View Full Version : AT power throttlebodies
Been lots of talk about these and one bad experience on the time attak clio (fmp). But on their site it states someone on Clio16valver has them and got great results.
Whats the situation with these on an F7R ? has anyone got them ?
Laine_16v
18-06-2009, 23:15
Ronee (Clio-girl) has them on her F7R, best off asking her on 16valver.
Ronee (Clio-girl) has them on her F7R, best off asking her on 16valver.
No real info, is that the only car that uses them ?
yes, theres been no back-toback tests on the f7r's.
On the f4r's, they apparently made lower figures than Jenvey.
from memory, gdi tried these and they couldnt get them to perform as well as the jenvey's, not sure why or by how much.
iirc because they were to small to get the best from them..
Clio-Girl
20-06-2009, 22:31
they work very well on my car and have produced figures that im very pleased with. I know that AT have redesigned the ITBS using my car as a basis to work from to make them better than they were when GDI had them for testing.
but depends what you guys think is good figures and what should be expected really?
Paul at RS Tuning now has a set on an F4R, not sure if its mapped yet but would be good to compare the figures against jenveys.
but to get a fair comparison, the bodies would have to be fitted to the same engine, and be run on the same dyno/r/r
diff rollers can produce massively diff figures. couple that to diff engines also.....not exactly a fair comparison.
but depends what you guys think is good figures and what should be expected really?
Anything over 200 I guess... depending on money spent. So are these redeveloped ones still 38mm ? would be nice if the AT ones were as big as jenveys and went straight on the head :wink:
but to get a fair comparison, the bodies would have to be fitted to the same engine, and be run on the same dyno/r/r
diff rollers can produce massively diff figures. couple that to diff engines also.....not exactly a fair comparison.
Thats the plan, same engine, same dyno---back to back testing.
AT_Power
02-07-2009, 22:05
Hi there,
No tests on F7R as yet. Those ones are 45mm shaftless throttles as we couldn't use the same kind of twin body we normally do. Very wide ports making that difficult.
As far as I know we never did any 38mm ones for the renault engines. We had a misprint on the website for a long time as the guy who did it just copied one lot of information for each throttle body kit.
The F4R ones are 42mm. Can now be fitted with a taper to 50mm if you like, although someone who tried that didn't make any more power. The 42mm sized shaftless throttle has been used up to 300bhp on a duratec. I'm not entirely sure why the jenvey's aparently made more power as it would be unique in the testing we have done on lots of other engines. One thing I did notice a while back is the opening on the throttle was the same size as the RS inlet manifold. Everyone is familiar with the port matched inlets, releasing an extra few bhp. The new ones we make are the larger size of the head (like a port matched inlet) so if that was the missing few bhp the jenvey's had then I guess that isn't a problem anymore. We were originally designing the system to the requirements of the customer, if we're not told about things like this we can't make the improvements necessary. All seems to be water under the bridge now though.
Anyone with a williams may like,
http://atpowershop.co.uk/catalog/images/products/single-throttle-body/f7r%20-%202.jpg
Thanks,
John.
AndyFielder
03-07-2009, 09:58
Im getting these fitted to my megane head in my track car, should hopefully have them fitted as soon as they arrive.
The huge advantage i can see is im going to be running 160mm before the butterfly which is more than you can get on both jenvey and atpower itb's for the williams which should hopefully see me get some good torque figures.
I will let you know power figues once its mapped etc.
Would be intresting to see how much power a meggy head makes vs a williams ones, mainly as the wililams / valver have bigger inlets to begin and unless cammed the williams will have different durations to the meggy head, but then the meggy has bigger valves on the inlet....
:D
What is needed additional on the AT Power bodies?
Does it still require a custom rad ? as if not this is a £500 saving stright off...
Does it need a standalone ECU ? or can the standard one be mapped to take them.
TPS / Map / Injectors ?
Stans figures on his £3200 install were around 185 bhp on a standard williams engine...
Now if you can pick up TSP map and injectors off a r21 and just bolt these on yourself, you are looking at less then £2000 to do this yourself...
So if it make 180 odd bhp you have an extra £1200 to spend on head work or cams etc
bring back the edit button :P
AT_Power
03-07-2009, 12:40
You can keep the standard RAD. It uses the TPS sensor from a PH1 172, or Saxo VTS, 106 GTi, and possibly a few others. Only £35+VAT brand new if you need one.
The wililams and Megane both reuse the standard fuel rail and injectors located in the cylinder head.
I don't think a standard ECU would be compatible with a 172 TPS.
The price of my jenvey based kit includes a short rad, which in my opinion is required. The extra length you can gain pays dividends on the torque and peak power figures.
Keeping the std rad, whilst may be seen as an advantage, really isnt.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2610/26032009351.th.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/26032009351.jpg/)
This install uses one of my rad kits. As you can see you gain a good bit of intake length.
By the way, im not saying it wont work with the std rad...obviously it does, its just not ideal....
Im getting these fitted to my megane head in my track car, should hopefully have them fitted as soon as they arrive.
The huge advantage i can see is im going to be running 160mm before the butterfly which is more than you can get on both jenvey and atpower itb's for the williams which should hopefully see me get some good torque figures.
I will let you know power figues once its mapped etc.
Not really a huge advantage having 160mm between the butterfly and the head valve. The more you have, the more you loose throttle response potential.
Any gain/disadvantage however is negligable unless you are at the absolute extremes.
If you want more, you can do it with Jenveys, choosing the right bodies and manifold could get you about 240mm.
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7238/24062009513.th.jpg (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/24062009513.jpg/)
This one is running the bottom end of what i like intake length wise, and you can see that even here a std rad would foul.
Length is king :lol:
like with anything more power comes at more cost, just trying to establish cost per pound.
And then obviously only having to bolt some bodies on and change a few sensors is easier then changing out an ECU and rad etc...
So obviously if you want the power then your better off with the bigger length etc
all about cost to bhp gain really :D
But again you need to think does this limit me in the future... or will you be able to get similar performance later with a shorter rad
You wont run anything other than a mk1 TPS on the oe ecu. it wont accept. Whilst you maybe able to re-calibrate it, this has not been achieved yet.
So I wouldnt get too excited about running itb's on oe ecu, as its not been done yet.
As for power/£...well i'd stick to the turbo route if thats your goal.
is there any advantage or disadvantage on the two types of injector placement
Laine_16v
03-07-2009, 15:15
I think having the injectors further away increases the chance of better atomisation.
However how much of an influence this has on our relatively low revving 200bhp clios im not sure. Its obviously a very large factor on things like F1 engines though.
AndyFielder
03-07-2009, 16:11
As Laine said really, i would also like to add that modern injectors help with atomization too.
AT power will also sell you a kit with injector mounting positions etc, just there is no real gain to be had with them as far as they are consirned. I also spoke to them about running 8 injectors. All of which can be catered for. Remember AT power stuff is CNC'd to order and can be customized to your exact specifications.
Jenvey has been tried and tested, but i think even if you do end up using a shorter rad with the AT kit you are still saving cash and you can still have a longer inlet length.
@Craig. I think the inlet length i am running is going to be more than can be fitted with jenvey gear, and i will keep the standard rad. With the buterflys directly next to the head i cant see how the setup can be bettered for power and throttle response.
I cant see how a manifold with standard bodies can be better than bodies which car make especially for the car (im speaking about the megane kit rather than the williams kit, as with williams kit uses standard bodies with a short custom manifold).
Yeah like elaine says really.
we messed about with the injectors in the head and then in the itb's themselves (jenvey 110mm), and it picked up mid-range with them in the bodies. Hence thats why i put them there.
Andy, it totally depends what manifold/body/trumpet combo you use with jenvey. You can have them stuck outside the bonnet if you wanted to...
And if you are running the std rad, THATS going to be your limiting factor, not what intake parts are available.
Not sure on your last statement, cant make much sense of it sorry.
AndyFielder
03-07-2009, 17:37
basically i think i was saying that not having a manifold can only be a good thing....
but i cant remember what i was thinking at the time :P
whats wrong with not having or indeed having a manifold??
theres no technical difference, so long as change in profile etc are the same. I.e theres no advantage or disadvantage in terms of performance.
in terms of fitment, you could argue its "easier" having them direct-to-head, but then you can also argue theres more room for alternatives with regards throttle position, injector position etc etc.
either work.
AT_Power
03-07-2009, 17:53
AT Power ones are angled upwards so you can fit a longer length in without needing to change the radiator.
Using an airbox is better than having longer ram pipes, and will also aid air when you're not on the rollers with the bonnet up blowing 70mph winds down the trumpets.
You can have the longest system you want with AT Power ones. I've not seen any power graphs that show you need a huge length on there. It seems you need to change the radiator regardless with the jenveys. Seems like an expensive £500 to me when you don't need to spend it.
what external length can you achieve keeping the std rad in place, and allowing fitment of an airbox, and closing the bonnet?
AndyFielder
03-07-2009, 18:02
160mm i think
AT_Power
03-07-2009, 18:07
Off the top of my head length for the "manifold" is 55-60mm, the single bodies are 30mm, a 70mm extension and 60mm ram pipe so 215mm, with a 95mm deep airbox clamped between extension and ram pipe. All within a Mk1 clio engine bay with un modified "slam panel" and the standard radiator.
If you didn't have the airbox you could have 70mm extensions and 90mm ram pipes, or 100mm extensions and 60mm ram pipes with socks on.
AT_Power
03-07-2009, 18:08
160mm i think
Don't forget the bodies are 55mm long as well, so your's will be 215mm as well.
AT_Power
03-07-2009, 18:10
In other words if you are taking the back of the airbox as the baffle for the tuned length then it's 250mm "length"
So including the 70mm (or there abouts in the head) thats 285mm, with your 215mm.
The Sodemo engine in the first pic has an overall inlet tract of 280mm.
You can see how this interferes with the slam panel. And thats with seamingly 5mm less than the AT set-up.
Even angled upwards I cant see you gaining clearance enough to not foul the slampanel OR bonnet.
If youve done it, youve done it...im not questioning that.
Any pics of your set-up with the lengths you have mentioned in a clio bay?
AndyFielder
03-07-2009, 18:29
sorry to but in...
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc166/Clio-girl/the%20trumpets/naples2.jpg
shes running 70mm extensions tho, will let someone else do the maths, but i think its 30mm less than those stated
AndyFielder
03-07-2009, 18:32
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc166/Clio-girl/the%20trumpets/P1010085.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc166/Clio-girl/the%20trumpets/P1010086.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc166/Clio-girl/the%20trumpets/P1010068.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc166/Clio-girl/the%20trumpets/naples2.jpg[/img]
AT_Power
03-07-2009, 18:52
http://atpowershop.co.uk/catalog/images/products/direct-to-head-throttle-body/with%20airbox.jpg
I don't know if it's the angle but the Sodemo looks longer on that first picture? Either way if you don't want the airbox you can add 100mm extensions on to go longer. The blue and gold set are 100mm extensions on them as I thought that whoever boys them wouldn't want to put an airbox over the top of them!
AT_Power
03-07-2009, 18:53
Andy those pictures also have the 40mm ram pipes on them, rather than the 60mm she also has. Thanks though thats more pictures than I have.
Has the OE ECU been tested with these yet ?
Regards cost (not having to get a sperate ECU) then thats the real ticket for these being a winner for job bloggs on his clio.
If aftermarket ECU is needed then they are the same on cost well maybe a more expensive solution than the proven Jenvey set-up.
sideways danny
04-07-2009, 18:15
Has the OE ECU been tested with these yet ?
Regards cost (not having to get a sperate ECU) then thats the real ticket for these being a winner for job bloggs on his clio.
If aftermarket ECU is needed then they are the same on cost well maybe a more expensive solution than the proven Jenvey set-up.
IF a stock ECU could be used (wow that's a big IF, and a waste of time) there would be no difference between the suitability between the 2 types of throttle body. The only interaction comes from the TPS
ive been told Paul at rs tuning is working on getting bodies to work with standard ecu, i was always under the impression it wasnt capable? ive been told his pretty confident though! would be a massive saving going for the bodies
sideways danny
04-07-2009, 19:30
the stock mk1 ecu will be hopeless IMO, the functionality just isn't there. The 172 ecu might stand a better chance, but i still think it will be wrong
AT_Power
04-07-2009, 21:30
I don't know about the standard ECU as I'm not involved with that.
All TPS are the same though 0-5v. There isn't a massive difference between them all in terms of that. If you can remap the values in the standard ECU enough it could work. It depends really how far the standard values can be stretched.
OK so the standard ECU may not have all the functionality of a proper aftermarket unit, or have the same level of spark control. But fuelling wise we're only talking about tuned road engines here using 95RON fuel. It might not be perfect. Again testing back to back could (and I believe will be done at least with the 182) but it is again another option for people who want to run ITBs. Maybe they go for a standard ECU remap, then when they can afford it upgrade to a replacement? Again it all comes down to that compromise between cost per performance.
This is interesting. I would like to see some results as they appear regarding ECU/TPS and eventual power output on an F7R.
Laine_16v
07-07-2009, 12:12
They are only doing it so it appeals to the masses "ahhh phat mayte, works on standard ECU im guna get bodies now!!!"
Quality and compromise will take a back seat purely because they "want the bodies" to impress mates :wink:
sideways danny
07-07-2009, 12:28
standard ECU has been talked about by RStuning for god knows how long but still nothing on the market... I'd safe its a safe bet it wont happen. You 'could' get ITB's to run, but run well? I doubt it... speak to Superchips, they have the software to map Renault ECU's and stand by the fact that it's a poor solution.
same with boosted applications
sideways danny
07-07-2009, 12:31
They are only doing it so it appeals to the masses "ahhh phat mayte, works on standard ECU im guna get bodies now!!!"
Quality and compromise will take a back seat purely because they "want the bodies" to impress mates :wink:
bingo.
I'd love to see how a stock ECU will control idle and return to idle. They dont have spark scatter control AFAIK
sideways danny
07-07-2009, 12:31
They are only doing it so it appeals to the masses "ahhh phat mayte, works on standard ECU im guna get bodies now!!!"
Quality and compromise will take a back seat purely because they "want the bodies" to impress mates :wink:
bingo.
I'd love to see how a stock ECU will control idle and return to idle. They dont have spark scatter control AFAIK, and will be trying to open an idle control valve
Laine_16v
07-07-2009, 12:32
They are only doing it so it appeals to the masses "ahhh phat mayte, works on standard ECU im guna get bodies now!!!"
Quality and compromise will take a back seat purely because they "want the bodies" to impress mates :wink:
bingo.
I'd love to see how a stock ECU will control idle and return to idle. They dont have spark scatter control AFAIK
Could you not just leave Idle disconected? i dont run an idle valve on my ITB's?
Or do you mean how it would handle the "decay" effect without using the idle valve (which seems to be what brings down the revs gently after you jab the throttle open?)
stock ECU cant do that on ITB's or boosted engines with the current available mappers or software
do you actually have ANY imperical proof of this, OTHER than what Andy has told you?
The facts:
RSTuning HAVE got a perfectly running supercharged 172, with no calibration issues.
I really dont see how you can make such subjective statements based on what one person is telling you.
Not trying to start an argument here, but try and look at the full facts, not heresay.
And this is totally unbiased, so please dont think im just sticking up for Paul, as ive no reason to do that.
I know what happened to pauls car, and if you look at it logically, it wasnt mapping related!
The same thing could have just as easily happened with an engine controlled by Omex, or Emerald, or whatever. It was a mechanical failure that comes with the territory unfortunately.
As for Rotrex and Renaults, I built a S/C spider with a rotrex 2spd charger at the beginning of the year. Goes well, 311bhp with just 0.5bar boost.
Can have better boost spread over rpm range...makes it less proportional i guess.
Had headwork, low-comp forged pistons, custom cat cams.
This was only at 6000rpm aswell.
Theres a bit of tweaking about he's doing with the pulleys, then revving to 7500rpm with more boost. Should see a fair whack more power/torque, the engine itself is certainly capable of it.
they "want the bodies" to impress mates :wink:
no one gets bodies to impress... that's what turbos are for mayte
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.