Internets_Ninja

As promised in the Z06 section I would provide dyno results for the Mamo v2 Throttle Body on my 2017 Z06. Mods are Borla catless Xpipe, GM Performance Intake and tuned by myself. As there are always doubters, which there should be, I will disclose as much information as possible. First, I purchased my Throttle Body for full price. No discount, no favors. Second, I was not paid to do this. It is pretty boring during lock down as we all know and I do this stuff as a hobby so I enjoy it and no one has provided any data like this that I have ever found. Third, I data logged all of the dyno pulls and just like my thread over in the Z06 section, the airmass changes did result in power changes. My method of testing here was to be as transparent as possible. I drove the car to the shop, pulled in on the rollers and let it cool off for about 45 minutes. Made two pulls back to back and was going to make a third but since both pulls were nearly identical I chose the best one to be the comparison. I then swapped on the Tony Mamo version 2 throttle body while the car was strapped to the dyno and then let the car cool off for 45 minutes. I got the car back up to temp and made a pull. I then made a subsequent pull with the nearly identical power as the first pull with the Mamo v2. There was no reason to make a third pull just like with the OEM TB.

I also wanted to give a positive word for the guys over at AMP (American Muscle Performance). They were a great bunch to work with on the Dyno. They were interested in what I was testing and were very accommodating to my requirements on how things were done on the dyno. They do all American cars but specialize in Dodge setups. There were some mean sounding Hellcats when I was there. It was a great experience. My next mod I will be right back on their dyno and if I don't want to install the parts myself I would easily let them do the work. Solid group of guys over there.

My car was tuned by me prior to the Mamo v2. The dyno charts below has the first pull made with the OEM TB then the first pull made with the Mamo v2 TB. NO TUNING CHANGES. This was done on a Mustang Dyno and the tech added "Estimated Dyno Jet HP" just so there was that option as well. I'm not concerned about the actual number other than the difference between the two. And I was quite surprised. Even the guys operating the dyno were impressed. One thing to note is since the Airmass went up with the Mamo v2, the ECU was referencing a higher part of the spark table which caused timing to be about 1/2 a degree lower with the Mamo TB. You can see the difference in the last two screenshots of the Datalog. If I would have re-tuned to bring the timing back up I probably would have picked up another 5rwhp.

Dotted Line: OEM TB
Solid Line: Mamo v2 TB
Notes: The dyno operator used my gear ratio of 3.42 and we ran everything in 4th gear which is 1:1. They did not use an induction pickup to monitor the tach signal. The Dyno charts RPMs seem to be slightly off which I assume is because they didn't have the tire height exactly right. This likely threw the RPM calculations off on the chart, but all pulls were from 3000-6600 RPM as you can see in my data logs.



As mentioned I also data logged the runs so that the information that I posted in the thread below could be confirmed. The data logs in this older thread actually show better peak boost numbers but that is to be expected when comparing to dyno pulls. But as you can see below the datalog comparison focusing on Airflow/Airmass/MAP/Pressure.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...xperience.html






Now here you can compare datalogs. Here are a few things to notice.
#1) As you can see above, the airmass with the Mamo v2 is higher, meaning more air is moving through the engine. This causes the spark lookup table to move to the next higher cell which is half a degree lower to account for the extra boost. So the Mamo v2 pulls actually had 1/2 a degree less timing vs the OEM TB pulls
#2) No Knock Retard on either pull
#3) Long Term Fuel Trims were identical. When referencing on the dyno computer there was a .1 difference. The dyno chart even shows that(12.0 to 12.1 average). As expected the MAF added more fuel because it saw more airflow, but the AFR being .1 leaner means the car was using the extra fuel to make power. The dyno chart proves this.

OEM TB Dyno Pull Log



Mamo V2 Dyno Pull Log



In summary, I leave this for each to develop their own conclusion. I am happy and the money is well spent. Car drives great and Tony is a great guy to do business with.

Enjoy...

Chalky

Thanks for posting!!

Audacious Nick

I am highly skeptical of a TB actually picking up that much power. Do we have any other cases that support this?

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

You shouldn't be....here is a guy that picked up 15 ish with my V1 design a few years ago in his 6th Gen LT4 ZL1 Camaro.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=497065

As good as that TB was/is, my V2 design flows significantly more air and that LT4 blower is making good use of it (it really needs more air at that power level).

Stock TB's flow right around 940 CFM.....my V1 flowed right at 1000 CFM (with solid gains in the lower and middle throttle angles which increased responsiveness and tip in reducing/eliminating the dreaded of idle lag).

My new V2 design flows 1100 CFM.....a tremendous increase in airflow over stock and a significant gain over my proven V1 design.

Better yet it also comes with just as large a gain in airspeed as well and that's the winning hand when you can design a throttle body (or a cylinder head or an intake manifold) that significantly improves both. Your practically force feeding the engine with a higher volume of air moving at a much greater rate of speed.

I should add that Internet Ninja's testing is about as scientific as it gets and his methodology for a guy that doesnt make a living doing R&D in this field was actually impressive from the way he logged all the engine parameters to the way he conducted the actual dyno testing. He kept on an eye on all the things that matter in his testing and did the runs with the same water temps and the same IAT's etc to keep all the data pertinent and valid. Reduce all the variables you can to zero. That is especially important when testing boosted cars as heat soak is always a problem and needs to be managed to get true real world results from any change your evaluating.

Im going to share some pictures of the new design here in this thread before the close of the weekend and probably launch my own thread regarding this product very soon so I can try and keep the bulk of the information in a single thread so its easier to manage and send people to that are interested.

in the last six months or so, I have invested the better part of whatever time I could allocate to R&D focused on this product....that's a fact. And while it took alot longer than I hoped because I couldn't leave well enough alone, the results just posted certainly helps make me feel the extra effort and time invested was well worth it.

Looking forward to some data from other customers I have helped as well but I can tell you that all the guys that have tried my new V2 design have been really pleased with it.

Cheers guys



Tony

C7/Z06 Man

Internets_Ninja

UPDATE

Thanks for the kudos Tony. I specifically chose your v2 TB because of the Max Airflow effort. I do this sort of thing as a hobby but maybe I should start a side job. I've been modifying and tuning cars myself for 20+ years all the way back when LT1_Edit was the only tuning tool around. Actually there was one other one that wasn't very developed at the time but I forget the name. Cat-something I think. But anyhow I posted this thread as an informational thread for people to help decide if this mod is worth it for themselves. I was the biggest doubter of ported throttle bodies and I was shocked at the difference.

I also wanted to add an update here. After I left the dyno and got a chance to drive the car a longer distance I was doing some highway pulls and kept hitting the 6600 RPM rev limiter so I had to pull over and reflash the car with a 6800 RPM rev limiter. That was the ONLY change I made after leaving the dyno. I thought about changing it on the dyno since the chart showed I was making power all the way to 6600 but I promised everyone no tune changes on the dyno. So with drive-ability I have found that I needed to increase the rev limit to 6800 vs the 6600(6500 is stock) I had because I used to shift based on when the power started to fall off at 6400-6500. Now I am blowing past that without realizing it because the power is not falling off. Also, the part throttle and off idle throttle is fantastic. That annoying dead spot where you push on the gas and nothing happens is eliminated. So the benefits of part throttle are still there. I can also attest from a technical standpoint that I do not see my Torque Management Advance doing anything weird with the extra airflow during tip in throttle movement. This is very important as I have seen some ported throttle bodies run into Torque Management issues and actually cause weird throttle issues because the ECU pulls timing when you step on the gas. I have not observed this at all in any of my logs and I have not felt it either.

Part Throttle Improvement = A+
Full Throttle Improvement = A+
Seat of the Pants Improvement = A+

Lastly, I would like to clarify the Dyno Chart readings. I've had a couple of PMs asking about this. On the dyno chart you will see Wheel Torque and Wheel Power. These numbers are the raw measured output from the Mustang Dyno aka the Heart Breaker Dyno. It measures the actual power measured at that moment on the dyno. Then you will see Estimated Dynojet Horsepower. This is an SAE corrected value and then multiplied by a correction factor to mimic what one would see with the same car, same pull on a Dynojet Dyno. I specifically had the Dyno operator add both for full transparency. For the record it was 90 degrees in the dyno cell on the first few pulls and by the time we got to the Mamo v2 pulls it was 92 degrees. So there was no temperature advantages. Anyway, if you want to look at it the peak numbers gained it looks like this:

Est Dynojet Peak: 20HP/12TQ
Mustang Dyno Peak: 17HP/10TQ

But if you look at the Torque values after the peak, you can see as the car goes through its midrange powerband, the Tq gains are up to 20 ft lbs.

Maxpowers

Thanks for the review, very interesting. I would have never guessed gains from a TB mod. Curious if there is gains on the LT1...

McNultyZ06

Ninja, this is simply the best evaluation of a throttle body or arguably any other aftermarket part I have seen. Well, well, very well done!

I believe it 100% , take of leave a little due the variability of test and instruments which we have to live with. I've seen several dynos of LT4's either stock a lightly modified and I'm sure 5-15 rwhp's depending on mods are possible only by changing the stock throttle body by a ported one.

I have also seen several dynos of stock of lightly modified LT1's gaining zero or close to zero with their 87mm ported throttle bodies.

Why? I have read here and I agree that if the base car LT1 gains nothing with a ported 87mm is because the stock 87mm throttle body if just fine at WOT, also The ZR1 at 750 hp comes with a 95mm throttle body and the Z06 at 650 hp gets the same 87mm as the base LT1 car. So common sense tell you that a Z06 LT4 should have had a larger throttle body somewhere in between 87mm and 95mm, maybe closer to 95mm, definitely not 87mm. This test shows that increasing the flow area made a difference on your Z06, proves that the stock 87mm was not the best choice and that it needs to have more flow area.

Think about it and try to follow GM logic, 460hp=87mm TB, 650hp=87mm TB too? then 750hp=95mm TB, one of them is not right and it is obviously the LT4 choice of TB.

Good job!

C7/Z06 Man

I don't know about you but I would also like to see "some real world testing where the rubber meets the road" i.e. drag strip. I tried the 95mm LT5 TB with spacer on my stock tune A8 2015 Z06 (looks good) which I think most people would agree flows more than the 87mm LT4 TB modified or not; but remember that the hole on the front of the supercharger which all air must go through is still the 'same size'.

MY RESULTS:
I saw no improvement at the track over stock using the LT5 TB where you go from "Zero to Hero" on the throttle from the get-go, with just the throttle body being the only change so I went back to stock for a number of reasons. Now for argument sake lets say that the GM lt5 throttle body really is not calibrated for a Z06, so to "know" that this "new" TB improves performance I would like to see some track testing, wouldn't you.

My LT5 Throttle Body & spacer setup:


PS: I believe the ZR1 supercharger is larger (2650?) with a larger front opening for that 95mm TB.

McNultyZ06

First of all, great effort, good job. Now a few questions.

Looks like V1 and V2 are doing about the same job on the LT4. Any comments on that?

Could you publish the lower and middle values so we can compare to the competition?

There's a thread on your V1 release with the OEM at 916 CFM vs. V1 at 1000 CFM for 9.1% gain, now 940 CFM vs. 1000 CFM, 6.3% gain; which of the two those with V1 actually have?

I can see on V2 you added some cuts to the shaft to gain WOT flow area, way to go and badly needed, similar to what Katech does in their TB. V1 doesn't have them and you presented data here showing Katech and V1 flowing the same 1000 CFM. I was never able to figure how your V1 was flowing the same as the Katech TB back then. But now, you do about the same thing as Katech did and get an extra 100 CFM. Where do they come from?

Could you explain the air speed and force feeding effect? If you increased the throat area of the TB, shouldn't the airspeed be less, lower pressure drop at the TB, denser air at the SC inlet, higher MAF because air is denser not faster?

Ditto, great job.

Internets_Ninja

Is your car tuned? I can't speak for others but my car is not on the stock tune. The stock LT4 tune will start to pull power past 6200 RPM and it will also start to close the throttle with too much airflow. I'm not saying you ran into this because I didn't see your logs. But I'm extremely adamant to anyone that asks, you should not run a 95mm TB on a LT1 or LT4 without a tune. There are reasons that I wont dive into but I'm not surprised at all you saw no gain if you were not tuned for it.

Remember these results show the potential of the mamo v2 when you have an intake, xpipe and the proper tune. I never claimed anything other than this.

As for track testing I suppose that would be great but its such a small change I personally wouldn't waste my time with it. I don't race my car anyway so I wouldn't go to the track unless I made significant changes. I get enjoyment out of tweaking my car and driving it around town. My days of racing at the track were 15 years ago when I had more radical setups. But it would be great to see someone else go do some track testing. I just have no interest.

C7/Z06 Man

All my results (time slips) have been on the stock tune. I think a lot of members would want to know what a mod result would do on the stock tune due to warranty concerns, etc.
Example: The 3" Corsa X-pipe slowed me down in the 1/4 mile compared to the factory catted X-pipe so I sold it..

Internets_Ninja

I am anti stock tune for ANY mods so I wouldn't be the guy for that. Being an experienced tuner, there are reasons in the tune that can hinder aftermarket parts from performing to their potential. This is true for any aftermarket part though. But I also understand people that do not want to void their drivetrain warranty by tuning.

McNultyZ06

Of the 17 rwhp gains, 14 rwhp can be explained due to the IAT difference, that only leave us with 3 rwhp. What was the dyno weather station saying at the time of those runs? Did the ambient temp go up by 10 F in the 45 min cooling period?

Internets_Ninja

The Mustang Dyno's have SAE correction. So even if there was a 10 degree difference, which there wasn't, SAE would account for it. There simply was not a crazy temperature swing in the dyno cell. Also, the OEM TB pulls were done first when there was no chance to heat up the dyno cell and it was earlier in the morning where it was 2 degrees cooler outside than when I did the Mamo pulls. E92 ECU's do not reference the IAT value on the LT4. They actually only use Manifold Absolute Temp to reference a spark reduction value. Which you can clearly see on the logs it wasn't pulling timing. In fact the graph with more power was running half a degree less timing because the Airmass value went higher due to more boost and total spark goes down as Airmass increases.

PS I left the phone number and address of the shop who owns the dyno right there on the chart. Give them a call and ask about the weather. I'm sure they will get a kick out of it.

Also, in my original thread with datalogs doing pulls on the highway, the data shows the same airflow gains observed on the dyno but actually more extreme. This also supports how I know the dyno gains are 100% real on my car.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...xperience.html

The data shows there is a gain in Airflow and KPA on the street and on the dyno. This translates into more power. I was able to replicate what I saw on the street on the dyno.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Warning!! This post is information heavy and has ALOT of pictures....its best reviewed when you have the time to properly do so!!

(Also PLEASE do not "quote" this post and drag the mile long group of picture with you in another post.....if you want to quote part of my discussion below just include the verbal portion only)


Ok guys....so I promised I would post some pictures here (turns out that was a larger job than I realized) but before I do I think its important to give you a little background first and also share with you my approach and philosophy on this new product (and optimizing throttle bodies in general).

In comparison to cylinder head and intake manifold design TB's are much simpler to improve upon.....there are TWO major things you have to address to get more airflow through a throttle body (assuming we aren't increasing the size of the blade and the outlet of the TB which no one does because it's not cost effective).

These two things are optimizing the shape of the throttle bore housing itself to improve laminar flow and increase its available CSA (cross sectional area), and if so inclined also addressing the aerodynamics of the throttle shaft reducing its size and thereby increasing the available CSA you have to work with even more.

These are the two main areas of focus when looking to improve TB flow. Lets talk about the throttle bore housing first which I feel is the more important of the two as this addresses essentially ALL of your part throttle operation (which is a large problem with the stock LT1/LT4 TB design....the housing bore is horrible in stock trim!). In fact my V1 design relied solely on the gains seen with my optimization of the throttle bore housing which I invest a bunch of time streamlining and optimizing its shapes and contours.

The housing bore shape is going to give you all the gains you see up to about 90% throttle (very close to WOT) because at 90% throttle or less the angle of the blade is still a larger cross sectional area than the width of the shaft.

The 2nd item of importance I mentioned is the throttle shaft wich finds itself right smack in the middle of all the high speed air found in the middle of the TB housing. Modifying it to reduce the size of its footprint (and disruption of the airflow passing across it) is key in getting more air to pass through the TB. Note however that gains seen here are only realized at WOT (peak flow) when the blade angle is perfectly inline with the air entering the TB. A reduction of what I will refer to as the shaft/blade "sandwich" (the two throttle shaft halves being the bread and the blade trapped in the middle the meat....LOL) increases the available cross sectional area of the TB as well as helping to reduce turbulence that a full diameter shaft would create as the high speed column of air at WOT launches itself off the full diameter of the throttle shaft creating a wave of high speed air that chokes the effective size of the TB (with an un-modded shaft) even smaller. I think all of this is much easier to understand and comprehend when you have a chance to review the pictures below I have attached to this post.

I share this brief summary of what I feel are the two most important aspects of improving a TB because both of these reasons are the two most most important design features that separate my new V2 design from my original V1 and my competitors. My new V2 offers the most efficient shaped streamlined 87mm housing bore on the market currently (no sharp edges, no angled surfaces, no bumps and lumps.....a very purposeful shaped housing bore that has been tweaked on and improved and is even better than my original V1 design which already had a very optimized housing bore profile).

The most significant improvement over my V1 design is all the work I invested in optimizing the throttle shaft. This design is by far the thinnest and most "invisible" throttle shaft / blade combo on the market and its better by a significant margin.

Lets talk numbers.....once again I will refer to the thickness of the split shaft / blade combo as the "sandwich"....the thinner the sandwich the more room for air and additional CFM this situation creates. The unmodified OEM shaft and blade "sandwich" in a stock TB is just under a 1/2" thick (.470 to be exact).

While most guys porting TBs don't bother to machine the throttle shaft, the small percentage of the companies that do are reasonably close in their reduced sandwich thickness. All of them are significantly thinner than stock and all falling within a fairly tight range.....between .250 and .279 thick providing a significant opportunity for more flow at WOT (Once again its important to remember that 95% of the CFM gains from modding the "sandwich" are only seen at 95 - 100% blade opening.....aka WOT. (On the flowbench that is where my V2 design really leaped over my V1 design in total CFM gains by almost 100 CFM!!.....the gains in the lower throttle angles were much less).

Reworking and optimizing the throttle shaft design was the lion's share of the hours invested in my new and improved V2 design. It went through a few iterations each one further reducing the CSA of the sandwich to ultimately increase the available CSA of the TB housing as well as reduce the disruption/turbulence in flow it creates. In fact when I thought I was done I decided to reduce the cross section an additional .030 which left the finished product with very minimal .179 thick cross section. This is a tremendous reduction from stock (almost .300) and a very significant improvement over competitor designs.

Now that you guys have more of the technical background Im going to let the pictures do the rest of the talking here....Im typed out anyway and have a bunch of other things I need to accomplish today.....I really wanted to post this by Sunday night but too many things on my plate and this post took 3X longer than I expected to draft.

I did my best to take them all at similar angles and distances and the white background to highlight the available cross section of air that your engine sees at WOT

The merits of my V2 design really stand out when you see these photos.....compare the housing bore design as well as the throttle shaft CSA to stock (and other TB's on the market) and I think you will agree we have a winner here. Also Im really hoping these pictures and brief synapses of what I focused on help you guys realize that the the big gains in airflow (and airspeed) from this new design is very REAL......and the gains seen on the dyno are very real also. It's engine physics 101.....a TB that has significantly more airflow and significantly more airspeed is going to make more power. In short this mod is the best sub $500 investment on the planet for an LT powered vehicle and I offer a 30 day money back (full refund on price of the part...not freight costs)

And finally on to the pictures....stock is the first couple you will see and then three different competitor designs below that and finally pics of my new V2 design which will immediately jump out at you based on the thin blade and shaft assembly (my super thin "sandwich"....LOL)

I took a picture of all of them straight on so you guys can essentially see what the engine "sees" at 100% throttle.....then an angled photo so you can better see some of the contours of the TB housing bores to appreciate the vast differences seen there.
































THE PICS BELOW ARE ALL OF MY NEW V2 DESIGN.......JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU TO FOLLOW ALONG!!












Im going to start my own thread shortly and get into even more data.....

For now I hope this helped you visualize whats going on as well as better understand what went into netting you the gains you will surely feel with this exciting new upgrade



Cheers,
Tony

Elk

Thank you, Tony

A fun read.

Navy Blue 210

Congrats on results OP.
Thanks for sharing all your Data!

Great Info & Explantion Tony.

KillerC7zo6

Great thread here. Both OP and from Tony. Makes me happy knowing I purchased and installed this V2 TB on my Z06, Very well worth it

Dr.Ron

Great info & the new unit looks great!

Ron