Thanks for the info
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Wong" <ron-wong@home.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 16:06
Subject: RE: DML: RE: MP 4bbl throttle body ?
> No, I'm afraid I haven't tried a 52mm one. I probably would not head in
> that direction unless I changed my heads (seriously considering) to the
R/T
> heads. Once the heads can gulp more air then I would go for the 52mm TB.
> If you're comparing the 52mm to stock you probably are doing better, but
you
> should try a 50mm and see if that isn't even better yet. This is just
based
> on things I've heard from others. I'm not disputing the discussions in
this
> thread. Another person that's probably tried everything he can get his
> hands on is Will (408 Will). No one else has built an under 9 sec Dak.
Or
> talk to Bruce Bridges. He builds these TB's and has a flowbench to test
and
> determine best characteristics.
>
> Ron
> 00 PB SLT QC 4X2 5.9 46RE 3.92 LSD
> For modifications see my DML Profile (URL follows)
> http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/Kw9pV1EkFeOYY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Kevin
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 11:29 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: RE: MP 4bbl throttle body ?
>
>
> Ron, That is what I am getting at. Have you tried a 52mm on your truck? I
am
> not doubting your truck runs great, but maybe if you knew a way to try a
> 52mm, it might be better, or at the least not run any worse. I side with
> Mark and Chris on this one. A Throttle body is just a air delivery part.
It
> is like going from the restrictive factory intake to a K&N. You flow more
> air the truck builds more power. At some point you reach a saturation
point
> where more air will not deliver more power, and throttle response will
> suffer. I was concerned when I ordered my 52mm, and then I heard from some
> of the guys that it would be too large, but that is not the case, and if
> anything my throttle response is better now than with the stock unit.
> Just trying to get as much info as possible, and hopefully e are all
> enlightened.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ronald Wong" <ron-wong@home.com>
> To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 14:53
> Subject: RE: DML: RE: MP 4bbl throttle body ?
>
>
> > Kevin,
> >
> > Talk to Bernd. I believe I've read where people have bogged down
> somewhere
> > in their power curve with the 52mm and not with the 50mm. I run
> Flometrics
> > 50mm billet TB and have had no problems.
> >
> > Ron
> > 00 PB SLT QC 4X2 5.9 46RE 3.92 LSD
> > For modifications see my DML Profile (URL follows)
> > http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/Kw9pV1EkFeOYY
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Kevin
> > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 10:50 PM
> > To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> > Subject: Re: DML: RE: MP 4bbl throttle body ?
> >
> >
> > Does anyone have any proof to go against this? I run a 52mm Holley with
> > modest mods, and it definitely runs better than the stock unit, although
I
> > do not know if the 50 mm would have more power. Anybody used both?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <chris@slowcar.net>
> > To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 12:36
> > Subject: Re: DML: RE: MP 4bbl throttle body ?
> >
> >
> > > | I'm sure the 4bbl TB would flow far to much air out of the box for
my
> > engine
> > > | size/mods, but I was thinking that I could get a restrictor plate to
> cut
> > down
> > > | the CFM to whatever worked best.
> > >
> > >
> > > I still haven't bought the argument that you can over TB an engine
> > > like you can over carb one. The downsides to a to big tb would be
> > > mainly loss of throttle granularity (e.g. a 1% change with a 4bbl is
> like
> > > a 5% change with a stock 2 barrel, so you loose some of the
> "precision").
> > > It's not like a carb'd engine where vacuum over the ortifice
meter's
> > fuel -
> > > that's done independently.
> > > As for the velocity argument - the airs going into a plenum - once
it
> > hit's
> > > that, boom, it slows down anyway. If it were a velocity stack setup
it
> > might
> > > be difference.
> > > I don't think the TB will help much either (at least on a stock
> > displacement
> > > engine) - pumping losses really aren't an issue (which is what the TB
> > helps) with
> > > the CFM that would be turning.
> > > I think a restrictor plate would be more trouble than it's worth
> > honestly. If
> > > you want the 4bbl just do it - you probably won't pick up any power,
but
> > it
> > > shouldn't hurt anything. I would definitley consider the progressive
> > linkage
> > > that Brend mentioned earlier!
> > >
> > > | Any chance you could post a picture of the mod you did to the 4bbl
TB
> to
> > > | adapt the TV cable?
> > > | Also, what engine setup are you running (ie. year, cubes, mods, obd
1
> or
> > 2)
> > > | In addition, what valve sizes do you recommend?
> > >
> > > I will try and get a picture of it and post it - I really just
> drilled
> > a small hole,
> > > tapped it, ran some threaded rod in it, and fixed the TV cable
> connection
> > > over it. But will try and get some pics.
> > > Old engine was a 318 with heads+Cam, M1. OBDII, but has a haltech
> DFI
> > > piggyback computer that handles fuel and spark. New engine is a
solid
> > > roller 408.
> > > Valve size I would stick with a 1.625 exhaust, no reason really to
go
> > bigger.
> > > On the intake I would like a bit more valve, but honestly anything
> bigger
> > than
> > > a 2.00 valve and I don't think you can do a good valve job. My head
> > porter
> > > tried first with a 2.02 and with a 5angle valve job hit water (not
> good).
> > Honestly
> > > with a good valve and valve job you aren't giving up a whole lot with
> the
> > smaller
> > > valve, and on a smaller cube motor it's definitley the way to go
anyway
> > (try
> > > and keep velocity up).
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris Bennight
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:14 EDT