• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

throttle body ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 87WhiteStang1
  • Start date Start date Oct 2, 2008
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Oct 3, 2008
#21
  • Oct 3, 2008
  • #21
1. Gears will only hurt your fuel economy if you do a lot of highway driving because of the increased cruising rpms. If you're just putting around town at 50mph or less, you really won't see a change in mpg at all. I've heard claims of 2-3 mpg loss after gears at the very most.

2. No matter what people will say, speed density can handle some amount of engine modification. With some tweaking, I've even seen it handle H/C/I. While it is a good idea to run MAF when you really start to open the engine up, a TB is not going to overcome the SD. The modifications you see in my sig work just fine on my SD car, and I have no problems with lean operation.


wythors said:
A 70mm throttle body on a car with a stock intake manifold and a stock MAF meter is a complete and total waste of time and money. The stock throttle body is not creating any restriction in your set-up right now. The lower intake manifold and heads are what are holding you back. Either put your money towards a better manifold (or have your existing one ported) or heads, or do as others have suggested and put the money towards gears.

Again, for you a throttle body by itself is a complete and total waste of time and money with your set-up.
Click to expand...

Why are you so against it? Its not like its a step in the wrong direction, and it will open up when he does decide to go with a better intake and/or heads. If he is going to do it sooner or later, he might as well do it now, seems to me. Sounds like his heart is set on it, haha, so let him be!
 

wythors

Get off my lawn!!!
Founding Member
May 17, 2000
2,277
35
69
C Addle
Oct 3, 2008
#22
  • Oct 3, 2008
  • #22
NikwoaC said:
Why are you so against it? Its not like its a step in the wrong direction, and it will open up when he does decide to go with a better intake and/or heads. If he is going to do it sooner or later, he might as well do it now, seems to me. Sounds like his heart is set on it, haha, so let him be!
Click to expand...

I'm not against it, I'm just trying to get through to him that it will do absolutely nothing for him. He would be much better off by putting the money towards something that will actually improve his performance.

Maybe he should put a parachute on the back too while he's at it. After all, he may need it someday as well.
 

ill advised

Member
Apr 29, 2003
656
10
19
West L.A.
Oct 3, 2008
#23
  • Oct 3, 2008
  • #23
Wythors has a point though. Sure it won't hurt to add a bigger t-body but considering the lack of bang for the buck; for now I would spend that money elsewhere. A t-body can always be added later when 87WhiteMustang does more upgrades. He seems to be looking for something that will give immediate results and he just isn't going to get that from a t-body at this point.

edit: Treed by Wythors. Oh well.
 

Strype

Cuthbert catcher
Founding Member
May 11, 1999
61
34
104
Huntsvegas, AL
Oct 3, 2008
#24
  • Oct 3, 2008
  • #24
Strype said:
Anyone who tells you that your gas mileage isn't affected much is incorrect.
Click to expand...

NikwoaC said:
1. Gears will only hurt your fuel economy if you do a lot of highway driving because of the increased cruising rpms. If you're just putting around town at 50mph or less, you really won't see a change in mpg at all. I've heard claims of 2-3 mpg loss after gears at the very most.
Click to expand...

This is why I stay out of Stangnet Daycare.


It's definateley 3 but when the car was rated at 16-18 in the first place it makes a hell of a lot more of a difference than mommy's honda civic. 30 mpg's in a car down to 27 isn't bad, 19-20 (what I got with a fresh motor and bigger cam in my 86) down to 15-16 is a hell of a difference.

Jesus it's like I'm Alice and Wonderland is on strike so I'm stuck sitting in a dream world and it doesn't deliver. Does that make sense to anyone?



Highway driving will net you better gas mileage than city no matter what unless you have 5.56's or some crazy **** in it man WTF???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Seriously dude?????? Jesus



I've had one drink and this is heading nowhere fast I'm out. PM me dude if you need any advice I'm here most days- Nice car bro



 

87WhiteStang1

Member
Dec 19, 2007
182
0
16
Oct 4, 2008
#25
  • Oct 4, 2008
  • #25
wythors said:
I'm not against it, I'm just trying to get through to him that it will do absolutely nothing for him. He would be much better off by putting the money towards something that will actually improve his performance.

Maybe he should put a parachute on the back too while he's at it. After all, he may need it someday as well.
Click to expand...

Well now that you mention it thats a good idea...im gonna go look at some chutes let me know which ones you prefer...

but seriously i am thinking about getting the 70mm TB and a BBK Intake manifold?? sound good?
 

Coast2CoaStang

Member
Aug 11, 2008
254
4
19
Oct 4, 2008
#26
  • Oct 4, 2008
  • #26
87WhiteStang1 said:
ok so im considering the 3.55s the most...my car is also speed density not mass air so im hoping if i get the 70mm TB it will work out okay?
Click to expand...

If your car is still speed density, I would get MAF. It will make tuning easier especially if you plan intake manifold, heads, etc,.
 

Maryland Stang

Active Member
Aug 21, 2002
1,656
30
39
Greenville, NC
Oct 4, 2008
#27
  • Oct 4, 2008
  • #27
You can also gain some upper RPM HP by retarding the cam 4 degrees. I did this when I had the stock cam and it registered nicely on the "Seat O The Pants" meter.
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Oct 4, 2008
#28
  • Oct 4, 2008
  • #28
Strype said:
This is why I stay out of Stangnet Daycare.


It's definateley 3 but when the car was rated at 16-18 in the first place it makes a hell of a lot more of a difference than mommy's honda civic. 30 mpg's in a car down to 27 isn't bad, 19-20 (what I got with a fresh motor and bigger cam in my 86) down to 15-16 is a hell of a difference.

Jesus it's like I'm Alice and Wonderland is on strike so I'm stuck sitting in a dream world and it doesn't deliver. Does that make sense to anyone?



Highway driving will net you better gas mileage than city no matter what unless you have 5.56's or some crazy **** in it man WTF???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Seriously dude?????? Jesus



I've had one drink and this is heading nowhere fast I'm out. PM me dude if you need any advice I'm here most days- Nice car bro



Click to expand...


What?
 

Strype

Cuthbert catcher
Founding Member
May 11, 1999
61
34
104
Huntsvegas, AL
Oct 4, 2008
#29
  • Oct 4, 2008
  • #29





<3
 

No.11

10 Year Member
Oct 13, 2009
614
10
48
Los Angeles
Jan 26, 2010
#30
  • Jan 26, 2010
  • #30
87WhiteStang1 said:
Well now that you mention it thats a good idea...im gonna go look at some chutes let me know which ones you prefer...

but seriously i am thinking about getting the 70mm TB and a BBK Intake manifold?? sound good?
Click to expand...

BBK SSI Intake Warning

Read before you decide.
 

Illuminator

Active Member
Nov 29, 1999
219
10
29
So. Cal
Feb 21, 2013
#31
  • Feb 21, 2013
  • #31
4.10's are fun for sure but if highway driving consider a 6-speed with the taller gears, I'm using a 5-speed now, and it's ok around town but anything over 90 on the freeway is pretty revy
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,333
18,059
224
Massachusetts
Feb 22, 2013
#32
  • Feb 22, 2013
  • #32
My opinion....

Save the cash for the 70mm TB and pick up a used Explorer intake for $100 with throttle body and injectors. The 65mm TB is plenty capable for a stockish engine and the explorer intake will bolt on with few mods and provide much more bang for the buck than a 70mm TB.

I consider this the gateway mod because #1) once you rip apart the top end of a 5.0 and see how easy it is...you'll gain confidence and be thinking about heads and camshaft swaps...and #2) it's actually a pretty fun project.


And as for gearing...i hate my 3.73's with a passion. I feel like i'm driving a MAC truck having to shift all the time. I'd definitely dropping down to a 3.27 gear as my car is used 90% for spirted driving.

My gas mileage blows too, but driving style plays a role here. I don't understand how guys claim 30MPG highway with 3.73's. I keep my car in tip top shape mechanically and can barely get better than 20MPG.
 
Reactions: ratio411
S

squekster

Member
Jan 5, 2011
55
2
9
long island
Feb 22, 2013
#33
  • Feb 22, 2013
  • #33
87WhiteStang1 said:
i have and 87 mustang gt with exhaust intake underdrive pulleys...i was thinking about getting a 70mm throttle body. i wanted to know if this would really make much difference in power and if it would make much difference in gas usage? let me know if you have experience
Click to expand...
By using a larger tb it will affect the port velocity. By lowering port velocity you will effect low end torque a little but increase top end hp a little .Bigger is not always better in a street car.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,333
18,059
224
Massachusetts
Feb 22, 2013
#34
  • Feb 22, 2013
  • #34
squekster said:
By using a larger tb it will affect the port velocity. By lowering port velocity you will effect low end torque a little but increase top end hp a little .Bigger is not always better in a street car.
Click to expand...

That's if the TB is a restriction. With the upper intake setup, the lower intake is probably more of a restriction and the TB may not affect velocity at all.

The stock intake opening is about 58mm. So opening up the Tb to 70mm may not have a significant impact.

Short of dyno testing every combo, this is all theory
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Feb 22, 2013
#35
  • Feb 22, 2013
  • #35
First off, this is a 2 year+ old thread. Second off, throttle body has absolutely nothing to do with port velocity.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,333
18,059
224
Massachusetts
Feb 22, 2013
#36
  • Feb 22, 2013
  • #36
Ugh...necrobumping...


Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk
 

SidewaysMustang

Member
Dec 10, 2010
21
6
24
San Diego
Feb 24, 2013
#37
  • Feb 24, 2013
  • #37
NIKwoaC said:
First off, this is a 2 year+ old thread. Second off, throttle body has absolutely nothing to do with port velocity.
Click to expand...
Hahaha...I just noticed it was from 2008 too...I was gonna say why hasn't any body told the guy to advance his timing....made my stang feel alot more aggressive with a 10° advance..just put it in 5th gear when doin 25 MPH, if it pings bring it back down a lil...works on MAF idk about SD
 

7991LXnSHO

wanna catch the space herp
10 Year Member
Sep 1, 2010
7,387
2,745
194
Kearney, NE
Mar 1, 2013
#38
  • Mar 1, 2013
  • #38
Have you looked at a stock MAF? There is THE major restriction! I wish I would have seen the budget upgrade link before I bought my BBK MAF. The BBK works well, but I would have saved big bucks. That, the 70mm TB, and a ported upper made a big seat of the pants difference! Tires - shmires! They go up on smoke if I want now.
 

GroverDill

GoldMember
Founding Member
Aug 18, 1999
5,442
1,490
214
Demotte IN 46310
Mar 4, 2013
#39
  • Mar 4, 2013
  • #39
I just got my Mustang what mufflers will give me the most power!
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Looking for ECU/CHIP for 1992 5.0
  • Nathan26
  • Sep 26, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
198
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sunday at 10:32 AM
khanpa
K
J
Intake
  • James S
  • Jul 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
271
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 12, 2026
James S
J
D
Throttle Body Spacer
  • dropteeth
  • Dec 1, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
276
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 2, 2025
nicholase
Throttle body cable
  • Nostang25
  • Sep 26, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
293
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 29, 2025
AeroCoupe
F
Fox 1990 Mustang GT 5.0 A9L – Engine suddenly shuts off but immediately restarts when key turned
  • FishermansFriend
  • Aug 9, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
536
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Aug 30, 2026
General karthief
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?