Okey dokey. Here'* the deal......

I negotiated some test time from jr's3800, since he still has his OEM throttle body and the ZillaMotorsports TB. He'* willing to do some tests before he installs the ZM LIM (he recieved it today).

I propose Don collect the following data from both TB'* in MAF grams/sec:

Forget idle. Throttle plate is closed, and flow is through the IAC.

After warmup, Hold the throttle at 1000rpms on the scantool (not tach) which should be about 5-10% throttle angle. Record MAF g/*.

Hold the throttle at 1500 and record MAF.
Repeat at 2000 rpms as well as 2500, 3000, 3500. All this in park or Neutral. Should take just a few minutes.

With the car warm, take it for a drive. Record the same MAF numbers under load in 2nd gear at 3000rpm'* and 4000 rpm'*, then repeat at WOT if you have the road room, just under the threshold for a 3rd gear shift. WOT in 2nd gear to hold the speeds down to about 85mph. MAF numbers should be fairly steady regardless of vehicle speed.

Repeat this for both TB'*, then put the ZM TB back on the car when you install the ZM LIM, and repeat the test to see the percent gained from the TB and LIM combination.

This may be too many points. Better a few extras than not enough. The test will be repeated soon on an L27, and I expect the % gained to be somewhat similar. If you guys have anything to add to this, now'* your chance.

That sounds fine to me. I'm not necessarily trying to make Don do a bunch of work, but if he'* willing to do it that'* cool. I think the numbers we get should tell if the MAF readings are affected.

The only other thing that might need to be monitored is MAF frequency. As throttle is increased the signal frequency from the MAF changes, and I wonder if this should be noted instead of throttle position.

Don has a CP9110 scantool. I'm not sure if it will read freq on an OBD1/2. G/Sec would be roughly the same thing, shouldn't it? It'* a representation of the amount of flow across the filament.

He'* willing to do the work. We need to characterize the TB work, and he wants to know for himself as well.

Should be a very nice test.
Looking forward to seeing the results.

This test should qualify the ZM TB and LIM. Even if it'* a steady 3-5% gain at a specific rpm level, either mod can be done for very little money. I'm as anxious for the results as anyone on this test.

It'* in capable hands, that'* for damn sure. Bear in mind that BonneMeMn will be testing the L27 ZM TB shortly as well. At least sometime during the spring. Results should be similar.

Why not test idle to redline time in N? It'll quantify the gain in throttle response.

There'* a variable you forget. The TPS has to move from one TB to another. How can you insure the TPS stays EXACTLY the same with regards to alignment and resistance compared to % throttle?

You can't.

Throttle response IS snappier. That'* a given from the test cars already.

I know throttle response is quicker... You forget I have one mounted. Remember, I was the one that jumped on DrJays' thread and cut one up?

Simply adjust the TPS. Don can work a multimeter.

DrJay'* idea was a joke on the L67. Way out of range, and a poorly running car. More flow than the MAF sensor could handle.

I'm not talkking about removing the MAF support here, nor is anyone else. We're talking shaving the throttle shaft and countersinking the screws, which DrJay and you didn't do.

Snappier throttle response is more than obvious on the test cars. Seat of the pants dyno is more than enough to prove that. I'm more interested in power deliver (air flow) across the band, as is Ben, who posted this topic.

I'm not trying to steal any thunder here. I tried the idea DrJay found on the Tbird forums like you did. My results differed from yours, so I chose another direction that made sense.

I've gotten confirmation from a Northstar Tuner and a flowbench since I started doing it to confirm my suspicions.