[Camaro#7]

Before you go crazy on Pete go and look at the Camaro 5 forum. He is the best suspension expert there is for that generation and no doubt is working on things for this generation. One of the most helpful guys there is as well.

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by Camaro#7

Before you go crazy on Pete go and look at the Camaro 5 forum. He is the best suspension expert there is for that generation and no doubt is working on things for this generation. One of the most helpful guys there is as well.

Air flow is typically not in suspension. Lol

[Tony @ Mamo Motorsports]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

I have a few hours around a flow bench including some test different brands of TBs along with OE. The numbers I have seen do not match these results.

Those numbers are right off a calibrated 1020 flowbench taken at 20" of water depression (what carbs and TB's are typically tested and evaluated at) and are right in line with what you would expect to see with an 87 mm TB. The radius plate I fabricated will increase that number some but it is a more representative test including that radius otherwise the airflow numbers would be reduced by the shearing of the air across the leading edge of the TB.

In the vehicle the air is directed straight into the TB by the tube/coupler of the CAI.....when flow testing a radius helps simulate the same conditions with air entering the TB housing smoothly. Its no different than testing an intake port of a cylinder head.....you have to use a radius plate to properly test and evaluate cylinder head intake port for all the same reasons.....if you don't air shearing across the edge will disrupt the flow entering the port and reduce the total flow significantly.

Here is some math to further back my results. In perfect conditions (air moving thru a straight tube), you will generally see 145 CFM (at a 28" pressure drop) per square inch of the item your testing. To calculate the hypothetical flow through an optimal 87 mm round straight tube requires the following to be established

87mm equals 3.43" in diameter

That nets us 9.24 sq/in in area (Pi X radius squared)

Multiplying that by the 145 CFM I mentioned earlier, in perfect conditions (round perfectly straight tube), you would have an 87 mm tube capable of flowing 1340 CFM.....however that is the formula for 28" of test depression. I flowed the TB's I recently tested at 20" because that is the more common test depression for carbs. To convert a 28" figure to a 20" figure you take the square root of 20 divided by 28 which equals .845

You multiply the 28" figure we previously established (1340 CFM) by .845 to "correct" the flow you would see at 20" and that nets us 1132 CFM IN A PERFECT SCENARIO THROUGH A STRAIGHT 87mm TUBE @ 20" of water depression.

A throttle body is not a perfectly straight tube....it has lips and contours in them to better modulate lower throttle positions so there is a slower ramp up in airflow off idle etc to better modulate the airflow moving thru the engine at part throttle. A properly ported TB is alot smoother and has a larger cross sectional area than a stock unmodified TB and that's how you go from 850 CFM or so (stock) to the 1000 CFM a properly ported unit can flow which isn't bad considering the most an 87 mm straight tube is capable of flowing is only slightly higher at the 1132 CFM (which we just established using the math calculations above).

Guys....I have dedicated the last 25 years of my life to airflow....more specifically cylinder head, intake manifold and throttle body development and design....and I am an expert in my field. I built from scratch a flow-bench in 1996 (a six month endeavor) that I still use to this day for cylinder head R&D. The reason I flowed the TB's on a 1020 SuperFlow is I needed a bench that had more capacity.....something capable of puling around 1000 CFM's at 20" of water. My "home built" bench peaks around 550 CFM or so (that's plenty for most cylinder head development) but it wasn't enough bench to get good data on a piece I knew would be approaching four digits of CFM at the test depression I wanted to use (the industry standard for carb's and TB's).

If you haven't seen the thread I recently posted where I test a handful of TB's on the flowbench (and have an interest in seeing more of the actual data) this is a great read

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=502504


I hope this removes any doubt about the validity of the testing that I conducted. I should add it took quite awhile to build that custom test fixture the TB is bolted to on the bench as well as the custom radius plate used to smooth the airflow into the TB housing. I take this stuff very seriously and take a very scientific approach to all the testing and development work I get involved in

-Tony

[Infern0]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

I have a few hours around a flow bench including some test different brands of TBs along with OE. The numbers I have seen do not match these results.

Care to share what your methods and corresponding results were?

[kttxz06]

Haha @ questioning Tony's skill set and his TBs. Hundreds, if not thousands of customers have bought his TB's. Nuff said. Game over. Move it along.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by Infern0

Care to share what your methods and corresponding results were?

They were done at the old Arrington on two different brands of ported HEMI TBs, one TB larger than stock and a stock TB. There was no gain with the ported units on the flow bench, though I do not have the actual data.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by kttxz06

Haha @ questioning Tony's skill set and his TBs. Hundreds, if not thousands of customers have bought his TB's. Nuff said. Game over. Move it along.

Thousands bought these too

[396ssrat]

Thousands buy Fords as well but that doesn't change physics one iotta.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by 396ssrat

Thousands buy Fords as well but that doesn't change physics one iotta.

Finding 15 RWHP from porting is saying the factory TB is design and execution is terrible. Twenty years ago I would be far more inclined to believe this. 10 yearss ago, maybe. Today, call me a skeptic.

[EDFHOBBIES]

Originally Posted by kttxz06

Haha @ questioning Tony's skill set and his TBs. Hundreds, if not thousands of customers have bought his TB's. Nuff said. Game over. Move it along.

Do you have your results with and with out?

[JB'sZL1]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

Finding 15 RWHP from porting is saying the factory TB is design and execution is terrible. Twenty years ago I would be far more inclined to believe this. 10 yearss ago, maybe. Today, call me a skeptic.

I was born a skeptic. And I'm still on the fence on this...a bit.

The increased responsiveness of a well ported tb is undisputed...I think. I install a ported tb on my hemi and it is undeniably quicker off the line (hp I don't know about).

But to be skeptical that the [not] best of everything with penultimate engineering is in everything auto...is just foolhardy.

The factory design and execution of the puny (easily breakable) driveshaft and wheels in the HC is well documented (as are so many things Ford). How does this jive with your skepticism that the best of everything by necessity and design goes into today's cars?

[Boo]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

They were done at the old Arrington on two different brands of ported HEMI TBs, one TB larger than stock and a stock TB. There was no gain with the ported units on the flow bench, though I do not have the actual data.

Perhaps this is a testament to the skill and efficiency of Mr. Mamo....

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by JB'sZL1

I was born a skeptic. And I'm still on the fence on this...a bit.

The increased responsiveness of a well ported tb is undisputed...I think. I install a ported tb on my hemi and it is undeniably quicker off the line (hp I don't know about).

But to be skeptical that the [not] best of everything with penultimate engineering is in everything auto...is just foolhardy.

The factory design and execution of the puny (easily breakable) driveshaft and wheels in the HC is well documented (as are so many things Ford). How does this jive with your skepticism that the best of everything by necessity and design goes into today's cars?

The efficiency of the engines is incredible. They are milking more power and efficiency out of the V8 than anyone thought possible. Hard to believe they are doing that with a poorly designed and or manufactured TB, isn't it?

As for durability, I spend an enormous amount of time at VIR. I have seen 6th gen Camaros from the rental fleets complete two and three day events with nothing more than a brake fluid change and endlink bolts in need of tightening. One of our regulars is turning Corvette like lap times in hiss stock except for brake fluid, pads, and Nordlock washers 6th Gen 1LE.

[JB'sZL1]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

The efficiency of the engines is incredible. They are milking more power and efficiency out of the V8 than anyone thought possible. Hard to believe they are doing that with a poorly designed and or manufactured TB, isn't it?

As for durability, I spend an enormous amount of time at VIR. I have seen 6th gen Camaros from the rental fleets complete two and three day events with nothing more than a brake fluid change and endlink bolts in need of tightening. One of our regulars is turning Corvette like lap times in hiss stock except for brake fluid, pads, and Nordlock washers 6th Gen 1LE.

The engineering in these vehicles is phenomenal. Not "poorly designed tb"...just not engineered to the 9th degree perhaps?

No engine oil? I thought when tracking any car, you go to a heavier weight oil...and that oil is to be changed religiously every 4 hours.