TBI Mod.. thoughts?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Core-Lokt

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
385
Reaction score
89
Location
Texas
Ram Year
2005 Ram 2500 4X4 ST
Engine
5.7L
I didn't read more than the linked page. I would want empirical proof of gains and not rely upon butt dynos. I can't see how that mod would equate to noticeable gains in whatever metrics they cite. Then again, you'll find people that swear the same about the TB spacers. Not to throw shade on others' mods, but I think it's more someone taking pride in accomplishment.
 

Bullitt5339

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Posts
920
Reaction score
514
Location
St Pauls, NC
Ram Year
2004
Engine
3.7
The butt-o-meter is highly inaccurate from my experience and can be influenced by just a change in a sound.

I did a test for a major Mustang magazine using a mildly modified car testing cold air intakes that everyone has asked for forever, where we spent 3 days installing/uninstalling and dynoing about every cold air intake made. When we put them on, our first test was the butt-o-meter....... And every one of us were wrong about which ones made more power.

In the end, none of them were more than 3hp more than the stocker and quite a few actually lost horsepower. With such small changes, they could all be called the same, but the 4 of us involved in the testing would have sworn otherwise until they were strapped on the dyno. Certain ones just felt and sounded more powerful, but the rollers don't lie.

This could be one of those situations, since I didn't see any real before/after testing done. But if there's no detrimental effects, you're not hurting anything and it does look good.
 
OP
OP
S

Skeer

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Posts
46
Reaction score
2
Location
Big Sky Country
Ram Year
2002 Ram 1500 4x4 SLT
Engine
5.9
Oh dont get me wrong.. I wasn't putting stock into the butt dyno at all. I am however interested it any change, however slight, that could equate to an increase in efficiency. If making the top of my TBI flat means Id gain another couple MPG's then I'd do it, heh.
 

Core-Lokt

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
385
Reaction score
89
Location
Texas
Ram Year
2005 Ram 2500 4X4 ST
Engine
5.7L
Engineers wouldn't ignore something so simple that would add a significant increase in fuel economy. They test lots of configurations to find the best balance of function. If that mod did anything for efficiency, it wouldn't be "a couple more MPG". More like .2 MPG.
 
OP
OP
S

Skeer

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Posts
46
Reaction score
2
Location
Big Sky Country
Ram Year
2002 Ram 1500 4x4 SLT
Engine
5.9
Maybe Core.. just maybe. But they do add silly stuff like intake baffles that many believe hinder (even in some tiny fashion) the flow of the intake to satisfy some perceived noise complaint by sheeple. So honestly I could see them adding something to a throttle body that'd help make the suction of air quieter. IDK though why they're there though, I can't even hazard a guess.

However I am pi$$ed that no one replied to my question over there. If something as simple as shaving off a bit of aluminum would net a few MPG's then I'm all over that like a fat kid on a cake.
 

justin13703

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Posts
1,174
Reaction score
394
Location
MD
Ram Year
2008
Engine
Hemi 5.7
Honestly I doubt you'll see any mileage improvement with that. Fuel efficiency is one of the main things manufacturers try to push through the roof not only to meet mileage requirements but also because of emissions. Especially in full size trucks. If they could have gotten so much as half a mpg out of doing this, they would have done it and added more intake baffling or something. As far as full-digit mpg increases from this, absolutely not.
 
Top