Throttle bodies - opinions on these 1's

[16v_paddy]

I've hijacked someone's thread on c16v and found these http://atpowershop.co.uk/catalog/renault-throttle-body-assembly-direct-head-p-92.html

are they any good????

[MAXIBOY]

as i started on his thread...i would get jenveys every time over these..

[summeh]

as i started on his thread...i would get jenveys every time over these..

Why would you go for jenveys over these? Any science to your opinion/decision or just preference?

BTW I think those are 710/714 head fitment, didn't do a 700 head fitment when I looked in to them. Was a while ago though.

[16v_paddy]

^^^ Like he said, is there a scientific decision or is it just personal preference towards jenveys?

My engine is a 710, thats why these caught my eye

[MAXIBOY]

yes and no...

from what i read/heard/seen they don,t perform as well as jenveys....

[J o n]

yes and no...

from what i read/heard/seen they don,t perform as well as jenveys....

there's no difference... literally none. GDI were going to partner up with them as their flow tests showed them out flow the Jenvey nearly everywhere and using a smaller taper... in reality they were identical so I guess it just came down to who was cheaper. These are the ones BenR pretended he designed too by the way :lol: (if true amazing from the man that jacked my car up on the sump)

Forget the scientific reasoning anyway, with engine tuning it can be largely irrelevant, take enlarged single throttle bodies as an example. Every man and his dog has an opinion of how it wont make anymore power and have weird and wonderful theories. In reality however the theory was blown out the water by reality. These AT ones look better, they flow better in 'theory' etc, yet on the road there's no difference and on more powerful setups you need 45mm parallels to get the best out of ITB's... so that's gotta be jenvey. Go for the cheapest out of the two, if the price is the same get whichever looks nicest.

[stan]

This isnt what the search function of a few clio forums reveal, from posts made around 6months ago.

7% flow gains, leading to mid-range and peak torque increases I believe was the general just of it.

This however didnt materialise on the dyno....

[J o n]

Thing is in tests they bettered the Jenveys at EVERYTHING. Just goes to show theory and reality are totally different animals. You should know this more than anyone given the industry your in Craig. Still, better for a company to test it so the customer doesn't end up being a guinea pig dont you agree?

Oh, they make more power on a Zetec or Duratec than Jenveys though... go figure?

[stan]

They didnt perform better on the dyno though, is my point.

Theory is great, as is flowbench tests, but its the end result on the dyno (or better still the road) which counts.

As for the ford stuff, well theres plenty of theoretical reasons why ( :lol: ) but hey....

[J o n]

They didnt perform better on the dyno though, is my point.

Theory is great, as is flowbench tests, but its the end result on the dyno (or better still the road) which counts.

As for the ford stuff, well theres plenty of theoretical reasons why ( :lol: ) but hey....

Not on the Clio's they didn't, no better no worse... they did however perform better on Ford engines and whatever the Radical uses... shame really. This is why testing is a must really, as I know another company had some ever earlier prototypes sat there that they were trying to sell to an unsuspecting moron for £2000 lol

[Evogone]

They didnt perform better on the dyno though, is my point.

Theory is great, as is flowbench tests, but its the end result on the dyno (or better still the road) which counts.

As for the ford stuff, well theres plenty of theoretical reasons why ( :lol: ) but hey....

Not on the Clio's they didn't, no better no worse... they did however perform better on Ford engines and whatever the Radical uses... shame really. This is why testing is a must really, as I know another company had some ever earlier prototypes sat there that they were trying to sell to an unsuspecting moron for £2000 lol

They work on fords alright.

Friend has a Fiesta witht the leatest Sigma engine 1600 and is getting 218bhp previous same spec with Jenvey was 207bhp, with torque very similar. They gave a bit more top end, roller barrel are in theory the best design but suffer problems with dirt getting in the mechanism and the reast you can guess.

[J o n]

They didnt perform better on the dyno though, is my point.

Theory is great, as is flowbench tests, but its the end result on the dyno (or better still the road) which counts.

As for the ford stuff, well theres plenty of theoretical reasons why ( :lol: ) but hey....

Not on the Clio's they didn't, no better no worse... they did however perform better on Ford engines and whatever the Radical uses... shame really. This is why testing is a must really, as I know another company had some ever earlier prototypes sat there that they were trying to sell to an unsuspecting moron for £2000 lol

They work on fords alright.

Friend has a Fiesta witht the leatest Sigma engine 1600 and is getting 218bhp previous same spec with Jenvey was 207bhp, with torque very similar. They gave a bit more top end, roller barrel are in theory the best design but suffer problems with dirt getting in the mechanism and the reast you can guess.

Just shows you have to try it to see. The theory of them is sound and by rights they should be better, however on the Clio's they were the same, but that's what R&D is all about. People like to make a big thing about them being worse, but there not, they are the same, but I know GDI use them when they build Westfield comp and trackday spec engines for customers and other companies.

[16v_paddy]

Let me throw this into the mix then :lol:

What about some comparisons/discussion of bike bodies on an F7R over the ones in the OP & jenveys

[stan]

There is currently no empircal data to support or disprove them.

Suffice to say a 42mm throttle plate, or a 48mm throttle plate, is just that....whether its produced by Jenvey, APT, Kehein, Weber etc.

As long as length and proflie are consistent, then there is no reason at all why they wont perform.

As I said before its all down to fitment. With relative ease you can fit a Jenvey set-up "off-the-shelf". Order this, this and this, and hey presto.
You cant do that with bike bodies. Thats not to say you cant implement them.
And for what its worth, has anyone ever payed close attention to the Maxi ITB set-up?? Not think it looks more like i should be on a bike than a clio? :wink:
Point being they ae much of a muchness...

I think the snobbery surrounding them comes from shoddy, messy, installations on old fiestas etc :lol:

[stan]

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7476/r1111425515894paps2da0.th.jpg (http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=r1111425515894paps2da0.jpg)http://img412.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Now tell me they dont look like "bike bodies"!

Form follows function, but still theres no reason why a similar set-up cant "look good" as well as giving the desired performance.

[stan]

And just to clarify a point, theres no empirical data for RENAULT 2.0's....
A quick google search will bring up all sorts of supporting data for other makes/models.

[J o n]

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7476/r1111425515894paps2da0.th.jpg (http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=r1111425515894paps2da0.jpg)http://img412.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Now tell me they dont look like "bike bodies"!

Form follows function, but still theres no reason why a similar set-up cant "look good" as well as giving the desired performance.

Look a little like Webbers...

[stan]

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1138/05112008266dw8.th.jpg (http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=05112008266dw8.jpg)http://img230.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

they look alot more like these!

[GDI]

on the clios the AT bodies didnt deliver the power..

[GDI]

the AT's had no tapers at all... no inclusive angled inlet etc

they were 42mm parallel tubes with a nice butterfly valve...

they certainly looked good, but just didnt perform in our extensive tests..


this does not suggest they couldnt or dont on other marques,,,

[J o n]

the AT's had no tapers at all... no inclusive angled inlet etc

they were 42mm parallel tubes with a nice butterfly valve...

they certainly looked good, but just didnt perform in our extensive tests..


this does not suggest they couldnt or dont on other marques,,,

but lets generalise all the same, misinformation is what forums are all about Andy! lol

[GDI]

ok, if it makes you feel better Jon..

personally misinformation and assumtions are generally the MOAFU's

but we come to expect that.

[J o n]

they most certainly are pal.

my new nylon composite pistons arrived yet?

[mark]

why not buy a manifold off craig and buy the AT power DCOE's? £205 quid + a manifold, bargin in my eyes compared to the DTH's.