dissapointing head flow numbers
#61
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Originally Posted by Tucunare
I would bet that most people would would rather have that high torque motor that gets down the track faster, is way more drivable, and easier on the fuel gauge than holding that dyno sheet with one big number on it.....well maybe not...I've been reading some of these posts, LOL.
Good posts keep em coming.
#62
Originally Posted by Rookie
Tucunare, are you affiliated with Air Flow Research in any way? I've been watching these cylinder head threads for a while now and your experiences and theories seem to support and agree with everything Tony @ AFR has been saying about how AFR develops their port designs.
Getting back to your ported vs nonported example. Have you ever seen an increase in camshaft necessary to help crutch a non flowing head, say in a nonported type class?
Or to put it another way. Some of our LS-1 brothers here have been getting good results with huge camshafts and non-ported heads. In your opinion when they switch to a high velocity ported head could they in affect have too much camshaft for the rpm range they are trying to run, based on the increased efficiency of the cylinder head? Perhaps manifesting itself with huge VE numbers and low BSAC numbers?
Getting back to your ported vs nonported example. Have you ever seen an increase in camshaft necessary to help crutch a non flowing head, say in a nonported type class?
Or to put it another way. Some of our LS-1 brothers here have been getting good results with huge camshafts and non-ported heads. In your opinion when they switch to a high velocity ported head could they in affect have too much camshaft for the rpm range they are trying to run, based on the increased efficiency of the cylinder head? Perhaps manifesting itself with huge VE numbers and low BSAC numbers?
#63
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Originally Posted by Rookie
Getting back to your ported vs nonported example. Have you ever seen an increase in camshaft necessary to help crutch a non flowing head, say in a nonported type class?
Or to put it another way. Some of our LS-1 brothers here have been getting good results with huge camshafts and non-ported heads. In your opinion when they switch to a high velocity ported head could they in affect have too much camshaft for the rpm range they are trying to run, based on the increased efficiency of the cylinder head? Perhaps manifesting itself with huge VE numbers and low BSAC numbers?
Or to put it another way. Some of our LS-1 brothers here have been getting good results with huge camshafts and non-ported heads. In your opinion when they switch to a high velocity ported head could they in affect have too much camshaft for the rpm range they are trying to run, based on the increased efficiency of the cylinder head? Perhaps manifesting itself with huge VE numbers and low BSAC numbers?
BTW it's BSFC, Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.
A cam that is right for a stock cylinder head cross section and flow curve is probably going to be different from a ported head. More cross section you have the less cam you need to do the job.
A cam can help a bad stock casting make power, but it will never make the same power as a cam setup for a ported head in the same RPM range.
Bret
#64
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Hey Rookie, good questions. Bigger cams aren't being a crutch, it's just a way to open the valve quicker, higher and longer. back when I was drag racing the Super stock classes couldn't have ported heads but limited work done within 1/2" of the seat. A good example would be the guys who ran the pontiacs, those heads without porting could at best flow around 240 cfm and would peak flow at approx .550 lift. But they still ran enormous rollar cams in excess of .750 lift with durations @ .050 around 285-290.If they bolted on ported heads I highly doubt the camshaft would be any differant. My theory and I'll stick tight to it is to choose a cam for what you want the motor to do, don't choose the cam to match your heads, it can't be done. the head is only a restricion and the motor is going to pull as much as it can get through that port. if you do cam now and add ported heads later, you wont need anything differant than what you've got. you'll just make more power and probably carry a few more rpm's. And to your first question,
Head guys vs. cam guys here lol.
Yes the cam will fit a RPM range, but changes to the cam will make it have a better TQ curve in the RPM range you are running when it's matched to the head.
IMHO matching a cam to a set of heads can be done.... Then again you port heads and I design valvetrains so it's hard for us to agree on this one.
Bret
#65
TECH Senior Member
My theory and I'll stick tight to it is to choose a cam for what you want the motor to do, don't choose the cam to match your heads, it can't be done
The reason I'm asking is take AFR's for example, and my Stealth II cam 224/220, .581/.581 116+0. This combo has been run and it was found that although the Stealth being in the same power range as a TR224 or similar, it did not fair very well with them. However with a ported 5.3L with good exhaust flow (like TEA), it was producing much more (20>30 more rwhp). {valve size, SCR and quench being equal}.
Basicaly could you give us your thoughts on how do we determine if the cam we choose fall within the parameters of our heads? without over camming, reverse, equal or standard split or even under- caming.
#66
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Tucanare,
Head guys vs. cam guys here lol.
Yes the cam will fit a RPM range, but changes to the cam will make it have a better TQ curve in the RPM range you are running when it's matched to the head.
IMHO matching a cam to a set of heads can be done.... Then again you port heads and I design valvetrains so it's hard for us to agree on this one.
Bret
Head guys vs. cam guys here lol.
Yes the cam will fit a RPM range, but changes to the cam will make it have a better TQ curve in the RPM range you are running when it's matched to the head.
IMHO matching a cam to a set of heads can be done.... Then again you port heads and I design valvetrains so it's hard for us to agree on this one.
Bret
#67
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Tucunare,
I can understand where you come from on that. A camshaft will have a given RPM range that it works in and yeah you can pull your hair out trying to make something better, hell I have that case with one cam I have done, even gone far enough to litterally beg for a series of lobes to be changed over to a S journal from a R journal at Comp and got a big NO from Billy Godbold. lol They just weren't going to work on a smaller journal, and I didn't wanna pay the coin for the new design with specs like them just to try to find 5hp more on a "stock" motor, just no cost benefit there.
Problem is when we are talking about gains of 75cfm and compression ratio changes of up to 2 points, that dictates different camshafts. I've done some camshafts for guys that run stock heads on a car then switch over to a set of ported heads and that same cam kicks butt there as well too. In this arena the combinations change so much it's crazy, and when you change heads you are most likely changing a lot of other engine specs as well. You could easily turn a tame nice running car on stock heads and compression to a detonating mess when you swap the heads over with a raised compression ratio. I know I push the limits of pump gas more than most race motors push the limits of race fuel, at least if you are talking about NA motors. BTW did you work on the cup motors in the Pre 12:1 rule era? Sounds like you did if you were around in the early days of the plate motors.
The big difference I have seen in street motors vs. race motors is how big of a change a proper camshaft will make to the TQ curve, usually bigger differences than what you see with a change in cylinder heads, and paired up correctly they make huge differences. OTOH when you have a circle track/road race/drag car that has a cam that works in it, a cam change will make a slightly smaller impact. If that cam was PERFECTLY optimized for the car/motor then you ain't gonna do any better.
Issue that's relative here is that guys here don't have a optimized camshaft, even when you consider the large amount of restictions on the cam design due to the fact that it is a street car.
I agree, you are most likely going to get the intake valve events correct and they will be correct for any cylinder head you can put on that motor for the most part. As long as the RPM range and compression ratio stay the same. You can still change the TQ curve matching the right exhaust valve events to the new heads, granted it's not going to be as much as any move you make in the intake events. I've still had setups that had way to much exhaust lobe for them, but when you tried to fix that on the cam you lost power, so yeah even a set exhaust lobe for a given combination can be perfect if you change the setup.
The unfortuneate problem here is that NOBODY is going to do cup style testing on a LS1 for performance reasons. There are probably more chassis dyno pulls done with LS1's every year than engine dyno pulls and there is no way they could even find a repeatable 1-2hp change, so it would be close to chasing your tail here. It's also a setup that's not even close to it's evolution, it's closer to a ape than a human in comparison to a cup motor. Hell everytime we find a change that adds power, nobody comes in to put a kabosh on going any further. i.e. journal sizes, bore limits, component masses etc.... We pretty much have a free range to work on here.
Bret
I can understand where you come from on that. A camshaft will have a given RPM range that it works in and yeah you can pull your hair out trying to make something better, hell I have that case with one cam I have done, even gone far enough to litterally beg for a series of lobes to be changed over to a S journal from a R journal at Comp and got a big NO from Billy Godbold. lol They just weren't going to work on a smaller journal, and I didn't wanna pay the coin for the new design with specs like them just to try to find 5hp more on a "stock" motor, just no cost benefit there.
Problem is when we are talking about gains of 75cfm and compression ratio changes of up to 2 points, that dictates different camshafts. I've done some camshafts for guys that run stock heads on a car then switch over to a set of ported heads and that same cam kicks butt there as well too. In this arena the combinations change so much it's crazy, and when you change heads you are most likely changing a lot of other engine specs as well. You could easily turn a tame nice running car on stock heads and compression to a detonating mess when you swap the heads over with a raised compression ratio. I know I push the limits of pump gas more than most race motors push the limits of race fuel, at least if you are talking about NA motors. BTW did you work on the cup motors in the Pre 12:1 rule era? Sounds like you did if you were around in the early days of the plate motors.
The big difference I have seen in street motors vs. race motors is how big of a change a proper camshaft will make to the TQ curve, usually bigger differences than what you see with a change in cylinder heads, and paired up correctly they make huge differences. OTOH when you have a circle track/road race/drag car that has a cam that works in it, a cam change will make a slightly smaller impact. If that cam was PERFECTLY optimized for the car/motor then you ain't gonna do any better.
Issue that's relative here is that guys here don't have a optimized camshaft, even when you consider the large amount of restictions on the cam design due to the fact that it is a street car.
But in my mind if we went through the same matrix of cams on an LS1 as we did with the cup engines and found the perfect cam for the rpm band I was looking for I would bet my life that it would end up being the same cam if you now ported the heads.
The unfortuneate problem here is that NOBODY is going to do cup style testing on a LS1 for performance reasons. There are probably more chassis dyno pulls done with LS1's every year than engine dyno pulls and there is no way they could even find a repeatable 1-2hp change, so it would be close to chasing your tail here. It's also a setup that's not even close to it's evolution, it's closer to a ape than a human in comparison to a cup motor. Hell everytime we find a change that adds power, nobody comes in to put a kabosh on going any further. i.e. journal sizes, bore limits, component masses etc.... We pretty much have a free range to work on here.
Bret
#68
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Nothing wrong with huge VE, vol eff is a good thing.
BTW it's BSFC, Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.
Bret
BTW it's BSFC, Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.
Bret
Your an engine builder right? Ever spent any time on a dyno? BSAC=Brake specific air consumption. This represents the engines efficiency rating in converting air into power. (Pounds of air to support 1HP for 1 hour.) Most people ignore this value and focus on BSFC. (Pounds of fuel to support 1HP for 1hour.)
FYI, an engine can move a huge amount of air and not make any power. Assuming the tune and everything else is correct, this is usually indicative of too much exhaust flow, or too early an exhaust event. Usually detectable with huge VE numbers, and low power output.
Then again, I'm just a "rookie" and could be way off base here!
#69
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Rookie,
Never looked at that... I look at the actual CFM going into the motor and Vol Eff rather than the BSAC. That is a good way to measure it though.
I agree that a motor can move a lot of air and not make good power.... it can also be a indication of too many losses in the system as well. Too early of an exhaust event might also says too much LSA on the cam, or too much duration, from what I have seen it means take out that advance on the cam and make the ICL and ECL the same.
Bret
Never looked at that... I look at the actual CFM going into the motor and Vol Eff rather than the BSAC. That is a good way to measure it though.
I agree that a motor can move a lot of air and not make good power.... it can also be a indication of too many losses in the system as well. Too early of an exhaust event might also says too much LSA on the cam, or too much duration, from what I have seen it means take out that advance on the cam and make the ICL and ECL the same.
Bret
Last edited by SStrokerAce; 05-31-2005 at 08:11 PM.
#70
Originally Posted by Rookie
Bret,
Your an engine builder right? Ever spent any time on a dyno? BSAC=Brake specific air consumption. This represents the engines efficiency rating in converting air into power. (Pounds of air to support 1HP for 1 hour.) Most people ignore this value and focus on BSFC. (Pounds of fuel to support 1HP for 1hour.)
FYI, an engine can move a huge amount of air and not make any power. Assuming the tune and everything else is correct, this is usually indicative of too much exhaust flow, or too early an exhaust event. Usually detectable with huge VE numbers, and low power output.
Then again, I'm just a "rookie" and could be way off base here!
Your an engine builder right? Ever spent any time on a dyno? BSAC=Brake specific air consumption. This represents the engines efficiency rating in converting air into power. (Pounds of air to support 1HP for 1 hour.) Most people ignore this value and focus on BSFC. (Pounds of fuel to support 1HP for 1hour.)
FYI, an engine can move a huge amount of air and not make any power. Assuming the tune and everything else is correct, this is usually indicative of too much exhaust flow, or too early an exhaust event. Usually detectable with huge VE numbers, and low power output.
Then again, I'm just a "rookie" and could be way off base here!
#71
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Problem is when we are talking about gains of 75cfm and compression ratio changes of up to 2 pointsBret
#72
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucunare,
At what lift should the flow of a LS1 cylinder head be maximized for the (everyday user/ racer?) As you noted, most stay below .6'' of valve lift.
You mentioned mid-lift flow as being the most crucial.... In your opinion, how would a head that flowed great from .1'' to .4'' and maxed out at .5'' perform....when.... paired up with a camshaft that had max lift of .6''?
At what lift should the flow of a LS1 cylinder head be maximized for the (everyday user/ racer?) As you noted, most stay below .6'' of valve lift.
You mentioned mid-lift flow as being the most crucial.... In your opinion, how would a head that flowed great from .1'' to .4'' and maxed out at .5'' perform....when.... paired up with a camshaft that had max lift of .6''?
Last edited by SportSide 5.3; 05-31-2005 at 03:23 PM.
#73
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Tucunare,
At what lift should the flow of a LS1 cylinder head be maximized for the (everyday user/ racer?) As you noted, most stay below .6'' of valve lift.
You mentioned mid-lift flow as being the most crucial.... In your opinion, how would a head that flowed great from .1'' to .4'' maxed out at .5'' perform when paired up with a camshaft that had max lift of .6''?
At what lift should the flow of a LS1 cylinder head be maximized for the (everyday user/ racer?) As you noted, most stay below .6'' of valve lift.
You mentioned mid-lift flow as being the most crucial.... In your opinion, how would a head that flowed great from .1'' to .4'' maxed out at .5'' perform when paired up with a camshaft that had max lift of .6''?
This post has been very informative (I'm not just looking for an opportunity to pimp AFR....LOL), but the reality is that alot of what is being spoken about lately in this thread directly relates to our product and helps answer the questions as to why alot of you have seen impressive results, both peak numbers and especially in the area under the curve.
Thanks,
Tony M.
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 05-31-2005 at 03:40 PM.
#74
11 & 7 Second Clubs
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Motorhome, Freeways, Truckstops, Pits
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
Just drove my SS home from FM and beginning to get a feel for my new engine w/205. I went with a smaller cam and better heads for emissions and streetability reasons.
Just drove my SS home from FM and beginning to get a feel for my new engine w/205. I went with a smaller cam and better heads for emissions and streetability reasons.
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
I think the key is good low and midlift flow coupled with a smaller cross sectional area for high airspeed thru the ports which promotes a LOT of good things to happen (can anyone say AFR 205??). I try my best at getting the big peak numbers as well, but as I said MANY times in the past, I made some consessions to peak flow in the design phase of the AFR 205 which helped my low and midlift flow across the board and I maintained the small cross section in the port which was one of my primary objectives.
This post has been very informative (I'm not just looking for an opportunity to pimp AFR....LOL), but the reality is that alot of what is being spoken about lately in this thread directly relates to our product and helps answer the questions as to why alot of you have seen impressive results, both peak numbers and especially in the area under the curve.
Thanks,
Tony M.
This post has been very informative (I'm not just looking for an opportunity to pimp AFR....LOL), but the reality is that alot of what is being spoken about lately in this thread directly relates to our product and helps answer the questions as to why alot of you have seen impressive results, both peak numbers and especially in the area under the curve.
Thanks,
Tony M.
#75
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
I think the key is good low and midlift flow coupled with a smaller cross sectional area for high airspeed thru the ports which promotes a LOT of good things to happen (can anyone say AFR 205??).
Intake
lift (in.) AFR my gt-40p's
.100 60 66
.200 123 129
.300 179 183
.400 229 211
.500 243 207
.600 245 (my cam isnt going *near* 600)
Exhaust
lift (in.) AFR My GT-40p's
.100 52 59
.200 118 112
.300 153 155
.400 178 172
.500 191 177
.600 189 (again, no 600 for me)
Now, why did the 165 make 24 more rwhp ( 329 vs. 305) ?
The AFR 165 made almost exactly the same curve until 5000 rpm (326 lb/ft) and then took off.
One would look at the cross section, the smaller valve size, and the low/mid lift flow, and what you have just said, and think that my GT-40p heads should have been clearly better for my .544" 218/224 Xtreme Energy cam.
I have said before, and I have shown numbers on cam lift angles to show, that .500+ lift on thes heads matters VERY MUCH. Granted, a smaller port that flows the same at 28" may flow quite differently at 100" than a larger port...
I think that by pointing to low-mid lift flow numbers and saying "Look... the power!" is grossly simplifying things to the point of becoming nothing more than a sales tactic.
#76
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Chris....
As I said it's the right sized port that matters. The ported GT-40 for the most part is too small. Smaller is not always better, especially when you have a head that will run into sonic choke. This statement is the proof that the port was too small "The AFR 165 made almost exactly the same curve until 5000 rpm (326 lb/ft) and then took off."
Given a port of the same size that was HIGHLY engineered to work well at high velocities it might make the same or more power... but the problem is probably the casting itself.
What did happen though is that you made more power per CFM of head flow with the GT40 head. It's more efficent at making power with every CFM you gave it but something else (namely the port size) choked off the ability of the port to make TQ at high RPM.
This is why I said what I said above.... the right size port for the casting at hand and the application is the key. Only thing you can do to change that is have lots more knowledge or money to spend on the knowledge to get the head to work. Then at that point you might as well move to a better casting unless the rules force you to do this.
Bret
As I said it's the right sized port that matters. The ported GT-40 for the most part is too small. Smaller is not always better, especially when you have a head that will run into sonic choke. This statement is the proof that the port was too small "The AFR 165 made almost exactly the same curve until 5000 rpm (326 lb/ft) and then took off."
Given a port of the same size that was HIGHLY engineered to work well at high velocities it might make the same or more power... but the problem is probably the casting itself.
What did happen though is that you made more power per CFM of head flow with the GT40 head. It's more efficent at making power with every CFM you gave it but something else (namely the port size) choked off the ability of the port to make TQ at high RPM.
This is why I said what I said above.... the right size port for the casting at hand and the application is the key. Only thing you can do to change that is have lots more knowledge or money to spend on the knowledge to get the head to work. Then at that point you might as well move to a better casting unless the rules force you to do this.
Bret
#77
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Now we're talking a little bit more than our original discussion, I was keying in on the volume aspect of it.
In the case of a stock LS6 casting, a little milling and some porting will get you that 2 points of compression and 75cfm, that's where the problem of a "perfect cam" for a RPM range and cubes doesn't always work. That's all I'm getting at.
Bret
#78
Originally Posted by Visceral
So then I have an interesting example. I recently did some port work on a set of Ford GT-40p heads for my little 302. I ended up at 146cc intake ports. The AFRs were 165 cc. The valves on the GT-40p were 1.85 intake and 1.45" exhaust. On the AFRs, 1.90 intake and 1.60 exhaust.
Intake
lift (in.) AFR my gt-40p's
.100 60 66
.200 123 129
.300 179 183
.400 229 211
.500 243 207
.600 245 (my cam isnt going *near* 600)
Exhaust
lift (in.) AFR My GT-40p's
.100 52 59
.200 118 112
.300 153 155
.400 178 172
.500 191 177
.600 189 (again, no 600 for me)
Now, why did the 165 make 24 more rwhp ( 329 vs. 305) ?
The AFR 165 made almost exactly the same curve until 5000 rpm (326 lb/ft) and then took off.
One would look at the cross section, the smaller valve size, and the low/mid lift flow, and what you have just said, and think that my GT-40p heads should have been clearly better for my .544" 218/224 Xtreme Energy cam.
I have said before, and I have shown numbers on cam lift angles to show, that .500+ lift on thes heads matters VERY MUCH. Granted, a smaller port that flows the same at 28" may flow quite differently at 100" than a larger port...
I think that by pointing to low-mid lift flow numbers and saying "Look... the power!" is grossly simplifying things to the point of becoming nothing more than a sales tactic.
Intake
lift (in.) AFR my gt-40p's
.100 60 66
.200 123 129
.300 179 183
.400 229 211
.500 243 207
.600 245 (my cam isnt going *near* 600)
Exhaust
lift (in.) AFR My GT-40p's
.100 52 59
.200 118 112
.300 153 155
.400 178 172
.500 191 177
.600 189 (again, no 600 for me)
Now, why did the 165 make 24 more rwhp ( 329 vs. 305) ?
The AFR 165 made almost exactly the same curve until 5000 rpm (326 lb/ft) and then took off.
One would look at the cross section, the smaller valve size, and the low/mid lift flow, and what you have just said, and think that my GT-40p heads should have been clearly better for my .544" 218/224 Xtreme Energy cam.
I have said before, and I have shown numbers on cam lift angles to show, that .500+ lift on thes heads matters VERY MUCH. Granted, a smaller port that flows the same at 28" may flow quite differently at 100" than a larger port...
I think that by pointing to low-mid lift flow numbers and saying "Look... the power!" is grossly simplifying things to the point of becoming nothing more than a sales tactic.
#79
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Visceral, You've got a lot more going on here than low lift and port size...... Your case here is not representitive of the points I was making and people should not use this as a case to back up other theories about port size,
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Again my statements are not gereral, I'm not simplifying anything, and I've got nothing to sell, I'm just relaying imformation for you do do with as you will. There could of been other factors in your head swap such as port allignment that could of played into it as well, remember in a comparison, "ALL" other things need to be equal, you had a lot going on other than port size
The AFR LS1 205 is a good head. I have alot of respect for it. BUT... one cannot just point and the smaller port volume and the low/med flow numbers and say "Look! A superior horsepower curve!" like someone other than you was doing. For the $$$ that an AFR 205 costs, set up... you can often have a head well designed to your specific application, built, and assembled from a 5.3, 243, or 317 casting that is just as (or more) condusive to your goals. Unfortunately, I think there is only one or two sponsors that can offer that specialized expertise and reliability. And to the topic of the post... I don't think MTI is one of them. Jayson likes to built really nice cars... great heads extremely specialized to your application is past the point of diminishing returns for him, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's understood.
#80
Originally Posted by Visceral
Precisely My point was that there are many more factors than a small port and good flow numbers at and below 50% of the cam's max lift. It wasn't you that made that statement.... no worries.
Again, exactly the point, and I wasn't directing my concerns with over-generalizations at *you*.
The AFR LS1 205 is a good head. I have alot of respect for it. BUT... one cannot just point and the smaller port volume and the low/med flow numbers and say "Look! A superior horsepower curve!" like someone other than you was doing. For the $$$ that an AFR 205 costs, set up... you can often have a head well designed to your specific application, built, and assembled from a 5.3, 243, or 317 casting that is just as (or more) condusive to your goals. Unfortunately, I think there is only one or two sponsors that can offer that specialized expertise and reliability. And to the topic of the post... I don't think MTI is one of them. Jayson likes to built really nice cars... great heads extremely specialized to your application is past the point of diminishing returns for him, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's understood.
Again, exactly the point, and I wasn't directing my concerns with over-generalizations at *you*.
The AFR LS1 205 is a good head. I have alot of respect for it. BUT... one cannot just point and the smaller port volume and the low/med flow numbers and say "Look! A superior horsepower curve!" like someone other than you was doing. For the $$$ that an AFR 205 costs, set up... you can often have a head well designed to your specific application, built, and assembled from a 5.3, 243, or 317 casting that is just as (or more) condusive to your goals. Unfortunately, I think there is only one or two sponsors that can offer that specialized expertise and reliability. And to the topic of the post... I don't think MTI is one of them. Jayson likes to built really nice cars... great heads extremely specialized to your application is past the point of diminishing returns for him, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's understood.