Should I be doing more BMF intake testing?

[acannell]

Have I underestimated how much people want data on the BMF Intake?

I've kind of ignored doing any testing on it and just focused on machining and welding it.

Besides moparzrule I think I'm the only person who has it installed in a working vehicle.

Are there any tests people would like to see?

I have a pretty small turbo (the "super 46" hybrid from FWP), stock cam, long primary tubular header, huge intercooler, H20 injection, and stock swirl head.

I have a flashable ECU so I could put tunes into there.

Is my build to weird to mean much?

[tryingbe]

Unless you're going to make another bunch of 30, I don't see the point of testing. They are already sold out!

[acannell]

Unless you're going to make another bunch of 30, I don't see the point of testing. They are already sold out!

oh I'm definitely making more

[2.216VTurbo]

How about you find a flowbench place, flow a 2 piece stocker, flow your BMF, then sell lots of them based on the big numbers.

[acannell]

How about you find a flowbench place, flow a 2 piece stocker, flow your BMF, then sell lots of them based on the big numbers.

Im guessing one of the existing purchasers like Pope will probably put it on a flow bench because they have those tools already..and probably a 2 piece. Both of which I dont have.

I mean more like in-car stuff. I could probably do a back to back with a stock 1 piece intake but it wouldnt mean much without a tune to match each intake I suppose...

[turismolover22]

I thibk regardless if you do any testing yourself or not, they will sell. Someone will install it, or bench it, and see big gains and it will speak volumes (no pun intended)

[Shadow]

There is really not much you will be able to do to "test" or "Prove" the intake on your platform. It is really designed for much more. The only thing you could really do is bolt it on and prove that you Can run it with minimal mods and still be drivable. (If that makes any sense) and you've already done that.

You Didn't build this Blind. Remember, it was built using the parameters from the Intake that is working on the Charger right now, coupled with parameters from what I know of Warren's and a few other intakes.

So it Should work as well or Better than the intake on the Charger and we Gained 30WHP (minimal) when switching from a Fully ported 2 piece @ 33lbs boost on the 57 trim turbo. And that was while still on the STOCK cam! lol

So I Think you Should be safe to let others do the testing and see what comes out of it

[acannell]

There is really not much you will be able to do to "test" or "Prove" the intake on your platform. It is really designed for much more. The only thing you could really do is bolt it on and prove that you Can run it with minimal mods and still be drivable. (If that makes any sense) and you've already done that.

You Didn't build this Blind. Remember, it was built using the parameters from the Intake that is working on the Charger right now, coupled with parameters from what I know of Warren's and a few other intakes.

So it Should work as well or Better than the intake on the Charger and we Gained 30WHP (minimal) when switching from a Fully ported 2 piece @ 33lbs boost on the 57 trim turbo. And that was while still on the STOCK cam! lol

So I Think you Should be safe to let others do the testing and see what comes out of it

Yeah this probably makes the most sense especially if so many people are going to be testing/tuning with it..my little turbo build wont even get noticed in the pile lol

[OmniLuvr]

i dont think youll need more testing but maybe more "tuning/tweeking" it, like what shadow did and put a little turn up on the runners to clear the turbo better? im planning on making the runners shorter, thats why im going for unwelded. i was even thinking of making it a "2 piece" design. being able to separate the runners from the plenum somehow, either plenum separates from runners like a 2 piece, or runners cut in 2 and held together with v-bands, 2 bolt flanges, or silicone tubing (im worried about the heat though). just an idea...

but either way, THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH OUR COMMUNITY!

[acannell]

i dont think youll need more testing but maybe more "tuning/tweeking" it, like what shadow did and put a little turn up on the runners to clear the turbo better? im planning on making the runners shorter, thats why im going for unwelded. i was even thinking of making it a "2 piece" design. being able to separate the runners from the plenum somehow, either plenum separates from runners like a 2 piece, or runners cut in 2 and held together with v-bands, 2 bolt flanges, or silicone tubing (im worried about the heat though). just an idea...

but either way, THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH OUR COMMUNITY!

The lack of bends is 100% intentional. AFAIK Shadow decided not to go with the bends, but maybe he'll change his mind. I've already gone over why there are straight runners and why I think bends should not be added in another thread so I wont go into it again except to say that adding bends is expensive and difficult and you get pretty much nothing for your time and money. That applies whether I was to change the design or whether someone attempts it on their own after-the-fact. I would have to raise the cost of the BMFI by about $125 to add bends. Someone who tries to do it themselves is looking at around $80 in tubing and probably a good 2 days of fabricating, and thats for someone at Shadow's skill level. And the results are what exactly? Eliminating the need to do minor grinding for certain headers? It would be much easier to just grind the headers instead of trying to add bends to the BMFI. Knownenemy and Moparzrule have both shown what is required to fit certain large headers and its very minimal grinding anyone can do.

I've played around with the idea of a BMFI that can be taken apart at the runners but I can't see a real reason for it. If I were to do it it would be with orings and proper bore/piston seals. But again I'm not sure what there is to be gained by doing it. It should be noted that with a G-body, 0.63 housing, and stock exh. mani, the BMFI can be removed and installed in-car. without removing the head or the exhaust mani.

And you are welcome!! Thank you for your support!!

[5DIGITS]

Have I underestimated how much people want data on the BMF Intake?
I've kind of ignored doing any testing on it and just focused on machining and welding it.
Besides moparzrule I think I'm the only person who has it installed in a working vehicle.
Are there any tests people would like to see?
I have a pretty small turbo (the "super 46" hybrid from FWP), stock cam, long primary tubular header, huge intercooler, H20 injection, and stock swirl head.
I have a flashable ECU so I could put tunes into there.
Is my build to weird to mean much?

If it helps, there's a few tests that can be done to qualify the impact of a new intake design.
When changing the plenum size and reducing runner length, it would be expected that the intake tuning will change.
Understanding how this has influenced the tuning peaks and the roll it plays on the torque and HP curves are vital pieces of information and typically not realized on a flow bench.
Therefore, running tests between a ported two-piece and the new unit will identify the areas of gain and loss due to these changes in intake tuning pulses.
Although the two-piece was a superior part vs the one-piece, both will begin to choke when higher boost levels are requested, unless the problem areas are addressed.
With this, testing should consider boost level conditions throughout a range that will expose where each thrives and where the limitations lie.
Because the above is ideal for exposing shifts in the torque/HP curves across varying operating ranges, it also opens the door to best optimize cam timing to compliment the new direction.

Hope this helps

[zin]

As usual 5digits dropping some knowledge!

I'm pretty much in agreement with what folks have already said, this is a big step in the right direction, imperfect for everyone though it may be.

My suggestion would be to not do more testing, it is what it is (for this batch anyway), rather I'd suggest collecting info on your customer's combinations, then adjust the design to better fit them.

Mike

[Shadow]

The lack of bends is 100% intentional. AFAIK Shadow decided not to go with the bends, but maybe he'll change his mind. I've already gone over why there are straight runners and why I think bends should not be added in another thread so I wont go into it again except to say that adding bends is expensive and difficult and you get pretty much nothing for your time and money. That applies whether I was to change the design or whether someone attempts it on their own after-the-fact. I would have to raise the cost of the BMFI by about $125 to add bends. Someone who tries to do it themselves is looking at around $80 in tubing and probably a good 2 days of fabricating, and thats for someone at Shadow's skill level. And the results are what exactly? Eliminating the need to do minor grinding for certain headers? It would be much easier to just grind the headers instead of trying to add bends to the BMFI. Knownenemy and Moparzrule have both shown what is required to fit certain large headers and its very minimal grinding anyone can do.

The reasons for adding the bent runners were tri-fold. The #1 reason was to Add some length, as the runners are a little on the short side vs cross section and it will give a little better drivability. IMO

The rest are just added bonuses. The Zero clearance issues for all applications and getting the TB neck centered in the plenum so that a Hemisphere can be used.

I would have Zero problem paying 125.00 more for this to happen on a welded version in the future!

[acannell]

The reasons for adding the bent runners were tri-fold. The #1 reason was to Add some length, as the runners are a little on the short side vs cross section and it will give a little better drivability. IMO

The rest are just added bonuses. The Zero clearance issues for all applications and getting the TB neck centered in the plenum so that a Hemisphere can be used.

I would have Zero problem paying 125.00 more for this to happen on a welded version in the future!

I'm definitely interested to see what you've come up with! I'm just looking at the BMFI from my perspective and goals of keep the cost down as much as possible and getting people 99% there as far as fitment with only very basic fab skills needed to finish the job if any. But this intake is meant to be modified and customized as need be for sure.

[5DIGITS]

I'm definitely interested to see what you've come up with!
I'm just looking at the BMFI from my perspective and goals of keep the cost down as much as possible and getting people 99% there as far as fitment with only very basic fab skills needed to finish the job if any.
But this intake is meant to be modified and customized as need be for sure.

I've received several questions regarding knock sensor placement on the intake along with a few photos of what some have done.
As a consideration, implementing a provision that supports having the knock sensor on the mounting boss within cylinders 2 or 3 would serve well.
One of the photos had a thin welded bridge between the bosses but this raises concerns of signal accuracy and added resonant back ground noise.
This would be further aggravated, if the material is too thin and not welded at all points of contact with the intake mounting/injector boss (top, bottom and sides)
If this is to be completed by the 'user', a welded boss (around the entire diameter) consisting of 1.000" - 1.250" round aluminum bar stock is ideal while keeping it as short as possible.

[acannell]

I've received several questions regarding knock sensor placement on the intake along with a few photos of what some have done.
As a consideration, implementing a provision that supports having the knock sensor on the mounting boss within cylinders 2 or 3 would serve well.
One of the photos had a thin welded bridge between the bosses but this raises concerns of signal accuracy and added resonant back ground noise.
This would be further aggravated, if the material is too thin and not welded at all points of contact with the intake mounting/injector boss (top, bottom and sides)
If this is to be completed by the 'user', a welded boss (around the entire diameter) consisting of 1.000" - 1.250" round aluminum bar stock is ideal while keeping it as short as possible.

AFAIK moparzrule is the only person to have mounted a knock sensor with the BMFI, and he did the flange to flange welded on strip as you describe. I am not an advocate of this method because I would prefer things not be welded flange to flange for mechanical reasons, but I am being very conservative when it comes to that sort of thing, its probably okay mechanically. I am not sure about acoustically though, for the reasons you describe.

So, the solutions I am aware of for knock sensor mounting with the BMFI are:

1) moparzrule style with welded strip from #2 to #3 flange, drilled and tapped for sensor (requires welding and basic fab skills)

2) CNC machined knock sensor mount bolted to head ($$ to buy the mount from me, basic fab skills to modify your head to mount it, puts it a few mm from stock, very solid mounting)

3) Making #2 yourself. (basic fab skills, put it within mm of stock, very solid mounting)

4) Drilling and tapping the plenum for the knock sensor. (basic fab skills, puts it a few inches away from stock)

5) Grinding/filing a flat on #2 or #3 flange injector surface and drilling and tapping for knock sensor (basic fab skills. puts it ~1 inch from stock, very solid mounting, not centered audio-wise though)

6) ?

I am a fan of #2, #3, and possibly #5, all of which keep in the BMF spirit of easy, cheap, and extremely effective, since they avoid welding, require only basic fab skills, and provide a very solid mount very close to the stock position.

Here are some pics of the sensor mount I was considering offering as an upgrade:

[OmniLuvr]

I'm just looking at the BMFI from my perspective and goals of keep the cost down as much as possible and getting people 99% there as far as fitment with only very basic fab skills needed to finish the job if any

AND YOU HAVE DONE THAT!!! sorry for not being able to read through all the threads, ive gotten kind of lost in how many threads your intake has come up. but I do like the custom knock sensor mount

[BoostedDrummer]

Have I underestimated how much people want data on the BMF Intake?

[acannell]

hahahahaahahaah literally LOL thank you for that

[zin]

5Digits, what about finding a place on the block to mount the knock sensor to? Is the code used position sensitive, that is, would it misinterpret the signal if it isn't between 2 & 3 and higher up? If so, is there any way to change it to allow a block mounted knock sensor as it used on the newer engines?

Mike