4.7L TB on a 3.7L - Jeep Commander Forums: Jeep Commander Forum
Intakes Questions or advice about intakes? This is the place...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 01:30 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60
Level up: 21% Level up: 21% Level up: 21%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
luckyse7ens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: CA
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
2WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 140000
Posts: 1,585
4.7L TB on a 3.7L

I wanted to start the discussion on this mod. Looks like it had not been mentioned on these boards at all until I brought it up in another thread.

This is commonly referred to as the "Viper" TB swap, as they utilize two of these. The 4.7L mopar vehicles (Jeep included) also use these. Stock 3.7L TB is 2.5" and 4.7L is 3", additionally the intake manifold opening is 3" on all of these vehicles.

I just ordered one, but I wont likely have a chance to install until after my honeymoon so it might be a few weeks...

So 3.8L, 3.7L and 4.7L TB's are interchangable, and quite inexpensive $135 new, $65 used ebay, JY even cheaper I'd imagine.
The Fastman custom ported TB's have become a popular improvement to these vehicles, so the TB is a reasonably accepted restriction according to this train of thought. If similar improvements can be had with an off the shelf item as I suspect then this should be a good low buck option for some people.

Those 3.8l guys seem to like em

http://www.jk-forum.com/forums/modif...-sheet-192536/

The dyno sheet looks too good to be true, I suspect that some tuning also happened.


This response sounds about right.
http://www.jk-forum.com/forums/modif...6/#post2786836

Quote:

I'll start with: I'm deployed and no I didn't pack my dyno sheets with me before I left. That said, I purchased and installed one of the viper throttle bodies on my jeep when the discussions first began on this site over a year ago. I have had no problems with it of any kind (7,000 miles) and did not notice the TB having much change in performance with any of the SC tunes loaded vs stock (read: the change in performance came moreso from the change in tunes and the TB had little impact one way or the other). This was prior to the availability of the "Trottle body" program some tuners are now offering so I cant speak to that. With my SC tuner and several runs on the dyno, regardless of tune set we observed a nominal 4hp and 7lbft difference in back to back runs. This was done with 3 runs with stock throttle body, add the new throttle body then do 3 more runs. We then swapped vehicles and did the same thing again with a completely stock JK. This difference was beyond the error/deviation in each of the 3 runs, thus a measurable gain beyond the accuracy of the equipment. On the topic of fuel economy I have noticed no real change one way or the other. The bigger impact is wind speed and right foot weight...

One thing to note is that on the VTB dyno sheets the torque peak did seem to move down about 50 revs in the RPM range.

On the butt dyno it does feel a little more responsive, that probably is based on larger volume of airflow with lower throttle position, similar after effect as changing the pedal responsiveness via a programmer or the like. The sound is difference and slightly lower on the intake side enhanced by a CAI more than the stock airbox as well.

Hopefully this helps those on the fence determine if 4/7 is worth $140, or at least give another users observances to add to the pile.

BF
4.7L vs 3.7L (not my pic)

Last edited by luckyse7ens; 08-07-2014 at 03:43 PM.
luckyse7ens is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 01:45 PM
Senior Member
Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81
Level up: 12% Level up: 12% Level up: 12%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lusby, MD
Posts: 3,037
Let us know if it does something? I could see it improving power with no drawback or improving top end power with low end driveability suffering some OR I can see it making no change at all.

You can't flow more through the TB than you can through the stock air intake and filter before it. And I don't really know how much restriction is the stock setup, but if you try a bigger TB and see no gains at all, I'd add a CAI or something to free up the flow before the TB. As well, you can't flow more into the motor than you can flow out of it, so its also possible that the 3.5" is more than big enough for the 3.7L and adding a bigger TB does nothing, you need bigger cams and freer flowing exhaust before it starts to suck more air needing a bigger TB.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mongo is offline  
post #3 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 02:34 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60
Level up: 21% Level up: 21% Level up: 21%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
luckyse7ens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: CA
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
2WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 140000
Posts: 1,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
Let us know if it does something? I could see it improving power with no drawback or improving top end power with low end driveability suffering some OR I can see it making no change at all.

You can't flow more through the TB than you can through the stock air intake and filter before it. And I don't really know how much restriction is the stock setup, but if you try a bigger TB and see no gains at all, I'd add a CAI or something to free up the flow before the TB. As well, you can't flow more into the motor than you can flow out of it, so its also possible that the 3.5" is more than big enough for the 3.7L and adding a bigger TB does nothing, you need bigger cams and freer flowing exhaust before it starts to suck more air needing a bigger TB.
Agreed with you on all points here Mongo.

If I see some improvement in throttle response to compensate for the lazy DBW system then I will be happy. Its certainly cheaper than the resistor trick (Sprint Booster $$$).

More power and rumored MPG would be nice. We shall see
luckyse7ens is offline  
 
post #4 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 02:38 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60
Level up: 21% Level up: 21% Level up: 21%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
luckyse7ens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: CA
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
2WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 140000
Posts: 1,585
I also want to point out that I am not completely in uncharted territory here.


A couple members on another forum have successfully completed this mod on 3.7L's
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f67/v...88/index2.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca07wk
With the Volant intake and 4.7l tb I've seen a gain of about 2mpg average driving 50/50 city highway. Before I was at 15.5 recently I've seen 17 maxing at 17.5

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f67/v...-3-7l-1492188/

Input from a Liberty owner as well
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f67/s...74/index2.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gageraid
Just added that throttle body to my Liberty. I also have a Hypertech programmer, exhaust, and CAI. This mod dramatically improved EVERYTHING!
Not sure what gains you would see stock, but with these mods, it's money well spent.

Last edited by luckyse7ens; 08-07-2014 at 02:45 PM.
luckyse7ens is offline  
post #5 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 03:33 PM
Senior Member
Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81
Level up: 12% Level up: 12% Level up: 12%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lusby, MD
Posts: 3,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyse7ens View Post
I also want to point out that I am not completely in uncharted territory here.


A couple members on another forum have successfully completed this mod on 3.7L's
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f67/v...88/index2.html



http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f67/v...-3-7l-1492188/

Input from a Liberty owner as well
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f67/s...74/index2.html
So the question folows, if these gains can be achieved by just swapping to a part that is already in the inventory for the manufacturer, and I can't imagine how identical TB's just with a different bores would make costs a factor in that decision, then why didn't the manufacturer just do it themselves already???

NOT to be overly skeptical, but that is the legitimate counter claim to those bogus products with people claiming a spark plug with an extra electrode or a $5 sheetmetal swirl will make your engine have so much more power and mileage, they don't, and if their claims were true the manufacturers would be using those products in their cars from the assembly line.

So, to still keep an open mind, there must be some drawback to this mod that prevented the manufacturer NOT selecting the bigger TB from the beginning, and I suspect it may be the beuracratic testing and design criteria for the vehicles that is at the root of it. I.e. the drawback is probably some low speed driveability losses, that for a better (or at least more mechanically conscience) driver are so easily adaptable too, that its unoticeable for them.

I suspect that is the reason behind the lazy DBW, there are probably design and test criteria that are more for liability of stupid drivers that drive the design that way. i.e. if it has the slightest lurching characterstics during parking maneuvers, no matter what gains in mileage or power, NOPE, that out, reduce TB size until the lurch is gone. Otherwise we'll end up with a class action lawsuite on our hands and half our customer base is soccer moms that would reject the vehicle on a test drive at the dealership, simple because it's harder to park.

So I guess I'm saying I'm a tad skeptical, but open minded, it might be true and the reason why such a simple mod actually working in defiance of the common sense (of why didn't chrysler do it before you) is because if you're NOT a soccer mom driver then the disadvantages are insignficant.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mongo is offline  
post #6 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 03:45 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60
Level up: 21% Level up: 21% Level up: 21%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
luckyse7ens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: CA
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
2WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 140000
Posts: 1,585
A very popular, valid counter argument.

I definitely appreciate your candor Mongo! This point has been made on other forums as well, although typically in a more condescending way.

Last edited by luckyse7ens; 08-07-2014 at 03:50 PM.
luckyse7ens is offline  
post #7 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 07:58 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60
Level up: 21% Level up: 21% Level up: 21%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
luckyse7ens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: CA
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
2WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 140000
Posts: 1,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
So the question folows, if these gains can be achieved by just swapping to a part that is already in the inventory for the manufacturer, and I can't imagine how identical TB's just with a different bores would make costs a factor in that decision, then why didn't the manufacturer just do it themselves already???

NOT to be overly skeptical, but that is the legitimate counter claim to those bogus products with people claiming a spark plug with an extra electrode or a $5 sheetmetal swirl will make your engine have so much more power and mileage, they don't, and if their claims were true the manufacturers would be using those products in their cars from the assembly line.

So, to still keep an open mind, there must be some drawback to this mod that prevented the manufacturer NOT selecting the bigger TB from the beginning, and I suspect it may be the beuracratic testing and design criteria for the vehicles that is at the root of it. I.e. the drawback is probably some low speed driveability losses, that for a better (or at least more mechanically conscience) driver are so easily adaptable too, that its unoticeable for them.

I suspect that is the reason behind the lazy DBW, there are probably design and test criteria that are more for liability of stupid drivers that drive the design that way. i.e. if it has the slightest lurching characterstics during parking maneuvers, no matter what gains in mileage or power, NOPE, that out, reduce TB size until the lurch is gone. Otherwise we'll end up with a class action lawsuite on our hands and half our customer base is soccer moms that would reject the vehicle on a test drive at the dealership, simple because it's harder to park.

So I guess I'm saying I'm a tad skeptical, but open minded, it might be true and the reason why such a simple mod actually working in defiance of the common sense (of why didn't chrysler do it before you) is because if you're NOT a soccer mom driver then the disadvantages are insignficant.
Something to consider is that bean counters make silly choices/oversights that don't make sense to the end user all the time.

Something that comes to mind to me right off the bat is that darned LCA bolt that welds itself in place.
luckyse7ens is offline  
post #8 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-08-2014, 10:01 AM
Senior Member
Points: 7,833, Level: 59 Points: 7,833, Level: 59 Points: 7,833, Level: 59
Level up: 42% Level up: 42% Level up: 42%
Activity: 26% Activity: 26% Activity: 26%
 
rhobll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: pittsburgh pa
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2006
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
4WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 125K
Posts: 544
I havent looked at any of the threads posted here on the tb swap but would love to do this mod AFTER my muffler goes. I'd get an aftermarket exhaust, then go about the 4.7 tb install.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2006 3.7l Silver black and crome Sport W QT1
K&N cai. Aridium 1X plugs. 1.5" Spider Trax...
Tinted windows gone. Got ticketed for 137.50!! Full Synthetic motor oil and many more mods...
rhobll is offline  
post #9 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-08-2014, 10:51 AM
Senior Member
Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81
Level up: 12% Level up: 12% Level up: 12%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lusby, MD
Posts: 3,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyse7ens View Post
A very popular, valid counter argument.

I definitely appreciate your candor Mongo! This point has been made on other forums as well, although typically in a more condescending way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyse7ens View Post
Something to consider is that bean counters make silly choices/oversights that don't make sense to the end user all the time.

Something that comes to mind to me right off the bat is that darned LCA bolt that welds itself in place.
Actually, I'm thinking they are making a decision that makes the most sense, because what drives their decisions are what choices will "Sell the Most Cars" and what choices "Limits are Liabilities from Class Action Suite Lawyers".

If there were no Soccer Mom's or Idiot Drivers buying Jeep's, and there were no Class Action Suite Lawyers, then 3.7L would probably come from the factory with the bigger TB. And you I without a thought would modify our driving habits in a parking lot, knowing the vehicle can lurch a bit at very low speeds, accellerate slow and coast as much as possible while driving around the parking lot and parking.

On the flip side;
Look at the banner in my signature, if all the vehicles owners in this country understood how the car manufacturers are intentionally locking consumers and independent mechanics out of repair/diagnostic information as a barrier to competition and as a revenue stream scheme, do you think there would NOT be an uproar?

Unfortunately, if one manufacturer were to actaul buck the others and say, "We're going to stand by our customers and make the repair/diagnostic information readily available". 0.3% of the customers would cheer and rush to them and buy their cars, which means they'll lose money compared to all the other manufacturers raking in the doe for the rights to their proprietary tools and the big bucks for their dealerships, that the other 99.7% will still keep going to because they know no better, nor could be bothered to learn, and will buy a car based on no better criteria than "they like the way it looks" or "it presents the image I want to project". So the ignorance of the consumer allows them to get away with murder.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mongo is offline  
post #10 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-17-2014, 11:26 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60
Level up: 21% Level up: 21% Level up: 21%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
luckyse7ens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: CA
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
2WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 140000
Posts: 1,585
Ok, finally got a chance to pop the hood on the commander.


New TB and the resonator box are the same diameter. Gonna have to get a silicone sleeve and clamps...



luckyse7ens is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Jeep Commander Forums: Jeep Commander Forum > Jeep Commander Discussion > Performance Modifications > Intakes

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Commander Forums: Jeep Commander Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://www.jeepcommander.com/forums/48-intakes/34170-4-7l-tb-3-7l.html
Posted By For Type Date
Viper throttle body mod for 3.7L - JeepForum.com This thread Refback 04-13-2016 04:40 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome