Grams performance throttle body

Anyone try out this throttle body? Seems to be realtively new release.....

https://gramsperformance.com/induction/throttle-body/g09-03-0086.html

What would be the expectations of a (any) throttle body where the OEM unit is already delivering well in excess of what is required CFM-wise?

Curious. Arrington and BBK has been making 85 and 90mm (ran a 90mm on a full tilt blueprinted 5.7 based 392 striker), since the LX/LC market boomed back in around 2010, what's the consensus on running one of those as well?

I would not change my TB, with the possible exception of a ported OEM, until AFTER the warranty has expired. My engine is mostly stock anyway, and unless I were to add LT headers I have all the air I need.

A new TB is too obvious, too easy to deny warranty repair for anything internal to engine for "abuse" or "racing." You get the idea.

A ported OEM on the other hand looks stock. You have to take it off the manifold and mic it to see that its been widened at the Wide Open Throttle (WOT) position. Since its OEM up to WOT, you dont need a tune to integrate it either.

I assumed by now all the forums associated with the 3G Hemi understood the facts surrounding throttle bodies (TB)...

Any ported / machined throttle body that retains the OEM (80mm for example) butterfly and surrounding structure (to seal at idle) does not - repeat does not produce any HP / TQ gains.

Even though the entry and exit may have been modified, that original cross sectional area that has not been altered to retain functionality, dictates maximum rate-of-flow across the device. If the OEM 80mm is rated at 921CFM, so are all the ported versions.

At one time those who were peddling them tried to say Bernoulli's principle was in-play. Technically, over the 1/4" of area fore and aft of the butterfly the principle is in-play. But the act of a slight acceleration of air across this threshold (lower pressure) immediately slows back down aft of the butterfly - but now with induced turbulence (its important to realize this is also present with the OEM TBs). Anyways - I digress.

The point being on a flow bench - machined TBs show zero gain in flow. The whole reason(!) these devices do not require tuning with our speed / density - based induction systems is because(!) there is no change in cross sectional area / overall rate-of-flow! They are useless - a rip-off.

But what does happen (initially) with machined TBs is during tip-in. But only during tip-in as that slight extra air for the same (off-idle) blade angle gives a bit of a power boost because the A/F is leaner (like you've advanced the throttle more than you requested, similar to Pedal Commander, but temporary).

However, the O2 sensors pick up on the temporary lean condition and begin adding fuel across the range (you tip in at different rpm) to ST / LT fuel trims, the anomaly quickly goes away and you're back to square one (unless you constantly clear A/F adaptives by pulling B-).

Finally what is truly deceitful is that in order to claim they are "85mm", the measurement(!) is being taken from the roof in front of the butterfly and the floor(!) aft of the butterfly. To make further "enhance the erroneous measurement the upstream / downstream bores of all TBs are offset...and this value is all that is being measured!! Pretty sad. At most the actual machining process is removing 1-2mm max upstream or downstream of the butterfly.

If you do install an aftermarket TB body that does have an 85mm butterfly (they all employ OEM stepper servo / control mechanisms btw), the PCM will complain about excessive air and set a DTC. At which point you are forced to change code to - get this - make the rest of the speed-density system believe there is an OEM (80mm) TB in-play.

Even the 6.4 comes with an 80mm TB...

Hemissary said:

I assumed by now all the forums associated with the 3G Hemi understood the facts surrounding throttle bodies (TB)...

Any ported / machined throttle body that retains the OEM (80mm for example) butterfly and surrounding structure (to seal at idle) does not - repeat does not produce any HP / TQ gains.

Even though the entry and exit may have been modified, that original cross sectional area that has not been altered to retain functionality, dictates maximum rate-of-flow across the device. If the OEM 80mm is rated at 921CFM, so are all the ported versions.

At one time those who were peddling them tried to say Bernoulli's principle was in-play. Technically, over the 1/4" of area fore and aft of the butterfly the principle is in-play. But the act of a slight acceleration of air across this threshold (lower pressure) immediately slows back down aft of the butterfly - but now with induced turbulence (its important to realize this is also present with the OEM TBs). Anyways - I digress.

The point being on a flow bench - machined TBs show zero gain in flow. The whole reason(!) these devices do not require tuning with our speed / density - based induction systems is because(!) there is no change in cross sectional area / overall rate-of-flow! They are useless - a rip-off.

But what does happen (initially) with machined TBs is during tip-in. But only during tip-in as that slight extra air for the same (off-idle) blade angle gives a bit of a power boost because the A/F is leaner (like you've advanced the throttle more than you requested, similar to Pedal Commander, but temporary).

However, the O2 sensors pick up on the temporary lean condition and begin adding fuel across the range (you tip in at different rpm) to ST / LT fuel trims, the anomaly quickly goes away and you're back to square one (unless you constantly clear A/F adaptives by pulling B-).

Finally what is truly deceitful is that in order to claim they are "85mm", the measurement(!) is being taken from the roof in front of the butterfly and the floor(!) aft of the butterfly. To make further "enhance the erroneous measurement the upstream / downstream bores of all TBs are offset...and this value is all that is being measured!! Pretty sad. At most the actual machining process is removing 1-2mm max upstream or downstream of the butterfly.

If you do install an aftermarket TB body that does have an 85mm butterfly (they all employ OEM stepper servo / control mechanisms btw), the PCM will complain about excessive air and set a DTC. At which point you are forced to change code to - get this - make the rest of the speed-density system believe there is an OEM (80mm) TB in-play.

Even the 6.4 comes with an 80mm TB...

Click to expand...

I think you have over simplified your approach and perhaps mis-remembered a lesson or two on geometry/thermodynamics. It is not a circular two dimensional calculation, but rather a 3D volumetric one and not a simple cylinder either. Porting creates a variable geometry--but only as the butterfly approaches wide open. That is why it behaves as stock up to a point just prior to WOT and needs no tuning. Measuring the volume from before butterfly to TB base is valid when treating air as a fluid--because the diameter varies while height does not. The butterfly and 80mm measure at midpoint are not relevant to the discussion of volumetric flow that's 3D.

Yes, the PCM will add more fuel to match the surge of air at tip-in and that's power, but more importantly it also increases RPMs more quickly, which prolongs the air demand a little longer. That is what the ported TB is there for--especially if you have a tuner and can defeat the PCM. Sure, the PCM gets a too lean signal form the O2 sensor, adds more fuel, but the key benefit is simultaneously RPMs climb more quickly. Provided the throttle remains in wide open position, there continues be a demand for more fuel.

Eventually equilibrium is obtained, most notably by either the PCM governing RPMs, by reaching combustion end point (ambient manifold pressure a.k.a. flat out), or reaching the end of your track and the driver easing throttle and applying brakes.

The butterfly is never flat or vertical in the TB, therefore the flow can't be treated as a two dimensional calculation. An increase in the volume able to hold air offers the potential to increase volumetric flow. By ignoring the Z axis you under calculate the volume within the cylinder at WOT.

Cylinder volume equals Pi x radius squared x height of the cylinder; but variable radius doesn't follow that formula. the stock TB radius is 40 mm that's Pi x 1600 x height, but 41 mm is 1681--and in reality the key is over how much of the length (height) the greater diameter/radius applies. Your claim that measuring the length of the TB isn't correct is therefore flawed.

Actual flow will initially be determined by manifold vacuum (not by potential flow from volume, although that potential from volume is required), until ambient pressure is obtained--that's the actual limit on airflow volume (assuming pressure and temperature remain constant), or the PCM adjusts fuel AND demand decreases.

Once you reach ambient atmospheric pressure in the manifold (in a naturally aspirated engine) the combustion air demand is constant, until/unless some other factor is changed like an RPM increase restoring a less than atmospheric pressure in the manifold and drawing in more air.

A tuner also recognizes the initial air flow at tip-in, but defeats the PCM's inclination to restore a lean fuel trim.

Turbos or superchargers boost the pressure in the manifold taking manifold vacuum out of the equation to force feed more air into the combustion chamber for same rapid RPM increase.

So Hemissary has a truck now. Welcome.

I understand your point and its well stated.

I don't agree that any gains from the increased airflow at tip in will be negated, if the PCM adds fuel( in the right ratio) to accommodate the increased airflow then performance would increase as well.

I find that WOT bursts, applied diligently, negate the need to reset adaptives. The opposite is equally true, easy driving pushes the adaptives the other way, which is what they are supposed to do: adapt to the driving style.

Without knowing what specifically is done in any of the Custom tunes, so its just a guess, but I think that having a Custom tune would also work well with the increased tip in airflow, and seems to in my applications.

It seems that based on what you stated that porting intake valves and runners etc ( without changing the actual valve size) would not benefit flow either.
Obviously the exhaust valve has expanding gases involved so I left them out of this.

I agree, once the TB is opened, 80mm is still 80mm, regardless of how large the "pipe" before or after the butterfly may be. The venturi effect comes into play here, does it not?

You stated the increased air would immediately slow down ( velocity) after the butterfly, Why? and why is that important to a ported TB,? any TB including stock that has a larger cross section after the butterfly would have the same effect. The air was pushed in by atmospheric pressure due to a low pressure created by the pistons going down....as long as that demand is there the amount of air flow ( volume) will be the same.

What I'm saying is if the amount of airflow is increased at tip in and the fuel is added to accommodate then the result would be a quick increase in power, regardless of velocity, as its the amount of air moving into the cylinder quicker, not the velocity at a narrow or wider passage.

Also agree, and its well known( a reputable vendor will discourage customers from buying a larger TB ( E.G. 90mm TB) unless they are FI or a huge displacement N/A build. ) that larger TBs lead to a host of tuning issues CELs and generally poor results.


Again welcome, did you introduce yourself and Ill be checking your profile to nlearn more about your truck.

I see its a 2017, will you be enhancing it ????

Casper said:

I think you have over simplified your approach and perhaps mis-remembered a lesson or two on geometry/thermodynamics. It is not a circular two dimensional calculation, but rather a 3D volumetric one and not a simple cylinder either. Porting creates a variable geometry--but only as the butterfly approaches wide open. That is why it behaves as stock up to a point just prior to WOT and needs no tuning. Measuring the volume from before butterfly to TB base is valid when treating air as a fluid--because the diameter varies while height does not. The butterfly and 80mm measure at midpoint are not relevant to the discussion of volumetric flow that's 3D.

Yes, the PCM will add more fuel to match the surge of air at tip-in and that's power, but more importantly it also increases RPMs more quickly, which prolongs the air demand a little longer. That is what the ported TB is there for--especially if you have a tuner and can defeat the PCM. Sure, the PCM gets a too lean signal form the O2 sensor, adds more fuel, but the key benefit is simultaneously RPMs climb more quickly. Provided the throttle remains in wide open position, there continues be a demand for more fuel.

Eventually equilibrium is obtained, most notably by either the PCM governing RPMs, by reaching combustion end point (ambient manifold pressure a.k.a. flat out), or reaching the end of your track and the driver easing throttle and applying brakes.

The butterfly is never flat or vertical in the TB, therefore the flow can't be treated as a two dimensional calculation. An increase in the volume able to hold air offers the potential to increase volumetric flow. By ignoring the Z axis you under calculate the volume within the cylinder at WOT.

Cylinder volume equals Pi x radius squared x height of the cylinder; but variable radius doesn't follow that formula. the stock TB radius is 40 mm that's Pi x 1600 x height, but 41 mm is 1681--and in reality the key is over how much of the length (height) the greater diameter/radius applies. Your claim that measuring the length of the TB isn't correct is therefore flawed.

Actual flow will initially be determined by manifold vacuum (not by potential flow from volume, although that potential from volume is required), until ambient pressure is obtained--that's the actual limit on airflow volume (assuming pressure and temperature remain constant), or the PCM adjusts fuel AND demand decreases.

Once you reach ambient atmospheric pressure in the manifold (in a naturally aspirated engine) the combustion air demand is constant, until/unless some other factor is changed like an RPM increase restoring a less than atmospheric pressure in the manifold and drawing in more air.

A tuner also recognizes the initial air flow at tip-in, but defeats the PCM's inclination to restore a lean fuel trim.

Turbos or superchargers boost the pressure in the manifold taking manifold vacuum out of the equation to force feed more air into the combustion chamber for same rapid RPM increase.

Click to expand...

In terms everyone can understand there are zero gains at WOT (open loop). I think what is really misleading is the 15/15 claims - which put proving them under the radar. A (any) Hemi can gain or lose this without any sort of changes on a dyno...depending how / when the pull is made.

The tip-off to cover up the snake oil is the instruction to reset adaptives. This in it's own right will offer the end-user an immediate change in vehicle behavior that is not associated with a newly-installed machined throttle body.

Uh....what Casper said,

UH,

Yeah, ...that's what I meant!

seriously !

I was going to warn you against starting this argument on here Simon, it's one that I've had many times before I finally just gave up on it. I was going to warn you but I just made a fresh batch of popcorn ... and I'm a jerk. There's even a war going on between which brand of of ported TB is best and if a polished vs natural butterfly is better.

Im'a settle in right here.........

I consider myself pretty smart, but these peoples take it to a whole 'nother level....

Casper said:

I would not change my TB, with the possible exception of a ported OEM, until AFTER the warranty has expired. My engine is mostly stock anyway, and unless I were to add LT headers I have all the air I need.

A new TB is too obvious, too easy to deny warranty repair for anything internal to engine for "abuse" or "racing." You get the idea.

A ported OEM on the other hand looks stock. You have to take it off the manifold and mic it to see that its been widened at the Wide Open Throttle (WOT) position. Since its OEM up to WOT, you dont need a tune to integrate it either.

Click to expand...

what warranty???

oh

I probably wouldn't spend money on a bling bling TB cover, although I did spend some coin on billet tech goodies.

I agree, a stock TB that has ben ported is the way to go if your going this way.

Rupert said:

So Hemissary has a truck now. Welcome.

I understand your point and its well stated.

I don't agree that any gains from the increased airflow at tip in will be negated, if the PCM adds fuel( in the right ratio) to accommodate the increased airflow then performance would increase as well.

I find that WOT bursts, applied diligently, negate the need to reset adaptives. The opposite is equally true, easy driving pushes the adaptives the other way, which is what they are supposed to do: adapt to the driving style.

Without knowing what specifically is done in any of the Custom tunes, so its just a guess, but I think that having a Custom tune would also work well with the increased tip in airflow, and seems to in my applications.

It seems that based on what you stated that porting intake valves and runners etc ( without changing the actual valve size) would not benefit flow either.
Obviously the exhaust valve has expanding gases involved so I left them out of this.

I agree, once the TB is opened, 80mm is still 80mm, regardless of how large the "pipe" before or after the butterfly may be. The venturi effect comes into play here, does it not?

You stated the increased air would immediately slow down ( velocity) after the butterfly, Why? and why is that important to a ported TB,? any TB including stock that has a larger cross section after the butterfly would have the same effect. The air was pushed in by atmospheric pressure due to a low pressure created by the pistons going down....as long as that demand is there the amount of air flow ( volume) will be the same.

What I'm saying is if the amount of airflow is increased at tip in and the fuel is added to accommodate then the result would be a quick increase in power, regardless of velocity, as its the amount of air moving into the cylinder quicker, not the velocity at a narrow or wider passage.

Also agree, and its well known( a reputable vendor will discourage customers from buying a larger TB ( E.G. 90mm TB) unless they are FI or a huge displacement N/A build. ) that larger TBs lead to a host of tuning issues CELs and generally poor results.


Again welcome, did you introduce yourself and Ill be checking your profile to nlearn more about your truck.

I see its a 2017, will you be enhancing it ????

Click to expand...

Hey there Mr. Flood, how are ya and thank you :^)

No, I did not officially introduce myself I'm killing time responding to random posts here and there during really boring meetings here at the office. The 1500 Black Express is replacing my Dakota (which was a daily driver). I thought about pulling the 440+ aluminum block I built for the Magnum (and build something bigger / better) and sticking it in the Dakota or even the new truck...but calmer heads have prevailed for now :^D



So, unexpected changes in air volume during tip-in, anywhere in the rpm range is a temporary occurrence - at that moment in time as the butterfly sweeps through (only) that area next to the un-machined radius right next to the resting (idle) position. Once the blade moves past this area, given just how little material has actually been machined away, the normal rate of volumetric flow is restored - at least within the parameters of the PCM's ability to detect an anomaly (excessive air). Again, this is why during closed loop the PCM does not detect / complain...as well(!) as at WOT (open loop).

Head porting versus TB "porting" (very misleading term in this application) can not be compared. In cylinder head ports, where it matters shape and volume are being modified to augment velocity and flow. Increasing ID in a throttle body is actually slowing rate of flow :^)

The "venturi effect", otherwise known as Bernoulli's principle (google it for a better understanding) can only occur where there exists a change in aperture diameter / volume. Seriously...does anyone actually believe there is sufficient acceleration of air (air has mass - otherwise this whole momentum discussion is moot) over such a small distance is going to do anything of merit?? Know that the velocity delta changes to match the I.D. of the area it is travelling through.

So whether air travelling across a 1/2" (at the butterfly) or even the entire length of the TB housing, its simply too small a volume to even justify mentioning "venture effect" (doesn't stop the marketeer's from BS'ing). Even if there was measurable effect...it (the change in velocity) is exiting into a relatively huge intake manifold plenum!

Remember, all of the above is in respect to a NA engine. FI is a different animal and does not belong in this conversation.

So yes, again, tip-in does add something (a temporary lean mixture) one can feel off-idle, for a while, but that is it (eventually gets covered up by the PCM). WOT output with a (any) machined TB is precisely the same as the OEM unit. You're likely aware I've put serious money where my mouth is to set up a joint effort using an engine dyno (to eliminate the chassis dyno tom-foolery) to test once and for all this type BS unsuspecting folks are literally buying into (along with other stuff like oil catch cans vs. oil consumption affecting RON / timing, "ported" intake gains, etcetera). Guess what...there has been no takers.

Thanks for the welcome Rupert!

charonblk07 said:

I was going to warn you against starting this argument on here Simon, it's one that I've had many times before I finally just gave up on it. I was going to warn you but I just made a fresh batch of popcorn ... and I'm a jerk. There's even a war going on between which brand of of ported TB is best and if a polished vs natural butterfly is better.

Click to expand...

Seriously, HAHAHA...




jerk...


Maybe I should make my background known...



...nah.

Back to the QA / QC grind I go; we just learned(!) of 49 welds on NPS36 that used 7018 instead of 8018 :^(

Stay outta the heat - or in it if you're not working Kurtis :^)

Booms said:

I consider myself pretty smart, but these peoples take it to a whole 'nother level....

Click to expand...

The (my) goal is to speak in terms that most - if not all can understand. This means sometimes taking shortcuts and simplifying technical information. If I failed, apologies.

One last thing about 90mm+ TBs; don't bother. The size of your build would have to be in the top one percentile to advantage of an increase in cross sectional (better say volumetric as well I suppose) area. The ID must be just(!) as large downstream.

One percentile: builds capable of 8's that are revving to the moon (of note - I use an 80mm on my NA 440ci+ build with 6400rpm RL mounted to an Apache SRV intake made to function in my 05' Magnum).

Hemissary said:

Back to the QA / QC grind I go; we just learned(!) of 49 welds on NPS36 that used 7018 instead of 8018 :^(

Click to expand...

I take it they didn't want the higher ductility of the 7018 and wanted the hardness of the 8018 instead? What were they thinking!

Hemissary said:

One last thing about 90mm+ TBs; don't bother. The size of your build would have to be in the top one percentile to advantage of an increase in cross sectional (better say volumetric as well I suppose) area. The ID must be just(!) as large downstream.

One percentile: builds capable of 8's that are revving to the moon (of note - I use an 80mm on my NA 440ci+ build with 6400rpm RL mounted to an Apache SRV intake made to function in my 05' Magnum).

Click to expand...

I actually run a 90mm BBK on mine, but only because I had to try and fix a different issue with my stock TB and since I picked up a fully ported 6.1L intake manifold that was already opened up to a 90mm opening and I got the 90mm TB for free. I decided the port matching was good enough to stick with the 90mm, and the 17psi intake charge doesn't really care about throttle body diameter anyways.

charonblk07 said:

I take it they didn't want the higher ductility of the 7018 and wanted the hardness of the 8018 instead? What were they thinking!

Click to expand...

Used the wrong WPS for the (existing) pipe hardness :^(

charonblk07 said:

I actually run a 90mm BBK on mine, but only because I had to try and fix a different issue with my stock TB and since I picked up a fully ported 6.1L intake manifold that was already opened up to a 90mm opening and I got the 90mm TB for free. I decided the port matching was good enough to stick with the 90mm, and the 17psi intake charge doesn't really care about throttle body diameter anyways.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

Sounds like a Peddle Commander and/or custom tune would be more beneficial... unless you're running a beastly stroker or FI setup.