Maybe the knick caused abit of air to get by ?
and it looks kinda loose around your barb.. when I'd installed my barb i coukd feel it bitting through tge aluminum throttlebody and i put a dab of 2x part expoxy on its threads too juuuuuat encase..but ither than that it looks ok..they often do require fine tuning though most can get by and still get gains with simply just bolting it on.

 

I definitely did not use the most appropriate fitting and ending up making the hole a tad too big. Ended up using a bit of plumbers putty to make sure it was sealed. I don’t think the nicks I made with the drill are causing any air to pass by but perhaps they’re affecting the flow. I still can’t imagine that being the cause of a vacuum leak code and the EML light coming on though.

I also don’t understand the difference in the throttle feel and response. I don’t know if I’m describing it correctly but it doesn’t feel right with the larger TB.

 

the difference in feel comes into play because of the larger throttle blade..if your tuning isn't correct for the big tbody it will feel " odd " you could say... I have to figure how to word this correctly.
but the stock tbody open say 10% and allows 10% air through and you ecu is set to detect that amount of air ect according to the amount you depress the throttle pedal. NOW if you just throw on a larger tbody untuned you go and give it 10% throttle and now your car is sucking in 15-20% air so for the same amount of throttle input your now seeing more engine response and flow but yet at the same % of throttle input.. so the more you depress the throttle the more inaccurate those readings can get and then the ecu doesnt know how to deal with all the extra air its ingesting at the programmed throttle input.. it all can be taken care of via tuning. And then everyone is going to prefer their pedal response and amount to depress it inorder to reach wot will be different.. imo I like how the stock tbody feels , it's very linear and with a larger tbody even when tuned correct your going to loose the ability to easier control the " yoyo" effect at low speeds because of the larger blade allowing so much more air passed. Unfortunately that's just the nature if the beast. Buuuuut you absolutely DO get more power and tq all around using a bmw 65mm tbody IF you have the corresponding mods.. imo if your running a 15% pulley and just exhaust, this mod is not for you.. once you've gone into more boost, larger intercooler, more fueling. Only after all that will you actually see the gains and benefits of a larger tbody... just because it makes more power on someone else's car does mean it will on yours. Prior modification absolutely will play a HUGE role in how these throttlebodies will respond on your vehicle. Trust me , if you only have minor bolt on modifications , don't bother with a larger tbody until much further down the mod list.. in all honesty it should be closer to one of the last modifications you do , then when you do tune you get it tuned in perfectly to accommodate your cars spefic air flow.. not some preset parameters that worked good on someone else's setup..
that's just my 2cents..

 

I believe you are spot on regarding the mismatch profile you anticipated.
It seems to me that without a really proper tune this system will be lean to the extreme. Hence it will yo-yo as the ECU tries to find the "middle-ground", which is a quest it is unlikely capable of without "expert coaching". Once it declares "EML; Vac Leak" I'll bet it quits trying and does a limp mode thing. But I might be wrong.

With kindest regards,

 

I say your rite !
​​rote.with it untuned I saw afr of like 13-14.5 under partial to moderate acceleration and medium boost.. it only had target afr under max boost and vacuum but anything in-between I saw lean on my afr gauge.. so yes , I do believe a tune absolutely is required unless your car is already tuned and tuned safe and rich enough that the tbody leaning it out doesn't cause it to go too lean..

 

target afr? these are cars have narrow band and do not use AFR over a moderate load/torque request, the narrow band sensor is only used for low load/cruising. At cruising/low load the AFR should be mid 14 if it's in the narrow band it'll cycle between 14.2 and 14.9 if it's working properly no matter what throttle body you stick on it.

I have 4 personal R53's now, 3 are track prepped 1 is street prep. Every one has this mod, I tune myself but the throttle change itself did not need any tweaks other than a small amount more fuel over 6000 that's really the only place I see a change with these bigger TBs. At low throttle opening the ECU is comparing the pressure difference between map and tmap, it adapts to the slightly larger throttle area easily.

Combine the bigger TB with a cam and header and you will need more fuel in your tune for sure.

 

What throttle body is that and where did you buy it? Yours sortve looks like an RMW 3" big throttle body for our cars.

 

The link is broken could you possibly post a new link please?

 

Which table(s) get adjusted for this? Might be switching to a 64mm TB I have sitting here to fix a recurring P1689 code, and would love to be able to do this for better driveability if I do end up staying with it....

 

So any update on this? Still have the tb in storage that minimanadam sold me lol. Wonder if I can slap this on afterall somehow since it's dead weight and money lost on his items and what I paid to try and tune it smh

 

Have since found the Specified Target Intake Air Pressure and Specified Permissible Engine Torque tables, with help from ChatGPT (using it to reverse-engineer the skibidi table, axis, and value labeling that is sprinkled throughout Bytetronik RA53 software and the overall dearth of documentation and available support), and pretty much have the P1689 dialed out, and the Calculated Load dialed in to match the TVS900, making the ECU a lot less prone to throwing P1689s and limping. 64mm sits here useless since the new engine arrived, as the cammed and ported BVH that would have made it useful went away with the old one....

 

Stock engine picks up half a pound of boost with the bigger tb and expanded inlet pipe. The stock supercharger does not like air restrictions

I modify the pedal to throttle body table too, I do the same with my BMW so it's easier to modulate on track at lower load

 

Hey, great to meet you! Thanks for weighing in!

Yeah, I imagine the stock engine with TVS900 will add a bit of boost as well. The P1689/limp I was experiencing was all about the TVS900 and how well it works to move air at lower RPMs. It was far beyond the ECU's expected airflow in the conditions that occur during first gear parking lot crawls and 1->2 shifts at low-ish RPMs. Adjustments in the Specified Target Air Intake Pressure and Specified Permissible Engine Torque tables have helped with that. ChatGPT helped me find them by the axis units/values expected and cell units/values in the table, and has been a fair substitute for the user manual Bytetronik never made for the very ironically named "Full Access" FA53....

I am planning to roll in a softer pedal action in the low RPM range even with the 57mm, to make the first gear parking lot crawl a bit less herky-jerky. I am on the 60mm pulley, and have a 55mm waiting to go on also. Getting pretty close to the max 2400 hPa that Bytetronik will allow me to set with just the 55mm (if my calculations prove to be on track), and an extra PSI above that will likely have me running into the max hPa in cool weather....

Maybe it is possible that with WinOLS the ceiling could be raised to the sensor's full 2500 hPa (if one assumes the sensor voltage is 5V at that point), but Bytetronik doesn't expose a lot of things in the EMS2000, so who knows what lurks off the edges of the map. I can see that table for the sensor voltage to hPa value translation, but when I try to raise the 2400 cell, it does not allow it. Similarly, the Max Intake Air Pressure value also won't go above 2400. So until I get off Bytetronik, i may be stuck doing only one or the other (55mm pulley or 64mm throttle).

In the mean time, will be getting AdrianCL to extract my info from the Bytetronik-loaded ROM and hopefully transfer it to an MS5150 I got used, and get that sync'ed up with my immobilizer and VIN and all of that, and then tune it with WinOLS. Hopefully he knows the right bytes to tweak in the bin file to raise the 2400 hPa ceiling. I have confidence that he'll get it working, given he tuned R53Vince with pretty much identical hardware 5 years ago and came up with a good result.

I'll need to suss out where the tables are and get a map pack going if I want to be able to do any adjustments myself after that, I guess....

 

Pretty sure you'll have to bench flash and bypass the immobilizer, I can assist with that I've done it with Adrian many times.

There is a hex address limit in the software in a few places that you can't get around. You could pulldown the sensor values and rescale lots of tables, not aware of anyone that has done it.

 

Yeah, probably so. Along with the K-DCAN cable, Adrian had me get this cable:

Hopefully it can get past the read protection Bytetronik uses. I opened my tune file in WinOLS, and there were large chunks of red FFFF bytes. So far, I have gone through a tune file I found online and found one or two tables, based on bits of info he's shared in forums over the years. I have found a lot of data chunks that look like they may be tables, based on the shape of the data and data trends, but no idea *which* tables and how to set them up so they read more like the screenshots of tables he's shown online over the years.

When I have the ca$h for a BVH/cam, it'll likely be ok with 2400, as the improved flow reduces manifold pressure, generally.

I am working on the closed and open loop fuel tables for a future iteration while I still have Bytetronik, since I have time. Stretched out the X axis values on the last 5 columns (all of them above 361 kg/hr) to cover out to 850, and interpolated values to fill in the new 430 and 500 columns, while copying the old 587 column to the new 600, 700, and 850 columns, since it is operating way off the edge of the map currently, and that should give me the current behavior above 587 kg/hr as a starting point.... Yes, I am aware of how bad a word 'should' is.... 😀

 

Worked out so well, that I am also rearranging the small end of the fuel tables to (hopefully) get better handling of around town small airflow driving than being lumped into one column for 92 kg/hr. Only original kg/hr column header left will be the 361 column in the middle of the table.... :D