Some miscellaneous ramblings on the topic:
Not knocking anyone's product or thoughts, just tossing mine into the mix.
TBs are a controlled hole in the intake manifold that will allow a certain
amount of air into the motor. Some motors need more air than others. The
amount depends on CID, RPM, and the tuning characteristics of the intake
manifold, cam and valvetrain.
Some motors want more air than others. TOO much air isn't always a good
thing though. It can cause bogging, off idle hesitation and/or stumble.
This is often seen when abruptly opening the throttle from idle or near idle
(think jumping off alight or drag racing).
I'm NOT discounting Ray's findings, but would rather try to back up the
reason behind them. Ray has a 5.2 (318). As I said, TOO much air doesn't
help, and can possibly hinder. The Fastman 52 is a reworked factory piece,
and DOES have a set of 52mm blades. BUT, it does come with the inherent
issues of a factory TB, and does not flow the same CFM as the F&B 52 which
also sports a pair of identical sized blades. The F&B because it is not
based on a factory casting, can make better use of bore size and taper and
other aerodynamic things that can be learned through fluid dynamic
engineering.
I was running a heavily tweaked 5.9 (360) factory cam/head combo in my R/T.
I DID see gains going from the Fastman 52 to the F&B 52.
IMO: Ray did not get any additional gains from the F&B due to not needing
more air PERIOD. If he had been needing more air, he would have achieved
faster numbers PERIOD. I saw gains because I did need the additional
airflow due to the additional 42 CID difference between the 5.2 and 5.9
PERIOD. Again, I am not discounting Ray's findings, only backing them up.
That said, I hark back to what I always say. It is all about the COMBO.
Bigger is not always better in and of itself.
I won't make any recommendations, because everyone's combo if different.
BUT, I will say, I cannot complain about F&Bs service or any matter related
to my dealing with them. Dan is also a standup guy.
Either way, I don't believe you would go wrong dealing with either of them
IF you decide that you "need" a bigger TB.
TonyC
Dakota R/T Club - SE Division Rep
DML member since 1998
99 DA RC R/T - 408 was 360 that was the fastest NA stock head/cam R/T around
(13.099 @ 102.41) (12.124 @ 111.97 -150 shot)
2K IB RC R/T - stock 360
98 5.2 5spd RC getting the old 360 from the 99
-----Original Message-----
From: andy levy <andy-dml@levyclan.us>
To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
<dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
Date: Saturday, January 03, 2004 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: DML: Throttle body..was Ignition coils
>
>B1LLYW@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 1/3/2004 1:35:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>> fasstdak@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The choice is yours as to whom you wish to believe. Do you prefer
>>>"advertised" gains, "butt dyno" claims, tire spinning claims or
documented
>>>on track results? I just feel it's important to give all this marketing
>>>hype a reality check from time to time. Your wallet may thank me....
:-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> How about flow benches and dyno tests of the non-butt variety? I've
nothing
>> against the Fastmans tb's but F&B has a better product. It's the same
thing
>> I've been saying for several years, long before I was a "vendor".
>
>1) Numbers in an isolation chamber.
>2) Numbers at the end of the 1/4 mile.
>
>The product with supposed better results on #1 above did not yield the
>best results on #2 for Ray. Therefore it was not the better product for
him
>
>Sorry Bill, but one size does *not* fit all. If Ray has the track
>results that prove that Fastman's TB did better for him than the F&B,
>you can't tell him that the F&B is the better product for his needs -
>and therefore it is not the universally better unit.
>
>--
>-andy
>
>http://home.twcny.rr.com/andylevy/dakota - andy-dml@levyclan.us
>--------------------------------------------
>"Whatever Adam does, do the opposite and you'll be fine"
> -Bob Tom
>--------------------------------------------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 16:29:48 EST