Throttle Bodies

[tassie_euro_mk1]

Hey guys im thinking of going down the throttle bodies route for my mk1 project. something a little bit different. not sure what engine im looking at yet. Either a 2L 8v or 2L 16v.

Can anyone please point me out to some good websites about them? Especially for golf engine applications.

Or should I forget them completely. I dont want to go down the forced induction route because it seems to be the norm (no offence to anyone )


cheers guys
Eric

[velly_16v_cab]

http://www.badger5.co.uk/

iTB's, you will be talking 190BHP+ from a good 2.0 16v or abut 170bhp from and 8v cross flow.

They are great but setting up can be a pain in the butt!

Someone before has run them (i think it was valver or someone) on a seat ibiza, getting it tune was a pain as i remember.

easier and cheaper to run twin 45's carbs and about the same power (my mates mk1 2.1 16v twin 48's was 210bhp!)

i would look into your managment and tuning options first to see if you can go iTB's.

There is some threads in the members motors on CGTI forum of guys with iTB's

[evorobin]

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3645847

Let the moths out champ

[Water Boy]

Mate if u r going ITB's check out http://www.efihardware.com/efi_throttle.html

That is what we run on the 16v

or gsxr1000 r compact and cheap i beleive

[tassie_euro_mk1]

thanks guys.

would twin 45's use more fuel than ITB's? or about the same?

For the VW 2L 16V engine.

45mm throttle bodies which mount directly to the cylinder head.
A comprehensive kit is available from;
Badger5 Ltd., 57, Adelaide Gardens, Stonehouse, Gloucs, GL10 2PZ
Tel; (44) (0)1453 827936, Fax; (44) (0)870 0561360
Email; bill@Badger5.co.uk, Web; www.Badger5.co.uk

Engine application data

this is what im thinking about.

ill look into the gsxr1000 throttle bodies. would they be big enough though?

[velly_16v_cab]

your fuel will be pants with either of them!

i ran twin 40's webber carbs on my cab. it double the amount of fuel i was using.

but, fuel is cheap out here...so i wouldnt worry about that (but only having a 200 mile range was a killer tho lol)

[tassie_euro_mk1]

yea cool. well its not gonna be my daily driver anyway. Just an expensive toy lol.

[Valver.]

There's another thread on here somewhere and I posted a fair bit on it... probably a few pages back now.

Long and the short of it is, big money, or absolutely zero performance gain.

The fuel consumption is fine on anything but wide throttle openings: the minute you open it up, your tank is drained. ITBs will use a lot less fuel than carbs, but you'll go from a combined cycle of 8.5l/100km on a 2.0 16v, to about 14l/100km combined even with the ITBs.

[Jarred]

PM wabit abut bike carbs, quad 40's, and they're pretty gd i've heard

http://hausbrauen.blogspot.com/2006/03/bike-carbs.html

check that site, gd read. carbs are als0 simpler with tuning (i think) less wires anyways

[static1800]

Will try and dig up the thread Valver, Im tossing up whether to use ITB's or not. A mate of mine has some off of a Ninja I am planning to look at, it's that or my mate has a spare GT25 turbo from a CA18 engine.....

[Valver.]

I can reel off pages of crap about this, but there's no point. It really comes down to whether or not you have the funds to build a race motor with the volumetric efficiency to use (... or need) the extra intake potenial.

When you get the motor to this point, it's so peaky that you also need to address the gearbox, which isn't just a matter of changing the ring and pinion, as this slaughters any notion of top speed, it means swapping in a whole new gearset.

It goes from a $5000 exercise for a nice sound to a $30,000 exercise for a well-performing engine and driveline.

I hate turbo cars, but I've built one, as VW engines don't perform well without a turbo, and I like VWs...

[tassie_euro_mk1]

mmm maybe theyre not the go. I just thought they would of been a good alternative to the twin side draught webbers.

ah well I have time to ponder these things. Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.

I mean I was thinking of having an engine with power at around 170hp - 200hp???

[Valver.]

Having been there and done that, I'd spend my money on high class headwork and cams and a good value ECU, like an Autronic SMC. You can make a very torquey ~185hp 2.0 16v on standard induction due to the long stroke of these engines. They don't rev near as well as a Honda because of this, but they develop torque nicely and still go to high 7k rpm safely with a few tweaks

Other option is KR or PL 1.9 conversion, if you want a better-revving setup.

11-11.5 compression is the ultimate for a street 16v too.

[Preen59]

mmm maybe theyre not the go. I just thought they would of been a good alternative to the twin side draught webbers.

ah well I have time to ponder these things. Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.

I mean I was thinking of having an engine with power at around 170hp - 200hp???

I'm building a 1.9 16v on twin 45 DCOEs. From what i've read and from talking to Techtonics Tuning, it should have about 200 or a bit more with the config i'm running.

The thing you have to remember is, ATMO horsepower is made with RPMs.

Horsepower is simply BMEP (brute mean effective pressure) times (x) RPM, so because you aren't filling the cylinder well to get a high BMEP, you have to rev the engine harder to produce more cycles in the same time span. That is why a forced induction engine will always have more torque.

The other issue is, the higher in the RPM range the engine makes its power, the crankier it will be at low RPM, and it will be very dull down low.

[GoLfMan]

I mean I was thinking of having an engine with power at around 170hp - 200hp???

that'd be easily accievable on a 16v on twin webers mate, just look at what Preens doing with his engine, that should put out over 200hp i recon