Contradicting Posts by EDC - Re:Airflow
07-01-2005, 01:06 PM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contradicting Posts by EDC - Re:Airflow I recently received an email from an LS1 Tech reader, very interesting. Below you will find the anonymous email followed by the original comments by EDC. I've bolded a few areas of interest and will comment below in red.
-Rick
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Hi Rick,
I found this old post by EDC that I thought you'll find interesting....particularly the 3rd paragrapgh. Seems like what you were saying about port volume.
I found this old post by EDC that I thought you'll find interesting....particularly the 3rd paragrapgh. Seems like what you were saying about port volume.
Originally Posted by EDC
Brent... see I got the name right..
I believe in proper port design. Too much is too much and not enough is not enough. What I've seen in my racing endevours is a lot of engines with big chassis dyno numbers that never show their salt in a race condition. Engine dynos are another item however. I just love those things!
Now... You know what I'm going to say. I prefer the AFR approach of small volume, high velocity ports that they use in their heads. That's why I sell them with my kits. They fit my customer packages extremely well.
This is where it starts getting interesting
Not saying I don't use/recommend/sell other people's heads, (ETP for one) it's just the AFR heads fit well with the "market" I choose to get into.
As for all out racing heads, I think proper ports "still" apply... I remember a set of Comp Eliminator heads that Al Neal did up for us and he shrunk the 10* Buick heads to pick up more velocity and the expense of some "flow numbers". Guess what? The car went faster. The BSFC numbers were running .39 or so and that had Ron and me worried but the F'g car screamed.
Sure sounds like exactly like what I've been saying all along and exactly like the examples that I was trying to share with everyone on this forum, next is the statement that is just plain beautiful since it's Eds own words.
I'll leave all the flow bench, chassis dyno and other "stuff" for the internet "experts". I like to prove my "****" works on the racetrack...
WOW, what a statement coming from a guy that's been selling everyone on the concept that he can custom grind you a camshaft just for your heads based on your airflow. Weren't you the one hammering me about my theories about port size ? I guess it's all about having something for sale isn't it ? I guess it's great to "BE" the internet expert when it generates sales for you. it's amazing in just a short couple of months how your point of view pulls a 180 !!!...One day your stating that flow bench STUFF " is for the internet "experts" and the next day your a friggin guru about airflow, which is it ????? What's really ironic here is that I stand behind 100% everything you stated in this early post, then 2 months later you try to make me look bad because I'm the one posting it. That's really sad !
BTW... I tested a set of the St3 LS6 heads you guys did for a mutual customer and they were pretty sweet. He was looking into swapping them out for "whatever" but I told him he'd be wasting his money. They were a bit "big" for my taste but they seemed to fit his combo well.
Bottomline... In spite of what "some" in here think, I just prefer "certain" heads and not others and if you follow my posts, you can tell which ones, and why...
I'm done... see what transpires in the morning... G'nite
Ed
I believe in proper port design. Too much is too much and not enough is not enough. What I've seen in my racing endevours is a lot of engines with big chassis dyno numbers that never show their salt in a race condition. Engine dynos are another item however. I just love those things!
Now... You know what I'm going to say. I prefer the AFR approach of small volume, high velocity ports that they use in their heads. That's why I sell them with my kits. They fit my customer packages extremely well.
This is where it starts getting interesting
Not saying I don't use/recommend/sell other people's heads, (ETP for one) it's just the AFR heads fit well with the "market" I choose to get into.
As for all out racing heads, I think proper ports "still" apply... I remember a set of Comp Eliminator heads that Al Neal did up for us and he shrunk the 10* Buick heads to pick up more velocity and the expense of some "flow numbers". Guess what? The car went faster. The BSFC numbers were running .39 or so and that had Ron and me worried but the F'g car screamed.
Sure sounds like exactly like what I've been saying all along and exactly like the examples that I was trying to share with everyone on this forum, next is the statement that is just plain beautiful since it's Eds own words.
I'll leave all the flow bench, chassis dyno and other "stuff" for the internet "experts". I like to prove my "****" works on the racetrack...
WOW, what a statement coming from a guy that's been selling everyone on the concept that he can custom grind you a camshaft just for your heads based on your airflow. Weren't you the one hammering me about my theories about port size ? I guess it's all about having something for sale isn't it ? I guess it's great to "BE" the internet expert when it generates sales for you. it's amazing in just a short couple of months how your point of view pulls a 180 !!!...One day your stating that flow bench STUFF " is for the internet "experts" and the next day your a friggin guru about airflow, which is it ????? What's really ironic here is that I stand behind 100% everything you stated in this early post, then 2 months later you try to make me look bad because I'm the one posting it. That's really sad !
BTW... I tested a set of the St3 LS6 heads you guys did for a mutual customer and they were pretty sweet. He was looking into swapping them out for "whatever" but I told him he'd be wasting his money. They were a bit "big" for my taste but they seemed to fit his combo well.
Bottomline... In spite of what "some" in here think, I just prefer "certain" heads and not others and if you follow my posts, you can tell which ones, and why...
I'm done... see what transpires in the morning... G'nite
Ed
07-01-2005, 01:19 PM
#2
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL
Referring to that thread where you guys had the convo....I think you guys were just missing each others points. Ed saw one thing and then it blew up into another thing. Both of you guys know what the hell your doing.
Referring to that thread where you guys had the convo....I think you guys were just missing each others points. Ed saw one thing and then it blew up into another thing. Both of you guys know what the hell your doing.
07-01-2005, 01:33 PM
#4
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Rick,
Nothing has changed... other than your latest posting that I am still correct in my viewpoint and you are starting to agree with lil ol' me...
Laters... off to work... Say "happy fourth" to Dan for me!
IBTL
Ed
Nothing has changed... other than your latest posting that I am still correct in my viewpoint and you are starting to agree with lil ol' me...
Laters... off to work... Say "happy fourth" to Dan for me!
IBTL
Ed
07-01-2005, 01:44 PM
#5
Rick, I think you and Ed have been speaking the same language all along, perhaps with just slightly different dialects, different accents. Sometimes, I'm just not sure if it's english, LOL.
__________________
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
07-01-2005, 02:01 PM
#6
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ED. would you please just comment on your early post, how can you say your point of view hasn't changed, it's a total 180 from 2 months ago. You were actually mocking flow bench numbers......Please comment......OH you can't...how do you rebuttle your own words. It's tough when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar isn't it ????? Also, how could I be starting to agree with you when I don't know where you stand ? , You Flip Flop on the airflow/Port size issues Like John Kerry
07-01-2005, 02:08 PM
#7
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Originally Posted by Tucunare
ED. would you please just comment on your early post, how can you say your point of view hasn't changed, it's a total 180 from 2 months ago. You were actually mocking flow bench numbers......Please comment......OH you can't...how do you rebuttle your own words. It's tough when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar isn't it ????? Also, how could I be starting to agree with you when I don't know where you stand ? , You Flip Flop on the airflow/Port size issues Like John Kerry
Oh Rick...
Nothing has changed... Repeat after me..
"nothing has changed"
Damn you're boring....
Trending Topics
07-01-2005, 02:19 PM
#8
Originally Posted by Patrick G
Rick, I think you and Ed have been speaking the same language all along, perhaps with just slightly different dialects, different accents. Sometimes, I'm just not sure if it's english, LOL.
and Rick, if you want to call Ed out do it in PM or email. this board is for tech related stuff. bring some info, theories, ect. to back up your statements or this one is getting the lock.
07-01-2005, 02:20 PM
#9
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was right, you can't comment !!!!!! why don't you just explain your comments about Flow bench and Dyno "STUFF " being for the internet experts ! I'm sure we'd all like to hear what you meant by that. One simple question is all I ask, good grief.....can You at least handle that without changing the subject once again !!!!!
07-01-2005, 02:39 PM
#11
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JRP, If you go back to the beginning all I ever did was try to bring this Forum some very valuable information and try to give very detailed examples of what I've actually seen work, not theories but actual "real world" data from thousands of hours of R&D at Roush ( and not just nascar ) I'm talking 6 days a week for almost 10 years of just flogging port size, low and high lift flow, seat angles, chamber shapes etc, etc. and then back to back testing each one to find trends if only miniscual ! I'll galdly make this my last post, I actually thought there would be some people who would benifit from this information, I was sadly mistaken !
07-01-2005, 03:18 PM
#12
I myself would be more then happy to listen to your experience and learn from it. I am sure many of us would.
What you have in your head is tech info.
I dont however care to hear a bunch a internet bitching in this section. If I wanted that I would be in the off topic/BS forem.
If you have beef with somebody take it to a PM.
Then if you really think there is good info in the PM's post all the PM's here. Reading your theory's is great, but reading a bunch of highschool BS drama isn't.
Nothing against you. Just stating my oponion.
What you have in your head is tech info.
I dont however care to hear a bunch a internet bitching in this section. If I wanted that I would be in the off topic/BS forem.
If you have beef with somebody take it to a PM.
Then if you really think there is good info in the PM's post all the PM's here. Reading your theory's is great, but reading a bunch of highschool BS drama isn't.
Nothing against you. Just stating my oponion.
07-01-2005, 03:53 PM
#13
Restricted User
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 7,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my readings of this, except for the typical bickering, calling out ****. It seems to me that Ed is saying he believes in a smaller port that has higher velocity over the opposite. And as far as the leaving it to the internet experts, there are too many ppl, even some "subject matter experts" inflating numbers and gving out bogus flow for ported heads (and lets not ever go into the differences in flow benches, pipe radius etc...), and anyone reading this can agree. So rather than "speculate" flow and do comparo's, stick with a consistent flowing design, which it seems you will only get from AFR or other CNC machined heads.
I would think there would be support for any ported heads that remain smaller port volume and higher velocity. Now, to market them that way instead of posting/advertising flowbench numbers alone is the task some companies need to undertake. How many ads do you see for heads that contain port volume? Not nearly as many as you do that post max flow.
Rambling complete, and I may not be correct in the interpretation of Ed's writing since I am not EDC, but thats how I am reading it.
Please do share you vast amount of technical expertise though, we can all benefit from it.
Charlie
I would think there would be support for any ported heads that remain smaller port volume and higher velocity. Now, to market them that way instead of posting/advertising flowbench numbers alone is the task some companies need to undertake. How many ads do you see for heads that contain port volume? Not nearly as many as you do that post max flow.
Rambling complete, and I may not be correct in the interpretation of Ed's writing since I am not EDC, but thats how I am reading it.
Please do share you vast amount of technical expertise though, we can all benefit from it.
Charlie
07-01-2005, 04:48 PM
#14
Collections Hold
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: howell mi
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airflow Damn airflow guys... lol
Swanus, Relax and go fishin'
Ed go to Aruba, they don't have flow benches there.
Everybody will be just fine!
Times change and technology takes over. If any of us did things the exact same way we did 10 years ago, there is no change. I know both of you guys and how you work. And I will say you both have a lot of the same ideas, but may find two different ways to apply them. You are both successful and both respected. But no two people will ever agree 100 percent and that is what makes us all different. I agree with both of your theories and then have some of my own. Now that makes three different thoeries and opinions. Now add the all the other guys doing this stuff, thats what makes competiton. And competition will give us airflow/engine guys the insentive to be better than the other guy. Its all a freekin' Merry-go-Round. Thats racing!
Rick,
I remember an instance when smaller wasn't better, and we both thought it would be. It is not a constant. You can look at the airflow and velocity two different ways. One, really good low mid numbers and a small port. Great for a 1.8 or 1.9 rod to stroke ratio, slow opening and closing events. Two, 1.5-1.6 rod to stroke ratio, larger port, less velocity, better mid to high lift numbers, shorter duration, higher lift, more aggressive opening and closing events, (number one cause for LS1 valve spring failure) and still have the same results on the dyno/chassis dyno. and they will both excelerate completely different. Which one is better? Nobody will ever know if we don't try different things. There is what works today, there is what works yesterday and there is what is yet to come.
Swanus, Relax and go fishin'
Ed go to Aruba, they don't have flow benches there.
Everybody will be just fine!
Times change and technology takes over. If any of us did things the exact same way we did 10 years ago, there is no change. I know both of you guys and how you work. And I will say you both have a lot of the same ideas, but may find two different ways to apply them. You are both successful and both respected. But no two people will ever agree 100 percent and that is what makes us all different. I agree with both of your theories and then have some of my own. Now that makes three different thoeries and opinions. Now add the all the other guys doing this stuff, thats what makes competiton. And competition will give us airflow/engine guys the insentive to be better than the other guy. Its all a freekin' Merry-go-Round. Thats racing!
Rick,
I remember an instance when smaller wasn't better, and we both thought it would be. It is not a constant. You can look at the airflow and velocity two different ways. One, really good low mid numbers and a small port. Great for a 1.8 or 1.9 rod to stroke ratio, slow opening and closing events. Two, 1.5-1.6 rod to stroke ratio, larger port, less velocity, better mid to high lift numbers, shorter duration, higher lift, more aggressive opening and closing events, (number one cause for LS1 valve spring failure) and still have the same results on the dyno/chassis dyno. and they will both excelerate completely different. Which one is better? Nobody will ever know if we don't try different things. There is what works today, there is what works yesterday and there is what is yet to come.
07-01-2005, 05:11 PM
#15
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts aside, I find it comical that you would make a thread like this. It's so childish and low I'm not even sure how to respond other than to display my disgust.
You sure aren't representing your former/current/future employers very well.
You sure aren't representing your former/current/future employers very well.
07-01-2005, 06:15 PM
#16
Originally Posted by Tucunare
JRP, If you go back to the beginning all I ever did was try to bring this Forum some very valuable information and try to give very detailed examples of what I've actually seen work, not theories but actual "real world" data from thousands of hours of R&D at Roush ( and not just nascar ) I'm talking 6 days a week for almost 10 years of just flogging port size, low and high lift flow, seat angles, chamber shapes etc, etc. and then back to back testing each one to find trends if only miniscual ! I'll galdly make this my last post, I actually thought there would be some people who would benifit from this information, I was sadly mistaken !
however goading Ed is not the way to do it.