Throwing out a strawman for those with experience to poke at. Has anyone put individual throttle bodies on an injected 512? What are the pros / cons? Sound, throttle response, aesthetics? The aesthetics of a cleaner engine bay would be a big positive (IMO) – especially with clear covers like the ones used on the "competizione" (attached). Is there some "gotcha" that makes the whole thing prohibitive? Image Unavailable, Please Login
What would you be looking to achieve? There is no doubt at this point a BBi is an investment grade car and modifying it destroys that aspect. Also for performance increase changing the injection system only makes sense when done in support of other modifications. If in search of more power you will very quickly run into the limitations of a very fragile transmission. A BBi is at its best in my opinion more or less the way Ferrari built it.
I think aesthetics, potentially engine sound (intake through trumpets vs filtered manifold), and mild throttle response would be the expected result. I'm not under the delusion that the ROI would make sense to most – particularly if the aesthetics aren't appreciated. When you say "destroys" the investment grade aspect of the car, am I mistaken that switching to ITBs would be reversible? Ie, similar to larger wheels and exhaust, if the market values a "the way Ferrari built it" car, couldn't the intake be returned to original? I can understand the folly of hacking away at the metal, but this doesn't seem to fall into that category, no? Has anyone done this? If not, is it because it's self-evident that it just doesn't makes sense?
I have been working on BBs since they were new cars. Have never seen or heard of it being done except on the BBLMs. Further it makes zero sense to me. You should start with another car.
This is needlessly dramatic. It's fine if your opinion is that the BB has gotten to a point where you shouldn't touch it for fear of losing value, but not all Ferrari owners are so investment oriented – particularly if one believes the BB is already under-valued. Ie, a little "imperfection" can still mean a very high ROI (if that's a concern). But again, are you suggesting this would be irreversible?
Are you really suggesting thats my reasoning? And whats dramatic about suggesting other cars can be much better suited to those modifications?
I am questioning why the investment ROI is important if the change is reversible. Essentially, this point seems irrelevant. If the change is reversible (as I suspect it is), then a more apt response would be "not sure a future buyer would appreciate the change, so be prepared to change it back before you sell". The hyperbolic "destroys the investment grade aspect" is dramatic, as is the "start with another car" – which implies ITBs are some kind of deal-breaker for me (they aren't). But I asked for people's opinion on the subject, and it seems you've given yours, so thank you.
Ferrari contemplated this kind of modification. They made a car with more aggressive cams with less overlap. It is lighter, faster and sounds terrific. Few have heard of it however, it is called a BB512. Seriously, to answer the initial post, it would be no faster unless it no longer retained the stock cams and compression, but once you take into consideration the greatly diminished value of the BB512i and deduct the cost of the modifications, you might end up at zero, which, as suggested by Mr. Crall, would make the enterprise an ‘own goal’. If you want a fast BB buy a sorted carb car, if you want a flat 12 with modern fuel injection buy a (much faster) 512TR.
Another route is a BBi Newman built that I rode in. Looked totaly stock(so keeps investment value) but had much better pistons, more cr and reprofiled cams. It was very strong running. Also friend had the fuel injection on his totaly refurbished and reported that the difference was dramatic. Lastly you could put a 512M motor in there with a Tr transmission, and always just swap the original powerplant tranny back for resale. prob come to the same money as reworking the BBi motor and concerting to ITBs, and still more hp better powerplant. ill agree with john above, sell the BBi and buy a BB. id still do cams and pistons ona BB to wake it up, i think very few BB and BBis run the way they did when new, probaly if one gets ones car running at that level its already goign to feel great. on a BBi Id get that fuel injection working perfectly and if I was lookign for more pistons and cams. the No1 change is wheels and tires. Then get the motor fully sorted. the car will be fully engaging at that point and as fast as reasonable sanity will allow.
Admittedly, my main motivator was general curiosity, and maybe aesthetics – not performance. I figured I could always put back manifolds / ducting / filters before resale. I've thought about doing some of these stealth upgrades. Carobu has done something similar. For the record, it's an '83 BBi. '83 is an important year for me, so it's more about that than it is finding the optimal 512 platform. I am aware of the perf differences between the earlier carb'd and later 4v iterations. 17" Group 4 wheels are definitely on the list (as is a Larini exhaust). Although, the TRX tires aren't as bad as I thought they were going to be. Many of the "faults" of the BB are largely exaggerations, IMO (eg, the offset foot box). It's a pretty amazing car.
the tires are really bad if you start really using the car. carobu did some carbed cars. Newman has done injected cars too. I rode in one it was small block Chevy strong. I think a carbed car can be taken from360 to 470 hp an injected car from340 to 400. Headline numbers are only part of the story, having lots of tq and power to 7k rom is far more of a change than peak hp. newman also did a 512m engine into a bb. the faults of these cars esp a bbi are the crap tires which rob steering feel have crap ride and are treacherous near the limit. They’re ok on a 1970 bmw 7 series which is what they wre designed for. there’s a reason that the countach went to p7s and the 930 came that way. Only the first year testarossa had trx and the 288 never had. injected cars are fine but tend to run out of puff above 6k rpm. otherwise the chassis and dynamics are great if you know how to drive and are prepared to push it. If you’re just cruising g along a bb is more of a chore than anything. Grab it by the scruff of the neck though and it truly comes alive. not so much a car with faults as not fully resolved in period with the no 1 culprit being tires.
In Germany one BBi was converted to EFI with ITBs. At about 90% of progress, it made BB power (at least, thats what I was told), but the Owner never let the shop finish the project. So it looked quite unfinished. I do NOT know the specs of the components or if the Engine itself had modifications. Than, I never heard again from this car.
when you replace at the BBi the K-jetronic and put on an EFI you gain minimum 10 % power. the large plates in the fuel distributors prevent proper air flow
Possibly, I didn’t think the BBi was that slow, maybe it is. Think of it as a 2 valve Testarossa. To make noticeably more power you would need cams with some overlap. To my understanding, in order to work with the k-jet, having both intake and exhaust valves open for any meaningful period is not possible.
Seems you have some pretty strong opinions on this. Without going too tangent from EFI/ITB, any recommendation on wheel / tire combo? Seems to me, the 17" Group 4 wheels with 245/50/17 is a sweet spot where you maintain the original diameter, with a slightly lower profile 18% vs 19.4%, but fair amount of options to choose from?
So if you go EFI, is it outrageous to think of going ITB? I came across an old thread where Paul Newman even mentioned doing this, but raised a concern that there could be issues with torque due to needing long runners (although, this was from a thread back in '07).
what please is ITB ? sorry for the question but I never heard about this. I´m not used to the technical short cuts
Been driving my BBi enthusiastically for over 30 years, been through two sets of orig tires, plus one set of goodyears in 16 inces(some aftermarket wheels) and now 275 rears and 245 fronts. I had done 245,45 17s last time(slightly smaller diameter 25.7 as opposed to 16.33 due to 275 rear widths), as did two friends and imo 245 fronts are not an ideal option. The BBI already came with 240 series front tires on the trx, as opposed to 215s on BBs. This made the steering at lower speeds(below 85) too heavy and robbed the car of steering feel/feedback. Drive a BB with 215 fronts and the steering is magic, more akin to a lotus. There is a reason stock they listed 40 psi or something obscene for tire pressure, that is because trx sidewall flex is outrageous and deadly at the limit(I will go into this in more detail) and because high psi also somewhat mitigates the heavy steering at the cost of ride. Basicaly with TRxs you get heavy steerign crap roide and treacherous dynamics at the limit. As a result in period the BBi developed an airccoled porsche like reputation at the limit. It is said enzo went with the Michelins because they the tire supplier for his race cars, so another supplier on his road cars was an wouldn't do. It was also the malaise era at ferrai and they just sorta phoned it in, meanwhile poche and lambo went to p7s and the aftermarket guys made wheels for Bbs to run p7s. Now lets touch on the rear. There is a lot of weight in the rear, and the motor sits on top pf the gearbox centering the weight up high. As you approach the limit with TRx, the tread due to sidewall flex isn't really under the wheel, its to the side of the rim. Now what happens when you feather the throttle or heavens forbid lift, weigh transfers frontwards, not only do you have to catch the heavy rear starting to slide, but now with grip lost that sidewall is is a giant elastic snapping the tread back under the weeks, while that heavy high motor is heading towards the exit, its pretty impossible to catch once it gets going. Yes you can drive fast through bends really if know the corner and can therefore keep adding power. However even if youre near but still below the limit and for whatever reason need to flatten the power off the rear, snap oversteer is coming for you. The fix is pretty easy, thats wider rear tires that won't come unglued. In my case went to 275/40/17s. They fit the rear of the car with no issues at all, no rubbing and dont stick out. Now the rear is really glued and wont bite unless really really provoked. To give an idea of what aBB chassis is capable of. Nick mason BBLM(which is still BB chassis and suspension) lapped goodwood faster than his f40. We're just about to do new tires again. This time Im going to do the same 275 rears and 235 fronts to try make the steering lighter. the price is 235 fronts have a 25.3 diameter, so if it doesn't sit right Ill go back to 245 fronts. The alternatives which will meet stock ride heights etc is 225 fronts and 245 rears which should also be fine. these cars don't run out of grip in front, its the rear. narrower fronts make them come alive throught he wheel. if i were having wheels made again, id probably get rims to suit this setup, my rims may be too wide. A well running Bb should have 288 levels of power, and can be setup to handle great, all for 1/10th the price.
This is all really interesting, thank you for the explanation / context. By any chance, do you have pictures you wouldn't mind sharing? Unless my math is wrong, wouldn't this make the overall diameter less than stock (potentially exaggerating an already large fender gap)?
I don't know where you get that stock is 25.7". It's actually 26.73" - nearly an inch larger in OD than 245/50 17 which are much too low profile for that car, in my opinion. If you want something that exactly matches the original, you can do 225/55/ 17 as those are 26.75".
I said 275/40/17 would be less diameter than stock, and so I was curious what it looked like. I never said stock was 25.7"
I did not mean to say stock was 25.7 From my calculation stock BBi is 26.33, 26.7 is taller, blunting acceleration if nothing else. was 26.7 not the diameter for the flying mirror tetasorrsa 25,7 is not that far off from stock. The BBI had numerous compromises. A really heavy flywheel to work in traffic off lights, and a ride height for parking garages and traffic humps to be easily negotiated with the long overhang and accommodate the crap trxs. Years ago went to lightweight flywheel from carobu, noticed zero difference for driving other than its slightly more snappy which is good. Im not going into parking garages or steep driveways in Sf, I can always go across an entrance anyway, so for me slightly less tire diameter and minimally lower ride height is well worth it for improved dynamics, steering feel, improved acceleration, braking, ride etc. If stock diameter was 26.33 and one ends up with even 25/3 thats effectively half an inch lower ride height. Less than the difference between say a regular 9111 and a Gt3. After driving Pauls Bb with 215 fronts, the steering was a rvelation and added a whole other dimension i never knew the car had. For the rear I know 275 work really great. The good thing is anytime you want for a concurs etc just put the TRX wheels back on, no harm no foul. Back tot he op, pistons cams clutches, no one is ever going to know besides the driver. The flaw of these cars BBI esp imo is running out of puff above 6k rpm, and on all Bbs dynamic drawbacks due to tires. The tires part is easy to correct and the gains massive. I suppose it also depends on intended use, one of the beauties of the boxer is it can do corners and sweeping bends really well, whereas say a Daytona may be more vceral and even faster top end on a straight road, but where can you wind these babies out these days, esp for any length of time. If your speeds are below say 150, a boxer is hard to beat ( as a classic fcar then impossible to beat) and a dynamically sorted boxer is more of joy on bends than something that may bite the hand that feeds it. The boxer posse like to really run, so much so that a Testarossa due to its size weigh wheelbase won't keep pace, we've been there same owner has both. Cars in the pics, that was a boxer run just before lockdowns ended, well probably never see those conditions again, and for sure on TRxs all 3 would have been in the barrier at some point. The two on left two had I think 255 rear, all had 245 fronts, mine on right also has the 275 rears. All of us agree that wider in rear and narrower as you can reasonably get is the way to go, so maybe 245 rears with 225 fronts. Ill report on the 235 fronts in a few weeks, also going to go neutral toe. May even put a li[po battery in to loose more weight over the fronts. Image Unavailable, Please Login One also doesn't have to get the most extreme tires for these cars, unless you have different seats to hold you in.
Here's a pic below, my wheels were made a while back by carobu so while really light dont have the stock look. The new wheels from Uk look really stock and on the cars with 245 fronts it took me awhile to realize that they were not stock in general. As you can see the 275 rears dont stick out at all, kinda like they built the car for them. Diameter is .63 inches less, or just over 1/3 inch difference in ride height. Image Unavailable, Please Login
You know what would be cool? 512M crank, titanium rods, hi comp pistons, better cams for the CIS with the right timing and totally stock look. That's all I will say about that.
