New Satchell Engineering Throttlebodies

25th January 2016, 17:40

These are available from us for only £1040 + vat! Some seriously clever work has happened over winter. I personally want to match the inlet manifold to a Titan throttlebody set.

http://www.kamracing.co.uk/car-tunin...j4-tu5jp4.html

Heres some details.....

The Satchell Engineering Throttle body kit is a collaboration between Satchell Engineering and Sandy Brown Engines, using their latest evolution of inlet tract design. With a 350mm distance from valve to trumpet lip this makes the best use of space in the Peugeot 106 engine bay, enabling effective pulse tuning optimised positioning of the injectors deliver excellent mid range power and a crisp throttle response.

The CNC machined inlet manifold internal shape has been designed for optimal flow in the transition from the Jenvey TH bodies to the port spacing. This throttlebody kit comes with 42mm butterfly bodies as standard for engines producing 150-220bhp. The inlet manifold walls can be ported out to suit bigger bodies when/if required. Location dowels are supplied to allow the bodies to sit perfectly on the manifold flange.

At the engine port end the flange has been drilled to allow fitment to the Citroen Saxo / Peugeot 106 TU5J4 16v engine as well as the Peugeot 206 / Citreon C2 TU5JP4 and TU5JP4S engines. O-ring seals allow fuss free fitting and removal.

This kit uses the Standard TU5J4 fuel Rail, Standard Injectors as near to original location, Standard Fuel Lines, and even the OEM Marelli TPS (Throttle Position Sensor) using a custom adaptor. Even the OEM throttle cable and servo pipe can be used. Jenvey fuel rails can be also used on the bodies themselves for 8 injector setups

26th January 2016, 08:50

air filter fitment?

picture fitted to car ready to run ?

trust you are supplying extra studs for fitment to tu5jp4 head --not enough fixings on that head for the wieght of t/bodies --std c2vts alloy manifold has a habit of breaking studs--or at least reccomending the head is drilled for more

26th January 2016, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

air filter fitment?

picture fitted to car ready to run ?

trust you are supplying extra studs for fitment to tu5jp4 head --not enough fixings on that head for the wieght of t/bodies --std c2vts alloy manifold has a habit of breaking studs--or at least reccomending the head is drilled for more

There is more pictures of these on Satchell engineering Facebook page, including ones with these fitted to an engine in the engine bay.

26th January 2016, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

air filter fitment?

picture fitted to car ready to run ?

trust you are supplying extra studs for fitment to tu5jp4 head --not enough fixings on that head for the wieght of t/bodies --std c2vts alloy manifold has a habit of breaking studs--or at least reccomending the head is drilled for more

Do you really think they haven't considered everything before spending 7 hours to machine a 15kg lump of billet?

26th January 2016, 19:25

Someones getting soft in their old age.... axsaxoman- normally your WAY better at patronising and belittling Sandy and the Satch boys efforts...

C'mon you can do better... critisise the angle of flow or the shape of the trumpets???

26th January 2016, 20:41

Looks lovely bit of kit, who doesn't like a bit of billet

26th January 2016, 21:24

I love the fucking banter between company's ��

27th January 2016, 11:08

Thanks for you thoughts John, air filter fitment was a crucial part of the design process, the point of this kit was to solve the common problems all the other kits present, both for installation, and tract shape/length versatility; otherwise there was no point in going to the trouble we did. Here's a picture of the kit fitted on a 106 GTI to illustrate how much room there is around it, even at 350mm tract length, also note the servo pipe clips on directly, the fuel rail fits with the original pipe location and the original cable fits perfectly merely shortened slightly and supplied end fitted:

As for the studs for JP4s, they can be supplied if required, but they aren't necessary if the manifold is fitted and torqued correctly in my experience. Example: Jack Thorne's SB1600 engined C2 Rallycross car used our GSXR twin injector JP4 kit, which is heavier than the new kit and went a whole season without any sealing problems or stud breakages on the standard fixings, with the same flange thickness as the new kit; I'd like to drop in that he won the MSA British Super1600 championship outright too! Here's a circuit I believe you know a bit, to illustrate the level of violence it was subjected to, far more severe than a typical customer for a kit:

YouTubeKnockhill

The red Corsa is RWD 2 litre supercharged by the way, in the class above, but he beat it anyway.

27th January 2016, 11:48

Beaten to a reply...but pictures are on our shop as well. Just click the link in my original post.

I think realistically Colin and Sandy are in the unique position where they have tried and tested every kit on the market. Every previous kit has its pluses but also its flaws (Including Colins original designs). If the bigger companies are happy enough with their product its impossible to get them to redesign their kits to get more out of the TU engines so you either have to use something thats 'good enough' or stand up and build something better. I've never known Sandy or Colin to ever stop looking for a better solution with anything they get hold of.

28th January 2016, 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by slammed106

Someones getting soft in their old age.... axsaxoman- normally your WAY better at patronising and belittling Sandy and the Satch boys efforts...

C'mon you can do better... critisise the angle of flow or the shape of the trumpets???

you need to get a life --
I simply asked questions that needed answers --as for patronising --i have never done that and any discussion me and sandy have had has been on purely technical grounds ,the fine points which are usally lost on or of no consquence to the majority of customers .
.
you want me to make a comment-- he has now addressed the problems of using as many std parts as possible -- which i did many years ago with the ATP bodies ,which no other kit till now had taken the time to address.
so yes he s catching up .lol for the road market.

28th January 2016, 09:03

sandy-- maybe i just like belt and braces --i see a problem and never forget +make sure it don,t happen again --in such a job another hour to fit some more studs is well worth the extra confidence of a known problem being cured--just my view

it allows for human problems

28th January 2016, 09:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenPUG106

Do you really think they haven't considered everything before spending 7 hours to machine a 15kg lump of billet?

the answer to that question is in my reply -- if they think that once in the realworld the users will do everything perfectly,then sandy is not the man i think he is -- building in a good safety margin cannot be wrong --
it was only an observation born out of experience -- nothing i have said is in anyway derogatory to the design or saying it won,t work well

30th January 2016, 00:27

That don't make much sense, tbh you seem a little bitter. There is nothing wrong with these bodies and the last lot took a handfull and lasted, these are stronger.
Also as we are picking holes in eachother, if you're going to quote something at least spell it right!

*bullshit

30th January 2016, 19:18

What he's saying is its hard to design the perfect product as there are always compromising when designing and manufacturing. Theres been many throttlebody kits manufactured over the years and all have good and bad points for one reason or another. Even Colins last version he is aware had flaws.
I'll throw in the off the shelf aftermarket manifolds as another example - flawed by the fact they have to join to the exhaust system at the standard point...

31st January 2016, 09:33

It's much easier to use extra studs along the top on JP4s with our design than most others, since it's accurately double drilled J4+JP4, so anyone that thinks they might face more severe conditions than that Rallycross car or has to compensate for a known lack of fitting skill they freely admit to, can follow John's advice. Splitting hairs detracts from the facts, unlike other kits that claim to, the fuel rail and pipes do fit properly without modification, the TPS is in range of the OE loom plug for people who want to wire it that way, the throttle cable fits, the air filters fit easily and above all the tract design will give a mid range response that other kits mentioned can't get near due to brake bar collision. All in all the benefits of designing a kit on a car, rather than a head on a bench; combined with a decade of using virtually all the kits available and developing the best and most successful N/A TUs in the UK.

8th February 2016, 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenPUG106

Do you really think they haven't considered everything before spending 7 hours to machine a 15kg lump of billet?

You'd have thought BMW would have CONSIDERED EVERYTHING before releasing their bread and butter 2 litre turbo petrol engines in every single model across their range.

Guess what? The cranks are all chewing up the thrust bearings because somebody there hadn't CONSIDERED what the clutch thrust force on dry thrust bearings will do with no oil pressure on them when you crank the engine (for which you have to press the clutch)

OOPS! Well, what can you expect from such a small manufacturer?

John has a very valid point, There's a lot of mass a long way from the engine. It will have a resonant frequency well within the ranges of those found in a running engine. Ask a Sierra Cosworth owner with an education (if there indeed are any) why they keep ripping exhaust manifold studs out of the head when the exhaust vibration damper is worn out?

Resonant waves can break a crank and shear a flywheel off, I'm sure they can pull some M6 studs out of ally casting too after a bit of time, don't you?

Even with studs at the top of the intake I would expect that a steady bracket either across to the cam carrier or down to the block will be needed. Perhaps a change of the CAD program to add a lug or two to mount steady brackets to might be considered?

I too, am soft in my old age.

They do look nice though. :-)

9th February 2016, 08:48

yank tanks had same problem ,cos on older yank cars you had to press the clutch to engage starter--when they had "stick gear change"
a yank safety device? --my guess is bmw had to do it for american market

9th February 2016, 15:56

They no doubt did, but given they knew that's where they knew they'd be selling cars they'd have done something about the problem such as a neutral sensor in the gearbox instead.

BMW, along with Mercedes and VAG have very seriously lost their way I'm afraid.

11th February 2016, 08:03

Wow, I'm quite surprised how determined you guys are to find fault in this kit John and Wayne. But in case some people reading this who don't know better and choose to disregard my example of our experience shown above; think your points are valid; I've wasted some time to demonstrate a little reality...

The force acting on the flange will be a function of the moment of inertia, which can be approximated by balancing the flange on a fixed point and weighing each configuration the same ditance from the flange on the horizontal plane (200mm in each case here). The results are as follows:

Standard JP4 plenum:

Satchell/SB/Jenvey kit:

Jenvey SF kit from one of my older race engines:

Satch/SB GSXR race twin injector kit, like the one on the rallycross car above:

If the 30 gram (less than 2%) difference between this kit and the original JP4 plenum worries you or you're not convinced that the hugely increased inertia and vibration (solid mounted) but reliable rallycross car is a tough enough test, I'm sure a pointless brace could be made up for you.

11th February 2016, 08:41

no sandy i have notsaid any more than i did to start with -- and if wayne has same thoughts as me --thats his perogative
it s not fault in design anyway -- its just we like belt +braces.
the first c2 vts had a brace bar on the alloy manifold as a point of fact
it was when they stopped fitting it there were problems ---
you could be totally correct and may never cause a problem
just you have the fixing holes already so i would use them personally .

A great pity you did not do a meaningful comparison with the much heavier alloy c2 vts manifold +t/body maybe the weights wdif would be more convincing--+ of curse you have no air filter weight on there

and not the light plastic one which never had a problem + never needed steady bar.
I am not slagging the set -up just a simple observation + it was wayne not me that mentioned the steady bar -I would be happy with more fixings same as saxo vts head not the jp4 which has no upper fixings

anyway all these posts must be be good advertising keeping it in the public eye

11th February 2016, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

A great pity you did not do a meaningful comparison with the much heavier alloy c2 vts manifold +t/body maybe the weights wdif would be more convincing

and not the light plastic one which never had a problem + never needed steady bar.

Am i missing something here....

If the billet+body setup weighed similar to the "much heavier" alloy inlet i can understand your reasoning...

But...

It weighs very similar to the plastic setup that "never had a problem"

11th February 2016, 10:37

Can anyone remember a catastrophic stud failure on a TU?

Comparing ITB's hanging off a head to a GT35 turbo.....there's a huge difference in weight, heat, vibration etc

11th February 2016, 12:10

Way out of my budget right now, but they're an absolute work of art...

11th February 2016, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by deano_123

Can anyone remember a catastrophic stud failure on a TU?

Comparing ITB's hanging off a head to a GT35 turbo.....there's a huge difference in weight, heat, vibration etc

on a c2 tu5jp4 -- with only studs at bottom and at ouside top-- no top centre ones --yes
,had lots of c2 vts when we were cit dealer with them snapping studs in head on inlet side--all under warranty --warranty fix was dump paper gasket and use adhesive/sealer on manifold +replace studs
saxo head stud pattern is dif than c2 head --
on a saxo head --no never it has 3 more studs holding manifold on.
turbo manifold is held on with 10 x8mm studs c2tu5jp4 inlet is 6 x6mm studs -- saxo vts has 9 x6mm studs

11th February 2016, 21:05

It's not just the vertical weight either, so the measurements with the scales are almost meaningless really, it's the position of the C of G and it's distance from the fixings. The intake is pretty straight, so the C of G is going to be further from the engine than the stock intake because it's a straight line and nut curved.

The Formula 3 Toyota engines used to actually snap the intake flange off because of the mass of the intake hanging off the motor, and don't forget those engines were solidly mounted to the tub so the whole car was a mass that needed to be accelerated (vibrations are actually reciprocal accelerations).

Your design may be fine but I, along with John, would be very surprised if you don't have some issues.

It might be worth speaking to Steve Smith at 'Vibration Free', he's very clued up with such things. You'll need to take some mass measurements of the engine total with gearbox (because that's the lump that's being 'wiggled about' by the masses inside thrashing round), the rods end to end, and the pistons and he'll need to know the stroke to calculate the reciprocal and rotational accelerations taking place. Apply those accelerations to the mass of the intake at the C of G position and you'll be able to work out what sort of forces are acting on the studs. You'll also need to work out what the geometry of the engine mounting is because, just like suspension, your engine mount have a 'rotational centre', which for suspension would be your 'instantaneous roll centre'

I'm not in the business of making intakes, so I'm not trying to rubbish your product. In fact, I hope you sell a zillion of them because I'll no doubt end up with some work of mapping the Stock ECU to suit them. Especially so if they accept the stock TPS because on three-plug ECUs that would save me having to make an internal modification to use a conventional 'resistive' potentiometer instead of the hall proximity type sensor that the stock intake uses.

:-)

11th February 2016, 21:08

Forgot to mention, you'll need to work out the polar moment of inertia of the crank assembly too, so crank, flywheel, pulley and clutch....

12th February 2016, 06:27

Measuring the weight at the point I did, neatly summarises the CoG position relative to the fixed end, you need to think about that a bit more and you’ll see what I'm getting at. Taking full account of the complex relationship between the vibration sources and mass distribution of the entire structure is beyond the scope of most manufacturers' testing unless a specific problem is realised. Your cursory look at our design and anecdotes about engines that are textbook examples of extreme "NVH" problems aren't adding any useful science to this discussion. What is much more relevant, is the vast amount of experience and pedigree in this specific area of development,incorporated in our design.
I'm genuinely surprised by this Wayne and not entirely sure what your motive is to be honest. I regret to say that few days ago, I had a much higher opinion of you.

12th February 2016, 08:28

why you so paranoid ?--
it was a very simple observation I made
which you already have the solution for with the sxo studholes already in your manifold --
to spend less than an hour to fit 3 extra studs is less time than has been spent arguing about this for a definate no problem installation -- no more to say on this subject

12th February 2016, 08:30

to wayne --
the formulae 3 engines would have used a cast manifold in those days --so not as strong as billet --- so that could have been part of the problem --

12th February 2016, 14:18

So in summary.
This is not a known problem with these kits but a potential issue with every aftermarket throttlebody kit on the market as well as the original alloy inlet manifold.
Its nearly as light as the newer OE plastic VTS inlet.
Cars with the heavier throttlebodies design have not snapped studs, but there are some extra holes available should you want to add extra for piece of mind.
If you are concerned your car is going to be used in a really extreme environment then make a clamp or extra supports but - its deemed light enough and is un-necessary by its designers.

12th February 2016, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

you already have the solution for with the sxo studholes already in your manifold

Exactly - there's absolutely no flaw whatsoever with this product in that respect. So I don't understand why are people are suggesting it needs a balance bar?

If the buyer wants to run this setup on a JP4 head without drilling the 3 extra holes (I assumed 99% of people using a JP4 head in a Saxo/ 106 did this anyway?!), then it's at their risk, however negligible it may be.

I think it's a quality looking product and it deserves encouragement, not criticism - how many people are still actively developing stuff like this for these cars/ engines? Can't be many at all.

12th February 2016, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

to wayne --
the formulae 3 engines would have used a cast manifold in those days --so not as strong as billet --- so that could have been part of the problem --

They were CNC'd John.

I'm leaving this bunch of ignorants to it now, you try and highlight a potential issue and instead of actually looking at it properly with some actual scientific calculations they express how their opinions of me has fallen. Sour grapes for some reason, it's not as if I make or sell a competitive product is it?

Laters

13th February 2016, 09:44

Its just a passionate response to the highlighting of a issue that from his experience is not relevant to this kit. Sandy takes criticism personally. Thats just what he's like.

I think we will all get over this with a little counselling. I'm booked for Tuesday...

14th February 2016, 17:46

I see the C2 S1600s have five bolts across the top of the inlet manifold, obviously Citroen Sport actually did the sums first...

14th February 2016, 18:33

How long do you expect to have these on sale?
I would die to get a set, but I recently lost my job due to an accident so I'm a bit short on cash for the next couple of months :/

Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk

15th February 2016, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chipwizards

I see the C2 S1600s have five bolts across the top of the inlet manifold, obviously Citroen Sport actually did the sums first...

thats good enough for me--and what we said all along

15th February 2016, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chipwizards

I see the C2 S1600s have five bolts across the top of the inlet manifold, obviously Citroen Sport actually did the sums first...

http://www.ponda.cz/en/revize-zavodnich-aut

With the huge all ally plenum yeah???

15th February 2016, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

thats good enough

15th February 2016, 12:43

Lets keep this on topic and civil please, otherwise I will just delete the thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimix

How long do you expect to have these on sale?
I would die to get a set, but I recently lost my job due to an accident so I'm a bit short on cash for the next couple of months :/

Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk

They are not a special edition item. Get yourself a new job and these will be available still.

K.

15th February 2016, 14:03

not made to be lightweight -- but bullet proof for the gravel rally men --with a simply replacable outer joint--when they hit a log --only will damge the joint most times --not the whole arm --so it costs £15 to replace the joint +can be done in 10mins at service point --make no apology for them what so ever --never meant to be pretty+ with metal elastic bush at the back and a very large,much wider, sealed spheric joint from an OE fitment --not vauxhall , at front will not need replacing every few events + make clunking noises like the normal joints used in competiton arms --cos they use the £20 priced ones not the top quality £80+ a joint

16th February 2016, 06:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chipwizards

I'm leaving this bunch of ignorants to it now, you try and highlight a potential issue and instead of actually looking at it properly with some actual scientific calculations they express how their opinions of me has fallen. Sour grapes for some reason, it's not as if I make or sell a competitive product is it?

Ignorance is failing to acknowledge the huge amount of experience and data we have from designing, making, testing and developing ITB inlet packages on these engines specifically for a long time. All of the heaviest type GSXR ITB kits shown bar one, have been on my engines, which all come back to me for rebuilds, so I get to know all the weaknesses and review the designs when necessary to resolve them. making stuff that works, wins and improves my reputation is far more important to me than selling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chipwizards

I see the C2 S1600s have five bolts across the top of the inlet manifold, obviously Citroen Sport actually did the sums first...

I've not seen a genuine S1600 that hasn't been modified, but here are a few pics of a C2R2 Max engine (that uses the huge alloy inlet) I was given to strip and inspect a couple years back. It does not have the extra 3 M6 along the top (which may have been added to any you've seen).

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

Lets keep this on topic and civil please, otherwise I will just delete the thread...

We should yes, but please leave it up so that people can see how obsessively John and Wayne have kept on tearing at this non issue; in a way that certainly feels quite personal to me.
As I mentioned long ago, it's no great shakes to add the extra studs if desired, we'll supply the studs if requested. Trying to calculate the probable forces induced by resonance in the assembly, would only be possible using very complex modelling, that manufacturers would only treat as a starting point for testing anyway. We have more than enough accumulated experience in this area, to make accurate projections about the required strength and that has been incorporated into this design.