Want less intake restriction? - A 929 AFM works!
#1
Seduced by the DARK SIDE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orange Park FL (near Jax)
Posts: 7,323
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Want less intake restriction? - A 929 AFM works!
I thought I'd start a new thread on this.
It is plug & play, except that fuel goes 40% rich.
It takes something like an S-AFC to adjust for the flow difference.
I had to dial back all my set points by 40%.
Oh yea - it is bigger...
The inlets:
The outlets:
Installed:
I got this one on e-bay for $31.
I think it's the same one the Cosmo used.
It is plug & play, except that fuel goes 40% rich.
It takes something like an S-AFC to adjust for the flow difference.
I had to dial back all my set points by 40%.
Oh yea - it is bigger...
The inlets:
The outlets:
Installed:
I got this one on e-bay for $31.
I think it's the same one the Cosmo used.
Last edited by SureShot; 02-14-06 at 01:13 PM.
#5
Seduced by the DARK SIDE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orange Park FL (near Jax)
Posts: 7,323
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The big plunger takes less force to move because if its larger area.
The venturi opens way wider as the plunger depresses, so the ID/OD difference is more.
The plunger has a longer stroke.
AND - THE BIGGIE - The ECU & the S-AFC can handle it.
I hope to play with the G-tech this weekend.
The venturi opens way wider as the plunger depresses, so the ID/OD difference is more.
The plunger has a longer stroke.
AND - THE BIGGIE - The ECU & the S-AFC can handle it.
I hope to play with the G-tech this weekend.
#7
Seduced by the DARK SIDE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orange Park FL (near Jax)
Posts: 7,323
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by arghx
this is a cone-type AFM? Does that work on an s4?
I think someone said the S4 AFM actually flows better than the S5.
Trending Topics
#9
Seduced by the DARK SIDE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orange Park FL (near Jax)
Posts: 7,323
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Low Impedance
hmm...i would need then a S5 plug and the 929 afm. so i think ill wait til i get some results from you.
This looks like the wide mouth bottle I've been looking for.
#11
Seduced by the DARK SIDE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orange Park FL (near Jax)
Posts: 7,323
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Two of the 929 AFM's I saw on e-bay were rectangular hole input, round output, flap type S4 style, and were also this big.
I can only guess at S4 plug compatability.
I can only guess at S4 plug compatability.
#14
Rotors still spinning
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by SureShot
I think someone said the S4 AFM actually flows better than the S5.
#16
Red Pill Dealer
iTrader: (10)
I wonder if using some sort of resister or adjustment to the pot would let this work with a stock ECU. I would love to see someone flow both of these and compare resistance from one to the other at several diferent flow rates.
SureShot, always the thinker!
SureShot, always the thinker!
#17
Lives on the Forum
Originally Posted by SureShot
The big plunger takes less force to move because if its larger area.
The venturi opens way wider as the plunger depresses, so the ID/OD difference is more.
The plunger has a longer stroke.
The venturi opens way wider as the plunger depresses, so the ID/OD difference is more.
The plunger has a longer stroke.
Airflow has to also travel with more delfection from the larger center plunger...
I'd like to see hard proof that it does flow more - flowbench anyone?
Else, I don't see any performance advantage since you're still trying to match airflow with fuel delivery.
So you're changing the meter size, but you still need to jack the signal down to match the airflow being delivered?
-Ted
#20
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally Posted by RETed
Stop making assumptions you cannot prove objectively.
Airflow has to also travel with more delfection from the larger center plunger...
I'd like to see hard proof that it does flow more - flowbench anyone?
Else, I don't see any performance advantage since you're still trying to match airflow with fuel delivery.
So you're changing the meter size, but you still need to jack the signal down to match the airflow being delivered?
-Ted
Airflow has to also travel with more delfection from the larger center plunger...
I'd like to see hard proof that it does flow more - flowbench anyone?
Else, I don't see any performance advantage since you're still trying to match airflow with fuel delivery.
So you're changing the meter size, but you still need to jack the signal down to match the airflow being delivered?
-Ted
#21
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally Posted by SirCygnus
its bigger and less restrictive. point blank.
So until this can actually be proved to do anything I am (and probably Ted as well) more than skeptical.
#22
Lives on the Forum
Originally Posted by SirCygnus
you do know hes going to use an afc to alter the signals right? jesus christ let the man tlk. yall alwase say it won work till someone goes and prioves your little theoretical assumtions wrong. its bigger and less restrictive. point blank.
Also, it breaks Newton's first law - the shortest route between two points is a straight line.
Think about it.
-Ted
#24
Let's get silly...
iTrader: (7)
Originally Posted by RETed
This is basic Fluid Dynamics 101.
Also, it breaks Newton's first law - the shortest route between two points is a straight line.
Think about it.
-Ted
Also, it breaks Newton's first law - the shortest route between two points is a straight line.
Think about it.
-Ted
My degree is in mechanical engineering, fluid flow was one of my main areas of study (gas turbine engines etc).
Air can only flow until it is sonic and at that point is direclty limited by cross sectional area. Is flow anywhere near sonic in this thing? No but it is almost certainly turbulent.
If the 929 flow meter truly has less resistance to opening, and a lager "bore" it may indeed flow with less losses, depending on how much are you are actually trying to stuff through it.
It all depends on what the reynolds number is (likely turbulent) and if turbulent it basically only depends on CFM and minnimum cross sectional area. As the differences between the two in shape are incosiquential when they are that minimal and we are talking turbulent flow.
Last edited by RockLobster; 02-14-06 at 11:32 PM.