Two Fangs Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOXXOH Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 More questions. Does the 102 blade rotate top toward the IM like the pre-09 or bottom like the 09-up? Which 90 works, the pre-09, the 09-up, or both? I don't have a TB handy (short of removing mine) to measure the angle of the blade from the perpendicular centerline of the shaft in the closed (0%) position. Is that something you know offhand? I'm trying to understand/calculate the relationship of % vs * of shaft rotation from closed to open and need a start point. Insert personal opinion here. Since the throttle plate only has 2 limits (closed and WOT) a recalibration of values between those limits must always accompany a recalibration of the ankle/foot angle of the driver. Is the 102 a straight-through design or does it taper from a larger diameter? Does the 102 have the shaft at the bore centerline or offset? (up - down & how much) Are you using the late GM card style MAF or one of similar dimensions? Do you incorporate any type of air straightener prior to the MAF? I believe there may be different solutions that depend on some of those answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Pedal Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Or just slow row into 4th and run a 13.5 @ 135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 More questions. Does the 102 blade rotate top toward the IM like the pre-09 or bottom like the 09-up? Like the '09 and up Which 90 works, the pre-09, the 09-up, or both? I believe they both work I don't have a TB handy (short of removing mine) to measure the angle of the blade from the perpendicular centerline of the shaft in the closed (0%) position. Is that something you know offhand? I'm trying to understand/calculate the relationship of % vs * of shaft rotation from closed to open and need a start point. Looks like 10 to 12 degrees Insert personal opinion here. Since the throttle plate only has 2 limits (closed and WOT) a recalibration of values between those limits must always accompany a recalibration of the ankle/foot angle of the driver. The stock calibration brings the most throttle actuation in the last 30 percent of throttle pedal travel, changing this helped me to correlate a throttle position at the pedal with actuality at the throttle body itself, and slowed the opening rate at the end of travel. Is the 102 a straight-through design or does it taper from a larger diameter? It tapers Does the 102 have the shaft at the bore centerline or offset? (up - down & how much) Not certain, if it is, it is very little Are you using the late GM card style MAF or one of similar dimensions? Card style MAF Do you incorporate any type of air straightener prior to the MAF? Yes, an 8:1 aluminum design with 1/8" hexagonal cells. I believe there may be different solutions that depend on some of those answers. I look forward to reading your thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted November 9, 2012 Author Share Posted November 9, 2012 A little more detail: NW102 applications outside of stock, like those using Big Stuff 3 are not experiencing the flutter and closing issueThe NW102 does not use a factory motorTwo updates have been issued, both cure the problem for a short time frame, a few weeks to a few months, before it returnsBlowing through the TB or drawing through the TB lead to the same flutter and closing issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOXXOH Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Here's a couple of those thoughts. The MAF in the 102 has an additional .47" of free space opposite the mounting side vs the 90. In less than 1 bar, this is not a problem with side to side pressure differentials, but may at higher pressure and airflow rates. It may be possible to counter this pressure and turbulance by sealing off a short section of the air straightener in line with that gap. Eight 1/8" round head solid or hollow rivets through the hex from the inlet side would probably be enough. Two rows of four holes letting the heads overlap and if the rivets are lightly staked, they can be removed if necessary without damaging anything. The throttle plate is about 1/4" farther forward of the shaft, which means there's also an extra 10-11% of surface area that's available for the higher airflow to push against. I see two choices to counter this part of the equation. First, and the easiest, is a custom throttle plate that incorporates a 2-3* bend just forward of the shaft. You could put the bend in farther forward, but it's simpler to create one half elipse forward and a different one on the back half. Since the leading edge angle is different than the trailing edge, it eliminates flutter by creating pressure differentials at the WOT position, but has no downside at partial throttle. The second choice would also require a custom plate, but would be more involved and need to know exact angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted November 9, 2012 Author Share Posted November 9, 2012 Here's a couple of those thoughts. The MAF in the 102 has an additional .47" of free space opposite the mounting side vs the 90. In less than 1 bar, this is not a problem with side to side pressure differentials, but may at higher pressure and airflow rates. It may be possible to counter this pressure and turbulance by sealing off a short section of the air straightener in line with that gap. Eight 1/8" round head solid or hollow rivets through the hex from the inlet side would probably be enough. Two rows of four holes letting the heads overlap and if the rivets are lightly staked, they can be removed if necessary without damaging anything. I am not a fan of putting anything in the airstream that does not need to be there. Additionally, the MAF is not in the stock location to allow for the meth nozzle and relocated IAT. The throttle plate is about 1/4" farther forward of the shaft, which means there's also an extra 10-11% of surface area that's available for the higher airflow to push against. I see two choices to counter this part of the equation. First, and the easiest, is a custom throttle plate that incorporates a 2-3* bend just forward of the shaft. You could put the bend in farther forward, but it's simpler to create one half elipse forward and a different one on the back half. Since the leading edge angle is different than the trailing edge, it eliminates flutter by creating pressure differentials at the WOT position, but has no downside at partial throttle. The second choice would also require a custom plate, but would be more involved and need to know exact angles. A bend would likely create too much clearance at closed throttle. Instability itself is a known issue with round throttle bodies. In the past, weights or airfoils have been attached to them to assist in their closing. Still thinking at this point, a more robust motor is the solution. We will know in a few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOXXOH Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Here's a couple of those thoughts. The MAF in the 102 has an additional .47" of free space opposite the mounting side vs the 90. In less than 1 bar, this is not a problem with side to side pressure differentials, but may at higher pressure and airflow rates. It may be possible to counter this pressure and turbulance by sealing off a short section of the air straightener in line with that gap. Eight 1/8" round head solid or hollow rivets through the hex from the inlet side would probably be enough. Two rows of four holes letting the heads overlap and if the rivets are lightly staked, they can be removed if necessary without damaging anything. I am not a fan of putting anything in the airstream that does not need to be there. Additionally, the MAF is not in the stock location to allow for the meth nozzle and relocated IAT. The throttle plate is about 1/4" farther forward of the shaft, which means there's also an extra 10-11% of surface area that's available for the higher airflow to push against. I see two choices to counter this part of the equation. First, and the easiest, is a custom throttle plate that incorporates a 2-3* bend just forward of the shaft. You could put the bend in farther forward, but it's simpler to create one half elipse forward and a different one on the back half. Since the leading edge angle is different than the trailing edge, it eliminates flutter by creating pressure differentials at the WOT position, but has no downside at partial throttle. The second choice would also require a custom plate, but would be more involved and need to know exact angles. A bend would likely create too much clearance at closed throttle. Instability itself is a known issue with round throttle bodies. In the past, weights or airfoils have been attached to them to assist in their closing. Still thinking at this point, a more robust motor is the solution. We will know in a few weeks. The bend in the throttle plate is not just simply a bend in a previously flat simple eliptical plate, but a plate that has the trailing half with a eliptical pattern that matches the current plate and then the leading half, that has the bend next to the shaft, with an eliptical pattern that is 3* farther forward than the current location. There are no gaps, clearance issues, or other problems related to closing. I'm sure you understand that flat throttle plates can be created to close anywhere from 0* to 89*. (If the throttle bore is long enough. ) What I'm saying is equivilent to a plate that closes on the bottom at 7* and the top at 10*. As viewed from the opposite side of the motor, the angles from the shaft centerline in the closed position would be 173* and 350* respectively. Assuming a shaft CCW rotation of 80* from closed to WOT, the formed blade would be at 93* and 270*, whereas the current flat blade would be at 93* and 273*. A stronger motor only creates more resistance to flutter. It doesn't cure the cause. That's great if brute force works, but if it doesn't..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share Posted November 24, 2012 Here is a pic of the new black anodized P.U.S.H. 105mm throttle body Additionally, I took the opportunity to change the ends of the charge pipe from regular rolled aluminum, to 6061 billet aluminum alloy, allowing me to tighten the t-clamps to within an inch of their very being without distorting the aluminum pipe. I also decided that it would be a good time to add an additional feature. Some of you will get it, some of you won't. But, if you think I added a nitrous solenoid in order to fill the brake booster with laughing gas as a sneaky pete style system, go sit in the corner and punch yourself in the face repeatedly, because that is not it... That's it for now, hope everyone is having a remarkable Saturday! :rockon2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 But, if you think I added a nitrous solenoid in order to fill the brake booster with laughing gas as a sneaky pete style system, go sit in the corner and punch yourself in the face repeatedly, because that is not it... Nobody got my big bad cyber-bully inference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P51tj Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 But, if you think I added a nitrous solenoid in order to fill the brake booster with laughing gas as a sneaky pete style system, go sit in the corner and punch yourself in the face repeatedly, because that is not it... Nobody got my big bad cyber-bully inference? This place seems to breed cyber bullies....now quit it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOTV8 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Does this mean I really don't have to sit in the corner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Y Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Vacuum pump? Just a wild guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted November 27, 2012 Author Share Posted November 27, 2012 I installed a line-lock in the car. I did not want to have a shifter button though. So I made it switchable by remote fob. It also has a master switch, so it can be disabled completely for daily driving. It turned out pretty sweet, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastC3 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Great idea !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FNBADAZ06 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Saw this over at the CF ZR1 section.... http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-corvette-zr1/3174119-tpis-102-vs-nw-102mm-tb.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 Yep, I saw it, too. I have steered away from CF a lot when it comes to this issue. I have been lurking on the Trailblazer SS, CTSV, and Camaro boards. Currently, there is no fix. It is likely that the guy that said he got an updated one managed to get one of the very few that do not exhibit issues. I have a modified TPiS on the car now. I am very happy with it and hope to be back out at the track testing in the very near future. My NW throttle body is still in Houston sitting in my cousin's workshop. I still think the best place for one of Nick's throttle bodies is in the trash can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 Well, maybe I spoke too soon. I devoted yesterday to spending some quality time getting this throttle body dialed in, trying out my new wirelessly controlled line-lock, and just get into some trouble in general. So, naturally, the first thing you want to do before you tune is to do what? That's right, get as much data as you can so you can make the best decisions when reworking the calibration. So I start the car up, let it get hot, and expect the car to idle at 750 RPM. This is how the data looks at idle: Immediately, I guess your eyes would be drawn to the fact that the car is not idling at 750. The ghost marker shows that at the idle's lowest point it dipped down that far, but that it has gone as high as 950 and is hovering in the mid 800's. Hmmmm...... Additionally, look at the timing and grams per second of mass airflow. Since I wrote the calibration, I know there is something rotten going on here. So let's take a look at what I am telling the car to do. Looking at this image, I am asking for 19 degrees of timing and about 9.5 grams per second of airflow to keep the car idling. Going back to the first image showing the data, the car is allowing 16 grams per second of airflow (look at the MAF gauge in the upper left corner) and only 4 degrees of timing (look at the bar graph at the bottom, second from the left). Four degrees, when I am asking for 19 degrees, what is going on here? Let's look at another table in the tune. This is the overspeed error table, not a lot to it, just an RPM number at the top of the columns showing how much higher the RPM is than what is commanded, and a number of degrees the PCM will add if the idle is higher than that amount. Since the numbers are all negative, by adding a negative number we will subtract that amount of timing for the car to try and reduce idle speed. Not much different than the old distributor days, if we retard the timing while the car is idling, RPM drops. That explains why I have four degrees of timing, the car is trying to bring idle down and has subtracted the full 15 degrees in this table from the 19 degrees I have asked for at idle. The car is trying to place idle where I have asked, but it is still high. Now, if you have ever worked on a car with a high idle, we can look for a few different things causing this, most likely the car is getting more air than it should, and usually there is only one way for this to happen; a vacuum leak. But, we have to look at one other thing here. If we had a vacuum leak, the MAF sensor would read within the spec we are expecting, which we said is about 9.5 grams per second, except the MAF is measuring 16 grams per second. Whatever is causing this problem is not a vacuum leak, because the MAF is measuring the extra air. So now, really there is only one thing that can cause this. Throttle hang. Somehow, the throttle must be getting held open. Let's look at a different data table and see if the throttle is open farther than where the car's computer is commanding it. This is a table of data that I monitor and I want to draw your attention to the right column and the two pieces of data that are second and third from the bottom that deal with ETC, or Electronic Throttle Control. The desired position is 1% open but the commanded position is 0% open, in other words, completely shut. So having the throttle hang is not the problem. So, then, there is really only one conclusion we can draw. And that is the throttle body is letting in more air than it should when it is all the way closed. When I inspected the throttle body after seeing the data, I found that there is an unacceptable gap between the throttle blade and the throttle bore, allowing too much air to pass through the throttle body at idle. Let me know if you would like to see a picture of it, and I'll post it up. The moral of this story is, just because it is new, and just because it is touted as the be-all-end-all, does not make it so. New parts are not good parts, they are just shiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azz061 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Sometimes OEM is the best product! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfoot Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Interesting stuff. I did notice one other thing though. Your O2 B1 and B2 are way off each other. I would think they'd need to be damn near identical. I get why your WB O2 is a little lean if you're getting too much air though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 Yep, if GM made a 102mm TB, I would have already bought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 Interesting stuff. I did notice one other thing though. Your O2 B1 and B2 are way off each other. I would think they'd need to be damn near identical. I get why your WB O2 is a little lean if you're getting too much air though. Yeah, it is because it is a screenshot. If you were watching the data in real time, they bounce up and down evenly, though independently, of each other. Also, if you look at the fuel trims, the car is cutting fuel like crazy. That is my fault, the Wideband I just happened to catch a a point where it was at the top of the upswing. It doesn't mean shit anyway, the car runs on E85 and is probably closer to 10:1 right there. I just keep the old gas calibration because it is easier for my old-timey mind to wrap my head around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azz061 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I agree and it's a shame they don't have more aftermarket parts like these with the R&D they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fangs Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 TPiS has been making throttle bodies since the old TPI days, even before the LT1 came out. I know they can do it right, it must have been a manufacturing defect. But you are right, it would be nice if aftermarket companies had the R&D resources at their disposal that GM has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azz061 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Well i would be interested to see what Drew's car is using for TB as IPS put on facebook he made 1070 rwhp on low boost this week. 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