06 Scion tC. MT. To the wheel. Hood Open. 87 gas. 12k mileage. Southern California. 80° temp.
Comparision of Stock tC + TRD Exhaust w and w/o spacer

The results didn't go so well. I got baseline at 157hp(!!) and 167torque and with the spacer on with 156hp and 172torque.

I must note that we did it with the spacer first, and removed it right away and did it baseline giving it no time to sit, rest, readjust. I don't know if this is a factor as to why my baseline results came out higher than normal(maybe someone who knows can explain?). However, if I'm convinced that it could possibly be a factor then ill drive around with the spacer off for awhile, let it settle, and redyno it baseline.

 

if you are able to do that - go for it - if you get a steady increase then you have a winner. I would assume the f/i people have an even better chance of more hp because of the larger amount of air.

 

looks like a torque boost....which sorta makes since with the way he was talking about the air spinning and etcetc..

its a possibility....plus it looks good, and is a great place to add V lines and nos/meth

 

I wonder what kind of effect it would have on a F/I tC

 

I would like to see more testing done

 

watching

 

man its on ebay now.. so who ever bought it pleases step up

 

Very Nice ill have to get one of these! Anyone have one and feel results yet?? thx!

 

The only purpose I think this could serve is a good mounting point for nitrous lines or something similar.

The dynos posted do not show a statistical difference, especially given the background information.

 

The gains and losses shown on the dyno chart is well within the margin of error of the dyno. If you ran the same car two times in a row, it is possible you could get the shown variance. I am still highly skeptical of this product unless you are using it for your nitrous lines.

 

So i guess you're just confirming my post Cars can easily go +/- 2-3 whp run to run, depending on as many factors as a person can imagine.


It just seems silly to me that people think that-
1) Better atomization of fuel can occur at that point in the intake tract... with something with so small of tread.

and
2) A "vortex" effect is something you actually want.

Think about this.

1) Air entering your engine has to go through this into a relativley large and complicated intake manifold. Within that, it goes through a number of velocity and directional changes as it's funneled into any one of the 4 runners. In the runners, fuel is injected, based on ratios and measurements determined by the mass airflow sensor way upstream in the intake tract. If anything is going to provide better fuel atomization, it's going to have to happen after fuel is injected, since any little effect this thing might have on airflow is going to get nullified by the internal workings of the intake manifold.

2) A "vortex effect" that everyone observes while watching fluids go between coke bottles might be the most effective way of transferring fluids... but note that there are 2 fluids in the coke bottles ! air and liquid! Air is moving from the bottom to the top, and liquid is moving from the top to bottom... In this system, a vortex is most effective since it allows 2 fluids to optimially transfer through a single space.

In a motor, you don't have 2 fluids... you have one! You simply have air entering the motor! Therefore, the most efficient way of getting air into the system is a straight, uniform path... not some swirling motion.

Some companies design products based on intake pulse design, being that the motor is not 100% uniform in sucking in air. This has some validity to it, since it ideally results in a "charging effect" down the line, where more air is forced into the chamber through naturally occuring vaccuum forces and momentum than typically expected. Think of a natural 0.2 psi above atmospheric... it's real! look it up!..

This effect, however, has nothing to do with the "turbonator" being discussed here.

------------


So if you're thinking-
1) Why does it work on carburated engines? - Carburators are air/fuel mixers, and a spacer between a carb and the intake runners allows for a longer mixing time before being drawn into the cylinder. Fuel injected motors do not have carbs, and inject fuel immediatley before being ingested by the motor... unless its direct-injection, which has a fuel injector shooting directly into the cylinder.

2)Why do Intake Manifold Gaskets (hondata) or Plenum spacers (nissans) or other similar things work? - These things that do work, and work well, usually involve insulating a metal intake manifold from the metal engine block. This slows heat transfer from the engine block to the manifold, and subsequentally keeps the intake temperatures lower... as well as helps to decrease the discrepancy between temperature readings at the MAF sensor and the temperature of the air actually being ingested.

We have a plastic intake manifold. It'll get warm, but not as warm as the other cars implied. There is very little that can be done about this.
------------------------------

This is why I think this idea is silly. If you'd like to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to discuss. Show me the concept, proof of concept, and some real-world numbers and I'll be next in line to buy one. Other than that, it's placebo.

 

Also, the red line in the above dynos is the more preferable graph.

1) More area under the curve in the "racing RPMs",
2) slightly more usuable torque in all RPM ranges,
3) and more consistent, good AFR through all RPMS.

So the red is the stock right?

 

this also works well on TBI cars....which are basically carbureted units...just electronically controlled

 

bump for updates

 

bump

 

any updates?!

 

Update?

 

i ordered an anodized red TBS.. i was told today it will be at my house tomorrow or friday. it will be installed as soon as i get off at 5.

 

I hope you're using it for a nitrous port... You will not get any power out of this mod alone.

 

Where did you order from?