ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Different ITB....
- Thread starter joker83
- Start date
Clio RS 172
Clio RS 172
F4R'd ITB'd '92 cup racer
ah sorry i thought you meant basic differences
i'm not sure how they perform differently, not sure who has done back to back results
on both standard engines, my jenveys made 194 bhp and Burp/Tony's AT's made 198 and both made just shy of 170 lb/ft
however it is more about the delivery of power and im afraid thats where my knowledge of RR graphs runs out
Looking back i would probably have been better off using the AT's as they allow more space due to the lack of manifold
i may swap to them in the future :evil:
I was led to believe because the butterfly is closer to the head, it give better throttle response, fook knows.
Mine made 204bhp and 159 torque on the AT Power ITB's
Mine made 204bhp and 159 torque on the AT Power ITB's
TrackCar & F30 330d
I'm running the Jenvey Throttle bodies on my 182 and my output is 200.0 bhp and 165 lb/ft torque.
But as someone has mentioned its mainly about the curves. I'll try scan my print out.
But as someone has mentioned its mainly about the curves. I'll try scan my print out.
182 gordini
what AT stands for...any link?
F4R'd ITB'd '92 cup racer
182 gordini
has anyone yet tried to modifie ITBs to work with Egas...to somehow mount that electric motor from standar throttle body...
E39 M5 & Corsa track
we found the AT power throttle bodies a much nicer fit than the Jenvey bodies, power wise the AT bodies have been proven to give more mid range than the Jenvey, with peak power being very similar.
We use the AT power ones now over the Jenvey items on the vauxhall XE engine and the Clio 172/182's.
We use the AT power ones now over the Jenvey items on the vauxhall XE engine and the Clio 172/182's.
E39 M5 & Corsa track
Never had a problem with the linkage to be honest, done a few now and they are all ok.
I am a jenvey fan, i run jenvey taper bodies on my own car and they are great, but wit hthe AT power bodies giving the little bit more mid range for very similar money there is no real reason to go against them, and also the space thing is a good selling point.
I am a jenvey fan, i run jenvey taper bodies on my own car and they are great, but wit hthe AT power bodies giving the little bit more mid range for very similar money there is no real reason to go against them, and also the space thing is a good selling point.
172 Race Car
Would be nice to see a graph with a Jenvey car and AT car overlayed to copmaire.
Fred has apoint as the AT's sit so close to the engine space is tight. Needs a bit of fidling with and we binned the stock cable. The Jevenys have acres of space to fit linkages
We are very pleased with our tourqe curve tho. On a set of bodys that people were sceptical about
Fred has apoint as the AT's sit so close to the engine space is tight. Needs a bit of fidling with and we binned the stock cable. The Jevenys have acres of space to fit linkages
We are very pleased with our tourqe curve tho. On a set of bodys that people were sceptical about
172 Race Car
172Ben still has/had AC on his iirc
Heres our race car with AT
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6416034&postcount=325
Heres our race car with AT
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6416034&postcount=325
E39 M5 & Corsa track
yes you can keep the air con with the at power bodies and a pipercross sausage filter
Clio 182
Since I was really curious about difference on dyno graphs I did this:
I hope everyone realise that these were different cars and different RR. But it's obvious that Jenvey should give you power higher (above stock redline) and AT looks much better for street (torque at low and medium revs). Difference could also came from better maping on AT setup. So I'd say that these two kits are almost identical.
BTW like Stan asked, what setup was on AT kit? Intake lenght and everything? What ECU and injectors?
Sorry for bad English and mistakes, English is not my first language.
I hope everyone realise that these were different cars and different RR. But it's obvious that Jenvey should give you power higher (above stock redline) and AT looks much better for street (torque at low and medium revs). Difference could also came from better maping on AT setup. So I'd say that these two kits are almost identical.
BTW like Stan asked, what setup was on AT kit? Intake lenght and everything? What ECU and injectors?
Sorry for bad English and mistakes, English is not my first language.
I don't have that for a Clio engine sorry. But I have it for others by request (email).
Intake length is variable depending on whether you want to keep standard radiator and bonnet catch etc. I think we've seen that using the longer set up with an airbox can give extremely healthy torque - but requires more modifying to the front of the car etc.
From what I have gathered about F4R engine I don't think you're going to see anything staggering between AT Power or Jenvey on a standard engine (some will prefer one over the other, which is fine by me). Of course I am much happier now that the clio crowd has somewhat gone off the opinion that our throttles are crap, or "don't produce the power". It appeared to me that the knife had been dug in well and truly. If anyone is wondering what is geometrically different between the initial sets that were tested and the ones used by people today it is..
Nothing.
The only difference is the inlet length (which as stated above is variable anyway - and was requested at that length by the original tuning garage). Highest recorded figure using that size throttle on a 2.0 engine is 305.6bhp@9000rpm (slightly more than on 50mm itbs).
I'd like to thank all those over the last year that "took a chance" and used our throttle bodies on their Clios.
Much appreciated! :approve::approve:
John.
Unfortunately (it's a nice try) but that makes the graph completely useless either way you want to look at it. Different cars, set ups, engine conditions, dynos, tyres, gearbox condition, etc etc etc
Comparisons should only be done on same engine (prefereably on engine dyno) at controlled conditions and on the same day with the same fuel batch, in as short a time space as possible. Everything else is just guess work I'm afraid.
182 trackday racer
Wow! Id like to know more about that build! Any links or other info?
Clio 182
Yeah, you got that right.
And doing test like that on the same day would be quite a project.From my amateur point of view kits are identical. Honestly i'd probably take yours but like I said I don't have experiences with ITB.
Ford Duratec engine for european autograss car. Lots of money spent, lots of performance
@Symon
Yes there isn't a lot between the two kits in reality. As long as you use a good tuner who will get the most out of your set up you'll be fine I'm sure.
182cup & 172 racecar
At least we have now established that there is not alot to choose between them,and that it is just down to preferences and tuning,so thats a start.I think they look very neat and tidy plus you have the choice to get longer inlets to fit under the bonnet.
Again thanks John.
Again thanks John.
RS RIP
tiny hijack here
fitting bodies like these on a 172 ph2 means changing the pedalbox (whole throttle setup?) does'nt it ?
And a different engine-management ?
I'm glad to hear the AT bodies are getting some good results. I read about these a while back when they first came around the corner for the Clio RS, but now some time later it's good to get the feedback taken from a substantial period of time people have been running them.
WHen having the ph2 (172Cup) , what amount of money are we talking about for AT bodies + management mapping (standalone-management + the throttle/pedal-box if i was right) ?
fitting bodies like these on a 172 ph2 means changing the pedalbox (whole throttle setup?) does'nt it ?
And a different engine-management ?
I'm glad to hear the AT bodies are getting some good results. I read about these a while back when they first came around the corner for the Clio RS, but now some time later it's good to get the feedback taken from a substantial period of time people have been running them.
WHen having the ph2 (172Cup) , what amount of money are we talking about for AT bodies + management mapping (standalone-management + the throttle/pedal-box if i was right) ?
Last edited:
Burp, think I read in your build post that the air box was possibly fabricated, any chance of some pics, does John at AT provide something?
Why did you go with AT over Jenvey?
182cup & 172 racecar
It is an off the shelf Reverie carbon air box,the back box was not fabricated but we did have to wait for it as they are made in batches and when we wanted ours they had non.
182cup & 172 racecar
Why not? we wanted to try and buck the trend,so after many phone calls between
Tour de Force (Matt)
Rs Tuning (Paul)
AT power (John)
we went ahead.
182cup & 172 racecar
I would not know about all that stuff,but I can put a plug on.
