which is better for a built 2.1L NA engine???

i was going to go ITBs but im not sure if there are any itb tuners in jersey.

ive been reading and i have read that the AIR is the best next to itbs. but which one is better?

 

search my archive history i made a post about it a while back and the air makes basically the same power as itb's did

 

just get a victor X manifold and take the rest of hte moeny to work on other aspects of your build, you won't be out hardly any power at all...IF any at all

 

im pretty sure tbone tested both air and itb and the jenvy itbs flowed more
not sure if he dynoed both thouh

 

There are many more posts of great gains with ITBs (I'd go with the Jenveys since there are more sizes to go with) than with that IM. That IM seems to do well on FI set ups but there just isn't much info on NA. Not sure why we don't see more graphs since they have been on the market for a while.

 

Jeff Evans, Tried both on his all motor setup i believe. And if i'm thinking right the AIR intake mani made better power than thet ITB's.

 

he sure does have some funny dyno charts....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rhd &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">he sure does have some funny dyno charts....</TD></TR></TABLE>

huh?

 

if your looking for a tuner look at jeff evans (boosted hybrid) hew tuned my car with ITBS very well with neptune . . good tuner

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ek9800 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">huh?</TD></TR></TABLE>

just seems ALL of his dyno charts are kinda...."up there"

 

Can anyone post a link to where i can see pictures of the AIR intake manifold?

 

Not all ITB's flow the same. The AIR intake flows better than some and worse than others. T-Bone's that flowed better were taper bored 48mm. his next will be either 52mm or 54mm. Toda are 42 or 45 mm.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rhd &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

just seems ALL of his dyno charts are kinda...."up there"</TD></TR></TABLE>

Rob , seriously you dont know what the hell you are talking about..
First off that motor was kinda low on power if you ask me, not "up there"
Second my car was dynoed on that dyno and it was within 4-5 hp of the other 2 dynojets I use.

Third, Jeff is one of the most competent tunners I have come across and I have seen him fix more tunes from other shops then just about anyone.
My tq curve and fule curve were dead on overlays of each other..
Sounds like your just alittle jealous that you cant create similar results with similar setups. Wasnt your 92 crank motor around 218 whp?

And for those comparing the air to his itb setup, its total bs anyway. He had 52 mm itb's on a realitivly small motor, they were way too big so of course the AIR performed better..

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tbone &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Rob , seriously you dont know what the hell you are talking about..
First off that motor was kinda low on power if you ask me, not "up there"
Second my car was dynoed on that dyno and it was within 4-5 hp of the other 2 dynojets I use.

Third, Jeff is one of the most competent tunners I have come across and I have seen him fix more tunes from other shops then just about anyone.
My tq curve and fule curve were dead on overlays of each other..
Sounds like your just alittle jealous that you cant create similar results with similar setups. Wasnt your 92 crank motor around 218 whp?

And for those comparing the air to his itb setup, its total bs anyway. He had 52 mm itb's on a realitivly small motor, they were way too big so of course the AIR performed better.. </TD></TR></TABLE>

owned.

 

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1169765 This is the thread i made about the comparison and jeff evans aka boosted hybrids input on the 2