Larger Throttle Body?

Sorry for the double post, just noticed that this location seems more suited for the question.

Has anyone used one of the 2UR-GSE (P/N 22030-38050) Throttle Body on the 3UR-FE engine while being N/A? What are your impressions? Worth it?

Saw this thread https://www.tundratalk.net/threads/installing-the-84-mm-2ur-gse-throttle-body-from-the-lexus-lc500-rc-f-onto-the-tundra.759032/ and got me wondering if any gains could be seen while remaining N/A as it appears to be a bolt on (at least electronically).

 

I know two guys running it locally but they are s/c’d.

 

I like! Hmmm, what to do, what to do...

 

You should give it a try...

 

I too have played around with this idea the last couple years. I [lightly] ported and polished my tb a 1 1/2 ago. Hard to really say if it really made any different effect.
There is a company out there that offers larger Tbs for the Tundra.
The problem is downstream...with the manifold inlet. Not to mention the internals of the manifold...not real conducive for getting high flow air volume.

IMO, one of the best things you can do for /to the tb is the tb bypass, with the coolant hoses.

Also @ViktorG (from the other linked site) is on here too. If there’s a guru for air intakes, and especially for SC applications, he’s one of the best.

 

The 2UR-GSE TB will not be a direct bolt on to the stock plastic intake manifold, you would need an adapter plate. Prospeed makes one now.
There will be no measurable benefit on an NA truck however in my opinion.
The plastic manifold cannot be opened up like the aluminum supercharger snout to port match the larger TB and realize any gains.
Also, the NA engine does not flow enough air to need a larger TB.

 

I had seen the adapter plate which is not too bad at $100, but the TB itself is upwards of +$600 so kind of expensive just to see if it works. Maybe someone had already gone down this rabbit hole and could enlighten us.

But seeing how these engines respond so well to LT headers (sucks on the emission controlled areas where only shorty are allowed, that's why I'm looking at this), would've thought that more improvement could be seen. If the 5.0 2UR-GSE benefits from the larger TB, why wouldn't the 3UR-FE see some benefit. I know there's more stuff to take into account as ViktorG said.

Diametrically, the difference is 8mm larger, which equates to 4mm (0.157") on either side. Think minor cleaning on the intake is achievable as seen here on the SC.

 

The picture is of my old supercharger and adapter plate that I made. It may appear like it was just minor cleaning of the bore, but it was actually widened by over 12 mm.
The TRD SC snout is very large on the inside, and then there is a mounting flange for the TB that narrows down to approx. 76 mm, so all you need to do is widen the flange.
The NA manifold is thin wall plastic, I have looked at it before, there is no way to widen it by more than a few millimiters.
The reason the second gen 2UR-GSE (RC-F, GS-F and LC500) uses a bigger TB is it revs to 7300 vs Tundra's 5800, has an aluminum intake without ACIS valves and makes 471 hp vs 380.
The first gen 2UR-GSE (IS-F) still uses the Tundra TB on it.
I mean, if you want to try it, go ahead, but it is probably not the best bang for the buck.

 

I DO see the value of this on SC'd vehicles...I might play with this in a year or so but acquisition of parts will first need to take place. This upgrade would benefit the charged air in being more efficient with less restrictions, right (rhetorical)?!

 

Thanks for the explanation. That is what I was looking for. Someone that had actually had the TB in their hands and could physically determine compatibility and limitations.

 

Yes, on a supercharged truck, especially a pulleyed one, it will add some hp because the inlet can be enlarged to match the TB and the engine flows a lot more air.