|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sandy |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 02:12:33
I called Floscan today to ask a tech about GPH & Totalizer readings that are about 33% lower than actual pump readings . Started last year on the port engine and this year manifests on both sides. As this is way beyond calibration parameters I wanted to know if this is related to my upgrade to non-return mpi engines from carb a couple years ago. Actual usage is very close to even & engines run well.
It turns out the mod. # 264 (gas engines to 350 hp) sensors originally installed back in ~'98 with my (9000 series) Floscans have an internal diaphragm that is very susceptible to deterioration in the presence of some fuel additives, specifically alcohol. Apparently 3 yrs ago sale of the 264 sensor was ended and it was replaced with their model # 20B sensor (also gas to 350 hp) with no diaphragm to deteriorate.
This is just a heads-up to any RO who might have the #264 sensor- it has a yellow end cap with wires, the yellow side end is perpindicular to the inlet & outlet flow & that flow is horizontal. If you use E10 gas, I suggest you think about switching out to the newer #20B ( order # 201-019-01) which has a purple end cap with wires coming out facing up on the same end as the outlet. This can be seen at the Floscan site under Accessories. |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Michael Clemensen |
Posted - Mar 13 2012 : 20:22:33
Bringing this topic back up. Just finished replacing The original # 264 sensor with its replacement #20B. I hadn't had any issues with the old # 264 sensor BUT I did tear it apart and the internal diaphragm was intact but looked to be thin and ready to fail. Additionally I cleaned the FlowEZY ILA-02 238 element and was very suprised as to the quantity of matter that it had trapped since the last cleaning. Again if your FloScan sensor is an original # 264 you should replace it with a # 20B
|
| Sandy |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 16:45:32
Michael- Mine used to be as accurate as that then started to gradually change on 1 engine then both & I was futilely trying to chase the discrepency with recalibration. If you have occasion to contact FloScan be sure to talk to a tech ,not the sales guy. Sales guy told me the sensor model was changed due to retooling for uniform casting but the sensor was essentially the same , no improvement inside. The tech said the opposite and gave me the above helpful insight for my change.
I was optimistic at 1st the E-10 was cleaning the whole system so well that fuel economy had miraculously increased. (In this case)Reality bites.  |
| Michael Clemensen |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 08:08:46
Thanks for the heads up, have 880 hours of E-10 fuel that has been through the #264 as of yet no issues. Filled up yesterday, $$, and was within half a gallon of pump meter for 64 gallon input. Guess I’ll keep a keen eye on both the fuel gauge and the FloScan, 33% lower than actual consumption is not good. |
|
|
|
|
| BoaterEd |
© 2010 BoaterEd, Inc. |
 |
|
|
-
