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.
In my opinion there is now doubt that a well done PTB flows significantly more at low angles.
However, I wonder if and how torque management reacts to it.
If TM recognizes via the MAF that more air flows than desired by the TM , TM might command the TB to Close, until the desired MAF is reached. In that casethere is Little - if any - gain.
Does anybody know how TM reacts to a PTB ?
Götz
The ECM algorithm can be definitely factory programmed to do just as you pointed out. However, the evidence is that throttle response gets much better, seems like torque management does not completely ignore driver demand from pedal. You get quicker out of a stop or a curve, and the RPM's hang around higher for longer. In cases where there is no pedal input, like idling, the ECM does exactly as you described.
Nobody who puts a PTB on their car is doing it because they want more performance from 0-30 degrees throttle. They do it for WOT flow performance and combine with a ported Intake manifold for average of 16rwhp gains. The only ones who would worry about that are those that are OCD about throttle response with a stock tune. All of this is fixed with a proper tune.
TM is affected by Torque not airflow, hence Torque Management. If increased airflow causes the ECM to see higher torque values than the tune calls for then it will limit, which generally results in throttle closure.
It is not true that nobody puts a PTB on to increase Performance from 0-30° throttle, there is at least one Person, me.
TM cannot measure torque directly, it uses all kind of parameters and from there calculates actual torque.
One of the Parameters that would make sense for this purpose is MAF.
Do you exactly know, how TM works?
TM is affected by Torque not airflow, hence Torque Management. If increased airflow causes the ECM to see higher torque values than the tune calls for then it will limit, which generally results in throttle closure.
Not exactly true.Everything in these pcm's are related to torque. Air is torque, spark is torque and fuel is torque. We don't even have idle airflow tables like we used to. You adjust your MAF,you still have to adjust your torque. The term is not referred to as a limiter anymore.
Torque is calculated directly from airflow. The torque management referred to in newer controllers is not the same as in say the E38 pcm's.
Putting a TB with a larger passage on it will just be a matter of telling it there is more off idle MAF and Torque. This will affect torque in relation to airflow If it affects idle then the idle torque tables will need to be changed.
In my opinion there is indeed no question that the controller recognizes the additional airflow a PTB generates in the first 30°.
The question to me is, if the controller reacts to it and how.
If the throttle blades are closed a couple of ° to reduce torque, we would still have a benefit, since it will take some time for the controller to measure the additional airflow, calculate the desired opening position of the blade and mechanically close the blade a bit.
Furthermore there will be some tolerances alowed and as a consequence I would expect the opening of the blade to be rather at the top of the desired range with a PTB.
If the ignition advance is used to reduce torque, it would happen almost instantly and the additional torque of a PTB at low rpm would be minimal. Instead we would have significantly reduced efficiency (MPG).
Therefore it would be great to know how the Controller exactely reacts to a PTB - I don't know.
An aftermarket tune isn't nearly as obvious to dealer techs as screws from a modified throttle plate stuck in the tops of your pistons would be. lol.
If you have an engine failure of any kind, what do you think the dealer is going to do first? PULL THE TUNE AND SEND TO GM. A throttle body is easily changeable back to stock. You cannot go back to stock on the tune unless you have another never-flashed computer to use. Even if you reload the stock tune, GM can still tell if it's ever been flashed.
That being said, I entirely agree with you about the issue being in the tune. I paid $450 for a ported throttle body and felt absolutely no difference in throttle response. Some people say they felt a difference with the same PTB I bought, some say their lag was completely gone. However, that wasn't the case for me. My throttle lag didn't go away until I got my driver demand tables tuned. I'm not sure if there is some kind of placebo effect happening with other people who just think something is better simply because they put the PTB on or not but it certainly appears that it does SOMETHING for some people. For the ones who don't want to void their warranty, adding a PTB is their only choice and they can just hope that it fixes or at least helps the issue. But it certainly can be fixed in the tune 100%.
Gotz, I just checked logs before and after modification during acceleration from a stop. As you probably know, there is accelerator pedal position (APP%) vs. throttle position (TP%) mapped in the ECM. That did not change after the mod.
Not sure if I understood you correctly, but you were suggesting the possibility that the ECM would reduce TP after the mod (change or momentarily alter APP vs. TP map) to give you the MAF and corresponding Torque/Power as it was before the mod w/o taking into account driver demand. If so, that did not happen in this instance.
What happened was an increase in MAF and corresponding power for every position of the throttle which corresponded with same pedal position as before, so, what customers are experiencing with the SE Modified TB and to a lesser extent w/ other PTB's, is real. You get more MAF/torque/power for the same pedal input.
I know it does not completely answer your question, as there are many situations in which I'm sure TM intervenes and completely disregards APP, but seems like in most situations that can be considered normal/safe it will comply w/ driver demand, and that the relationship between driver demand (APP) and airflow (TP) remains unchanged.
Last edited by Mike@SolerEngr; 03-11-2019 at 12:00 PM.
Reason: Added signature
In my opinion there is indeed no question that the controller recognizes the additional airflow a PTB generates in the first 30°.
The question to me is, if the controller reacts to it and how.
If the throttle blades are closed a couple of ° to reduce torque, we would still have a benefit, since it will take some time for the controller to measure the additional airflow, calculate the desired opening position of the blade and mechanically close the blade a bit.
Furthermore there will be some tolerances alowed and as a consequence I would expect the opening of the blade to be rather at the top of the desired range with a PTB.
If the ignition advance is used to reduce torque, it would happen almost instantly and the additional torque of a PTB at low rpm would be minimal. Instead we would have significantly reduced efficiency (MPG).
Therefore it would be great to know how the Controller exactely reacts to a PTB - I don't know.
Regards
Götz
It's not a matter of "how" it will react. Its about telling it how its supposed to react to the new changes.
These newer controllers can handle changes much better than the older ones. In most cases headers and CAI can be added without a tune. This however i will bet needs recalibrating.
I paid $450 for a ported throttle body and felt absolutely no difference in throttle response.
Me too, I bought three of them, different brands. The reason they did not solve the problem is b/c with them you'd have to wait until you hit 25% TP to see a change. But that is what porting does, remove rough edges and polish and hope for the best. What is needed is a modification of the flow path starting from idle (~5% TP) and shape it from there to get the response you want instead of the response you get. That is making the desired TP vs. MAF curve and then modifying the TB until it follows it, as opposed to port and and see what you get.
Originally Posted by djpelosi
But it certainly can be fixed in the tune 100%.
The tune can make the blade respond to pedal input anyway you want (100%) but that does not solve the problem 100% .The blade motion cannot escape the internal geometry of the body. If throttle response was rough and unpredictable it will continue to be so, if there was stumble it will still be there, hesitation will still be there. You just sweep them faster and get an instantaneous but more pronounced jerk.
Many have tried this and in the form of a throttle controller and it does not solve the problem anywhere near 100%.
It's not a matter of "how" it will react. Its about telling it how its supposed to react to the new changes.
These newer controllers can handle changes much better than the older ones. In most cases headers and CAI can be added without a tune. This however i will bet needs recalibrating.
If it reacts well, meaning; it is responsive now, no codes, no efficiency losses, etc. Do you think something is wrong and there are no DTC's to handle it? What makes you think it needs re-calibrating rather than just re-learning?
Of course, there is a limit to how much you can modify this TB w/o having to re-calibrate controller and we have found that limit as far as we can tell from the absence of DTC's and by monitoring of other important parameters; like AFR, timing advance, fuel economy, ect...as well as all the functional test a TB has to pass; idling, cruise control, different driving modes, limp, etc...I really want to find issues and get them out now.
Thanks,
Last edited by Mike@SolerEngr; 03-11-2019 at 01:27 PM.
Reason: Added signature, typo
Gotz, I just checked logs before and after modification during acceleration from a stop. As you probably know, there is accelerator pedal position (APP%) vs. throttle position (TP%) mapped in the ECM. That did not change after the mod.
Not sure if I understood you correctly, but you were suggesting the possibility that the ECM would reduce TP after the mod (change or momentarily alter APP vs. TP map) to give you the MAF and corresponding Torque/Power as it was before the mod w/o taking into account driver demand. If so, that did not happen in this instance.
What happened was an increase in MAF and corresponding power for every position of the throttle which corresponded with same pedal position as before, so, what customers are experiencing with the SE Modified TB and to a lesser extent w/ other PTB's, is real. You get more MAF/torque/power for the same pedal input.
I know it does not completely answer your question, as there are many situations in which I'm sure TM intervenes and completely disregards APP, but seems like in most situations that can be considered normal/safe it will comply w/ driver demand, and that the relationship between driver demand (APP) and airflow (TP) remains unchanged.
This answers my question indeed, according to your measurement the ECM just commands a specific TP based on the calculation from the pedal (within the Limits of the map) and just doesn't react at all to the higher MAF.
Hence we see the full benefit of the porting.
For my own porting job I took a permanent marker, draw a line just along the closed throttle plate and ported to that line. By doinbg so, I did not mess up idle and at the same time increased the area under the throttle blade at low opening ° to the maximum I dared to.
I always felt there was a better throttle Response, but you never really know if it is just Imagination.
Regards
Götz
P.S.: I hope I make myself understandable, I am not a native English speaker, so my writing might read strange sometimes.
If it reacts well, meaning; it is responsive now, no codes, no efficiency losses, etc. Do you think something is wrong and there are no DTC's to handle it? What makes you think it needs re-calibrating rather than just re-learning?
Of course, there is a limit to how much you can modify this TB w/o having to re-calibrate controller and we have found that limit as far as we can tell from the absence of DTC's and by monitoring of other important parameters; like AFR, timing advance, fuel economy, ect...as well as all the functional test a TB has to pass; idling, cruise control, different driving modes, limp, etc...I really want to find issues and get them out now.
Thanks,
Because your torque model has changed. If you are inducing more air at a given angle that is different than the calculated tables,that translates into increased air which translates into torque then adjustments would be recommended. This will also increase MAF g/sec for a given frequency, which means your trims will need to be adjusted.
Again the TB may operate within acceptable ranges and not set a code but i would bet that your fuel trims,slight off idle torque trims need slight adjustment along with VT.
It will learn but only according to the tables it looks up, so it will see increased LTFT trends to compensate for the increased air. Now if you tell it that it has increased air/torque at given areas, the amount of change according to the process variable required will be less, resulting in better efficiency.
Last edited by Ghostnotes; 03-12-2019 at 11:16 AM.
Has anyone dynoed one of these ported throttle bodies??
We really want to do that, for we have increased flow area at WOT more than all the PTB's we have measured here so far. In theory it should help, the question is; how much? And how do you measure it accurately and repeatably?
There are claims ranging from 10-20 rwhp gains at WOT. Being lenient, that will require a Dyno that can repeat within about .2% - .5% on a 1000 hp total scale. Needless to say none of the local shops I contacted can repeat in that range. We were not even asking for accuracy, just asked if the Dyno could repeat the curve twice (one right after the other) within percentages above to catch only the increase.
So; why bother? You can basically get the plot you want, just run it a few times until you like one.
I've never said anything was negative about what you were doing, but I was asking where and how you were defining things. I never said your TB wouldn't make my car more responsive to throttle and make more power. I've been trying to understand and you seem to get a bit defensive. I've said numerous times based on my experience that certain "feelings" may be different to me. I didn't define nimble or truck feelings as only absolute mass or power...I made lots of mention of what speed, gear and power curve for that engine might be producing that might give a different feeling than a car with a very different power curve and transmission at the same speed.....it's the "reason" why in 7th at 60mph a throttle input would feel different than at 60mph in 2nd. Comparing my Miata at 4000 rpm to my Corvette at 1600 rpm at the same speed in their top gears can and will "feel" different with the same throttle input amount.
If you don't want to reply, that's fine. You say, "it's very simple" but the sheer number of responses questioning everything from throttle body plate angle to pedal position to torque management are showing that's not the case.
More information like this is what I was looking for. Not "it feels like a truck". I've read other people saying they have issues with their car and are afraid to go full throttle quickly as does the member above. I don't "slam" the throttle down, but I'm certainly not afraid to use it....and I enjoy the heck out of it. What I'm saying is that as others have mentioned, some don't feel any lag, some feel some, others feel a lot. Some who have installed a PTB already said it got rid of all lag, some some and some none. Manufacturing tolerances of the original vehicle and sensors, elevation, other experiences with other vehicles and how they drive their cars project onto how and what they "feel" in regard to it as well. Actual data can be more important than how it "feels" when you are actually creating a mod. Some make it feel "better" to many and they keep it...others find it doesn't produce real performance and shy away. It's why some people who install the throttle mod say they crank it up and it "feels" great and others have done so and "felt" nothing useful from it and found no performance gains and took them out. We also know that people can install a new goody on a car and "feel" like it's faster although a dyno or a back to back 1/4 mile run doesn't show improvement in performance or even potentially less performance.
Are we calculating the data below in that at 8-10% that the car in question produces approximately 4hp at that data point? Approximately 3500 pounds/918 pounds per horsepower? If that is the case, then I can start start to understand. If there was a chart of this kind of data between say, OEM and your product, then I'd have real information to work from. Airflow alone is nice, but a comparison with power at that level would be outstanding and it would also start to answer all the other questions people are asking on torque management, throttle plate opening and throttle position and more--right now we just see more airflow is going in and people are wondering if the car is making use of it or not and how it is. If it's making more power, is there a metric to see that in a comparison like this? That's what I've been asking for. More "nimble" with throttle would be more power at these levels. It wouldn't have to make any more at WOT as we've discussed already. Just at these small positions. I'd love to know just how much. One of your testers felt it got rid of the "slack" in the throttle cable and another "feels" like it was much nicer than that it sounds like. Is mine where the first review was now or do I have the second to look forward to if I install it? Are we talking instead of 918 pounds per horsepower at 8-10%...are we talking 700? At 18-20% are we going from 235 to 180? If the calculation above is valid in determining approximate horsepower, then if the data in the chart is valid, a way to show just how much you're helping would make your sales easier as people could compare and see that the car is making good utilization of the additional airflow.
It's not going to be a new supercharger and another 100 horsepower on top, I understand that. But with my PTB I am in the category of the lag "feels" to be gone and I have no easy metric to see what additional change I might see. If it looked to be a nice jump, I'd be curious to give one a try with your 30 day money back guarantee. It says you promise numbers on your site...that's all I'm looking to see....numbers. Not just an airflow change, but what that change actually means in responsiveness (or nimbleness) of the car since plenty of people here are questioning that exact thing...is the plate closing, is TM modifying what it sees, etc.
If someone has a car that feels really responsive, is it possible to get numbers on that and then compare them to OEM Corvette vs your PTB? That's some stuff I'd love to see! We could get to much more of an apples to apples comparison on whether or not we are achieving your goal. How about that truck, too? :-) Seeing this stuff in a chart together at the same time would really make it easy to understand exactly what's going on. Simply saying about 300 pounds per horsepower wasn't clear to me. This table makes it that way. It wasn't clear to me that you were comparing 20 data points between just off idle and 30% to come to an average. It may make great sense to you since you have the data in front of you...but I don't have it to compare against and thus you understand what metric you are discussing very well versus my lack of that data.
Originally Posted by Mike@SolerEngr
Redbaroness,
It is very simple; you keep bringing absolute mass when it comes to nimble then absolute power when it comes to the "truck feeling", I've said many times it is neither. Look at the ratio, only at part throttle. From idle to 33%. Don't bring the number right at 30% b/c that is already good and makes it look like I lied. Look at the average number from idle to 33% and you will find the 200-300 lb/hp.
About nimble, I said it clearly, "...and curvilinear motion...".
Okay, I gave you weight/power ratio; do you want me to define the "nimbleness coefficient" and measure it just for you? Or, you can name it. What did you look at when making your purchase? What were you promised?
For everyone else, this was my PM to Redbaroness;
"I see you have a PTB and wanted to let you know that there is much more that can be extracted from them. We can rework yours to do just that (numbers, not gimmicks). Please check us out when you have a chance."
What makes you so offended, about it? What part is not true? And; how do you know? BTW, I only asked you to check and used PM b/c did not want to get that thread off track.
I may not answer any further post from you, I apologize for having PM'd you.
Here is a Z06 log from a member in CA, and this one was already ported. Cumulative Average in the fist 33% > 300 lbs/hp.
Hello Redbaroness, I think things went a bit out of hand sorry about that. You seemed very partial to your own mod and I felt I did not get the benefit of the doubt despite all we have done to make this venture transparent to members.
I still think my use of the word nimble is correct as defined by most dictionaries and most importantly I think people is interpreting in the intended way. I'd propose we don't dwell on that.
It is simple when you look at what gets in and what gets out (results). You get one of our TB's, it responds better, no problems. We promised you'd get X and Y, you go measure you get X and Y. We sent out samples to customers, they say they like it better than what they had before. You don't like it, you return it. It simply works.
I've done my best to answer in as much as data available allows me. Other members have answered for me sometimes, great knowledge here in this forum. I'd be lying if I pretended I'll know all the answers to all questions, and in the end all that matters is that it works. What if I knew all the answers and the TB's wouldn't work?
200-300 lbs/hp is the stuff of trucks and SUV's measured and re-measured. The 8-10% value has to be included b/c you have to go through it. Even if you exclude it you get 260 lbs/hp. Weather you feel it or not, it is what it is, and if you want your car to respond better you have to get that ratio down.
The driver should not be afraid of pushing the throttle, they should feel confident. My explanation for that is that w/ the OEM TB from 0-33% you gain 1.2 g/s-deg, then from 40% up you gain more than 10 g/s-deg (10X). That transition is not smooth, neither predictable. If you knew exactly how much depression you have to put on the pedal to get what you want, then you would not be afraid. But it changes by 10X in less than 7% travel. Hard to get used to that.
Airflow and power are linearly related. Everything else constant, you can draw the same conclusions from either one of them. Yes, it is delivering as much more power as airflow earlier in the blade travel, and torque management does not change the pedal mapping, although I think we all know it intervenes sometimes to protect drive line among other things.
No, not more power. Can't promise that, can't measure it accurately enough to say that. More of the power that we already have delivered earlier? Yes, 100%.
Like I said, follow the air, the fuel goes by it, then power goes by them, linearly. B/c we doubled the air, we cut the weight-to-power ratio in half in that region.
We have measured about 50 OEM TB's to date. Every time a batch gets in, we scan dimensionally and flow test, they come in groups of 10 and from different sources. This is statistically significant, I can say with certainty that none of then will be under 200 lbf/hp between 0-33% throttle. The idea is good though, but the more I measure the better the average and std dev.
I strongly disagree about the lack of data. In fact, I have shared much more that it would be prudent for a vendor. I have not seen anyone trying to be more transparent and that have shared more than we have. Not that we deserve a medal for that, I think this is the way it should be. But this is above the standard out here and you should recognize that.
Please, try one. If you like it, we both win. If you don't I'm sure we can improve it w/ your feedback. The warranty is as it says, you don't even pay return shipping.
Thanks, and no hard feelings.
Last edited by Mike@SolerEngr; 03-12-2019 at 10:23 PM.
Reason: typo
Thanks Mike. It's okay. I was curious and no, we won't dwell on other things under the bridge.
Yes, right now I have been satisfied with it. It doesn't mean that something else might gain me something extra and nicer though. Again, with changes year to year with the Corvette and my having the latest iteration, the comparison to what a 2016 Z06 might or might not have had in certain areas may be different. We also know that some early on in 2017 and even early 2018 when doing the "3 mods" got a CEL and others did not and previous years seemed in many cases to be more resistant to it. We've seen a CEL that doesn't show up till in the mid-100s that can be dealt with by the dealership as well. So lots of variables exist on what might or might not exist on a stock car when we look at the entire range of what manufacturer tolerances and those changes can be, so my experience can be very different from someone else's. Not good or bad, but simply is a result of those variances and changes. We've even seen people with the A8 suggest in some cases they had less "lag" than the M7 cars did and the PTB did more for an M7 than an A8.
You mention that number has been measured and re-measured for SUVs and trucks. But what I've never seen in anything I've read (and no, I don't read engineering journals, but plenty of car magazines and articles) has ever discussed is this 0-33% and which vehicles have it and which don't that get under 200 lbs/hp average in that range. In the sports car world, which seems very murky these days....with a Miata at one end and what at the other end? Is an M3/M4 a sports car or a sports sedan/coupe? We could go on for ages here...I laugh now at the whole "4 door coupe" that some car companies seem to be trying to adopt. No one seems to agree on even what a Corvette is...a sports car, a super car or a GT? So what should a responsive vehicle have in that range? It's a fairly different metric....car magazines and reviewers have done things from top gear from 50-70 or other things, but almost no one seems to talk about this part throttle metric.
I've done a few Google searches and no one seems to discuss this number or area, at least in my couple of minutes of searching and scanning articles. Searching for throttle response lag, comparisons and more yield few to no real results that get even close to this discussion. No other vendor seems to discuss this on here I've seen and again, nothing shows up in other forums from my searches....just how many SUVs with lots of horsepower there are or a comparison between a turbo-4 Mustang and a 6 cylinder Camaro. Throttle response searches yield a need to swap out your fuel and air filter and check your sensors and fuel pump to see if they are working well. Other tests on larger vs smaller throttle bodies only tests maximum power and not if it gives you better throttle response while driving at part throttle...and to some degree I'd have to think that going from say a 90 mm to a 102 mm would yield more airflow in the 0-33% range your throttle body is optimizing as the opening overall is bigger. But no one mentions anything about that I could find in some quick searches.
Now that you're starting to explain more with that data chart, the number you're trying to get across makes much more sense. It's a whole spread of numbers averaged out.
As to what data a vendor offers or doesn't, one of them could get hold of any other's part and test it to see how their's performs against it, whether in the real car on the road, on a dyno or otherwise as even you have done with your airflow measurements. There are also people out there who buy and compare various parts as well. Some vendors dyno their product and compare it to OEM even if not to anyone else. So yes, at some point I expect some of your proprietary information to not be shared, but someone with a stock or other PTB could run some tests, pick yours up and run some more and post the information. It's what performance nuts thrive on. Will it give them .1 faster in the 1/4 mile....or a higher top speed, more down force, etc.
Right now no one concentrates on this area except for you that I can find and see. I can't find what range of pounds per horsepower at part throttle a sports car vs anything else should fall into. While your TB might not increase ultimate power over any other and even if one is developing a little more, plenty of others are still being sold. If it is increasing throttle response and the engine doesn't learn it away as some on here claim that the stock system does with many of these little mods to a stock car, then something special is going on.
As an aside, I did a little search for g/s to horsepower. A discussion of lb air/min to horsepower came to a very rough estimate of 10 hp per 1 lb of air/minute. The discussion included a table that also included g/s. Looking at your table and taking just one position, for example, at 20% there is a 23 for the OEM to 33 g/s for your TB. The relationship was a "rough" 31 hp to 45 hp being produced per the table. So if such a chart exists, it isn't all that hard to extrapolate the data across the entire thing to get a number for your throttle body as an average of pounds per horsepower vs the stock or OEM one. Even if off a bit between timing and AFR, it's as much as a 45+% increase in the horsepower at a 20% throttle opening. That kind of number means a lot more to a lot of people. A value of what your TB is in weight/horsepower in that first 30% range compared to an OEM Corvette, the aforementioned truck and say a sports car with great throttle response would get across a lot of information in comparison without giving too much away perhaps? The technical drawings are great. The flow diagrams show some neat information. But you are working in an area that almost no one seems to talk much about, let alone offer an option to fix....and you have an opportunity to really open some things up. I think it would be great marketing: Corvette (OEM) 300 lb/hp, XXX SUV 300 lb/hp, Soler TB, 196 lb/hp (for example...I didn't work out all the extrapolation). I like information....so maybe I am also being a bit pushy....but I'm curious and like to learn.....so sorry if I got a little pushy....
Originally Posted by Mike@SolerEngr
Hello Redbaroness, I think things went a bit out of hand sorry about that. You seemed very partial to your own mod and I felt I did not get the benefit of the doubt despite all we have done to make this venture transparent to members.
I still think my use of the word nimble is correct as defined by most dictionaries and most importantly I think people is interpreting in the intended that way. I'd propose we don't dwell on that.
It is simple when you look at what gets in and what gets out (results). You get one of our TB's, it responds better, no problems. We promised you'd get X and Y, you go measure you get X and Y. We sent out samples to customers they say they like it better than what they had before. You don't like it, you return it. It simply works.
I've done my best to answer in as much as data available allows me. Other members have answered for me sometimes, great knowledge here in this forum. I'd be lying if I pretended I'll know all the answers to all questions, and in the end all that matters is that it works. What if I knew all the answers and the TB's wouldn't work?
200-300 lbs/hp is the stuff of trucks and SUV's measured and re-measured. The 8-10% value has to be included b/c you have to go through it. Even if you exclude it you get 260 lbs/hp. Weather you feel it or not, it is what it is, and if you want your car to respond better you have to get that ratio down.
The driver should not be afraid of pushing the throttle, they should feel confident. My explanation for that is that w/ the OEM TB from 0-33% you gain 1.2 g/s-deg from 40% up you gain more than 10 g/s-deg (10X) that transition is not smooth, neither predictable. If you knew exactly how much depression you have to put on the pedal to get what you want, then you would not be afraid. But it changes by 10X in less than 7% travel. Hard to get used to that.
Airflow and power are linearly related. Everything else constant, you can draw the same conclusions from either one of them. Yes, it is delivering as much more power as airflow earlier in the blade travel, and torque management does not change the pedal mapping, although I think we all know it intervenes sometimes to protect drive line among other things.
No, not more power. Can't promise that, can't measure it accurately enough to say that. More of the power that we already have delivered earlier? Yes, 100%.
Like I said, follow the air, the fuel goes by it, the power goes by them, linearly. B/c we doubled the air, we cut the weight-to-power ratio in half in that region.
We have measured about 50 OEM TB's to date. Every time a batch gets in, we scan dimensionally and flow test, they come in groups of 10 and from different sources. This is statistically significant, I can say with certainty that none of then will be under 200 lbf/hp between 0-33% throttle. The idea is good though, but the more I measure the better the average and std dev.
I strongly disagree about the lack of data. In fact, I have shared much more that it would be prudent for a vendor. I have not seen anyone trying to be more transparent and that have shared more that I have. Not that I deserve a medal for that, I think this is the way it should be. But this is above the standard out here and you should recognize that.
Please, try one. If you like it, we both win. If you don't I'm sure we can improve it w/ your feedback. The warranty is as it says, you don't even pay return shipping.
I've never seen that number discussed or published other than at WOT, but one can arbitrarily define it at any angle. If weight-to-power at WOT is @ 90 deg and we call it full throttle, then why not the same ratio at 1/2 (call it half) or 1/3 @ third throttle or wherever we need it to account for what is happening and being able to quantify the issue.
That is the idea I'm trying to convey; reducing that ratio in 1/3 throttle range is a measure of responsiveness. You are right, there are better ways to explain it and market it. Now, most people here seem to know more about cars than the average car forum member. I think they are getting it...and I bet this conversation is helping in that regard.
Nobody who puts a PTB on their car is doing it because they want more performance from 0-30 degrees throttle. They do it for WOT flow performance and combine with a ported Intake manifold for average of 16rwhp gains. The only ones who would worry about that are those that are OCD about throttle response with a stock tune. All of this is fixed with a proper tune.
TM is affected by Torque not airflow, hence Torque Management. If increased airflow causes the ECM to see higher torque values than the tune calls for then it will limit, which generally results in throttle closure.
Tunes polish up mechanical deficiencies, coming from someone who deals with tuning of industrial systems for a living, and therefore Geoc2468 has a valid point in my eyes. OCD? Probably, lol, but valid nonetheless. No disrespect to you.
Last edited by Yourconfused; 03-13-2019 at 09:34 PM.
03-10-2019, 04:06 PM
