Even if there was a physical part out there that mated up perfectly, I think you guys need to reconsider what rmdrmd1956 wrote. There is a very, very large difference between taking existing ECU architecture and manipulating values and checksums and so on, and changing the architecture of the table itself. Setting up the ECU for twin throttles would be extremely difficult and risky unless you had absolute top level access to the ECU and a good amount of time & money.

 

How much of a change is it really going to be?

You are increasing the air intake. That would be just balancing the air / fuel ratios that could be done on a dyno. The inlet being a oval shape as in the pic would be on 1 throttle body. That is 1 flap to open with a heck of a lot more air flow. Heck make it a oval intake same thing.

I agree two separate throttle bodies would be hard.

 

I was referring to setting up twin throttle bodies.

Replacing the intake or opening out the throttle body is feasible, and simpler from a programming point of view, but not necessarily as simple as just changing the AFR. It COULD be, but you have to remember that the sensor signals from things like MAF or TPS are integrated into other functions. There are a lot of failsafes built into modern cars & Astons in particular, many of which are tied to sensor signals, and which are calibrated to work within a set of parameters. The default reaction to sensor feedback outside of those parameters is usually limp mode.

Again, it is possible, I'll even go so far as to say reasonably likely that you could increase airflow without problems. However, here's an example of a potential problem (and I'm sure this is not 100% technically accurate but I'm just trying to give a general description.) The ECU is set up to request a particular torque value for a given throttle pedal input. It then selects the correct throttle butterfly position based on that input. It checks to see if the car is delivering the correct torque value based on that TPS position - one of the ways it does this is by checking MAF voltages.

So... if you start messing around with the intakes, and end up with an inconsistency between the expected MAF voltage for a given throttle position you can generate error states. I don't THINK it is likely given a relatively minor modification, but just remember that integrating all the electronic functions on the car, especially on the intake side, is not always a slam-dunk. It isn't unheard of for these cars to go into limp mode under operation in a strong crosswind because a gust of air caused inconsistent MAF readings between the RH & LH side!

 

Is it possible to change from a MAF to Temp sensor only? Like a Alpha N setup?

 

I think anything is 'possible' but it is down the level of complexity required to do it. The MAF signal is so integrated into so many other functions & tables, but having said that, it is just a voltage signal.

I don't know enough about it to answer that question for real though. All I'm saying is, don't assume that changing stuff is easy and that the ECU can easily be reprogrammed to compensate. It MIGHT be that simple, but it also has the potential to be very complicated.

 

All this discussion about custom intake manifolds and dual throttle bodies is an absolute waste of time. The single throttle body is more than enough and I will prove it, it comes down to simple geometry and mathematics.

The stock throttle body throttle plate (based on the pictures I have seen) is probably 74mm. The stock opening on the intake manifold is probably 85mm at most. If I had to take a wild guess I would say the most the stock throttle body can be machined is probably 5-6mm so roughly 80mm. Most OEM throttle bodies cannot be machined more than that 5-6mm limit. Given these assumptions:

Cross sectional surface area of throttle plate:

74mm = 4300.84 mm^2 surface area
80mm = 5026.54 mm^2 surface area

Difference: 5026.54 - 4300.84 = 725.7mm^2

% increase in Area: 725.7/4300.84 = 0.1687 = 16.87% increase in cross sectional surface area. And if my estimates are conservative on the downside, then the % gain would be even greater at larger diameters.

As the bore diameter increases, the surface area increases exponentially, therefore each additional mm in diameter produces a larger % gain than the one before it. To give a comparison, over 50% of the data stored on a conventional audio CD is actually store within 1/2 " of the outer edge of the disc even though it only makes a very small % of the overall diameter/radius of the disc. Same concept applies here.

An 8% increase is about avg for big bore throttle bodies, 12% is aggressive, 16% is a massive gain in cross sectional surface area, and by extension POTENTIAL MAXIMUM AIRFLOW. This does not necessarily mean it will cause the engine to flow that much more air, there are still other bottlenecks in the system (in this case mostly the exhaust system). What it does is raise the maximum potential airflow ceiling that can flow through the throttle plate and by extension the intake manifold.

Upgrading the manifold is the exact opposite of what one should do. Also, running two smaller plates may not necessarily be an upgrade, in some cases it can even be a downgrade if you don't do the correct match. Also remember, having dual plates, means dual throttle shafts and etc which wastes potential airflow and is less efficient.

Any increase over 10% will require a significant ECU tune upgrade to take advantage of the additional airflow throughout the power band as the engine would run significantly leaner than before. Also, because you are actually changing the shape of the power band you need to add more fuel at higher rpms than you would at lower rpms disproportionately.

The only intake mod you will need to do is properly machine the throttle plate ... THIS CANNOT BE DONE WITH HAND TOOLS OR A DREMEL, I cannot emphasize that enough. The entire throttle body must be completely dismantled, machined and rebuilt with all new custom machined parts. This is not cheap or easy to do, but if done properly the results are incredibly profound, especially with throttle response. The intake noise will be significantly louder too as the actual opening on the intake side is much louder allowing for more sound to pass through the throttle plate opening (think Le Mans race car sound). The sound of big bore throttle bodies is amazing, and the throttle response becomes razor sharp.

Trust me on this, every other option is a waste of time and money and is an overly complicated solution to an otherwise simple problem.

007

 

And yet such a huge contribution to said absolute waste of time...

Again, thank you for the input and information, lots of great stuff!

 

It seems GMR have designed their own custom carbon fibre manifold.

 

That, sir, is a supercharger.

 

Ofcourse. I can see the carbon fibre cover is just that.

It looks like an OEM installation.

 

Yes there is a flag that will allow you to drive "alpha N" but doesn't compensate for transient fueling, IAT,ECT etc... just for testing, not practical for real world

 

It is possible to use the Ford shelby "twin throttle bodies" You would have to adapt the intake manifold to accept them but because they are one unit and the "throttle angle vs effective throttle area" is will known, you could easily tune this set up and tune the ECU. You do get more area but how linear the airflow would be inside the manifold is anyones guess. I'd shorten all the intake tracks inside the manifold to reduce turbulance. This would change the TQ response dramatically. It would be quite a different engine. The other best way is increase intake and outlet size, open up heads, strengthen/lighten the bottom end, stronger valve springs and lighter valves. Then Rev to 9K. If done correctly you'll get tons more power or a very interesting "Top Gear" style coffee table.

 

I would say it depends. I did a Alpha N conversion and the car runs better. Correct me if I am wrong but most race cars run a AlphaN setup (IE Maf-less) and use temp probs.

 

AlphaN does not use MAF or MAP values and guesses at load based on throttle angle (Alpha) and engine speed (N). Ford's EEC6 is designed to go to alphaN in Limp mode only. Although you could change these limits, the drivability isn't very good. I'm not saying you can't make it work, but all the spark, fueling, transient tables are load or MAP based and AF ratio is MAF based. The ECU predicts fueling 2 cycles ahead at all times. You would have to rewrite the code to make that work with this ECU. I do not think you could get a drivable car by modifying the maps and flags.