22re lcengineering throttle body spacer
#1
22re lcengineering throttle body spacer
any body got any experience with the LC Engineering Throttle Body Spacer Kit? a friend of mine has a throttle body spacer on his dodge and he said its action! thanks
#4
Contributing Member
Makes a good paper weight.
In your reference, what does "he said its action" mean??? God, I must be getting old, and I haven't even hit my 30's yet.
In your reference, what does "he said its action" mean??? God, I must be getting old, and I haven't even hit my 30's yet.
#5
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Milan, IL
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read that throttle bodies can be somewhat effective. But it depends on what motor. Probably wont make a difference on the 22re because its not really starving for a better air, fuel mixture. I had one on a 4.3 in a '89 S10 and it seemed to help a bit. I doubt you'll ever get more than one or two ponies and a extra mile out of a tank.
#7
Registered User
adding a spacer behind the throttle changes the tuning of the intake system in regards to how the resonance of the pulses in the manifold cause positive pressure waves that can aid in cylinder filling at a particular engine speed.
Do a google search using the terms; tuned intake manifold , and check out how this works.
It is likely that adding a spacer would have very little effect at best, and could actually tune the system to a less beneficial engine speed and hurt actual performance.
Either way the effect would be minimum.
Do a google search using the terms; tuned intake manifold , and check out how this works.
It is likely that adding a spacer would have very little effect at best, and could actually tune the system to a less beneficial engine speed and hurt actual performance.
Either way the effect would be minimum.
Trending Topics
#8
Registered User
I think the larger the displacement the more effective they are but still minimal at best. If you were to do a bored out throttle body, a spacer, a k&n or similar intake, a header, freeflow cat, and good exhaust you would notice a difference, but IME adding one thing at a time doesn't really show any instant improvement. The only engine I know of that a spacer was somewhat noticeable was my buddies 4.0 HO in his Heep.
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bend, OR.
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the larger the displacement the more effective they are but still minimal at best. If you were to do a bored out throttle body, a spacer, a k&n or similar intake, a header, freeflow cat, and good exhaust you would notice a difference, but IME adding one thing at a time doesn't really show any instant improvement. The only engine I know of that a spacer was somewhat noticeable was my buddies 4.0 HO in his Heep.
#12
Registered User
I'd be willing to put money down that this spacer does absolutely nothing for HP.. There are better ways to waste.. I mean spend money..
#14
Registered User
Proper tune up - valves in spec.
Advance the timing a bit, 2-3 degrees.
Unfortunately, with 100-125hp, there just isn't a lot of free power in these things... :-)
#16
Registered User
I disagree, we've got factory 2.4L motors putting down 285 hp now (see the new SRT Caliber) - perfectly reliable. Perhaps not an apples to apples statement...
Search for "mods" advice for the best bang for your buck on these things.. I do agree with above, however, than unless you really dump some money into them (like crazy money) that the best you can hope for is 10-20% improvement.
Search for "mods" advice for the best bang for your buck on these things.. I do agree with above, however, than unless you really dump some money into them (like crazy money) that the best you can hope for is 10-20% improvement.
#19
Registered User
Doesn't the new Corvette put down over 500hp with around 6.0L?
I like the Cummins engines too - real work horses.. They're cheating though, increased volumetric efficiency because they're feeding it at least 2 atmospheres of air (turbo charged).
Sure beats the heck out of late 1970s and early 1980s power outputs for the same size of motors...
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 2,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 07+ Tundra puts down 381 hp and slightly over 400 ft/lbs. That ain't bad as it's emission legal... It gets 14-18 miles per hour based on realistic ratings.
Doesn't the new Corvette put down over 500hp with around 6.0L?
I like the Cummins engines too - real work horses.. They're cheating though, increased volumetric efficiency because they're feeding it at least 2 atmospheres of air (turbo charged).
Sure beats the heck out of late 1970s and early 1980s power outputs for the same size of motors...
Doesn't the new Corvette put down over 500hp with around 6.0L?
I like the Cummins engines too - real work horses.. They're cheating though, increased volumetric efficiency because they're feeding it at least 2 atmospheres of air (turbo charged).
Sure beats the heck out of late 1970s and early 1980s power outputs for the same size of motors...
Yeah...the corvette gets pretty good gas mileage too!