Name this Part!
10-23-2008, 04:02 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Monterey Bay Area
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Name this Part!
It is a plunger that the throttle rocker (whatever its called) rests against when the throttle is closed. When opened, the plunger slides up. I am asking because I noticed the movement of the plunger is delayed, i.e. when I open the throttle, the plunder slowly moves up and when I allow the throttle to quickly close, the plunger has some resistance that delays the action. I am wondering if it should behave this way or if the action of the plunger should be instantaneous.
Thanks for playing
and I'll post another pic for perspective.
10-23-2008, 04:06 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Monterey Bay Area
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, that was quick--thanks. Any insight into how it works or if it should be instant action vs. delayed response? Would the motor response be improved if it were instant?
10-23-2008, 04:12 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temecula Valley, CA
Posts: 12,723
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I call it Steve! ... no, seriously... you said "Name this Part!"....
okay... it's purpose is to keep the throttle from closing too quickly and causing the engine to run rich until the ecu can catch up with things.
It's vacuum controlled, meaning the more vacuum it gets, the less effect it has on the throttle since engine vacuum is higher as the throttle gets closer to being closed. More vacuum pulls it further away from the throttle lever. Get it?
okay... it's purpose is to keep the throttle from closing too quickly and causing the engine to run rich until the ecu can catch up with things.
It's vacuum controlled, meaning the more vacuum it gets, the less effect it has on the throttle since engine vacuum is higher as the throttle gets closer to being closed. More vacuum pulls it further away from the throttle lever. Get it?
Last edited by abecedarian; 10-23-2008 at 04:13 PM.
Trending Topics
10-23-2008, 07:03 PM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Monterey Bay Area
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rev Matching etc.
Rev Matching kind of brings me back to the reason I am asking:
The delay on closing the throttle (revving down...?) is kind of annoying. I understand that it helps things stay smooth during shifting and that it allows the fuel control to catch up so I don't plan on messing with it. But, it feels less "connected." Like the action of the car is not connected immediately to the input of the driver. For me, this is kind of important.
My last car was an '87 16 valve GTi with about as much modification as can be California legal (exhaust, cams, decked head, etc.)
It was nice and quick (certainly not fast by modern standards) but what I really loved about the car was the immediacy and the responsiveness. If I blipped the throttle, it wound up and dropped quickly. I don't expect the Toyota to be in the ballpark in this regard, both because it is Japanese vs. German and because it is a completely different animal with a different purpose, BUT, I am always trying to find ways to make it more drivable and by that I mean "connected"; as close to immediate and accurate response to driver input as possible.
Anyway, I know I am in the minority on this forum talking about "drivability" rather than "wheelability" but thanks for the responses and let me know any tips for any improvements in this regard.
The delay on closing the throttle (revving down...?) is kind of annoying. I understand that it helps things stay smooth during shifting and that it allows the fuel control to catch up so I don't plan on messing with it. But, it feels less "connected." Like the action of the car is not connected immediately to the input of the driver. For me, this is kind of important.
My last car was an '87 16 valve GTi with about as much modification as can be California legal (exhaust, cams, decked head, etc.)
It was nice and quick (certainly not fast by modern standards) but what I really loved about the car was the immediacy and the responsiveness. If I blipped the throttle, it wound up and dropped quickly. I don't expect the Toyota to be in the ballpark in this regard, both because it is Japanese vs. German and because it is a completely different animal with a different purpose, BUT, I am always trying to find ways to make it more drivable and by that I mean "connected"; as close to immediate and accurate response to driver input as possible.
Anyway, I know I am in the minority on this forum talking about "drivability" rather than "wheelability" but thanks for the responses and let me know any tips for any improvements in this regard.
10-23-2008, 07:19 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temecula Valley, CA
Posts: 12,723
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
@SC2WD- ever wonder why VW dropped the CIS-E (KE-Jetronic) system?
CIS-E was mechanical injection with electronic controls built on top.
CIS-E was mechanical injection with electronic controls built on top.
Last edited by abecedarian; 10-23-2008 at 07:20 PM.
10-23-2008, 07:23 PM
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Monterey Bay Area
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?
I hadn't really thought about why they dropped it. I know a lot of people complain about it being finicky but I had great luck with mine. (In fact, I think I still have a complete fuel injection set up, brand new in my garage.) Sounds like you know something about Volkswagens...?
Enlighten me about the system!
Enlighten me about the system!
10-23-2008, 07:34 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temecula Valley, CA
Posts: 12,723
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I had a 78 and 81 VW Scirocco way back when, so I know a thing or two about the old K-jetronic Bosch systems. The KE was the norm when I ridded myself (after many objections- the car had frame damage) of the 81.
For a given engine configuration, the mechanical nature of the CIS system worked well, actually better than a full electronic system could at the time, but emissions controls didn't work well with it. They made it work up to the late 80's, early 90's though. The frequency valve concept let them custom tailor the mixture more than the fuel distribution plate could on its own. After that, the mechanical aspects couldn't compensate for conditions quickly enough, or rather electronics caught up and could do thinks more quickly, so it went full electronic.
For a given engine configuration, the mechanical nature of the CIS system worked well, actually better than a full electronic system could at the time, but emissions controls didn't work well with it. They made it work up to the late 80's, early 90's though. The frequency valve concept let them custom tailor the mixture more than the fuel distribution plate could on its own. After that, the mechanical aspects couldn't compensate for conditions quickly enough, or rather electronics caught up and could do thinks more quickly, so it went full electronic.
Last edited by abecedarian; 10-23-2008 at 07:35 PM.
10-23-2008, 07:56 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: B-TOWN, ORYGUN
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yup yup.. hit the nail on the head there.. now from what i have heard toyota motors dont like bosch or autolite spark plugs and wires for some reason.. never dealt with it cause iv always ran NGK or Denso..has any one heard this one?
10-23-2008, 08:00 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 2,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yeah...the first and second pictures are of your throttle body...duh!
