Dyno graph of ITBs compared to 1TB on cams anyone?

4th October 2012, 09:32

Does anyone has a Dyno graph comparing cammed tu5j4 (708/743/ph3) with ITBs and with single unit?

Really interesting to see the curve differences! Should expect impressive mid-range gains?

4th October 2012, 22:20

Don't know about mid-range but top end you're looking at about a 6-7bhp gain.

5th October 2012, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoshB

Don't know about mid-range but top end you're looking at about a 6-7bhp gain.

The change in midrange with bodies is more significant than peak bhp.

Not sure if many will have before and after graphs as most do it all I'm one hit.

5th October 2012, 06:13

Depends heavily on the bodies/inlet design used, different kits perform vastly differently. How well set up it is will also impact the results. Very difficult to make true comparisons unless a thorough approach is taken and it rarely is in sales led comparisons.

5th October 2012, 06:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy309

Depends heavily on the bodies/inlet design used, different kits perform vastly differently. How well set up it is will also impact the results. Very difficult to make true comparisons unless a thorough approach is taken and it rarely is in sales led comparisons.

Hmmm... That just confirms the idea from this post in this thread and all that really put me off of ITB's...

Taking into account I live far abroad making a custom one from UK citr/pug gurus is not possible, and here I can get only Pug Sport ITBs which need body cutting and that is not possible on road legal car...

So it appears to be no real sense in Jenvey or AT Power ITBs on mild cams?
May be GSXR setup with the custom inlet from you would work?

Or it is better to put off the ITBs idea till I am ready for a forged pistons + wild cam setup?

Pity. The idea of mid range gains was really interesting for a track and especially sprint car...

5th October 2012, 18:07

My post above is cautious and reluctant, because you are so far away and I know that a massive discussion, that's been had many times, is going to happen if I post what I really think.

I have proved on numerous occasions that a well designed TB kit can work very well in the Saxo/106 engine bay, on both 8v and 16v engines; standard or modified, but it needs to be done right. As has been said, the noise alone can make the change worthwhile, but if you want a delivery with guts and a genuine improvement over the standard inlet; you need an ITB inlet design that suits the engine well and good mapping. The results I've seen (my own and independent) bear out the considerable amount of development and evolution we've put into our GSXR kits and manifolds for DCOE pattern bodies, putting them well clear of the other kits currently available, it's been proven back to back on the same engines. I don't sell or make anything from these items, for me it's simply the pride of what I've produced and Colin Satchell, who makes them, is under considerable pressure in other areas of engineering/production, so it's becoming very difficult to support the demand or even reply to the enquiries.
All this suggests, I should just shut the **** up about it, but it still bothers me, after all these years, that opinions about what TBs can do are spoilt by poorly designed and developed products in performance terms.

6th October 2012, 16:12

Sandy speaks sense... I think Nicks engine proved your point Sandy (if you get my drift)

6th October 2012, 16:46

Thing is most companies just want to make money, so dont put the effort in you have to actually find a solution that works.. And works well,

The sooner big names can fill the shelves the better in most cases these days