I think that all cylinder heads should be rated by average flow from .100 to .600. Should this take out the question of who flows good on the top and who flows good on the low lifts. Don't the mustang magazines use average flow when they test?
Phil

 

i was going to bring this same thing up in the the ESP head thread. not to single them out but it's like "ok, another '300'cfm head"? no port volumes, no lift range, no valve sizing, no bore fixture diameter, ect.

hell, i think they should all flow through an intake as standard.

 

Yeah, definitely through an intake as well. I don't pretend to understand flowbenches, but it would be really helpful if there was some kind of standardization involved. I guess you could still have shops faking numbers but independent tests could solve that issue.

Ben

 

I would love it but you would call out alot of bs'ers...and alienate some sponsors..

 

I say go for it. It will show who's heads flow what for sure.

 

i dont think it would alienate anybody. there is no one perfect set of heads, just like cams, some heads are better suited for one application over the other.

 

This is a good idea, but until they are all tested on the same bench on the same day and under the same conditions, it is a worthless comparison if their own generated flow numbers are used.

I really really really think it'd be an AWESOME comparison, and even though its been brought up 100s of times and will most likely never happen, if all major cylinder head players (MTI, Patriot, Cartek, FFHP, WCCH, ET, TEA, TSP/Racetech, AFR, etc) sent a head to an independent tester to be flowed. All seemingly believe their product is best, and this would be an excellent selling point for the heads that did exceptionally well.

Until then head flow numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt unfortunately. Oh well, we can dream can't we?

Shawn

 

Think about...for someone that isnt producing "optimum" heads..they have nothing to gain. We've seen alot of people post flow numbers..you see low flow on the exhaust side especially...and people still buy the heads...what application are they for? A big chart that people can understand would hurt some sponsors undoubtedly...and probably couldnt be done fairly.

I like the idea...just wont ever happen. If you really understand the AFR tech posts..it shouldnt have been new news to you if you've talked to the head porters really know what they are doing...

 

the only problem with that is which intake should be used? LS1, LS6, FAST, BIG UGLY 6.0L, carbed version? that just throws a variable into the mix. doingthe head only shows what the head itself is capable of. it's up to you to get the rest of it to match it. i personally disagree with the use of a pipe on the exhaust side. again, it throws a variable into the mix. headers are different diameters. changing the length and diameter of the test pipe changes the flow results of the head itself.

but, in building a motor, putting the intake and headers to the head to see what the exact flow of the motor is can be useful in designing. i bet that if you flowed each cylinder with a header specific to the vehicle, each one would flow different due to the bends associated with each cylinder. in turn, you could port each cylinder to match the flow of all parts installed to get even flow out of all cylinders. now that would be a balanced motor.

 

Way too many variables for these numbers to mean anything in the real world. Would have to run exhaust temp gases through under the running pressures as well for the exhaust side with the correct exhaust and collector. An engine is a system from air box to tail pipe, not a bunch of single pieces.

 

This will be a subject that'll probably be debated till the end of time.

We've seen power output swing wildly with identically flowing heads on identically prepared engines. Invariably when an engine is down on power the heads get the first blame. Most of the time those heads flow better than the stock parts, yet the heads are still cited as the problem. The LS1 cars have a number of other parts that effect the engine's tune including a computer controller.
Consistency in product has to be kept in mind. It's not enough to make a couple of nice flowing ports on an occasional basis. Day in day out, our goal is consistency from part to part.

Great topic,

Richard

 

Read this when you have the time...

Quality vs quantity...

Some good discussions on this site...

Ed