I installed my vararam about a month ago without the throttle body spacer because I just couldn't get it to fit with the spacer. Too tight a fit, upward bulging of the MAF connector and the significant downward angle of the intake. Plus the bottom 1/4 of the intake sat below the bumper.
As I look at the spacer sitting on my desk I have to ask, 'does the spacer add any power?' Is it worth my time to reattempt installing the spacer?

 

i have it. if you have the shroud cut far enough in the front and the brace installed right, it should have fit in

 

No. On port EFI engines, they fall into the same catagory as "Tornado's", "Turbonators", fuel magnets, and $10+ spark plugs. All it does is increase plenum volume by a couple cubic inches -and there's no evidence that increasing volume is necessary.

It's "left over" performance "mod" from the days of carbs and TBI where plenum spacers DID have a tangable effect on an engine's torque curve, for legitimate reasons.

 

I had a infinit G35 coupe with a Plenum spacer mod that did infact add power. Now that mod was a bit different then VR throttle spacer. Installed everything together so I can't say if there was a before and after gain.

As you know I had a hella of time with the fitment just like you. We had the exact same problems. The only way I got mine to work was cutting the shroud large enough so the "T" handles were were cut around, meaning there is no shroud underneath them. On cutting the provided template that was not the case. Also, I had to use two new 3" silicone couplers to get it to fit. The red coupler that comes w/ the VR is only 2" and left too much of a gap.

 

Tom thats why your a member of the 12 second club. not the eleven

 

The TBS was dyno tested for us by LAPD and showed a gain of 4-6 rwhp!!! This was an independent test when we first developed the TBS!!!!
Thanks
Steve

 

I know you were ing, however for the record, I'm in the 12 second club because I live at 7100' elevation, race at 4500' with DA's generally in the 8000'-9000' range.

That I've hit 12's (12.89 to be exact) in these conditions at all is amazing (other stock C6's at my track run low 14's) and when corrected, puts me as the fastest stock C6 on this board.



That's 1% to 1.5%, which equals margin of error, IMO.

 

i knew, you knew, i knew and you knew too! now we both knew.
but correction doesnt work. even with your altitude. if you figure weather humidity barometric pressure, the correction does not include traction, or experience to handle extra power
and that margin of error could be you only ran a best of maybe 13.06 and then corrected doesnt beat the fastest stock time with a 1-1.5 margin for error. double edge sword goes both ways

 

Huh?

When I had my Trans Am, I used to run 14.01's, over and over and over again, at RMR in Salt Lake. The correction factor to sea level for that was to a 13.23. Now I never did get to run that car at sea level (in the state it was in when it ran 14.01's), but I did get to take it to Vegas which is at 2200 feet. If you take the difference in the correction factor between RMR and vegas, and correct for that, you get 13.63. Guess what I ran when I took the car to Vegas? Low 13.5/6
s, over and over, and over.

SLC = 4500' =.9445 correction
Vegas=2200'=.9744 correection
Delta = 2300 = .9731 Correction

The correction's have always proven to be close enough to be considered legitimate in my experience.

W/my 'Vette, I ran a straight 12.89, at 4500' actual...7100 DA. Correcting from the actual elevation, that is a 12.17.

EDIT: Now I got what you're saying. If you have a 1.5% margin for (driver?) error on my calculated 12.17, that could be as high as 12.35, which is not the fastest C6 time. Right?

If that's what you're saying, then I won't cry about either number, corrected or not...nor will I worry about not having a TB spacer.

 

Actually, the plenum spacers that are common among G35/350z cars is nothing like the TB spacer that is being discussed here...The gains are actually real with the G35/350z mod also haha.

 

thats not that much diference in da. when you go from 8000 positive da to a negative 1000 da you are talking a 9000 ft da difference that eguates to a addittion of 3% horsepower for every 1000 ft da. 3% of 400, 12 hpx 9 = 108 more hp than you are only geting 2.0s 60 fts. think about it. instead of adding more hp to it start at 400 hp take the 108 hp away and you are having a hard time to get a good 60 ft and traction with only 292 hpdo a search correction dont count one guy almost got hanged posting a corrected time. bring your car here to jersey you can stay at my house, and we will go to atco and see what happens. even some of my times have corrected better. dont count. i even picked a better da day and didnt produce a better time

 

i think you are still in there though if you race at RMR elevation 4225

 

Well, you lost me there. The only part I "caught" was something that I already know ALL about: "instead of adding more hp to it start at 400 hp take the 108 hp away and you are having a hard time to get a good 60 ft and traction with only 292 hp"
No kidding. When I ran my 12.89, my car would have only been producing around 316 hp. It sucks.

Don't forget that I used to live in Mass and run at Epping, so I know all about sea level vs high altitude, first hand.

If a guy almost got "hanged" on here for posting a corrected time, then he was "hanged" by ignorant folk who haven't experience elevation first hand. I know; When I lived back east, I used to be "that" person, who thought "how much diff can elevation REALLY make?"

Now that I've lived and raced in both environments (and in between), I have some pretty solid first hand experience with all of it.

Thanks for the invite, but it's really not practical for me to drive 4600 miles to make passes at Atco. I'd LOVE to, but w/a family, my vacaton time & money is better spent elsewhere.

 

how come nobody can understand a piney. what i am saying if you are having a problem with 316 hp whats going to happen with 412 hp due to the da difference, and a lot of our great times are in 40 degree weather. thats why correction doesnt really work. its like a correction on a dyno. it tells the rwhp but it cant tell you what your going to run in the 1/4

 

O.K....

But I didn't know that I was having a "problem" w/316 hp (other than that it's not 400). Did I say that I was?

Correction DOES work, b/c you are correcting to standard conditions; 60*f, etc. You guys have the "luxury" of running in better than standard conditions. Something we NEVER see here. I've never seen a DA as low as 4500' in SLC; you guys get DA's below sea level fairly often. Often enough that I've seen it posted here a bunch.

All the better to strengthen my original point that, "That I've hit 12's (12.89 to be exact) in these conditions at all, is amazing " And why I'm quite happy with "only" being in the 12 second club.

 

because with the 60 ft you have it would be unlikley to go 12.2s. i would think the 60 ft doesnt suffer as much due to your da. the stick should be faster. i thought you were having a problem with wheel hop and spinning. all my runs have been in a +700 and higher da
and yes your times are good for their. but i dont make the rules corrections dont make it on the list. i could correct my time to an 11.20 it is possible to have a 2500 and higher da even at sea level. atco 33 ft 95 degrees 90% humidity barometric pressure 29.93 check it da +2946 ft.

 

one other point. in another post you stated it would correct to maybe an 11.9s, bone stock except mufflers. if that be the case then no one has to fear the 08 LS3. go to any sea level track run in the 11s stock the way you did an then and only then can you convince me CORRECTIONS work. thats proof enough they dont and in the 05 06 07 model year no one has done it. this is your chance you could be the first

 

Common tuner answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the individual car. I don't run one, fwiw. Good luck!

 

Something is out of whack here... Ahhh, THAT problem. Yes, I'm having a hard time getting the 60' that I used to get w/my F-bodies and it's because at my sh!tty track, I can't wet my tires. So I start getting wheel hop and I abort the warm up early. FYI, I would bet money that lower DA would yield a better 60' for me. Why? When I get a decent hook, the motor bogs to the tune of about 700-900 RPM. At this elevation, w/lower cylinder pressure, the engine has no ***** at that RPM, and takes way, WAY too long to recover. If I applied that same technique at sea level, the thing would recover faster. Furthermore, due to the extremely limited number of passes avialable to me at the ****-box track, I don't have time for cool downs. I've never made a pass w/the DIC at less than 205*F. Cooler engine= more timing, lower DA=higher cylinder pressure = more low RPM torque and better 60'.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you'll notice, all my corrections are from 4500'; the actual elevation of RMR. I'm not correcting from the 7000'+ DA's that I have to contend with, every time I go...then claiming the "my car can run 11's". THAT is un realistic. You correct from your actual DA, so YOU need to correct from 33 feet.

I don't think I can run in the 11's stock. But I already did prove that corrections work by running in SLC many times, calculating what I could run in Vegas, then going to Vegas and running that number. The corrections aren't numbers pulled out of someone's ***. They are science/math based, hard numbers.

 

Wow, this thread has really gotten off track. How bout that throttle body spacer?