a real answer to Throttle Body Spacers...do they work?

FallenAngelHIM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Posts
3,848
Reaction score
8
Location
Miami, FL
okay, so we have all heard the arguement and claim from SPE, OBX, and anyone else who makes throttle body spacers about what they do. throttle body spacers are engineered and designed with a screw like interior so that the air hitting it will cause the air to spiral, thereby causing more efficient air flow. this also allows more air to be sent into the engine for a more efficient combustion. does it work? will it increase HP? nobody seems to know. those who make claims and arguements usually have no experience with them, do not own one, or are just making empty statements. so i decided to do a real test myself and purchased one from theinspire.

i have yet to install it but i have the actual throttle body spacer and presented it to several physics student at the University of Miami. i took them to my car and presented the engine bay area in question. i explained what an SRI is, where the spacer is to go, and what the throttle body does. i asked several questions about theories and concepts of a the composition of air.

for those that do not know, a SRI or short ram intake is a replacement for the stock air box. without getting into detail, an SRI basically provides a solid pipe for more air mass to travel into the engine.

the physics student told me that if the pipe was cut cleanly (meaning mandrel bent) and the inside diameter of the tube is smooth, air will travel smoothly inside without turbulence. the less turbulence air mass encounters, the quicker it will travel. at the same rate, the longer the pipe, the more time it takes the air mass to get into the engine. it was also explained to me that if at all possible, a pipe that had no bends and was completely straight would be able to get a more efficient air mass seeing how the air mass would require no bending.

when i presented them with the thottle body spacer i told them the concept behind it and what it was to do. this is where the idea of expanding the length of the passge for the air mass comes in with negative reactions.

the answer given to the theory of air being able to spin in a whirldwind like motion once it hits the corkscrew throttle body spacer seemed completely absurd to the physic students. the suggestion that air can be molded to spin when traveling at such a speed was laughable. they thought i was joking but then when i showed them the OBX box they knew i wasn't. without being told the effects of installing the throttle body spacer, one of the students made the comment that the only thing to change would be the sound of the engine. it was explained to me that the air, once it hits the throttle body spacer, would encounter turbulence from bouncing up and down upon the ridges. the air does not function like water where it is shaped by the area it is enclosed it. air is more free-moving. the turbulence caused by the airmass hitting the ridges of the spacer would only cause some sound dynamics to change.

think of when the wind rustles through the tree. you hear a whistling or howling sound. if the same wind comes from a few feet back with no trees, you don't hear the wind moving. the same principle applies to when one whips a rope in the air. the road slices through the air causing turbulence to occur making a distorted sound.

therefore, a throttle body spacer would create turbulence to change the sound dynamics of air entering into the engine. at the very worse, it will actually DECREASE air efficiency entering the engine, but not so much that it would cause a loss in HP.

the only conceivable way air mass would swirl as SPE or OBX suggests is only if the winding corkscrew was one big long screw instead of the 5-threaded screw that is on most spacers. a one wide thread MIGHT possibly be able to cause the wind to detour into some slight swirling motion.


it was concluded by the physic students that the throttle body spacer would do nothing but the smooth flow of the air by creating wind turbulence and cause a change in sound dynamics. in other words, you won't gain any HP but only get the cool swirly sound.
 

Spyder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Posts
361
Reaction score
0
Location
Riverside, CA
So by reading this the turbonator is also uneffective right? Dammit now I have to return it.

Good reading and data. Now if someone would just get the back to back dyno to have a sheet of actual proof to show people who are so set one way or the other.
 
Last edited:

Jeffro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Posts
1,563
Reaction score
1
Location
Ohio
Nice research... I personally probably would have just put it on, but that's just me ;)

Interesting though. It makes me think... "false advertising"?

And another thought... It's been a while since I've looked at them, but I thought the AEM V2 CAI used the "sound" to help adjust the air flow, or something like that as well... Does this disprove the difference between the AEM V1 and V2 CAI now, too? :confused:
 
Last edited:

Wildman

Read the rules
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Posts
5,135
Reaction score
26
Location
Alexandria, VA
^^ there are dynos showing v2's make bigger gains though.

i'm skeptic of your friends' criticism but who knows. what they were saying seems to make sense in some points but my understanding has been that TB spacers do make small gains so if that's true it seems like it'd disprove your friends.

but then again i can't remember ever seeing 2 dynos where in one it was a stock car and the next was just a tb spacer
 

Jeffro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Posts
1,563
Reaction score
1
Location
Ohio
Wildman said:
^^ there are dynos showing v2's make bigger gains though.

i'm skeptic of your friends' criticism but who knows. what they were saying seems to make sense in some points but my understanding has been that TB spacers do make small gains so if that's true it seems like it'd disprove your friends.

but then again i can't remember ever seeing 2 dynos where in one it was a stock car and the next was just a tb spacer

I'm no expert by any means on TB spacers, but isn't another concept of the spacer to enlarge the hole for the airflow, so a larger throttle body/air intake would give some gains with a spacer? Or do I not make sense here? :confused:
 

Wildman

Read the rules
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Posts
5,135
Reaction score
26
Location
Alexandria, VA
they are supposed to spin the air that goes into the manifold.

from what I've always understood the performance gains have less to do with velocity and more to do with atomization when the air enters the cylinder, but I could be wrong, it was never something I did a lot of research on.
 

angelplus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
2,664
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Jeffro said:
I'm no expert by any means on TB spacers, but isn't another concept of the spacer to enlarge the hole for the airflow, so a larger throttle body/air intake would give some gains with a spacer? Or do I not make sense here? :confused:


NO. I personally have one and it actually restricts the flow of air. When installing, I noticed that the diameter of TB spacer is actually smaller then the diameter of your manifold/throttlebody. So if you were to actually bore out your throttlebody, then it would cause a greater restriction rate.

I must say, that installing it was a waste of money and time IMO. :furious: All it did was make a cool whistling noise at lower RPMs, and create a quiet BOV sound when you step off of the pedal. So IMO, I wouldn't get one, waste of 100 bucks or w/e you have to pay.

I did see an increase in lowend torque though, which actually surprised me to find that maybe it worked, maybe it didn't. But I guess we wont know unless we dyno without it, then dyno the car with the TB spacer installed. Just my $.02


Great write up :peace:
 
Last edited:

FallenAngelHIM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Posts
3,848
Reaction score
8
Location
Miami, FL
Jeffro said:
I'm no expert by any means on TB spacers, but isn't another concept of the spacer to enlarge the hole for the airflow, so a larger throttle body/air intake would give some gains with a spacer? Or do I not make sense here? :confused:


well, i failed to mention this but they suggested this idea to me, too although they had no idea what porting and boring were and that you could do it on a car. it seems the only way to get more N/A air is by "having a bigger diameter on the tube" as they put it. i think what was meant is boring out the throttle body and matching it with the intake tube. see the principle is not about lengthening the distance, but widening the diameter that would make it efficient.

as far as the turbonator goes, they told me they have seen things like that and this is a quote, "it's common sense that when you have something in the way of air movement, it's going to block it and cause turbulence." the example given was basically blowing air through your lips and then having your fingers in front while blowing air through your lips. your fingers act as a screen and slows the air down.

i have not yet put the spacer on, so i cannot agree or disagree with the physics kids. it does make sense what they say about the rope whipping the air to create a sound and the sound of wind being heard only when it goes through a tree (the tree moving as a sound aside, you hear whistling and howling). it's all a cause of turbulence that creates the sound.


Jeffro said:
And another thought... It's been a while since I've looked at them, but I thought the AEM V2 CAI used the "sound" to help adjust the air flow, or something like that as well... Does this disprove the difference between the AEM V1 and V2 CAI now, too? :confused:


i would not be so quick to apply throttle body spacing with V1's and V2's seeing how they use a different principle and there's a whole different side of engineering involved with those. i would have to have an actual V2 and show the physics people to see what they think but i'm not spending 200+ on a V2...LOL...not right now anyways.


and all of this was explained with basic principles of physics, no mathematical theorems or proofs so i'm not saying this is the 100% absolute truth. it is just simply in principle that it makes sense when physics is applied. i needed a third unbiased party that knew nothing about cars and gave it to them as a science project for thought.
 

FallenAngelHIM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Posts
3,848
Reaction score
8
Location
Miami, FL
Wildman said:
they are supposed to spin the air that goes into the manifold.

from what I've always understood the performance gains have less to do with velocity and more to do with atomization when the air enters the cylinder, but I could be wrong, it was never something I did a lot of research on.


this is what i was addressing. i was being told that if you lengthen the pipe it won't do anything as far as velocity. air is not going to travel faster because you make the distance traveled longer, it'll just delay it. the issue at and about TB spacers is do the corkscrews funnel the wind into a "tornado" like state. are the properties of wind capable of being formed and shaped into a tornado with no other factor other than the shape of the space containing it. the answer seems to be no, it would not. the air mass is not going to do anything except once it travels through the smooth inner diameter of the SRI, will hit a ridge on the TB spacer and get knocked up and down, bouncing back and forth like ping pong ball. that is what turbulence is about, the flow of the wind being disrupted.
 
Back
Top