New throttle body spacer from Vararam - my thoughts...

[LIM3]

are these compatible with the LLT ?

[sales@vararam.com]

Originally Posted by RacnJsn95

Are these on the market yet, I don't see them on the VR website? I'm not completely sold on the idea of a throttle body spacer that actually does something, but I see the theory behind this one... I wouldn't mind testing one on the dyno when I go to do more intake testing here in the near future.

Very soon!!!

[MA2010SS]

Originally Posted by stieger

When you are at WOT, the ECM says the throttle is at 88%. I'll bet $20 that this "spacer" will correct it so that it reads 100% at WOT.

You can flame them all you want, but I know Vararam wouldn't have invested/built these if they didn't work.

Found this as to why the throttle reads 88%

http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showth...throttle+88%25

[infernostripes!]

Originally Posted by litle88

Guys please, both are really worthless! It's called new car(new suckers) tax and its an abuse, I wish these companies would pop up on Ls1tech.com !! Please stop falling pray to these products. I can't believe Vararam would even bring this product up. But hey theres a fool born everyday I guess.

Ive talked to a lot of trust worthy people/ shop owners like some staff from JDP motorsports who do say the the vmax throttle body will help with throttle response and maybe 4-5hp. I don't see why anyone would be a fool to buy a Vmax. If you have the money, want to dress up the engine bay, and gain some hp and throttle response then so be it.

If the spacer's performance can be proven on a dyno I wouldn't mind buying one and I do not think that would make me fool.

[IndeedSS1]

Originally Posted by stieger

When you are at WOT, the ECM says the throttle is at 88%. I'll bet $20 that this "spacer" will correct it so that it reads 100% at WOT.

You can flame them all you want, but I know Vararam wouldn't have invested/built these if they didn't work.

I'll take that bet. Here is the reason. There is no change to the actual throttle body blade positionaing at it relates to the throttle body or the reporting to the ECM. 88% at WOT is still going to read 88%. Actual flow should increase and be seen by the MAF sensor though.

Now that I know it's a wedge and what is is supposed to do I get it. For that reason I'd probably give it a go, but that is what I do.

[Jason@JacFab]

Originally Posted by IndeedSS1

I'll take that bet. Here is the reason. There is no change to the actual throttle body blade positionaing at it relates to the throttle body or the reporting to the ECM. 88% at WOT is still going to read 88%. Actual flow should increase and be seen by the MAF sensor though.

Now that I know it's a wedge and what is is supposed to do I get it. For that reason I'd probably give it a go, but that is what I do.

That's exactly what I was thinking... the 88% is still going to be read as 88%, you're just tilting the throttle body to straighten the blade at WOT... However, as the MAF sensor is up by the airbox, would it actually sense increased flow since it's not behind the wedge? Or would it, because the blade is now straight "allowing more flow" into the engine, by in theory reducing the intake tube pressure associated with the blade not being completely straight?

Just a theory.

[IndeedSS1]

Originally Posted by RacnJsn95

That's exactly what I was thinking... the 88% is still going to be read as 88%, you're just tilting the throttle body to straighten the blade at WOT... However, as the MAF sensor is up by the airbox, would it actually sense increased flow since it's not behind the wedge? Or would it, because the blade is now straight "allowing more flow" into the engine, by in theory reducing the intake tube pressure associated with the blade not being completely straight?

Just a theory.

Right. The MAF sensor should see more airflow at the same 88% TPS, IF it works.

[csjcsj]

[BFASTNOTLAST]

Originally Posted by sales@vararam.com

Claims and validation are all we ever do, more so than any other company in the after market that we have ever seen in 10yrs . We put it in writing and back it up, thats why VRs are on the fastest cars in the country.

The TB is not what is at an angle, its the intake manifolds neck on an LS-3,LS-2 and LS-7. This is done to clear different water pump combinations as the pump is different on different cars. Thats why there are different spacers for different applications. The fast manifold has 1 inch added to its neck over the OEM LS-3 to do the same thing, add clearance for the blade to breath on the back side. That is where a lot of its flow comes from.

Upon its official rollout you will be able to see a cutaway of the intake manifold with the TB blade open with and without the wedge in place. There will also be EFI Live Logs as well as other testing data.

The results and testing are there for the world to see.
Is your car quicker at 92% VE or 100%VE? does your ported throttle body flow better at 92% or 100% VE?

So, if the fast intake has 1 inch added to the neck to improve flow why not make this spacer much thicker than it is? What am I missing?

[Birm]

Waiting on price range a results

[axis]

Originally Posted by IndeedSS1

I'll take that bet. Here is the reason. There is no change to the actual throttle body blade positionaing at it relates to the throttle body or the reporting to the ECM. 88% at WOT is still going to read 88%. Actual flow should increase and be seen by the MAF sensor though.

Now that I know it's a wedge and what is is supposed to do I get it. For that reason I'd probably give it a go, but that is what I do.

100% agree on the TP position. Not sure about the increase in flow though. Since I questioned him first, do I get half?

Originally Posted by RacnJsn95

That's exactly what I was thinking... the 88% is still going to be read as 88%, you're just tilting the throttle body to straighten the blade at WOT... However, as the MAF sensor is up by the airbox, would it actually sense increased flow since it's not behind the wedge? Or would it, because the blade is now straight "allowing more flow" into the engine, by in theory reducing the intake tube pressure associated with the blade not being completely straight?

Just a theory.

I'd have to see it in person. One would think that tilting the TB to be more "straight" wouldn't affect anything since the TB is still the same size and the intake manifold inlet is also the same size. Even if it did help a little, I don't see 10whp worth of air being free'd up. It's going to have to be independently tested for me to believe it. I've long since stopped trusting anything that VR says.

[IndeedSS1]

Originally Posted by BFASTNOTLAST

So, if the fast intake has 1 inch added to the neck to improve flow why not make this spacer much thicker than it is? What am I missing?

Doesn't seem as much about thickness as tilting the TB to optimize the opening.

[IndeedSS1]

Originally Posted by axis

100% agree on the TP position. Not sure about the increase in flow though. Since I questioned him first, do I get half?



I'd have to see it in person. One would think that tilting the TB to be more "straight" wouldn't affect anything since the TB is still the same size and the intake manifold inlet is also the same size. Even if it did help a little, I don't see 10whp worth of air being free'd up. It's going to have to be independently tested for me to believe it. I've long since stopped trusting anything that VR says.

If this works like I think, you should be able to remove your intake tube at the throttle body, turn the key on without starting, and have someone push the pedal all of the way down and have a look through into the intake manifold.

Sure you can have half of the $20.

Oh and you've missed out on the one intake better than the Halltech w/scoop by holding on to that VR grudge thing.

[BFASTNOTLAST]

Originally Posted by IndeedSS1

Doesn't seem as much about thickness as tilting the TB to optimize the opening.

I'm following the compensation of tilting the TB but why not add to the area of the throat like the fast intake. Is there anything to be gained here with the old school thinking of added spacer to under the carb. Although Fuel injection may have no effect as to where the TB is or how far from the runners it is. Anyone have insight on this?