Retarded idea for a Flow Bench
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
Retarded idea for a Flow Bench
Ok, this idea just popped into my head for some reason, I guess being at work at 7AM messes up my head. Would it be possible to get 2 cheap MAF's and set them up to measure the airflow before and after going though a port, then you could take the difference and figure out the CFM somehow. No idea how to convert gm/sec to cubic ft/min though. Might have to break out the chemistry and determine the molar volume of the air flowing though the system to do the conversion. I dunno, just an idea, dont flame me if its the most retarded thing you've ever heard
#2
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 9,550
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 91 Camaro Vert
Engine: 02 LS1, HX40
Transmission: 2002 LS1 M6
that would really depend on how accurate the GM sensors are....
but if they were accurate enough, and consistant between sensors, yea, i think that could be done.
but if they were accurate enough, and consistant between sensors, yea, i think that could be done.
#3
TGO Supporter
why not just make something to float a ball in a tube, like a flow meter? 7am, that'd be like going in at noon for me, got here this morning at 4:50 after a 90 mile drive.
#4
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
Doesnt really need to be a GM MAF, I guess just whatever is available, and whatever is cheap. Even if both MAF's were way off (by the same amount), wouldnt taking the difference of the 2 readings negate an inconsistancies? Even if both MAF's read high or both read lower than actual, the difference would be the same.
#5
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
Originally posted by ede
why not just make something to float a ball in a tube, like a flow meter? 7am, that'd be like going in at noon for me, got here this morning at 4:50 after a 90 mile drive.
why not just make something to float a ball in a tube, like a flow meter? 7am, that'd be like going in at noon for me, got here this morning at 4:50 after a 90 mile drive.
Scott
#6
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West Des Moines, IA
Posts: 1,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3 GT
Engine: 2.3 DISI Turbo
Transmission: 6 speed MT
Originally posted by ede
why not just make something to float a ball in a tube, like a flow meter?
why not just make something to float a ball in a tube, like a flow meter?
As long as you measured a few sets of heads that had been flowed on an actual bench, you could make marks on the clear tube for at least some sort of reference. Perhaps use an installed height micrometer for valve lift measurements...
Trending Topics
#9
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 9,550
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 91 Camaro Vert
Engine: 02 LS1, HX40
Transmission: 2002 LS1 M6
Originally posted by ede
i'm paid pretty damn well, and i get to surf from work
i'm paid pretty damn well, and i get to surf from work
but i only drive 3 miles to work, and can leave as late as 10 mins before i should be here
Originally posted by Scott_92RS
Doesnt really need to be a GM MAF, I guess just whatever is available, and whatever is cheap. Even if both MAF's were way off (by the same amount), wouldnt taking the difference of the 2 readings negate an inconsistancies? Even if both MAF's read high or both read lower than actual, the difference would be the same.
Doesnt really need to be a GM MAF, I guess just whatever is available, and whatever is cheap. Even if both MAF's were way off (by the same amount), wouldnt taking the difference of the 2 readings negate an inconsistancies? Even if both MAF's read high or both read lower than actual, the difference would be the same.
but the ball in tube idea would probly work better. perhaps not as cool looking, but cheap and accurate.
#10
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 4,627
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: Faster
Engine: Than
Transmission: You!
Scott, you're a tard.
If you want a REAL flow bench, I can probably get you one cheap.
It might only be a 25 in. water bench, but it's a real flow bench.
Tom comes across equipment deals ALL the time and I know of a place or two where you can buy a used flow bench.
The 25 in. water benches are ALOT less expensive than the 28 inch benches.
Just have to do a calculation to get the 28 inch / water flow numbers.
If you want a REAL flow bench, I can probably get you one cheap.
It might only be a 25 in. water bench, but it's a real flow bench.
Tom comes across equipment deals ALL the time and I know of a place or two where you can buy a used flow bench.
The 25 in. water benches are ALOT less expensive than the 28 inch benches.
Just have to do a calculation to get the 28 inch / water flow numbers.
#11
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 4,627
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: Faster
Engine: Than
Transmission: You!
Or, you can be a ghetto Mcguiver and build one like this guy:
http://www.4cycle.com/karting/html/flow_bench.html
http://www.4cycle.com/karting/html/flow_bench.html
#13
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
I dont need a flow bench (although it'd be pretty cool), I'm just saying that maybe one could be made using MAF sensors. The ball-in-tube idea sounds like it would probably work too. Come to think of it, I guess only 1 maf sensor would be needed to read the amount of air coming through the port, attached to a vacuum. There would need to be some way to accurately regulate the amount of vacuum though. Again...just ideas here....
Scott
Scott
Last edited by Scott_92RS; 03-02-2004 at 11:50 AM.
#14
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 4,627
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: Faster
Engine: Than
Transmission: You!
You can build the bench in the second link for $800.00
It will measure CFM in 28 inches of water. It's a nice bench. No computer read-outs though. You'll have to do the pen and paper for results.
It will measure CFM in 28 inches of water. It's a nice bench. No computer read-outs though. You'll have to do the pen and paper for results.
#15
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
$800 isnt exactly what I'd call a DIY "budget" flow bench. The Ball-In-Tube bench would be cheaper than a ****, as would the MAF bench (if possible).
#16
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 4,627
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: Faster
Engine: Than
Transmission: You!
There would be no way to accurately measure anything with your idea. You might be able to see a gain or a loss, but it wouldn't be in any accurate data format like you would need if you are porting anything that requires the ports to be identicle or as close to as possible.
Plus, you need at least a 4 inch bore to mate with the combustion chamber of the head. The MAF is 3 inches MAX, I believe.
Time is money, where's my fiddy?
Plus, you need at least a 4 inch bore to mate with the combustion chamber of the head. The MAF is 3 inches MAX, I believe.
Time is money, where's my fiddy?
#17
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
Originally posted by 1bad91Z
There would be no way to accurately measure anything with your idea. You might be able to see a gain or a loss, but it wouldn't be in any accurate data format like you would need if you are porting anything that requires the ports to be identicle or as close to as possible.
Plus, you need at least a 4 inch bore to mate with the combustion chamber of the head. The MAF is 3 inches MAX, I believe.
Time is money, where's my fiddy?
There would be no way to accurately measure anything with your idea. You might be able to see a gain or a loss, but it wouldn't be in any accurate data format like you would need if you are porting anything that requires the ports to be identicle or as close to as possible.
Plus, you need at least a 4 inch bore to mate with the combustion chamber of the head. The MAF is 3 inches MAX, I believe.
Time is money, where's my fiddy?
Where's MY fiddy....
Last edited by Scott_92RS; 03-02-2004 at 01:03 PM.
#18
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 4,627
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: Faster
Engine: Than
Transmission: You!
In my head, I was picturing the MAF mated to the combustion chamber which would be too small for the cc.
I still dont think your idea would be worth the time or effort.
Remember your hover craft idea?
They make pills for ADD ya know!
Scott's mind = :lala:
Just giving ya crap. If you want to spend $100 plus bucks on a MAF, I have all the tools to fab anything you want to try to build.
I still dont think your idea would be worth the time or effort.
Remember your hover craft idea?
They make pills for ADD ya know!
Scott's mind = :lala:
Just giving ya crap. If you want to spend $100 plus bucks on a MAF, I have all the tools to fab anything you want to try to build.
#19
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
Hey, that remote controlled hover craft would have worked if we would have used more than 1 fan, or a more substantial motor. Its not my fault man, 3 months of doing absoulutely NOTHING (layoffs shortly after...) at work and thats what happens. Hell, I was being paid to make that thing
#21
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West Des Moines, IA
Posts: 1,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3 GT
Engine: 2.3 DISI Turbo
Transmission: 6 speed MT
Actually, now that I've thought about it a little more... a MAF bench isn't a half bad idea... 5V source, a voltage readout on the ECU lead... flow several known head combinations at different lift levels and write down the MAF output voltage.... hummmmmmmmmmm
#22
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 406 Stealth Ram
Transmission: 700R4
Originally posted by bnoon
Actually, now that I've thought about it a little more... a MAF bench isn't a half bad idea... 5V source, a voltage readout on the ECU lead... flow several known head combinations at different lift levels and write down the MAF output voltage.... hummmmmmmmmmm
Actually, now that I've thought about it a little more... a MAF bench isn't a half bad idea... 5V source, a voltage readout on the ECU lead... flow several known head combinations at different lift levels and write down the MAF output voltage.... hummmmmmmmmmm
#23
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West Des Moines, IA
Posts: 1,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3 GT
Engine: 2.3 DISI Turbo
Transmission: 6 speed MT
I just picked up an Escort MAF... yes, I know it's a F... O... R... D, but the small engine MAF was really cheap and will flow sufficient air for testing one port at a time. If you do get a MAF, get one from a really small engine like I did, or you will have to modify it to increase the sample rate due to only flowing one port at a time. You'd have to increase the sample tube size I would imagine... Anyway, I'm off to the mecca of hot rod parts, Home Depot, to see if they have any clear tubing to float a ping pong ball in... I'm going to try both methods, either at once or both at the same time. We'll see!!!
#24
Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 88 sc. convert
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: Formerly 700-Now T5
Check out Dwyer.com I'm a test engineer of Pneumatic valves/regulators/filters. One of the things I do is flow test. you can get a Dwyer pretty cheap, it would be considerable more accurate. As long at the downstream side is open to atmosphere 1 meter will read SCFM. Feel free to contact me with flow test questions.
#25
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southwest Chicago 'burbs
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vortex style MAF meters that they use on alot of the Mitsu's are supposed to be extremely accurate. I believe it's still a 5v reference as well.
I can try and dig up some info on it if your interested, I have it in my school notes somewhere
I can try and dig up some info on it if your interested, I have it in my school notes somewhere
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 86 Iroc
Engine: 357 DFI N20
Transmission: 700R
Re: Retarded idea for a Flow Bench
Originally posted by Scott_92RS
Ok, this idea just popped into my head for some reason, I guess being at work at 7AM messes up my head. Would it be possible to get 2 cheap MAF's and set them up to measure the airflow before and after going though a port, then you could take the difference and figure out the CFM somehow. No idea how to convert gm/sec to cubic ft/min though. Might have to break out the chemistry and determine the molar volume of the air flowing though the system to do the conversion. I dunno, just an idea, dont flame me if its the most retarded thing you've ever heard
Ok, this idea just popped into my head for some reason, I guess being at work at 7AM messes up my head. Would it be possible to get 2 cheap MAF's and set them up to measure the airflow before and after going though a port, then you could take the difference and figure out the CFM somehow. No idea how to convert gm/sec to cubic ft/min though. Might have to break out the chemistry and determine the molar volume of the air flowing though the system to do the conversion. I dunno, just an idea, dont flame me if its the most retarded thing you've ever heard
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 86 Iroc
Engine: 357 DFI N20
Transmission: 700R
Originally posted by 1bad91Z
lol, you need
lol, you need
Anyway I can buy the bench for $1,200
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mickeyruder
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
3
09-02-2015 02:45 PM