andreus009 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I have a friend with a 2004 Nissan Frontier. He just installed a throttle body spacer on his intake, and said he noticed an improvement in torque between 2000-3000 rpm. The spacer is made by Airaid (www.airaid.com), and costs about $100. Well, they don't make one for the 1990-1995 Pathfinders, but I figure if they get multiple requests by us enthusiasts they'll come up with one. So if you are interested and want them to produce this product for us 90-95er's email them at airaidinfo@airaid.com and show your interest in this product. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statikuz Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 (edited) we've tried that with K&N intakes, if its not a newer vehicle, unless they get probably thousands of requests, they won't bother going out and finding a 90-95 pathy to design an intake (or whatever) for. throttle body spacers are covered here: http://npora.ipbhost.com//index.php?showto...%22tb+spacer%22 you can build yourself one for a lot less than $100 (just like you can build yourself a K&N intake for a lot less than they would charge you i love some of these product descriptions =) "As the intake air passes through the spacer, the Helix bore creates a vortex action that improves atomization creating a more complete combustion and an efficiently burning engine." on an entirely different topic, i love this page: http://www.wholly-water.com/magnetizer/sup....fuel.saver.htm One oxygen energizer converts the intake air to provide more oxygen in a negative ionized polarity. Two fuel energizers are added to the fuel line. This breaks up the hydrocarbon chains while ionizing the fuel to a positive polarity. One coolant energizer is for the lower radiator hose. This buffers the coolant pH, making it less corrosive; ionizes it positive; dissolves mineral buildup in the water jacket and radiator, making better heat transfer for a cooler running engine. Also, lowers the surface tension of the coolant and aligns the molecules - +, cutting friction and back pressure of the flow. Edited January 1, 2006 by statikuz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88pathoffroad Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 All I gotta say is I want to see definite increases on repeated dyno results on at least two different vehicles that says a TB spacer does ONE thing for power. I don't think they do crap. There's no reason for them to. There's no physics there. Ask a physicist if the nearside upper intake volume being increased by a cylindrical 1 inch spacer should make ONE bit of difference in the engine's production of power. The answer is no, it's not enough of a difference to make up for the cost. They'd sell those for 39 cents if they only went by the amount of power they supposedly help create... Just my 2 cents worth. Can anyone dig up the science that supposedly makes TB spacers work? Let's see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 (edited) The longer the chamber the better the CFM the better the performance. It is the same as a highrise manifold. An Edelbrock performance manifold is a good example to work off. They don't make them for nothing now do they? As to whether you can make one that is a mathamatical match to your car, so as to optimise performance...... That's another story. Just found this.... They also do throttle body stuff. If you read this, it will explain a little better about what I meant by matching. But I am certain you will get an improvement if it is done right. Edited January 2, 2006 by Vsicks Pathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statikuz Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 and the battle is on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 and the battle is on Battle for what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statikuz Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 whether or not throttlebody spacers are worth their salt. we have 2 for and 2 against. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88pathoffroad Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Good points Vsicks, I just mean that the TB spacer by itself is no miracle worker...don't expect any seat-of-the-pants power gains from adding one by itself. I bet 99.9% of the power gains on the Jeep in the test you gave a link to was from the new complete air intake. I bet if they took off the spacer it'd still dyno the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Well, I'm not an engine guru but from what I know, the gains only matter with some engine set ups, and little at that... 88 has a spacer, but that is more for evening out the fuel spread to all cylinders (maybe hoping for a boost), right ? But thats due to 2 injectors for 6 cylinders and less than optimum equal feed ? With our set up (MPI) I could see a slight gain over throttle lag due to the restrictive intake with the larger air space lessening sudden intake pressure drop, but after that, it equals out. If you pull the intake to put on a spacer, I think porting would make about 300% the difference the spacer would make, although the spacer may help slightly. Then still, if you have not increased the intake capacity... Then still, if you have not worked over the restrictive stock manifolds/installed headers (and better exhaust)... Most of what i know is from motorcycles, but all motors are air pumps (with fuel mixed in) as I understand it. Some have different set ups that can be tweaked in different ways. I understand that the Pathy is set up very restrictive which allows mild gains with just air intake and exhaust mods, but thats also what allows the engine to run a long time... Like any chain, the weakest link is what holds you back. I seriously doubt that a "Thorttle body spacer" will be worth the effort without playing with a lot of other components... B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimGreg Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 The weak link in the MPIs is the MAFS and TB opening. Unless you swap to ones with a larger bore(not a simple swap). You aren't changing much by spacing the MPI TB, you could put a 5' pipe between the intake and the TB but the TB will still let in the same amount of air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest psyopper Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 The weak link in the MPIs is the MAFS and TB opening. Unless you swap to ones with a larger bore(not a simple swap). You aren't changing much by spacing the MPI TB, you could put a 5' pipe between the intake and the TB but the TB will still let in the same amount of air. I was writing a very long explanation of why this would help but I only frustrated myself because there is more information that I am ready to explain. Instead I'll let someone else do it for me. Google "Volumetric Efficiency Engine Intake" and you will probably get all the answers you are looking for on the subject. The answer is not qabout how much air the TB lets in, it's about the mass of air upon which a cylinder can draw upon. The TB restricts that amount of air (which keeps the engine from immediately redlining when you start it up), but the mass of air behind the throttle body is where the enfficiency is at lower RPM's. At higher RPM's that spacer will have a detrimental effect on efficiency. It 's for this reason (volumentric Efficiency, aka Ve) that we have variable intake valve timing and variable length intake runners on high performance engines in cars where that matters. These things don't really matter in the world of every day use 4x4 trucks where 1/4 mile trap speeds and 0-60 times mean nothing. In our world ground clearance, approach and departure angles and gear ratios are where the money is. Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelmanLS1 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 It doesn't matter if it really works or not. If we get it and it feels like it works, then we're happy and we can pretend it works. I'm sorry, that contributed nothing to this thread but it had to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 It doesn't matter if it really works or not. If we get it and it feels like it works, then we're happy and we can pretend it works. I'm sorry, that contributed nothing to this thread but it had to be said. Perhaps you did not contribute anything, but you explained a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimGreg Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 It doesn't matter if it really works or not. If we get it and it feels like it works, then we're happy and we can pretend it works. I'm sorry, that contributed nothing to this thread but it had to be said. Why they still sell those Tornados Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreus009 Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 Well, if they won't make one for me, I will probably try to make one myself. The bore is not a straight through though. It's more like a 1/4" deep thread. The one my friend installed on his Frontier was about 1/2" thick with about 4 threads. Any decent machine shop should be able to make one for not too much. The theory seems good about improving atomization of the fuel, but I must admit I am semi-skeptical about how good the "vortex" would be all the way to the cylinders. Also, i could see where this arrangement could actually have adverse effects at the higher flow rates of higher rpms. For $100 I was willing to give it a shot, and send it back if it didn't seem to improve things. The ultimate proof would be in dyno testing, but the butt dyno doesn't work all that bad if you know your rig. Thanks for all the feedback. This forum is great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patzx300 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Within the next month I will be changing my upper intake plenum, intake tube and air flow meter to a less retrictive setup from a VG33. The TC is 65mm and the MAF is considerably larger in diameter. I will do a complete write up with pics as it progresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now