62mm Plus TB`s

Performance mods and Advanced Stroker discussion.
jsawduste
My keyboard is getting warn out
My keyboard is getting warn out
Posts: 1032
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 3:13 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.9
Location: Michigan

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by jsawduste »

shawnxj wrote:well here's the finished product. he's adding it to his ebay store so it should be available in the next day or 2
Ebay store name ?
shawnxj
I love this board
I love this board
Posts: 413
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Vehicle Year: 1988
Vehicle Make: jeep
Vehicle Model: cherokee
Location: portland, tx

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by shawnxj »

dottk10

think it can be searched with either using 4.7 or 4.0 intakes or throttle body

he said it's not on his site yet but should be on it by the end of the weekend
User avatar
SilverXJ
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5790
Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 2000
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: Radford, Va

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by SilverXJ »

I've been in touch with Jeepers and Creepers and they are planning a 70mm throttle body. They already have a billet 62mm available, so I asked about creating a larger one and it was something they have been thinking about. http://www.jeepersandcreepers.com/13601.html
jsawduste
My keyboard is getting warn out
My keyboard is getting warn out
Posts: 1032
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 3:13 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.9
Location: Michigan

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by jsawduste »

SilverXJ wrote:I've been in touch with Jeepers and Creepers and they are planning a 70mm throttle body. They already have a billet 62mm available, so I asked about creating a larger one and it was something they have been thinking about. http://www.jeepersandcreepers.com/13601.html
+1 in interest. I will be buying a 70 from someone........To take advantage of the air flow it will be combined with a conversation to OBD2 for the tuning capability.
CobraMarty
BANNED
BANNED
Posts: 297
Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 2:01 am
Vehicle Year: 1998
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by CobraMarty »

That would be nice, another 70mm TB, hopefully less then $400 that R+B charges.
1998 XJ 2D AW4 32"MTR 3.55 4.5"RC JCR Slider Magnaflow 150rwHP/174rwTQ=> Sprintex SC Gibson Header 6lb 120-140*IAT 211rwHP/274rwTQ WasherFluid Inj 70mmTB 7.5lb 100-120*IAT=>Now 12 pounds Boost=> +BV ported head
99 XJ M62 S/C
shawnxj
I love this board
I love this board
Posts: 413
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Vehicle Year: 1988
Vehicle Make: jeep
Vehicle Model: cherokee
Location: portland, tx

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by shawnxj »

ok my machinist buddy is having issues setting up the ebay add so for now you can send him a message on his email below

[email protected]


he got the add figured out

http://www.ebay.com/itm/190813261913?it ... m=&vxp=mtr
User avatar
SilverXJ
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5790
Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 2000
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: Radford, Va

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by SilverXJ »

CobraMarty wrote:That would be nice, another 70mm TB, hopefully less then $400 that R+B charges.
It will be more than their 62mm one, but less than the F&B.
Primordial
Noob
Noob
Posts: 11
Joined: April 4th, 2013, 9:27 pm
Vehicle Year: 1995
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Grand Che

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by Primordial »

shawnxj wrote:ok my machinist buddy is having issues setting up the ebay add so for now you can send him a message on his email below

[email protected]


he got the add figured out

http://www.ebay.com/itm/190813261913?it ... m=&vxp=mtr
I'm going to running the 4.0 to 4.2 mini stroker with a 99+ intake and 24# Ford injectors. I'm also going to have a snorkel on the Jeep (95 ZJ)...after needing it on my last Jeep I won't own one without it. My question here is since I'm going to be running a snorkel are the benefits of running this throttle body and adapter worth the expense or will the restriction from the snorkel negate any good that might have been? Would I need the better throttle body to offset the restriction from the snorkel?
George Dickel
Donator
Donator
Posts: 48
Joined: January 1st, 2009, 10:13 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 1998
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Wrangler
Location: Mississippi Gulf Coast

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by George Dickel »

What's the inside diameter of the snorkle, any idea?
'98 Wrangler Sport, 4.6L Stroker

'04 Mustang GT, 4.6L with a few bolt-ons
shawnxj
I love this board
I love this board
Posts: 413
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Vehicle Year: 1988
Vehicle Make: jeep
Vehicle Model: cherokee
Location: portland, tx

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by shawnxj »

ya kinda depends on what the snorkle size is
jsawduste
My keyboard is getting warn out
My keyboard is getting warn out
Posts: 1032
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 3:13 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.9
Location: Michigan

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by jsawduste »

Primordial wrote: I'm going to running the 4.0 to 4.2 mini stroker with a 99+ intake and 24# Ford injectors. I'm also going to have a snorkel on the Jeep (95 ZJ)...after needing it on my last Jeep I won't own one without it. My question here is since I'm going to be running a snorkel are the benefits of running this throttle body and adapter worth the expense or will the restriction from the snorkel negate any good that might have been? Would I need the better throttle body to offset the restriction from the snorkel?
Do a search on Static Pressure. For example Woodworking dust collection sites have all kinds of information on airflow, restriction etc. By plugging on your numbers you can see how the snorkel will flow and wheter it will have an impact on your engines requirements.

Off hand opinion......The added tube length and bends of the snorkel will not have any ill effect.
Primordial
Noob
Noob
Posts: 11
Joined: April 4th, 2013, 9:27 pm
Vehicle Year: 1995
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Grand Che

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by Primordial »

George Dickel wrote:What's the inside diameter of the snorkle, any idea?
shawnxj wrote:ya kinda depends on what the snorkle size is
It's not a constant diameter like homemade PVC type ones...it's a knock-off of the Safari Snorkel.
jsawduste wrote:Do a search on Static Pressure. For example Woodworking dust collection sites have all kinds of information on airflow, restriction etc. By plugging on your numbers you can see how the snorkel will flow and wheter it will have an impact on your engines requirements.

Off hand opinion......The added tube length and bends of the snorkel will not have any ill effect.
I'll look into that. Thanks for the lead!
Zorm
I made it to triple digits!
I made it to triple digits!
Posts: 151
Joined: March 31st, 2008, 9:51 am
Vehicle Year: 1983
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by Zorm »

How about a TB from a ford 5.4? Saw one in a junk yard today looks like with a little mods it might work.
Zorm
I made it to triple digits!
I made it to triple digits!
Posts: 151
Joined: March 31st, 2008, 9:51 am
Vehicle Year: 1983
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by Zorm »

What about a tb from a ford 5.4l saw one today in a junkyard. Looks like it might work with a little mod.
George Dickel
Donator
Donator
Posts: 48
Joined: January 1st, 2009, 10:13 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 1998
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Wrangler
Location: Mississippi Gulf Coast

Re: 62mm Plus TB`s

Post by George Dickel »

Zorm wrote:What about a tb from a ford 5.4l saw one today in a junkyard. Looks like it might work with a little mod.
I dunno, if it's anything like the one on my GT, I would think it wouldn't. I say that because the T/B on my Stang is mounted horizontally rather than vertically. Otherwise, I'd slap a 70mm on for about $140 new! Maybe Dino can shed some light on this since he's used a T/B from a Ford. Also, an adapter might be in order??? I need to go lift the hoods and compare the two setups.
'98 Wrangler Sport, 4.6L Stroker

'04 Mustang GT, 4.6L with a few bolt-ons
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests