When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
So I decided to port my throttle body on my 2006 LS2
This was a very simple job, just need a quality carbide bit, Dremel kit and some patience.
I didn't go crazy and I mostly only ported the top and bottom where the stock throttle body has two large humps so I flattened those out and made everything nice and smooth. The back of the throttle I did not remove any material, simply polished a few corners.
Overall I right away felt the snappier throttle response which is nice improvement for manual cars, power wise I couldn't say I feel any difference. I will be adding a Fast 102 intake with long tube headers which is when Il have my tune done and have some numbers.
Last edited by C6 Motorsports; Jun 19, 2023 at 01:09 AM.
i did a similar thing when i installed my MSD intake. took off the bumps and smoothed it all out. now i notice a whistling noise at part throttle. have you noticed anything similar? i'm guessing the bumps help direct the airflow at a better angle to the throttle blade.
i did a similar thing when i installed my MSD intake. took off the bumps and smoothed it all out. now i notice a whistling noise at part throttle. have you noticed anything similar? i'm guessing the bumps help direct the airflow at a better angle to the throttle blade.
When I got the car it had some k&n drop in filters so the intake was whistling a bit and you could hear it. I put an Airaid intake and the whistling noise increased but the porting also made a noticeable increase in intake noise.
Still trying to figure out the end game here.
Mine would be to have the TB still increase linear in its flow through the vane opening amounts, as well as have the vane correctly fit the OD of the bore as well.
Its not like the TB can't already keep up with the engines needed CFM flow, but if push cam to shove, not a problem making a new vain and boring the through channel open more.
As for initial and over all throttle response (or lets call is lag that gets worse the more nannies you turn off), if you have a problem with how sedate GM has the throttle mapping of the car in the ECM, then address that in the ECM tuning.
Still trying to figure out the end game here.
Mine would be to have the TB still increase linear in its flow through the vane opening amounts, as well as have the vane correctly fit the OD of the bore as well.
Its not like the TB can't already keep up with the engines needed CFM flow, but if push cam to shove, not a problem making a new vain and boring the through channel open more.
As for initial and over all throttle response (or lets call is lag that gets worse the more nannies you turn off), if you have a problem with how sedate GM has the throttle mapping of the car in the ECM, then address that in the ECM tuning.
End game, squeeze all the power it potentially has that GM left on the table.
As stated above I'm waiting to install a 102mm Fast intake manifold so matching the back to the manifold wasn't really a concern for me right now since I wont be keeping the stock manifold for long. I also didn't really want to remove material from the back of the throttle body since its very close the the throttle plate.
As for throttle response, there is a noticeable benefit from this, you don't need tuning to enhance it although I'm sure that's a great option as well. I don't drive with any "nannies on" I've ported throttle bodies before and it always helps the throttle response when driving, manual car especially.
On a base car, the more nannies that are turned off via the TC button (traction control and active handling), the more sedate that the Throttle map tables make the response time of the TB. Also, GM has programmed in a delay between the time you come off the pedal, to the time that the TB vane starts to close as well.
As for stock throttle mapping, with the gas pedal down 65%, the vane is only opened about 20%, and as stated, the vane time to these percentages are delayed as well.
So by changing the TB shape, granted that is may flow air through the TB faster as the vane is opening slower to that less than stellar open percentages, what you are really doing is screwing up the entire vane travel to percentage CFM amounts instead.
So in throttle map tuning, step one is to increase the clock speed of the vane movement to start with for all it movements, as well as lose the stall on vane decrease with pedal decrease. As for pedal to TB open percentage, you don't want that to be 1 to 1, but you do want to increase the slope percentage rate instead.
So to sum it up, can polish some of the rougher casting surfaces, but leave the shape of the ramps alone on the TB.
Hence remap the throttle mapping so the opening rate of the vane are faster in timing and percentages with no programmed delays, and throttle response will be a crisp as you want it, while still giving the throttle pedal is needed sensitivity to be used to control the rear end of the car for high speed road course work through out the entire pedal range.
"On a base car, the more nannies that are turned off via the TC button (traction control and active handling), the more sedate that the Throttle map tables make the response time of the TB. Also, GM has programmed in a delay between the time you come off the pedal, to the time that the TB vane starts to close as well"
I noticed the rpms drop very fast as soon as you let off the throttle on corvettes (Stock not because of ported tb), in my other cars the rpms would hang a little bit making rev matching easier, have you heard many people programming the software to make the vane hang a bit when you initially let off the throttle? Personally I always drive the car in competitive mode, the TC and active handling do as you say and start to control the throttle for you which is not what I want when driving the car.
"So by changing the TB shape, granted that is may flow air through the TB faster as the vane is opening slower to that less than stellar open percentages, what you are really doing is screwing up the entire vane travel to percentage CFM amounts instead"
What would changing this percentage affect exactly in the engines performance? I haven't really felt any big difference in the way the car drives, maybe slightly more aggressive in the higher rpms (Probably not without a tune) but the throttle response is defiantly a noticeable improvement and made the car more snappy to drive I find. However, this wasn't my main goal, I just want to maximize power and paired with an 102 manifold and proper tune, I can only see benefits from doing this porting but thank you for showing me those graphs, I will study more into this.
Last edited by C6 Motorsports; Jun 20, 2023 at 03:57 PM.
The Z06 and up cars, since they were designed for high speed road course work, GM did not program much Vane stall in to them as you came off the throttle like they did in base models (to get better gas mileage), but you still have the rest of the programming becoming more sedate the more nannies you turn off even in the z06 and up cars.
As for TB, again, you have the speeds in which the vane will open and close compaired to pedal percentage changes, if any stall was programmed into the vane to pedal change on decel, and then the vane open percentage rate against the Pedal percentage.
If you go into HP tuner under airflow/electrical throttle, can get an idea of the different modes that happen as your start to turn off the nannies pedal percentage to vane open position percentages, but without the needed PIDs add into HP tuner to get those tables, can't get the vane change speeds for the modes, or stall times between pedal changes to Vane reaction times in the different modes.
As for the porting of reducing the ramps, could be thought of as changing the initial open percentages since TB may flow a little more air faster as the vane starts to open, but as stated, it does screw up the CFM flow rate values through out the entire range of the vane opening percentages when go to graph the TB for flow verse vane opening percentages and find it not longer linear..
In strip racing, may not be a deal breaker with porting the TB since your just using the throttle as an on/off switch once you get out of the hole, but in road course where you are feathering the pedal to control the back end on the way out of a corner, the lack of changes in CFM as the vain changes from removing the stock ramps, is a deal breaker instead. Same goes for throttle enhancers as deal breakers for high speed road course work, since you just making the car think that you are pressing the pedal father down, and loosing about half the range of the pedal's full travel range for rear end control.
I bought Solar Performance TB for my 07 ls2, only aftermarket silver blade I could find. all new electronics and fancy port work, plus cheaper than a used oem. Pair that with the throttle pedal controller and it was the best mod I have done. Ludacris mode feels faster from a dig. Sport mode 5 is fun to hop stop lights.
All the after market controller is doing, is making the car think that you are pressing the pedal down father.
Its not changing anything in the Throttle mapping, other than the amount that the ECM thinks you are pressing the pedal down in the first place.
All the after market controller is doing, is making the car think that you are pressing the pedal down father.
Its not changing anything in the Throttle mapping, other than the amount that the ECM thinks you are pressing the pedal down in the first place.
Correct but there is definitely an improvement with these controllers. I had one on a Mercedes, yes it just fools the ECM but it wakes the car up. Any long term downfalls to this in your opinion? On my Corvette I will go with the tuning route and get some programming done to optimize the throttle response to the way I like it.
What improvement, since its not different that just sticking a block of wood to the pedal, so you push the pedal down farther with the same amount of leg throw.
As for down side, all your doing is reducing the total distance of the pedals effective range, which makes it harder to control the back end during HPDE.
As for long term, just adding more electronics to the car to do the above, that can have problem in itself.
What improvement, since its not different that just sticking a block of wood to the pedal, so you push the pedal down farther with the same amount of leg throw.
As for down side, all your doing is reducing the total distance of the pedals effective range, which makes it harder to control the back end during HPDE.
As for long term, just adding more electronics to the car to do the above, that can have problem in itself.
Its not just sticking a block of wood, have you have driven a car with a pedal controller? Stock the pedal moves slowly and gradually but with a controller you can have it move however fast you want it. It's not like just pressing the gas harder, the blade can move much faster with a controller which can be felt as an improvement for many including me. My Mercedes was programmed to be smooth so the blade opened very slowly. With a controller it opened almost instantly so it can make you feel like the car gained some low end torque.
Throttle controller seriously changed the driving fun of the car. I don't wanna do full leg extension to get some horsepower. Obviously not a performance HP upgrade but a drivability upgrade. With this one I wouldn't knock it till you try it.
LS2 Ported Throttle body
