That'* a cute way to post a section of a two hour conversation. I'll forward the entire conversation to anyone that requests it.

This seems to have been posted here by Will as backhanded attempt to embarrass me. He wants it out in public so I'll go ahead and post the relavent PM'* to save him the time.

From: Damemorder
To: willwren
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:35 pm
Subject: Re: ?
Bill, I suggest you take a step back and consider your position. You're bashing me now.

http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...603&highlight=
You know damned well that a TB spacer is meant to cool the intake temps. You saying that'* not a good idea?

Don't expect me to be proud of your work. Go ahead and be proud of yourself to your hearts' content.


From: willwren
To: Damemorder
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:37 pm
Subject: Re: ?
Damemorder wrote:
Bill, I suggest you take a step back and consider your position. You're bashing me now.

http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...603&highlight=
You know damned well that a TB spacer is meant to cool the intake temps. You saying that'* not a good idea?

Don't expect me to be proud of your work. Go ahead and be proud of yourself to your hearts' content.


Who'* done the TB temp data collection, Dame? You? A TB spacer won't reduce intake temps one bit. How on earth is a chunk of aluminum going to reduce temps?

From: Damemorder
To: willwren
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: ?
I said it doesn't work. The idea behind a TB spacer is to lower intake temps. Cooling the TB does not work.

That'* why I said "The Throttle Body Spacer is a gimmick at best. Its' idea is right, But it'* just about the worst way to do it."

Go ahead and read it again, You said cooling the intake air is not a good idea.


From: willwren
To: Damemorder
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: ?
Dame, a TB spacer won't cool the intake charge. You have a week off. I suggest you take it.

From: Damemorder
To: willwren
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: ?
Let me get this straight.

I tell you you're off topic.
You tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I explain to you how you're blurring the line between admin/vendor.
You bash me in another thread.
I correct you in PM'* so you can edit your post.
You tell me I have a week off?



Maybe you're just not reading my pm'* or something, But I've told you that I know a TB spacer will not cool the intake charge. It'* simply thermodynamics. We both agree on whether or not the mod will work, You're just buzzing right past the point that cooling the intake charge is a good idea.




For those that didn't see it; Will posted that "TB spacer is a gimmick, and it'* idea isn't right. " The idea behind a TB spacer on a port injected engine is to cool the TB in an attempt to cool the intake charge. Therefore, Wills' post is wrong and I corrected him via PM. Of course he was still pissy with our earlier PM'* and decided to take the childish route and make his earlier post in this topic.

Push the weak people around all you want, But I'll call your **** every time. At least I used PM'* to try not to embarrass you.

But your on the money with the thought. Both increase the airflow into the motor. I haven't done a cam in a series II 3800, but have done plenty in other motors. The idea behind cams and rockers goes like this:

A replacement cam alters the timing of the intake and exhaust valves, usually by a combination of increasing the lift (so the valves open deeper into the cylinder head) and the duration (so the valves are opened longer) This also usually moves the power band of the motor to a higher rpm.

Higher ratio rockers have the same effect on a stock cam. By moving the fulcrum a little, the rocker multiplies the stock lift of the cam lobe into a larger valve lift. The effect of higher ratio rockers is to increase both the lift and the duration of the cam lobes, giving the cylinder a little more time to suck in a bigger fuel/air charge.

Ok, that'* the good part of the puzzle. Now here'* the bad parts:

First, when swapping cams and rockers you need to pay carefull attention to the heights of the valve springs in the cylinder head. The total amount of lift that can be done on the motor is a function of the valve springs. Compress them too much with a high lift cam and/or higher ratio rockers and the coils of the spring will touch each other (this is refered to as "coil bind", and it'* a bad thing...causes other parts of the valvetrain to bend or break.)

Second, the strength of the valve springs is also a factor. Since you are moving the power band up in the rpm range and your valves are moving quicker (they are covering a larger distance in the same time, so the acceleration of each valve is higher both opening and closing.) The opening part is usually not a problem at all, the valve train works great under compression. The closing part can be troublesome with stock springs..they may not be strong enough to keep up with the cam lobe and not close fast enough. This is what is known as "Valve Float"...also a bad thing at high RPM cause you just lost control of the valve timing as they are no longer following the cam lobes.

If you start shopping for performance cams and rockers, you'll see little notes in the fine print regarding their recommendations for using stronger valvesprings and retainers...it'* because of the two afore-mentioned side effects of higher lift cams.

Last, Just because the cam commands the engine to draw more air in and pump more exhaust out is no guarantee that the motor can actually do it. The ability of the intakes, heads, and exhaust to flow that air come into play. You can do the cam and still not see an appreciable increase in the power output. You probably will see something, but you may not see all of what is available and what you paid good money for.

So, in a nutshell, doing the cams and rockers is both outside the budget you called for, and possibly way outside the budget if you need to tinker with the valvesprings, heads, and exhaust plumbing to get it to work right.

I'll go back to my original comment. Do the simple stuff, get some good diagnostic tools so you can learn from the motor now and see where you are going. Then move up as time, money, and the warranty allow

(I also don't see any use in a TB spacer for your motor. You have a plastic upper intake manifold with coolant lines feeding hot water to the TB as it is. Moving the TB further away from the manifold isn't going to do anything for you. Blocking off the coolant flow to the TB might be helpfull, if icing the throttle blades isn't a problem for you. Knocking down the overall operating temp of the motor with a lower T-stat is a good starting point)

Referenceing Damemorder'* post above:

Damemorder, you were given a week off for your comments earlier in this topic that were deleted and those in another topic, as well as your general attitude in a couple others. Normally the discipline isn't handed out publicly, but you were specifically told to cool off, and made this post anyway. Not for your comments, but for your attitude and failure to clearly read the comments and how they relate to the topic.

So I'll correct you, then dish out further discilpline.

A TB spacer'* primary job is NOT cooling, nor can it provide any cooling, as you can see from my comments and Curt Martin'* directly above mine. The primary purpose of a TB spacer is to increase port velocity. TB spacers have been around as long as you've been on this earth for that reason, and it works, but only in TB injected applications where the spacer is directly below the injector. You can't do that and gain anything substantial on a multi-port or tuned-port intake setup like ours. If a TB spacer actually increased velocity by simply lenghening the delivery tube, making your CAI longer would do the same thing. It doesn't though, does it?

In case you didn't catch it, YOU called the spacer a GIMMICK. I AGREED with you, bozo.
I'll refrain from posting YOUR PM'* to ME last night. That should save you some embarassment.

TB spacers are a joke UNLESS you've done everything else already to your car. TB spacers do NOT reduce intake temps, and only really provide an injection point for water or Nitrous, OR can provide an adapting point for a different type of TB to your car.

That'* about the size of it.

I will need to use a TB spacer on my 3800. But my situation is unique...I'm adapting the flange from the SC to a Throttle Body from a different year and picking up a port in the side of the adapter to poke a NOS Fogger nozzle through it. Adding an adapter plate between the TB and the Manifold (SC in my case) is about the only way to skin this particular cat.

Can radically changing the runner lengths effect the characteristics of a motor? You bet your A** it can. The difference between a Tuned Port Injection V8 and a Mini-Ram/LT1 manifold on the same motor are substantial...way different power curves. But that'* not applicable in this case....you would have to make a custom intake manifold to get the same effect on a 3800.

Personally, I think calling it a "spacer" is a miss-nomer carried over from the days of carb motors. In those days (and now if you still play with carbs) you wanted a spacer between the top of the intake manifold and the carb to keep the carb from getting cooked. Moving the carb up, moved the carb and it'* fuel bowls away from the heat source. Those spacers were usually wood or phenolic plastic..i.e. insulators. Sometimes you would see a stack of aluminum plates with gaskets between them. The aluminum plates acted like fins on a heatsink with the paper gaskets serving as insulators between the plates, Either way, it has no bearing on the Fuel Injected 3800, the plastic upper intake manifold is your best insulator.

The best bang (literally) for your $500 is N20.

However if your interested in driveability updates and a little more power, then a PCM upgrade, better air intake, and a set of 1.9 rockers with springs will net you about 15-20 whp more and increase your "fun" factor.

I forgot to add that an article on the more optimum ER ratio can be found on Easy Performance'* website under tech articles.

Love my ER Rockers. Very nice mod for the money.

So the PCM upgrade would be the chip with sofware loaded on it to alter the stock computers programing if I've got this correct? Which ones are better than others, I know there were differences when I had my Lumina.

What about the programs to hook my laptop up to the car to alter programing, those any good?

That would be my recommendation. I have to bow out of the conversation at this point due to my lack of knowledge on what is available for your PCM (I'm more familliar with the EPROM based controllers and the flashable PCM'* for the F-Body. My '94 Camaro is a Flashable PCM, while the rest of my toys use the older calibrator proms)

If a piece of software is available to flash the program on the stock PCM, then that is one of the best solutions available. The process is reversable, and transferable...you can always undo a change if it doesn't produce the desired effect or load your custom data into a new PCM should yours become damaged. That'* how we do them on the F-Bodies. (In my case, I use a software package called TunerCat)

I'm sure some of the others will chime in on what some of the modules can do and what other options are available.

BTW, don't confuse the diagnostic tools that run on laptops with the "programmers" One reads the data comming off the car in real time and the other will insert the modified code into the PCM to use. You will need both eventually, but a good diagnostic reader (or a scan tool) should be the first investment. It will tell you what the car is doing now on the stock PCM and help you find faults.

I can't find anything thats going to tune the stock pcm and hook up to my laptop, maybe some of the guys on here know of something.