Throttle bodies for CVH?

[Paceracing]

Does anyone know of a company who makes throttle bodies for a Ford CVH?

I've looked on various websites but can only find kits for Zetec's, Duractec's, etc..

The engine is full race 1600cc currently on 45 DCOE's.

Ideally I want fly-by-wire but if this isn't possible, mechanical will do.

Thanks,

Jason.

[graham bahr]

thats simple jason, a pair of jenveys will bolt straight onto your weber manifold,


i dont know of anyone in the aftermarket (not at clubman level anyway) that does fly by wire, i know from the number of cars i go to at the roadside with throttle problems on fly by wire (like all the current VW range) i certainly wouldn't be fitting fly by wire to my race car.

or are you referring to mechanical fuel injection verses electronic? assuming your talking electronic

you dont really need a kit as such, just the bodies and an ecu, emerald, dta, omex, etc nearly all these companies sell a part made loom which you finish off by shortening it and fitting the injector plugs etc, the only real piece of engineering as such is that you will need to fit a crank pick up and toothed timing wheel to the engine to give the ecu its refernce points.

[Paceracing]

Hi Graham,

Thanks for that i'll give Jenvey a call.

I want to use Pectel management because it's easier to map, (I can make changes at the track), uses a fast processor to get better control with the transients, (which will make the car easier to drive) and you can switch between maps for wet, dry, etc. The reason I want fly-by-wire is to have full electonic control over the butterflies. The car is very light and sudden lift off the throttle unsettles the car, so I want to reduce engine braking by holding the butterflies open very slightly.

Jason.

[MikeBz]

Originally Posted by Paceracing

I want to use Pectel management because it's easier to map, (I can make changes at the track), uses a fast processor to get better control with the transients

Are any of the modern aftermarket ECUs actually deficient in this respect?

Originally Posted by Paceracing

The reason I want fly-by-wire is to have full electonic control over the butterflies. The car is very light and sudden lift off the throttle unsettles the car, so I want to reduce engine braking by holding the butterflies open very slightly.

Won't that result in the revs dropping too slowly when you change gear? It'll be like having a heavy flywheel.

DIY fly-by-wire is certainly an ambitious project! Apart from getting working well enough to improve driveability rather than impair it (which most of the road systems seem to do - I find them very non-intuitive) I'd be seriously concerned about getting the failure mode to be safe (throttles closed).

Good luck, keep us posted!

Mike

PS It would be a lot easier and cheaper to just not lift off suddenly

[graham bahr]

Originally Posted by MikeBz

PS It would be a lot easier and cheaper to just not lift off suddenly

wondered that myself, although i guess a sudden lift would be more prononced than on the webers jason currently uses, although i havn't heard of it being an issue

[Paceracing]

From what I can tell, there is still a big difference in the difference between high end and low end ECU's. Speed of response is just one thing. i.e. As throttle psoition changes, the effect on the combustion happens to the cylinder that is just firing rather than on the next cylinder firing as I understand is the case with many aftermarket ECU's. This is a direct result of a faster processor, and results in a quicker and smoother response. Some of the other strategies that I would want are easier to develop with the Pectel as well. (Temperature corrections, fuel adders, etc..)

With regard to the revs dropping too slowly, yes I agree that could be an issue, but with fly-by-wire you can control the ammount of air bleed by the position of the butterflies, therefore having an infinitely variable ammount of engine decceleration. Fly by wire is starting to become popular on race engines these days because of the extra control that it gives you.

Anyway.... I will keep you posted with progress....

Jason.

[R59]

Jason,

I can recommend the DTA system. Very good indeed. Easy to map, and you can make use of an oxygen sensor for a spot of "self mapping". The top model does lots of other tricks too, like proper launch control, "menu 13" (Benneton F1 speak for Traction Control when it's banned!), and other super functions. Give Allan a ring.

I concur with Graham, Jenvey bodies. I'm going to get a set for my ol' Nova as part of it's rebuild ready to upset Denis Bassom in ModProds!! (tee hee hee)(don't hold your breath though!)

Rob.

[graham bahr]

to be honest i've never found the need to remap in the paddock, thats what the dyno's for!

the emerald that i run has all the various temp corrections built in along with boost control and all manor of other stuff, including data logging, so you could race and check out exactly what was happening later on in the paddock and change as appropriate, the latest versions also offer multiple map switching.

to be honest i think processor speed it a bt of a red herring, afteral we are talking about modified production engines using say 8,000 rpm, not purpose build 20,000 race engines.

re flyby wire and air bleed, i suspect that the throttles would need to be a long way open to prevent engine braking, an air bleed could be done using a idle control valve which again teh emerald and i suspect most of the aftermarket ecu's can handle.

does make me wonder though, if jason needs to close the throttles slowly, what happens if he has to brake?

[Eric Falce]

So what is the advantage in power terms of the electronic system over the Webers,whoever I talk to say that on two valves per cylinder there is'nt any real power gain.

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by Eric Falce

So what is the advantage in power terms of the electronic system over the Webers,whoever I talk to say that on two valves per cylinder there is'nt any real power gain.

There are some fundamental advantages of throttle bodies over carbs...

First, the carbs need a pressure differential to deliver the fuel. This means that they have to incorporate a "restriction" to create a pressure drop in the incomming air in order to "draw" the fuel into airflow. A throttle body, on the other hand, doesn't need this restriction, as the fuel is injected, and so will always present less of a barrier to the incomming air than a carb. This means throttle bodies should always have potential for higher top end power.

Secondly, the fuel/air ratio delivered by a carb can only "react" to what you do with your right foot. There will always be a bit of a lag before it catches up with a new throttle position, and if that is constantly changing it never really gets it right. With throttle bodies and a management unit the fuel can be managed "pro-actively" based on a throttle position sensor. In more sophisticated systems, different fuel and ignition maps can be selected depending on not only the throttle position, but on the rate of change of the position (ie, how fast you plant your foot!). This gives the potential for more instant and higher levels of power just when you want it.

Lastly, even though Webers use a pre-emulsifying system to improve fuel air mixing (compared to a standard jet introduction of the fuel) it is still inferior to a well designed high pressure injection system. This again gives fuel injection the potential to give better power output.

In all these cases I say specifically that throttle bodies give the "potential" for more power. That's because its just as possible to get the selection of throttle bodies, fuel injectors and fueling maps wrong as it is with chokes and jets on carbs. So if someone looks at your carb setup and tells you they can get you "loads more power" if you buy their throttle bodies... it might just be because you haven't got your carbs very well set up in the first place

Still keeping my Webers though

[car1]

It is a racing car look up motorsports website's

[graham bahr]

IF your carbs are big enough then it doesn't matter if you have a 2 or 4 valve engine peak power doesn't go up much compairing carbs against throttle bodies, however you usually find you get more power everywhere else, and a massive improvment in drivability, added to the fact you get fully mapped ignition thrown in for free.

my old beemer engine was a pig on carbs, below 5,000 you didn't even want to think about giving it a big throttle opening or it would just sulk and go nowhere, on throttle bodies the same engine would pull smoothly from 2,000 at full throttle! it also held power longer after the peak which was usful and saved a few mid corner gearchanges.

later on i put it on 8 fuel injectors, with the clever softwhere only switching the outer injectors on at high revs, whilst halving the fuel from the inners, i gained 12bhp @ 5,000

i ended up with an engine running a 336 degree cam that was tractable enough for road use

[graham bahr]

i have to say that despite being a total fuel injection convert most of the time i think a pair of sidedrafts do the job amazingy well, considering they are only mechanical devices.

on the other hand my i cant wait to take the 45's off my roadgoing RS2000 and get some bodies on it as injection is just so much nicer, infact on race cars it tends to produce far nicer manors and tractability than we really need, although i certainly dont miss nursing a car that will barly tick over and run around the paddock

[Chucky]

I'll give y'all a little hint. The power gains aren't to be made in the fuel management side of an EFI system.

[graham bahr]

'll give y'all a little hint. The power gains aren't to be made in the fuel management side of an EFI system.

it isn'T?

assuming your compairing like with like ie bodies against sidedraft carbs, not bodies against a single downdraft carb such as a weber 28/36dcd or 32/36 dgav etc, which is where this thread all started chanding a pair of 45webers for bodies

my understanding of the subject for the last 20years must be all wrong then, along with my friends at emerald who make and set up engine managment systems!

bodies do flow more air than a pair of similar size sidedrafts, but then again most engines would use bigger carbs than throttle bodies, ie the most powerfull pintos are all on 48/50 mm carbs but use 45mm bodies (which in pairs on a 4 cyl will flow enough air for 260bhp), so the bodies have no air flow advantage, ram and pulse tuning are the same, so how else would they show a power gain?

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by graham bahr

bodies do flow more air than a pair of similar size sidedrafts, but then again most engines would use bigger carbs than throttle bodies, ie the most powerfull pintos are all on 48/50 mm carbs but use 45mm bodies (which in pairs on a 4 cyl will flow enough air for 260bhp), so the bodies have no air flow advantage,.....

In the 48/50 carbs you could well find that the main chokes are 42s or 44s. Wouldn't that mean that a plain bore 45mm throttle body could still actually have slightly more air capacity?

[graham bahr]

Originally Posted by dtype38

In the 48/50 carbs you could well find that the main chokes are 42s or 44s. Wouldn't that mean that a plain bore 45mm throttle body could still actually have slightly more air capacity?

yout right dtype, but then no 2.0 pinto will ever need all the airflow that a pair of 45 bodies can flow, as we all know having more air flow potential than an engine can use wont add any power

[dtype38]

They're pretty long intake trumpets you're using Graham. Just out of interest, have you ever tried a tuned length branched intake manifold (like the reverse of a tuned length branch exhaust manifold)?

[graham bahr]

Originally Posted by dtype38

They're pretty long intake trumpets you're using Graham. Just out of interest, have you ever tried a tuned length branched intake manifold (like the reverse of a tuned length branch exhaust manifold)?

that is basically what your doing with ram pipes on throttle bodies, without chokes, aux vents etc to interfear with the induction pulses the engine sees the whole induction system as the intake length.

those huge long intakes were obviously refeering to my engines before i started bolting turbos on, once you do turbo them as long as the manifolds can deliver enough air evenly all this intake tuning stuff goes out the window

[R59]

Talking of ram and pulse tuning, there was an interesting article published many years ago by Dave Vizard, all about ram pipes, their shape, and how it affected the power of the engine across the rev band.

There were some "strange" shapes tested, with some surprising results.

And picking up on chucky's comment, that's true, there's a lot of power to be gained in the ignition mapping. It's scary how much advance that some engines will take at certain points on their map. My 1600 Nova engine has points where it has over 60deg of advance, and that's on ordinary pump fuel. It certainly raised eyebrows when it was on the dyno! Consequently, that released bags of mid-range grunt that had previously been "hidden" by a p.poor ignition system.

Rob.

[retro_msport]

Originally Posted by racing59

There were some "strange" shapes tested, with some surprising results.

Rob.

And theres been some long length trumpets used to good effect in the past, hasn't there Graham

One other thing that Graham mentioned was the second set of injectors pointing down the bodies, I remember seeing a pic of "wobbly" Walker standing at the side of an engine holding an injector rail and moving it in and out to see if there was any gains to be had.
I don't know a lot about Engines, but have been around Steve Greenald enough to know that TBs and properly mapped ing/fuel ECU's win hands down on delivering power, may not be an increase at the top, but through the usable/used rev range, there is gains... engine braking can be influenced through over run fueling and torque is normally up all over the rev range.
Just mapping sparks on carbs can be good too, On the 2L Zetec engine, there is a problem when going WOT from idle, and the engine fluffs, this can be got round by drilling progression holes, but I've watched Greenald map it out.

Anyway... i'll let you engine blokes get back to your discussion

[graham bahr]

[QUOTE=retro_msport]And theres been some long length trumpets used to good effect in the past, hasn't there Graham

[QUOTE]

just a bit!

the shortest was no trumpet,

the longest i tried were 24inch's long, thats not the intake length, thats the trumpet, they gave the biggest and fattest spread of power i ever saw from my engine, the only trouble was if you went 3rpm past 6,300 it suddenly dropped 30 odd bhp

for the most part i used 17 inch as they gave the alround best, until i put in the 336 cam when i had to reduce them to a mere 15 inches long

[graham bahr]

Originally Posted by retro_msport

And theres been some long length trumpets used to good effect in the past, hasn't there Graham

One other thing that Graham mentioned was the second set of injectors pointing down the bodies, I remember seeing a pic of "wobbly" Walker standing at the side of an engine holding an injector rail and moving it in and out to see if there was any gains to be had.

yep, and it seems all engines are different, some it does nothing for, others gain good power, usually at peak power, my engine was unusual, in that it gave the biggest jump in power dave had ever seen from double injecting, but not at peak power, but at peak torque, peak power was no different, and before anyone suggests it the power gain wasn't due to a lean mixture in the first place.

[Eric Falce]

BHP sells,Torque wins races.

[graham bahr]

funny you should say that...

your a bit limited with a big bore race exhaust manifold on a RHD 2002, there is only one size, shape and length that will fit, bit i did play with the system and back pressure with various restricters, and found that different intake lengths had an effect on what the engine required in terms of the rest of te exhaust

when i arrived at the optimum inlet trumpet length after many hours on the rolling road, i meassured the total intake length from the back of the valve to the end of the trumpet,

it was exactly the same length as the exhaust primaries.

of coarse going turbo put a stop to all this intake tuning, shame, although i did wonder about ram pipes and induction tubes on the turbo, anyone remember Torque Rams for mini's on single su's?