Has anyone ever tried these? On our cars they come 60,70,80, and 100mm

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/70mm-Universal-Throttle-Body-CNC-BILLET-GDF-2-5RS-R30-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem4aa4e69e2eQQitemZ320594157102QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories

Dino did IIRC.

I think it was too much or something. He will probably chime in.

"Universal" does not mean "direct fit" or "bolt on". These are not a bolt on part for anything except the car they were made for, probably a Mustang from the look of it.

70mm is too big for pretty much anything you're ever going to do with a 420A, and there are 60mm TBs that can bolt on with much less work already available.

______________________________
If a sentence found online has 35% misspellings or greater and includes at least two racially charged expletives, chances are it is a YouTube comment.

'95 Eclipse TurboGS (garage deco)
'95 TSi AWD (restoring a survivor)
'97 Talon ESi-T (poor impulse control)
'99 Eclipse RS-T (daily beater)
'13 Evo X (mostly stock)
'17 Sienna (Middle Aged Dad Mobile)



Factory Service Manuals: http://nawdu.de/files/

even with a built engine with forced induction? Im gettin a venom manifold almoast free and i can weld the flange on it. It would be able to work. Just wanted to see if anyone else has tried

If you're planning to use your TPS and IAC, you'd be better off buying one that was made for our cars. Cheaper in the long run, as all the work making it fit our cars and using our sensors has been done for you. Just my .02

______________________________
If a sentence found online has 35% misspellings or greater and includes at least two racially charged expletives, chances are it is a YouTube comment.

'95 Eclipse TurboGS (garage deco)
'95 TSi AWD (restoring a survivor)
'97 Talon ESi-T (poor impulse control)
'99 Eclipse RS-T (daily beater)
'13 Evo X (mostly stock)
'17 Sienna (Middle Aged Dad Mobile)



Factory Service Manuals: http://nawdu.de/files/

is that 70mm it looks huge? what gets to me is that honda guys use 62 or 66mm throttle bodies and they arent even turbo. Im planin on a full rebuild with turbo. I am turbo now only at 8psi.

IMO, 70mm is way too big for the street (even turbo). You might want to try a 65mm Mustang TB. I'm running one on the NA right now (well, actually its off a Crown Vic or some kinda shit). For $35 I was happy.

But then, I run MSnS.

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm

i remember reading somewhere, that on our engines, wether its turbo or N/A, get to the point where 60mm is like 80mm, which is like 100mm. They said anything after sixty really doesn't matter...

My big question is...
Why are Ls1chevy guy only running 70 mm tbs, those engines have 5.7L of displacement. Thats 3 times our motors but they only need 10mm more air?

From V's with 8 cylinders to rotarys that spin, as long as its fast everybody wins.

Erik P.
Official 2GNT thread Hijacker
Some say that he's driven over more Covenant than he's shot, and that his grenades aren't where you'd expect them to be...
All we know is, He's not The Stig... But he is The Stig's Spartan cousin!

So does that mean there is a 25% flow increase? Or are the Area and flow capiblities differant formulas?

From V's with 8 cylinders to rotarys that spin, as long as its fast everybody wins.

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm

K that makes sense, I just thought that airflow wasn't exactly related to area. Like I thought that an area increase of say 25% would only have a flow increase of something like 12.5%. What I'm trying to say is I thought that an increase of area was only equal to half an increase of flow

From V's with 8 cylinders to rotarys that spin, as long as its fast everybody wins.