I'm sorry I didn't write it in crayon for you. If you can't figure out what certain phrasings entail, perhaps your education isn't really worth that much after all? I'm glad your a fan of his and appreciate the artical from a technical writing standpoint. I, in fact, found no fault with the form of the article. I am not particulaly concerned with the author's past work, nor am I interested in his credintials. You would be wrong in assuming I had read any of his books, as I have not. Thanks for the link. If you find better flow numbers irrelevant, then I'm not sure why the performance aspect of the automotive industry interests you. Since I did not present these figures, you may post them. Short of cutting new valves, what could they do besides port work? They would never reshape the chamber! Then it wouldn't be a real hemi anymore, not that it ever was. Are those opposing valves in the combustion chamber? I had always been under the impression that they were. If they are not part of the comustion chamber, then I am left to wonder where Dodge has put them. The advantages of a Hemispherical design were not called into question. However, the end result and overall tone of the article were. In my book, and I would suspect everyone but yours, being "streets" behind 2nd place out of the Big Three is being handed your ***. Being respected in the small block and small displace ment ford fields is wonderful. However, I am in niether field. Hence, such accomplishments are much less relevant to me, although no less impressive in the grander scale. I don't recall ever being threatened with posturing before . Now lets see, where's my crayon?

 

Despite the irony of this comment, I'll ignore all the spelling and grammar mistakes in this post and address only the content. So, that in mind, let's go! Wheee!

Two choice quotes from Bad Andy with respect to the very same article:
Interesting contradiction.
Let's move on.

Okay... This is really hard for me to understand. You question the integrity of the source of a technical article then claim that you are not interested in the author's credentials. What, pray tell, are you interested in, then? You accuse me of "arguing like a liberal" and such, but then you make asinine comments like this? What gives? The whole crux of your malcontent was that the author and publisher had subjugated their integrity for the sake of a sponsor then you turn right around and claim that the author's credentials in the topic at hand are not of interest? I see now that your entire purpose for posting was simply to have something to rant about. This statement entirely invalidates everything further you would say on the matter.

And don't worry. The only thing I've given you credit for actually reading is the article in question.

Yes... short of all those things. They could have added bigger valves, they could have added multi-angle cuts to the valves and seats, they could have reshaped the chamber. They could have done many more things with the heads than just clean up the ports. As it was, they were stock heads, not performance engineered aftermarket heads like the AFR units which makes the AFR flow test numbers irrelevant with respect to the article's mention of the HEMI head outflowing the LS6 head. AFR LS series heads to stock HEMI heads is an apples to oranges comparison, ergo the information is irrelevant as a basis for your complaint against the article's comparison. If the context of the article were not a technical evaluation of the HEMI, but rather a comparison of the overall power potential of the two platforms, then your complaint regarding the AFR heads _MIGHT_ be valid, but only if the HEMI head tested were a comparable aftermarket piece. As it is, the AFR head flow numbers are out of both scope and context. They are irrelevant.

This is a great attempt to reverse your earlier statement and appear to sound rational, but it fails upon examination. Your original statement was:
however, the valve orientation is the only real significant difference between the HEMI head and a standard wedge-style head. The overall shape of the chamber is not that significantly different as you noted. The orientation of the valves is more a function of the alignment of the ports in the head casting than the shape of the chamber.

This whole argument is moot, however, because you are merely attacking my knowledge of automotive technology and not supporting your initial assertation that the article's statement is flawed. If you have relevant data that counters the author's assertion, let's see it. Show me the numbers.

You restate in exaggerated terms the author's assertion as though your emotion is enough to argue the point. Well, it isn't. If you want to rebut the article's claim, let's see some test results where identical ammounts of port work were done to both stock LS series and stock HEMI heads and the heads were flow tested. If you don't have such data to rebut the author of the article, then on what grounds do you do so? The only other grounds I can think of would be the credibility of the author, which you claim you are not interested in. In short, put up or shut up.

I find this to be an interesting statement considering that in your original post you were so incredulous about their claim of the HEMI out flowing the LS series.

Yes. And I've already pointed out your flip-flop on this point. In fact, in your last post, the very same one this quote comes from, you claim to think that the article is well written. You can't seem to make up your mind about this article, can you? First you write a flaming rant and accuse it of having "corrupted viewpoints and disgustingly skewed information." then you claim you find no fault with the form of the article, then you say you question conclusions and how they were derived. Make up your mind.

I wholeheartedly agree that the words regarding the Ford motors were not kind ones, but it was one half of one sentance. A rather cold blow, but hardly a "thrashing" as you called it. My previous post (assuming you read it) took issue with you presenting your oppinion based on a exaggeration of the importance of that one half of one sentance as though that oppinion were a fact. In case you're not following this, the oppinion you presented was that this one half of one sentance was the only honest part of the whole article. While it is true that the "thrashing" bit was also your oppinion, in the context of your little rant it was not the relevant bit. Follow? Am I going to fast for you?

Your claim that the article was wholy biased and writen to satisfy some sponsor and that the technical merrit of the article was questionable was only supported in your post by two assertions of fact. The first was that you read the article and the second was that the article described the technology in the engine. The remainder of your post was not a logical progression of thought or presentation of fact. It was a laundry list of everything you accused me of when I pointed out that the author is, indeed, a very credible and reliable source.

You attacked my ability to argue properly, then challenged me to support my statements with facts and to point out the flaws in your post. I did so in great detail. Detail, I might add, which you did not actually rebut. You merely attempted to redirect the conversation and attack me personally. I can only assume, therefore, that you have no defense for the ridiculous posts you made on this topic.

Since you seem to be disinclined to learn things on your own, I did you the favor again of digging up some links you might be interested in.

To "threaten" (click me) is to give a sign or warning. You were threatened with schooling.
To "accuse" (click me) is to charge with a fault or offense. You were accused of posturing.

 

That is what I said, you cant compare STOCK hemi heads to AFTERMARKET heads.....

 

The Hemi made Ward's 10 Best Engines this year.

-----

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG 5.7L Hemi Magnum OHV V-8

Engine type: 5.7L OHV 90-degree V-8
Displacement (cc): 5,654
Block/head material: cast iron/aluminum
Bore Χ stroke (mm): 99.5 Χ 90.9
Horsepower (SAE net): 345 @ 5,400 rpm
Torque: 375 lb.-ft. (509 Nm) @ 4,200 rpm
Specific output: 61 hp/L
Compression ratio: 9.5:1
Application tested: Dodge Ram HD

Take one part remembrance of good ol'-fashioned 1960s muscle.

Second ingredient: one of the hands-down best engine “brands” ever.

Add an equal portion of no-nonsense engineering and development.

Blend it all with the tuned-in marketing for which DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group has a penchant.

Then serve it up in a brilliant engine-centric advertising campaign that you've just gotta love.

That's the recipe for launching the '03 Hemi Magnum 5.7L V-8, the new-generation reincarnation of the fabled Hemi V-8 of the muscle-car past.

Look past the wonderful ad that has the two impressionable yokels asking, “Hey, that thing got a Hemi?” and you see that there's more to the new-age Hemi than marketing “spin” and one of the truly great engine names of all time.

The 5.7L Hemi Magnum design borrows heavily from the past, and updates it to generate class-leading horsepower and torque. At 345 hp from 5.7L — that rounds off to 61 hp/L — the Hemi whips its two closest rivals, General Motors Corp.'s 6L Vortec H.O. 6000 (58 hp/L) and Ford Motor Co.'s upcoming 5.4L 3-valve Triton overhead cammer (56 hp/L). Hemi's 375 lb.-ft. (508 Nm) of torque falls only 5 lb.-ft. (7 Nm) short of GM's larger Vortec and slightly betters its smaller Ford rival, which develops 365 lb.-ft. (495 Nm).

Chrysler engineers studied the advantages of the past Hemi design, says Robert Lee, director, Rear Wheel Drive Engine Engineering-Powertrain Product Team. In the late 1930s, Chrysler experimented with hemispherically shaped combustion chambers for a V-16 aircraft engine. That work led to the first production automotive Hemi, a V-8 in 1951 that actually went by the name FirePower.

Engineers discovered the hemispherically shaped combustion chamber optimized volumetric efficiency and enabled an opposed valve layout, a departure for the then-norm of inline valves for V-8s. The layout of two opposed valves provided for larger valve area and increased crossflow — all of which yielded more power.

The theories behind the original Hemi — it was summarily banned from stock-car racing after its first dominating year — are fully applicable for a contemporary V-8, asserts Lee, waving off critics who question spending valuable engineering cash to develop an all-new V-8 that employs just two valves per cylinder, activated by pushrods, instead of the overhead cam/3- and 4-valve arrangements favored by Ford and all import brands.

Lee insists one of the new Hemi's most endearing qualities is its simplicity when compared with overhead-cam/multivalve layouts. When developing the new Hemi, Lee says his team studied a variety of valvetrain designs. “I was looking for airflow,” he says. “Get airflow and you can make power.”

The '03 Hemi Magnum 5.7L V-8 does just that, not to mention delivering a positively terrific burble at idle that turns to a serious V-8 bawl when one demands full opening from the electronic throttle.

The new-age Hemi isn't all simplicity: There are nods to modern niceties such as the dual-sparkplug ignition and the gorgeous Siemens Automotive-made integrated air/fuel module that combines 26 individual components into one, as well as Chrysler's first use of electronic throttle control for a rear-drive vehicle.

Yes, we've been privy to carping that the marketing arm's desire to resurrect the Hemi name overlooked the fact that the new Hemi Magnum's combustion chambers perhaps don't exactly represent a truly hemispherical, 180-degree dome. But we'll allow a little license: The new Hemi is 41% more powerful, churns out 12% more torque and is about 10% more fuel efficient than the 5.9L OHV V-8 it replaces. That's a lot of improvement.

Besides, who could deny the genius of reviving such a glorious engine name?

 

Like it was previously stated the biggest hurdle with the Hemi is that the PCM is locked down and is a major problem. Kenne Bell has yet to release their supercharger after working it for about two years because of this.....I look for all Motor companies to become more stringent in the near future with OBD3.

Now there is a little bit of good news for the Mopar camp. There is a larger displacement Hemi coming and rumors of the supercharged Hemi. Sounds great but there is still little room for tuning.

As far as the Hemi Vs. LS1 well here is my scope. The LS1 has a superior aftermarket, is lighter , can accommodate more lift , has a better firing order and is proven. The Hemi does have a killer set of heads but with the AFR's coming and the 6.0 LS2 the LSx series of engines look like the way to go, at least for me.

Now one question what is the CC of the intake port on the 5.7 Hemi? And why in the hell did Vizard not include it? Also he goes to the trouble to port the heads and tell you how great they are but then he does not dyno them show how the engine responded to the change but he did provide plenty of graphs, fig, and a picture of a 56 Ford truck with a Hemi but alas no port CC. You would think that a man of his intellect would know that there is more to a head than flow numbers. Don't get me wrong I do like to read Vizard's articles but sometimes it seems like he subscribes to the theory "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit".

The reason that I want to see dyno results is because I think that the heart shaped chamber will be more efficient than the hemi. Look at the current fast burn chambers and how efficient they are. So what my question is: which one will make more HP per CFM.

Later,
Bart

 

Gentlemen, please keep this thread a tech based discussion and not some lame copy/paste/analyze internet argument. Thanks.

 

I have a question? Do we have ant LS1 type engines in funny cars????