Greddy/BEGi-S vs. ITBs
#21
I'd like to see empirical data on your part to prove your statement that I WON'T receive benefit from it.
Some evidence based statements from posters on this board would certainly be a treat for me.
#23
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
The only reason I can think of is that the concept of "one barrel per pot" was pretty much ubiquitous among the 4 cylinder sports cars of the time. Carrying this philosophy over would mean they could re-use the existing intake manifolds and carburetor inventory. It would also avoid the potential problem of uneven fuel distribution between cylinders.
#24
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
yes, there are cares that dis it, iirc an old bmw and skyline. but the benefits are very diminishing. the same setup with an ITB and a 70mm TB would see the same exact hp/tq and feel the exact same driving, with the ITB setup losing low-mid toqure and not gaining it back up top.
#25
Okay, this thread has completely pushed me away from getting these. Thanks.
AHAHA
Basically I was just looking for something different (which ITBs are), cheap (which apparently they are not), and can give me reasonable power for the cost (apparently isn't the case either).
BTW IM A SEXY SINGLE MALE WHO LIKES ITALIAN FOOD, HOT BATHS, AND LONG WALKS ON THE BEACH
AHAHA
Basically I was just looking for something different (which ITBs are), cheap (which apparently they are not), and can give me reasonable power for the cost (apparently isn't the case either).
BTW IM A SEXY SINGLE MALE WHO LIKES ITALIAN FOOD, HOT BATHS, AND LONG WALKS ON THE BEACH
#31
That's not true. An ITB car can make big power, with the supporting mods in place. I drove one once, and it was pretty fast. And noisy, and buzzy, and loud, and didn't idle, but pulled pretty hard up top, as 200 hp should. Problem is, it cost $10k to do it, and wouldn't pass emissions.
Just remember what an engine does: It burns gasoline. You can put in more gas pretty easy, but getting in more air is hard. Most NA mods (and factory tuning, for that matter) center around using resonances to have pressure fronts at the valves when they are open, effectively using sound waves to supercharge the motor 10-20%. In a modern, factory NA motor, you can get 120% the volume of air that the cylender actually holds, the caveat being you do it only at a given RPM window - you play games with cames, intake runners, etc. Like being "on the pipe" in a 2 stroke.
You get all the air you can, then you put in the right amount of fuel and, with any luck, it all burns.
With a turbo/super you get air in by literally forcing it down the engine's throat. NA is like opening a peanut butter jar from the fridge, there's a little sucking as air rushes in from the room. Picture taking that same jar to the gas station, and trying to fill it with the tire-fill line. It'd happen a lot faster, no? With a turbo, you're getting maybe twice as much air in the engine (forgetting for the time being how much more power an engine makes as effeciecies go up with increased effective compression ratio)....
Lastly, think of it like this: NA mods are like running out of breath when jogging a mile, so you take a knife and slit your cheeks open an inch on each side. Sure, it might help, but not enough to justify it.
You gotta buy cams, do porting, etc etc. It's a whole system approach instead of just forcing stuff in. :-)
#32
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
I remember the older Lotus Esprits that had a turbo pumping air through 2 side draft carbs...exotic..but it worked for them....i wonder why they didnt choose 1 large down draft carb instead.
I'd like to see empirical data on your part to prove your statement that I WON'T receive benefit from it.
Some evidence based statements from posters on this board would certainly be a treat for me.
I'd like to see empirical data on your part to prove your statement that I WON'T receive benefit from it.
Some evidence based statements from posters on this board would certainly be a treat for me.
#40
Why's that? goodness, if it turned out I was really missing the boat on this ITB thing, I'd love to know about it.
I think you totally CAN get improvements running them, even with a turbo. Put them into a 5'x5'x5' pressurized box, you WILL see improvements over a regular turbo mani. The idea is to even out the motor, which will only help. You'll get better tip in, too - the dead volume will hurt spool, but throttle response should be good. Really, you want to have a well designed manifold, the stocker isn't too bad, but limits at higher flows.
How's this for an idea: Computer controlled, RPM/flow dependant ITBs? Hell, you could make it actively controlled by putting a flow meter in each intake port. It'd WAY smooth things out, make more power.... And you could fuel appropriately, instead of guessing on gross averages.
"We're not interested in that here" is a pretty weird attitude for someone who wants to learn or go fast to have.
I think you totally CAN get improvements running them, even with a turbo. Put them into a 5'x5'x5' pressurized box, you WILL see improvements over a regular turbo mani. The idea is to even out the motor, which will only help. You'll get better tip in, too - the dead volume will hurt spool, but throttle response should be good. Really, you want to have a well designed manifold, the stocker isn't too bad, but limits at higher flows.
How's this for an idea: Computer controlled, RPM/flow dependant ITBs? Hell, you could make it actively controlled by putting a flow meter in each intake port. It'd WAY smooth things out, make more power.... And you could fuel appropriately, instead of guessing on gross averages.
"We're not interested in that here" is a pretty weird attitude for someone who wants to learn or go fast to have.