Throttle Body Size, Blown Application

For discussing injector selection,manifold modifications, throttle bodies, fuel supply system design and construction, and FIdle valves and IACs.
Forum rules
Read the manual to see if your question is answered there before posting. Many users will not reply if the answer is already available in the manual.

If your question is about troubleshooting, configuration, or tuning, you MUST include your processor type (MS-I or MS-II) and code version in your post. If your question is about PCB assembly or modifications, you must also include the main board version number (1.01, 2.2 or 3.0).

If you have questions about MS1/Extra or MS2/Extra code configuration or tuning, please post them at www.msextra.com Such questions posted here will be moved to: a temporary MSextra sub-forum, where they will be removed after 7 days

The full forum rules are here: Forum Rules, be sure to read them all regularly.
Post Reply
JAM
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati,OH

Throttle Body Size, Blown Application

Post by JAM »

We seem to have some concern deteriming a good throttle body diameter
for a blown Ford Flathead that we are building. Here are the details:

271 C.I V8 Flathead

Front-draft (crank driven) Detroit 3-71

~8 of boost (max)

2 Throttle bodies

*Previous research we have found on similar Flatheads shows we need around 750CFM to flow through the throttle blades without causing resrictions*

I have found info on NA engines, but I realize that boost is a different situation. We also dont want to over do the size as to not cause the related probs.

If you have any info on the topic, or examples of throttle plates on
engines with boost let me know.
Thanks :D
Uncle Bob
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:37 pm

Post by Uncle Bob »

as a general rule, you use the same throttle body size you would use for a non-blown engine of simular calibar.

For example, a "reasonable" turbo'd V8 (stock 350 SBC for example) engine will usually be happiest with a 600CFM carb. An extreme turbo'd V8, will be 800+ CFM.

I don't know what your HP goal is, but I would base it off what the engine is capable of NA. Its easy to get confused on the difference between CFM on a boosted engine, because CFM doesn't represent the pressure and velocity of the air charge.
Ryan
ryanlangford@q.com

Three turbo'd bikes and counting
bobnova
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:45 pm

Post by bobnova »

It makes a fairly large difference whether the throttle bodies are before the blower, or after the blower.

If they are before it, treat them exactly the same as on a n/a engine making the same amount of power (BIG!), if they are after it, it isn't nearly as important, as you can push a lot more air through a given size TB then you can pull it.
'89 Honda Prelude 2.0SI 4ws
'76 Triumph TR7 fhc, soon to have ITB's and MSnS-e
JAM
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati,OH

Post by JAM »

The throttle bodies are before the blower, so i assume that making them slightly larger would be better than making them smaller. Is there a conversion from estimated CFM to TB bore diameter?
JAM
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati,OH

Post by JAM »

P.S.
We are looking at up to 300 H.P., and running 2 x 2.5 inch Throttle Blades.

Any Feedback?
Big Creek
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 3:55 pm
Location: Victor Montana

Post by Big Creek »

That should be more than enough.

http://www.megasquirt.info/v22manual/minj.htm#throttle

Todd
1979 Porsche 924, 2.0L 4cyl, 1.6L Whipple SuperCharger, MS-I V2.2, MJLJ, MSnS 029q2
JAM
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati,OH

Post by JAM »

Does anybody think that this will be overkill and cause drivability probs?
Jack
MegaSquirt Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Washington State - the wet side

Post by Jack »

JAM wrote:Does anybody think that this will be overkill and cause drivability probs?
You can stage the two TB's with a progressive linkage, so you start on one and the other comes on later, but faster, with both gettng to full opening together.

Jack
1960 Triumph TR3 - To be squirted soon
1980 Triumph TR8 - Success story: http://www.msruns.com/viewtopic.php?p=142363#142363
JAM1

Post by JAM1 »

I think that is the way we are going to do it, we were forced to do that on an intake we made for drivabilty issues. A large number of large blades makes for dificult drivability any other way than progressive linkage, which can get a little tricky. Thanks for the input.
Post Reply