J-Rod

My past with Cartek is no differnet than my issue with you. The use of adventageous weather conditions to artifically inflate performance. In the case of the Cartek guys. We showed up, and we raced, and the results were that the the Cartek cars were fast. But, they weren't any faster than an equivilant package from another shop.

In your case, you're using data achieved at a track with a known advantage to try to present skew data.

I actually have flowdata for a couple of sets of Cartek heads. They were basically average in terms of flowdata. Thay weren't off the chart, and there were plenty of other 243's I've seen that were basically on par with them. That isn't to knock them. They were an ok head. but, they weren't 20CFM up on anyone else's head. They were just another ported 243.. Its simply a statement of where they were on the bench.

In fact the set of ported 243's I have which were originally done by Jay @ Absolute Speed and touched up on the exhaust by Greg Goode were better than the Cartek heads I have data on.

In fact I have a ton of data from 4 different benches on various ported 243 castings. So, what I'm posting on here about ported 243's is not only based on my racing with them. Its also based on actual empirical testing.

I fixed the typo. But, you are correct that you don't try to teach. you just put on your pom poms and parade around for your shop of choice. Lets here it here it for "Atco times", rah, rah ,rah...


I base my comments on not only years of racing, but also just about as many year of actively spending time in the machine shop itself. But beyond that I'm not jumping into threads making a gross generalization without the basis of any fact behind it.

You pop into threads and tell folks that an AFR head doesn't have the airflow to support a fast N/A application.

Where is your data to back this claim up??? I've got more data than you can imagine, and I can state categorically that your assertion is false and more than likely based simply on your opinion and nothing more. If you have some hard data to back up your claim, post it up...

If all you are going to do is base your assertion on the times that are run at Atco, and use that as the foundation for the rest of the world, then your data is hopeless skewed. Using the hugely negative DA to run hero times doesn't make your car any faster, its just a benefit of the region.

I get the best and the worst weather. So, I get to see how cars run in negative DA, but I also get to see how they run in hugely postive DA. The weather here on Friday at HRP was over +3400 DA. I am the first to admit what effect DA has on a car. When you go from hugely positive to hugely negative DA and the difference is going from 95.6%HP of "zero DA" when you have hugely postive DA to 109% over "zero DA" in hugely negative DA is something to consider. Can you see where 14% of your total power, or heck even just 9% over zero might be worth something?

The difference is I don't use a regional benefit of "hero DA" as the only measuring stick for determining the worthiness of a product.

Here is a little hint... ET is great, but its not the only way to look at "power". MPH is what shows you what kind of power a car is making. It may be the track is going away, or the chassis isn't tuned yet. But, the mph is what we look at to see where a car is at when we're sorting out a combo.

When I call into question what you are basing this assumption on and point out how limited in scope it is to look at only one data point, and ignore any of the other empirical data you simply choose to ignore it. Trust me I can dig up all sorts of data if you want to keep this discussion going....

I'll make the same point again. If all you are going to do is look at ET, then go look at the NHRA stockers. By that logic no one should port their heads as unported castings run faster....

Juggernaut's car with cam only was faster than your car. with heads and cam.

So is ET the only thing we're looking at?

BTW, LG's weight on the 140 pass was 2950 according to them. My weight in Tommy's car is between 3021 and 3050 depending on fuel load...

No again, you've made a generalization. I pointed out the error in your fact with regards to AFR. If you will read my point was about "aftermerket castings". I didn't point anyone towards a specific mfg. I think AFR and TFS both make and excellent product.

Just like in the SBC and BBC world. I have different heads that work best for certain combos. But, if testing shows me that something empirically works, then sure. I will speak up in favor of that product. On the SBC side of things for instance I've got Buick heads, Pontiac heads, stock GM castings like 041's and 461's. I've even got some really old Brownfield heads...

I'm not about one product. I'm just about what works. but, I'm not in this forum muddiying the waters. What I present is backed up with factual data. The issue here is that I know the limit of a stock casting and I'm basis what I'm telling you on factual data, not on the basis of some shop loyalty.

I've already proven the AFR's are faster than the ported 243's on our combo. I've already proved our car with 243's were as fast or faster than a Cartek packaged car on the same day at the same track...


So, here is an offer... While I don't have an F-Body, I have a 68 Chevelle that is all set up to run Cheap Street. So, the weight is on par with an F-Body. If you want to make a trip to Texas, let me know. I'll get Tony to send me a set of AFR's and we'll bolt them onto a spare 346 I have sitting here and bolt them onto the Chevelle and we can see where things shake out with regards to how AFR's work in an N/A application...

02*C5

iTrader: (1)

For the money and the performance you cant beat TEA heads go to their site and take a look at some numbers. It is amazing what you can get there for the money. If you can get a better flowing head for the money go ahead.