Background:
After making a test fitting with a recent iteration of the beta MGM7 intake (Beta 9), I took some time to flow test this version using an inlet elbow and turbocharger inlet adapter that models the Mabotech M720 prototype turbo currently installed in my GTI.
The interior of this intake is not the smoothest, with some excess JB Weld at the seams where the pieces were joined, but I was still interested in getting a rough idea of how the flow rate compares with previous versions.
Flow Test:
The test consists of attaching the intake to an inlet elbow model that has been sized similarly to the elbow supplied with the M720 turbo. The elbow is attached to an adapter that simulates the entrance to the M720 compressor wheel, and this adapter connects the intake setup to the flow bench.
Flow testing is done at 28″ of H2O, and the flow rate at this depression is measured.
A previous intake model (Beta 8) is also being tested. This version is designed to fit to a 3″ inlet elbow, versus the 3.5″ elbow used with the M720 turbo.
Finally, for comparison with a commercial intake, the Blaze ATOM Race is also tested using a replacement flange adapter that is larger than what is supplied with the Blaze ATOM. This allows the intake hose to match the inlet size of the M720 turbo better.
Test Results:
Both Beta intakes are flowing near the limit of the PTS Flow bench (~600 CFM @ 28″ of H2O). Therefore, I reduced the depression to 26″ of H2O to ensure the measurements were accurate, as at the limits, the measurement can become less reliable.
Bernoulli’s principle can be applied to the flow rate at 26″ of H2O to estimate the flow rate at 28″ of H2O. The asterisk (*) following the label names on the chart indicates that the measurement is the estimated flow rate.
The Beta-9 (Black) intake flowed 565 CFM @ 26″ of H2O. The Beta-8 (Grey) intake flowed 585 CFM @ 26″ of H2O. The Blaze ATOM flowed 531 CFM @ 28″ of H2O.
The chart below shows these intakes compared at 28″ of H2O.
Conclusions:
Interestingly, the Beta-8 intake, with an outlet sized for the 3″ turbo inlet elbow, outflowed the Beta-9 intake, which has an outlet sized for the 3.5″ inlet elbow.
I’m doubtful that the excess JB Weld protruding into the interior of the intake caused the bulk of the difference. I suspect that the design of the outlet bend into the elbow is the driving factor causing the unexpected result.
Both beta intakes outflowed the commercial Blaze ATOM intake by a good margin, 10% by the Beta-9, and 14% by the Beta-8.