Off topic but I have noticed that it seems like a lot of Nissan guys come to s2ki just to try and start shit. Truthfully if that is all they are going to do they need to get a life.

 

I see the response being better obviously.

The thing that I am questioning is that you have 4 butterflies. 1 in each runner. Each butterfly would create more crap in the way of airflow instead of having just the runner there. Since we're talking about ITBs with boost, there will still need to be a main inlet where the original butterfly would be. You could run a big throttle body port matched to the intake manifold (non-ITB manifold) and make good gains.

Lets say this inlet to the manifold on the ITB setup is the same size as a big throttle body and the manifolds are similarly designed. The two manifolds you would have are 1 with a big throttle body with the same size inlet as the ITB manifold and 1 with 4 butterflies in each runner. Which is the bigger restriction for max hp?

Maybe, I'm just over thinking things, but thats why I say it defeats the purpose. Thats my logic layed out. Let me know if my thinking is complete BS or makes sense.

 

I think the reason it hasn't been done (except by fperra) is that most of us are getting 'enough' from our single throttle body systems.

The thought experiment goes a little like this:
I'm getting x00hp with my current system. With individual throttle bodies (ch-ching) and a tuning system based on throttle position and airflow or whatever (ch-ching) I could get maybe x05hp. Or I could just turn up the boost 0.5 psi.

These ideas are great and we should be very grateful for the fperras of the world, but for my finite amount of money it's best left as a thought experiment.

 

I think the "nissan" guys you're talking about are s2k owners who probably had a nissan before? not everyone ONLY drives a honda

 

During the 80's when some of you are just a grasshoppers & never seen a turbocharged car, I had an 1980 1st generation Lotus Esprit. http://yfrog.com/j3esprit1ag NORMALLY CARBURETED ITB TURBOCHARGED (blow through system). One of the highest producing horsepower car then. It took over 20 years before Honda S2000 took the crown of one of the highest producing horsepower per liter.

To make the story short, I converted the car to Fuel injection (Motec)and retained the ITB's. The car picked up another 50hp because of the FI conversion not because of the ITB's. I probably can pick up more if deleted the ITB's and converted to single plenum butterfly. The intake turbulence of FI ITB turbocharged system not ideal. I also had problem integrating the dump valve (for your info, it's called BOV today).

I think it's unnecessary.

 

Slight correction there. Honda was the highest horsepower per liter NORMALLY ASPIRATED in a production car.

That record has just been eclipsed by Ferrari and the 458 Italia.

 

True for today's standard. You can call it FI normally aspirated.

During the 70 & the 80's normally aspirated is carbureted.
Having carbureted turbo is a trade off with Fuel injected car.

 

NA/FI has to do with how the engine breathes not how the fuel is added.

Normally aspirated has meant no turbo or supercharger for as long as I've been around regardless of whether a vehicle had electronic fuel injection, mechanical fuel injection or used a carburetor to deliver the fuel (blow through or draw through).

 

Carburetor is an atomization/emulsion machine. An injection system is a proper air to fuel delivery ratio machine. Two different concepts.

The difference is the computer -- Fuel injection advantage (of course if you know how to map).

 

exactly what I've been trying to say.