which are better

[ollie_b]

whats better carbs or boddies on a 20xe

[BIGS]

ill say tb's every time as you can tune them more then carbs

[John]

worms, opening can of.

[MC]

Strictly speaking, there isn't that much between carbs and throttle bodies, and they both have good and bad points. The main difference is the mapable ignition that is run alongside the TB's. Dizzy's peak advance is limited by the advance curve low down, not a problem when you can map it and it is possible to have mappable ignition with carbs.

Carbs tend to run narrow chokes to speed up airflow which is needed to draw fuel in. The result is less ultimate horsepower but good low down driveability and smooth acceleration. TB's aren't limited by choke size and run to the full diameter of the barrel as the fuel is injected. This allows more air through at peak RPM and more BHP as a result, but at lower RPM's you'll loose air speed and sometimes loose the torque of carbs and have bigger flat spots.

My 2p's worth.

MC

[Adam]

Throttle bodies are better, end of. lol
More power, better driveability, better fueling, more efficient system.
You can tune TBs/ECU's to there full potential all over the rev range, in any conditions(temp compensation etc etc).
Whereas carbs only get the fueling right in particular parts of the rev range, due to them using mechanical jets.

You dont want carbs, unless you really need/want them for a particular reason, i.e. to fit in with a old skool kind of look.

[MC]

I've done many road and track miles with both, and both are good.

For example, I would choose Jim's 1650 on carbs for road use with more down low punch and CP's 1400 16v on TB's for track use as you can keep it in the power band and utilise the peaky bhp.

I bet you Jim's car has more punch at 2500-3500rpm than a 16v on TB's.

[Philsutton]

If its on a budget then carbs if you have the money then throttle bodies every time.

[Adam]

I bet you Jim's car has more punch at 2500-3500rpm than a 16v on TB's.
It probably does, but small block 16v's are notorious for there lack of low end/torque.

[Lee]

.

I bet you Jim's car has more punch at 2500-3500rpm than a 16v on TB's.

Agreed, but id put that down to the characteristics of an 8v over the valver more than the choice of induction. Generally speaking, the 8v is quicker off the line, whereas the 16v has more pulling power as speeds increase. At low speeds there isn't enough air being forced around to cause a problem with the fewer valves and smaller valve area, but as RPMs increase and airflow is increased, the extra valve quantity and size (in overall area) in a 16v plays a major part.

Phil nailed it pretty well. If budget allows it, TB's are the better option for many many reasons, but dont think taking the carb route is a massive compromise if you dont have the funding. Just expect to take some time hunting down an old skool tuner who knows carbs back to front and can set them up properly.

EDIT i took too long typing that lol

[MC]

Before I go any further, I must admit, If I had a Nova :roll: I would have a 16v engine (small block) and would put TB's on.

Secondly on a 20XE, I think Tb's are the way to go.

Lee summed it up quite well by saying that Carbs are not such a big compromise, but I disagree that you have to hunt for someone to set them up. It is just as tricky to find a decent engine mapper, and that could cost you the thick end of ?500.

An interesting point to note on Jim's engine. Yes the 8v is a little more torquey, but in contradiction to alot of peoples views, he has proved that a wild cam, 300deg in this case, will not loose all your low end torque and driveability.

His engine was running at 160bhp (170) with additives and his new engine spec should nudge the figure up by around 10bhp. Not bad for 8 valves and some 3rd hand carbs from a ford pinto! Sorry If I'm divulging too much Jim.

[Lee]

Lee summed it up quite well by saying that Carbs are not such a big compromise, but I disagree that you have to hunt for someone to set them up. It is just as tricky to find a decent engine mapper, and that could cost you the thick end of ?500.

I beg to differ, theres plenty of places all over the country who will happily plug your car into a computer and give it a mapping session. Agreed its a tad difficult to find one that will do a great job of it, but I still believe its 10 times easier than finding a guy who can sit there and tune your engine with his ears alone. Most of these guys probably wont have websites either. Theyre a dieing breed, and its a shame IMO.

[Stuart]

Mr Bowyer would like to see Jims new engine im sure lol.

Anything with 16V I'd 99% of the time opt for ITB's (or a well setup Plenum if you have the room for it)

and also its worth noting that most RR numbers are dire gash... its the shape of the curves that are the important bit (oh and how it feels on the road)

[MC]

How it feels on the road. I agree.

With regard to RR figures, I look for close correlation between different places before I'm happy to accept anything.

Mapping - Velos could map?!?!?

[MC]

Also, Stuart point on a plenum chamber: British Touring cars use a single restricted throttle body and still make massive bhp, so it can be done.

[Stuart]

put it this way...... some "tuner" (term used very very very very very very very very very lightly) in MK had some ITB's developed for the vx... They made less power and torque than fitting a USA 2.4L inlet manifold (with no remap lol). The ITB's cost in the region of ?4K, the 2.4L inlet costs about ?150. Genius.

The plenum is only of use if you have bay space/a well designed spiral type. which a nova dosent have either of :(

[Dan]

in the years i tinkered and followed a few guys as mark has said there isnt a great deal in it. My personal engine outperformed the figures it was given which to me proved the whole combination of work done and how it works together with a decent tune, to provide a linear power delivery, is just as important as what methods have been used to tune it in the first place.

My personal 2 examples of engines would be charlies and russ's 1400 valver, charlies was on bodies and mapped blah blah and was a corker, russ's was built by john reed, engine dyno'd at an alleged 180bhp and it ran twin 45's which went like stink from what i saw when i crewed for him. out of those 2 i know which one i would of gone for, although i feel one would of been rebuilt far more often than the other over a set period of time lol

[Stuart]

tbh the only really relevant comparison for an XE is Chris's old setup and the new TB setup....

carbs did good, but the ITB's did an even better job.

[Lee]

ITB's did an even better job.

:D

[Dan]

yup, i'll take my hat off to that one stuart :)

[Stuart]

seeing as the OP was on about the lard block it made it more relevant.... having a small block 8v vs 16v load of gash wasnt really helping him lol

[Dan]

agreed although my personal comparison was based on 2 valvers, all be it small blocks which rightly said maybe a tad out of context

[Lee]

The question was pretty well answered in half a page anyway lol

[ollie_b]

so boddied are the better

[MC]

What about twin SU's ? lol

[Stuart]

retro, but might aswell use bike carbs as they are a little more modern but still use the SU principles lol