Garage Storage Organization and Garage Cabinets

Ondonti · 04:05 PM

Not sure where this larger tb = bad MPG thing is comming from.

The exhaust and intake ports flow soo poorly, that a decrease in velocity doesnt really make a difference, plus the intake runners are so long that velocity created by the tb just doesnt matter. The plenum actually swallows up most of that velocity. Runners will benifit more from being easily able to draw air then having to suck on a plenum that can hardly fill itself with a small TB. Any velocity to the valve is created in the runners.

30mpg with a 58mm tb. 31mpg with 58mm and a turbo (less hills on this trip). Both on long distance (900+ miles) trips with 500+ pounds of stuff in the car.

DKKNE · 02-28-2006, 04:26 PM

My point is that it has been proven time and time again that a larger throttle body combined with no other internal modifications to the engine has DECREASED power and gas mileage. You are decreasing intake velocity which decreases engine efficiency. This is of course assuming that the present throttle body was not too small from the factory to begin with, which is what I am starting to hear here:0) So I will keep my trap shut

93sundance · 02-28-2006, 04:34 PM

The 46 is too small. It originally came with a 52 which I am sure you know. I highly doubt my 58 is killing power. Has what you said been proven on a 3.0L? I doubt it. I will race with both the 52 and 58 this year so we can put this debate thats been going on for years to an end. I have never heard anyone say the 58mm hurts performance, but alot of people say it doesnt help. We will see.

Ondonti · 02-28-2006, 04:37 PM

haha, lets see the literature proving these statements. I know there is literature and dyno runs that prove DKKNE wrong. Not sure where his data is.

DKKNE · 02-28-2006, 05:18 PM

I have seen and experiecned dyno sheets on many other cars to back this statement up. However I might not be correct on the 3.0L's. Lets see those rpoven dyno numbers and time slips to show me I'm wrong!

Ondonti · 02-28-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKKNE

I have seen and experiecned dyno sheets on many other cars to back this statement up. However I might not be correct on the 3.0L's. Lets see those rpoven dyno numbers and time slips to show me I'm wrong!

Try google. Im not wasting my time. Multiple people have done back to back Dyno tests and also many MPG tests.

by your logic a 1mm TB would be the best for our car. Thats wrong, and so are you.

In the real world, on a TB you want about 250-300ft/sec velocity. Obviously if the stock 46mm tb is to small to create that velocity, then you need to rethink your claims.

Its easy to argue a point and have no context. You cant be wrong because you have nothing to compare with. Reality with the 3.0 seems to be a good context for me.

big_P · 02-28-2006, 05:54 PM

a 52mm throttle body is a great improvement. You may think it's only 6mm, but think about it this way

46(3.14)^2 = 20862.9136

52(3.14)^2 = 26660.3584

26660.3584
20862.9136

equals 1.278.

That's a 27% increase in flow. How about that?

mwinkle353 · 02-28-2006, 06:06 PM

The only reason I got worse gas milage from swapping out from the stock 46mm unit was due to the fact that I keep my foot to the floor more often.

93sundance · 03-01-2006, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKKNE

I have seen and experiecned dyno sheets on many other cars to back this statement up. However I might not be correct on the 3.0L's. Lets see those rpoven dyno numbers and time slips to show me I'm wrong!

You keep talking about other engines. The 3.0L is a completely different animal. It likes to breathe. Like i said before, 94.75 mph trap speed N/A with only a few bolt on mods including the 58mm TB. Theres no way its hurting me.

DKKNE · 03-01-2006, 07:39 AM

well I guess I am wrong about the throttlw bodies on 3.0L's. I did soem internet searching and it does seem that a larger throttle body does improve this engines response. I will insert my foot into my mouth rightt........now.

93sundance · 03-01-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKKNE

well I guess I am wrong about the throttlw bodies on 3.0L's. I did soem internet searching and it does seem that a larger throttle body does improve this engines response. I will insert my foot into my mouth rightt........now.

HAHAHA, its cool man. What you said may be true for most cars, but the 3.0L just wants to breathe! It really has alot of potential! Too bad it doesn't have more aftermarket support.

DKKNE · 03-01-2006, 11:04 AM

I for one love the 3.0L Its a torquey little V6. I had a 2 dr duster with an auto that went like a rapped ape.

93sundance · 03-01-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKKNE

I for one love the 3.0L Its a torquey little V6. I had a 2 dr duster with an auto that went like a rapped ape.

They sure do haul ass. Thats why I want to boost it so bad. You should try riding with me. I would scare the shit out of you. Not only do I have the fastest known N/A 3.0L car, I have eibach springs, koni struts, kyb in the back. I have done some crazy stuff with that car. I have taken curves so fast, I have scared people that do crazy drivng themselves and dont normally get scared.

Josh

DKKNE · 03-01-2006, 03:47 PM

I had a friend who had a Duster that he bought brand new and had a custom fabbed sheet metal intake , custom head work and a fogger Nitrous kit on there and ran 12.5's all day long and 13.9's without juice. That was one quick ride..

93sundance · 03-01-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKKNE

I had a friend who had a Duster that he bought brand new and had a custom fabbed sheet metal intake , custom head work and a fogger Nitrous kit on there and ran 12.5's all day long and 13.9's without juice. That was one quick ride..

a 3.0L one??? If so I want more info because I been claiming to be the fastest and no one has showed me up. If it is a 3.0L I want to know the mods in detail if u dont mind.