounds like if you need
that
> extra 5-10% flow increase, your billet TB is the way to go!
> > I'd be interested to see how the cost compares.
> > Regular Price for the TB work @ Hughes is $150.00.
> >
> > Matt Y2K-HEMI
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated Tue, 6 Mar 2001 5:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> "Bruce Bridges" <bbridges@flometrics.com> writes:
> >
> > << FYI!
> > F&B magnum V8 50mm TBs flow about 550CFM @ 11", 790cfm @ 25"
> > The 69mm 4.7s Target is about the same. I havnt got the final product
> yet,
> > so I havnt been able to do any flow work.... I wont release until we
get
> at
> > least 750CFM @ 25" (should be real easy!)
> > Bruce
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <bernd@texas.net>
> > To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 6:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: DML: RE: Hughes Engines 4.7L 68mm flow data is in......
> >
> >
> > >
> > > That's what I thought....just seemed strange that there was no
> measurement
> > > specs and 454CFM. No biggie...
> > >
> > > I believe Bruce's are around 780-800CFM (from what I got on the phone
> > earlier).
> > >
> > > - Bernd
> > >
> > >
> > > > Bernd, You and I are use to seeing 25" h2o, Dave usually does both!
> > 400
> > > cfm@ 10" is 630
> > > cfm@ 25", and 450 cfm @ 10" is 712 cfm@25"
> > > >
> > > > Steve, what kinda flow numbers is Bruce getting out of his design??
> > Price??
> > > >
> > > > Matt Y2K-HEMI
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:17:51 PM Eastern Standard
Time,
> > > bernd@texas.net
> > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > <<
> > > > 454CFM?? Are you sure those numbers are correct? Seems rather
small
> > for a
> > > > 4.7L. (Considering that the 3.9L is at 500+CFM)
> > > >
> > > > - Bernd
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:00:06 EDT