dissapointing head flow numbers
#81
LS1 Tech Administrator
iTrader: (14)
Originally Posted by Visceral
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.
__________________
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.
#82
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.
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.
Whats with the constant "negativity" concerning myself and our product? It's getting quite old and your agenda here concerning posts related to our product is painfully obvious. Does someone at AFR owe you money or something?
What are we arguing about here anyway? The AFR is a good piece as you have pointed out. It consistently puts down above average results and does so in many different types of applications, from mild to wild and anything in between. I think the continued release of independent results being posted in the dyno section certainly help to reinforce that.
Did I take an approach in designing this particular cylinder head that is inline or parallels some of the recent discussion within this thread?....You bet your butt I did and the results of this design seem to be very effective out in the real world, especially concerning dual purpose vehicles like most people on these boards are driving.
Have I ever commented that low and midlift flow coupled with a small runner is the "end all" of this design and assures everyone the highest power curve? NO way....Good luck quoting me on that one. Have I commented that it is part of what makes the AFR an effective piece....Yes...with a capitol "Y".
Peak flow is obviously important but it is not the "end all" either when it comes to an effective cylinder head design and ultimately producing power . A combination and a fine balancing of ALL the varibales is what makes a cylinder head truly great....and then again, that cylinder head might only be truly great in a certain application and only "good" perhaps in another. What AFR has done is create and build a "real world" street/strip head capable of being bolted on out of the box and laying down the numbers....consistently....that is the key and worth the price of admission all by itself. There are certainly other good heads out there and some perhaps better suited to a particular application, but for the money, the results and consistency the AFR heads provide is tough to beat....especially in a "production" type of environment. I have flowed enough "LS" ported castings to make a judgement like that. How many have you had the chance to personally flow, evaluate, and thoroughly look over?
Sorry if I "offended" you with what you refer to as over "generalizations"....I try to be as informative and straight up as I can (on this board and others), although I'm sure some of my genuine enthusiam regarding our product might be misconstrued....especially if your an obvious fan of someone else's product.
Tony M.
By the way, regarding your dyno results, I was going to make a few of the same points Tucanare and Brett had touched on....big disparity in some key areas of cylinder head flow and a cross section not properly sized for the RPM and cubic inch you were running. Also, the AFR being CNC'ed would have had the obvious benefit of being very repeatable from one port to the next....much tougher to achieve the same consistency by hand which could have skewed the results a little as well.
#83
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
Visceral...
Whats with the constant "negativity" concerning myself and our product? It's getting quite old and your agenda here concerning posts related to our product is painfully obvious. Does someone at AFR owe you money or something?
What are we arguing about here anyway? The AFR is a good piece as you have pointed out. It consistently puts down above average results and does so in many different types of applications, from mild to wild and anything in between. I think the continued release of independent results being posted in the dyno section certainly help to reinforce that.
Did I take an approach in designing this particular cylinder head that is inline or parallels some of the recent discussion within this thread?....You bet your butt I did and the results of this design seem to be very effective out in the real world, especially concerning dual purpose vehicles like most people on these boards are driving.
Have I ever commented that low and midlift flow coupled with a small runner is the "end all" of this design and assures everyone the highest power curve? NO way....Good luck quoting me on that one. Have I commented that it is part of what makes the AFR an effective piece....Yes...with a capitol "Y".
Peak flow is obviously important but it is not the "end all" either when it comes to an effective cylinder head design and ultimately producing power . A combination and a fine balancing of ALL the varibales is what makes a cylinder head truly great....and then again, that cylinder head might only be truly great in a certain application and only "good" perhaps in another. What AFR has done is create and build a "real world" street/strip head capable of being bolted on out of the box and laying down the numbers....consistently....that is the key and worth the price of admission all by itself. There are certainly other good heads out there and some perhaps better suited to a particular application, but for the money, the results and consistency the AFR heads provide is tough to beat....especially in a "production" type of environment. I have flowed enough "LS" ported castings to make a judgement like that. How many have you had the chance to personally flow, evaluate, and thoroughly look over?
Sorry if I "offended" you with what you refer to as over "generalizations"....I try to be as informative and straight up as I can (on this board and others), although I'm sure some of my genuine enthusiam regarding our product might be misconstrued....especially if your an obvious fan of someone else's product.
Tony M.
By the way, regarding your dyno results, I was going to make a few of the same points Tucanare and Brett had touched on....big disparity in some key areas of cylinder head flow and a cross section not properly sized for the RPM and cubic inch you were running. Also, the AFR being CNC'ed would have had the obvious benefit of being very repeatable from one port to the next....much tougher to achieve the same consistency by hand which could have skewed the results a little as well.
Whats with the constant "negativity" concerning myself and our product? It's getting quite old and your agenda here concerning posts related to our product is painfully obvious. Does someone at AFR owe you money or something?
What are we arguing about here anyway? The AFR is a good piece as you have pointed out. It consistently puts down above average results and does so in many different types of applications, from mild to wild and anything in between. I think the continued release of independent results being posted in the dyno section certainly help to reinforce that.
Did I take an approach in designing this particular cylinder head that is inline or parallels some of the recent discussion within this thread?....You bet your butt I did and the results of this design seem to be very effective out in the real world, especially concerning dual purpose vehicles like most people on these boards are driving.
Have I ever commented that low and midlift flow coupled with a small runner is the "end all" of this design and assures everyone the highest power curve? NO way....Good luck quoting me on that one. Have I commented that it is part of what makes the AFR an effective piece....Yes...with a capitol "Y".
Peak flow is obviously important but it is not the "end all" either when it comes to an effective cylinder head design and ultimately producing power . A combination and a fine balancing of ALL the varibales is what makes a cylinder head truly great....and then again, that cylinder head might only be truly great in a certain application and only "good" perhaps in another. What AFR has done is create and build a "real world" street/strip head capable of being bolted on out of the box and laying down the numbers....consistently....that is the key and worth the price of admission all by itself. There are certainly other good heads out there and some perhaps better suited to a particular application, but for the money, the results and consistency the AFR heads provide is tough to beat....especially in a "production" type of environment. I have flowed enough "LS" ported castings to make a judgement like that. How many have you had the chance to personally flow, evaluate, and thoroughly look over?
Sorry if I "offended" you with what you refer to as over "generalizations"....I try to be as informative and straight up as I can (on this board and others), although I'm sure some of my genuine enthusiam regarding our product might be misconstrued....especially if your an obvious fan of someone else's product.
Tony M.
By the way, regarding your dyno results, I was going to make a few of the same points Tucanare and Brett had touched on....big disparity in some key areas of cylinder head flow and a cross section not properly sized for the RPM and cubic inch you were running. Also, the AFR being CNC'ed would have had the obvious benefit of being very repeatable from one port to the next....much tougher to achieve the same consistency by hand which could have skewed the results a little as well.
#84
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
Whats with the constant "negativity" concerning myself and our product? It's getting quite old and your agenda here concerning posts related to our product is painfully obvious. Does someone at AFR owe you money or something?
Originally Posted by Visceral
The AFR LS1 205 is a good head. I have alot of respect for it.
Apparently it was connected to some big powder kegs, huh?
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
What are we arguing about here anyway? The AFR is a good piece as you have pointed out. It consistently puts down above average results and does so in many different types of applications, from mild to wild and anything in between. I think the continued release of independent results being posted in the dyno section certainly help to reinforce that.
The only company that I am familiar with first hand that I will throw up against these AFR castings is the reputedly evil TEA. For the same price as a set of AFRs set up for your application, what can you get from TEA? I submit that you can get a product that makes the same or better power than the AFR. Granted, if money is no object, then of course TEA does it's own AFRs.
AFRs are good, I'll say it again. But they are not King of All Seen, and conveniently pointing towards 28" low and midlift flow numbers just tweeks me. There is SO MUCH more to making power. I have shown in fact, as have others, that cams spend SIGNIFICANTLY more time during crucial piston events open more than .500". Pointeing at the dyno numbers on this forum is also dangerous. Historically a vast majority of heads/cam cars perform WELL under what is typically posted (to great fanfare) on this board. This board has routinely created unrealistic expectations for many starting out in the hobby or who have very limited financial means. So its safe to say that parading around 1 or 2 cars a month with good results, and comparing them to the average heads/cam car, is in my opinion a slight dis-service to many.
I know people have been asking for apples-to-apples comparisons for a long time, and objective ones at that... but we havent gotten any. Until someone takes a $2600 set of AFR 205s and compares them obectively with all the same items on an engine on a dyno to a set of $2600 TEAs set up for that engine, what I see is a mass of overwhelming sales marketing.
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
Sorry if I "offended" you with what you refer to as over "generalizations"....I try to be as informative and straight up as I can (on this board and others), although I'm sure some of my genuine enthusiam regarding our product might be misconstrued....especially if your an obvious fan of someone else's product.
Sorry I seem to "one sided".... I don't think all others feel that way.
#85
Originally Posted by Visceral
From my previous post alone:
Now...in reference to your salesmanship, I guess I havent said anything really nice. It doesn't bug me that much either... it's just a great opportunity to light a fuse.
Apparently it was connected to some big powder kegs, huh?
And I don't dispute that it puts down better than average results, consistently. What I do dispute is the quality of the "average". I think that there are a great number of sh|tilly done heads out there. I've owned my fair share. What you are not doing is showing how your heads compare to really well done 241, 243, 317 and 5.3 castings. While you say that your heads are an excellent value, last time I checked, it was $2400++ to get into a set of 205s set up with .600+" springs, decked to your spec, etc. Since I have a 387 all bore, imagine what my choices are, $$$ wise, for AFRs?
The only company that I am familiar with first hand that I will throw up against these AFR castings is the reputedly evil TEA. For the same price as a set of AFRs set up for your application, what can you get from TEA? I submit that you can get a product that makes the same or better power than the AFR. Granted, if money is no object, then of course TEA does it's own AFRs.
AFRs are good, I'll say it again. But they are not King of All Seen, and conveniently pointing towards 28" low and midlift flow numbers just tweeks me. There is SO MUCH more to making power. I have shown in fact, as have others, that cams spend SIGNIFICANTLY more time during crucial piston events open more than .500". Pointeing at the dyno numbers on this forum is also dangerous. Historically a vast majority of heads/cam cars perform WELL under what is typically posted (to great fanfare) on this board. This board has routinely created unrealistic expectations for many starting out in the hobby or who have very limited financial means. So its safe to say that parading around 1 or 2 cars a month with good results, and comparing them to the average heads/cam car, is in my opinion a slight dis-service to many.
I know people have been asking for apples-to-apples comparisons for a long time, and objective ones at that... but we havent gotten any. Until someone takes a $2600 set of AFR 205s and compares them obectively with all the same items on an engine on a dyno to a set of $2600 TEAs set up for that engine, what I see is a mass of overwhelming sales marketing.
Sorry I seem to "one sided".... I don't think all others feel that way.
Now...in reference to your salesmanship, I guess I havent said anything really nice. It doesn't bug me that much either... it's just a great opportunity to light a fuse.
Apparently it was connected to some big powder kegs, huh?
And I don't dispute that it puts down better than average results, consistently. What I do dispute is the quality of the "average". I think that there are a great number of sh|tilly done heads out there. I've owned my fair share. What you are not doing is showing how your heads compare to really well done 241, 243, 317 and 5.3 castings. While you say that your heads are an excellent value, last time I checked, it was $2400++ to get into a set of 205s set up with .600+" springs, decked to your spec, etc. Since I have a 387 all bore, imagine what my choices are, $$$ wise, for AFRs?
The only company that I am familiar with first hand that I will throw up against these AFR castings is the reputedly evil TEA. For the same price as a set of AFRs set up for your application, what can you get from TEA? I submit that you can get a product that makes the same or better power than the AFR. Granted, if money is no object, then of course TEA does it's own AFRs.
AFRs are good, I'll say it again. But they are not King of All Seen, and conveniently pointing towards 28" low and midlift flow numbers just tweeks me. There is SO MUCH more to making power. I have shown in fact, as have others, that cams spend SIGNIFICANTLY more time during crucial piston events open more than .500". Pointeing at the dyno numbers on this forum is also dangerous. Historically a vast majority of heads/cam cars perform WELL under what is typically posted (to great fanfare) on this board. This board has routinely created unrealistic expectations for many starting out in the hobby or who have very limited financial means. So its safe to say that parading around 1 or 2 cars a month with good results, and comparing them to the average heads/cam car, is in my opinion a slight dis-service to many.
I know people have been asking for apples-to-apples comparisons for a long time, and objective ones at that... but we havent gotten any. Until someone takes a $2600 set of AFR 205s and compares them obectively with all the same items on an engine on a dyno to a set of $2600 TEAs set up for that engine, what I see is a mass of overwhelming sales marketing.
Sorry I seem to "one sided".... I don't think all others feel that way.
#87
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Tucunare,
I'd love to hear some camshaft stories with these motors. Do we have to wait till another thread?
I'd love to hear some camshaft stories with these motors. Do we have to wait till another thread?
#88
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Visceral, I think your being a little tough on Tony!
Im glad you are here sharing info with us. There are, strangely, a limited number of header and intake configurations for us. If we wanted to do a big "Power Off", we could take a AFR 205 headed motor, and a TEA whatever headed motor, and put 8 or 10 of the most popular camshafts in them on an engine dyno. The information, as objective as we could make it, would be infinitely valuable to all these people out here. I think we could probably persuade TEA and AFR to let us borrow a set of heads and then get some folks around the boards to let us borrow cams for the test. Find a sponsor to throw in the motor on loan, and we would have ourselves a hell of a test. Make it an LS6 intake and a set of Kooks 1 3/4" LTs, and noone could claim we werent working for the masses.
Unfortunately, as we have mentioned, there are so many factors in making an engine perform that you never *really* know how well something will do until you hit start and get on the throttle.
#89
Originally Posted by Visceral
Of course I am. He makes it sort of fun... and someone has to be as well. As long as we keep it non-personal (we have, I think), a good debate is good for anyone here. I've said it before... We are very lucky to have BOTH TEA and AFR making heads for us. Competition is very healthy, and a choice is nice for folks. Having people seperate into "camps" probably isnt healthy in the end... but mature people will handle it if it comes to that.
Im glad you are here sharing info with us. There are, strangely, a limited number of header and intake configurations for us. If we wanted to do a big "Power Off", we could take a AFR 205 headed motor, and a TEA whatever headed motor, and put 8 or 10 of the most popular camshafts in them on an engine dyno. The information, as objective as we could make it, would be infinitely valuable to all these people out here. I think we could probably persuade TEA and AFR to let us borrow a set of heads and then get some folks around the boards to let us borrow cams for the test. Find a sponsor to throw in the motor on loan, and we would have ourselves a hell of a test. Make it an LS6 intake and a set of Kooks 1 3/4" LTs, and noone could claim we werent working for the masses.
Unfortunately, as we have mentioned, there are so many factors in making an engine perform that you never *really* know how well something will do until you hit start and get on the throttle.
Im glad you are here sharing info with us. There are, strangely, a limited number of header and intake configurations for us. If we wanted to do a big "Power Off", we could take a AFR 205 headed motor, and a TEA whatever headed motor, and put 8 or 10 of the most popular camshafts in them on an engine dyno. The information, as objective as we could make it, would be infinitely valuable to all these people out here. I think we could probably persuade TEA and AFR to let us borrow a set of heads and then get some folks around the boards to let us borrow cams for the test. Find a sponsor to throw in the motor on loan, and we would have ourselves a hell of a test. Make it an LS6 intake and a set of Kooks 1 3/4" LTs, and noone could claim we werent working for the masses.
Unfortunately, as we have mentioned, there are so many factors in making an engine perform that you never *really* know how well something will do until you hit start and get on the throttle.
#90
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
The conversation evolved man... general statements are general and don't always work. I see your point but you gotta play to the audience as well.
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
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
#91
LS1 Tech Administrator
iTrader: (14)
Originally Posted by Tucunare
I'm just gonna throw my grinder away and send my heads to you. Please redeem yourself quick and tell me you were Joking, if not how much does a little work cost ? Because I'm gonna start outsourcing.
#93
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Wow, just came across this thread....
All I can say is there is some really good information in here. I'd like to thank everyone who has participated thus far.
Tucunare I do have a couple of questions for you though. Up the thread a ways you indicated that you don't agree with sending your flowsheets to a custom cam grinder to generate cam profiles.
I'm just curious in your testing that y'all did, if you saw no benfits in trying to match the characteristics of the lobes rate of opening/closing, etc... to the characteristics of the port itself?
Do you have a recommendation/formula/whatever for how you would determine the type of lobe to use, or the duration to use versus say desired RPM.
You mentioned you really only care about the flow sheets to look at I/E %. The same question applies do you have a recommnedation of a formula you use to make those determinations based on I/E%.
If you have any other info to share on cylinder heads I for one would certainly like to hear anything else you might have to add. I do agree with you and Brett and Tony that keeping velocity up is the way to make power by helping to fill those cylinders. It much the same with cams though, you can prop the valve open to help crutch a poor flowing head. In the same way you can open a valve for too long (or from what we see in the Ls world at the wrong time) and slow down airspeed thus effectively killing velocity again.
Just wondering what your thought are. Again, thanks to everyone for your input....
All I can say is there is some really good information in here. I'd like to thank everyone who has participated thus far.
Tucunare I do have a couple of questions for you though. Up the thread a ways you indicated that you don't agree with sending your flowsheets to a custom cam grinder to generate cam profiles.
I'm just curious in your testing that y'all did, if you saw no benfits in trying to match the characteristics of the lobes rate of opening/closing, etc... to the characteristics of the port itself?
Do you have a recommendation/formula/whatever for how you would determine the type of lobe to use, or the duration to use versus say desired RPM.
You mentioned you really only care about the flow sheets to look at I/E %. The same question applies do you have a recommnedation of a formula you use to make those determinations based on I/E%.
If you have any other info to share on cylinder heads I for one would certainly like to hear anything else you might have to add. I do agree with you and Brett and Tony that keeping velocity up is the way to make power by helping to fill those cylinders. It much the same with cams though, you can prop the valve open to help crutch a poor flowing head. In the same way you can open a valve for too long (or from what we see in the Ls world at the wrong time) and slow down airspeed thus effectively killing velocity again.
Just wondering what your thought are. Again, thanks to everyone for your input....
#94
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by J-Rod
Wow, just came across this thread....
All I can say is there is some really good information in here. I'd like to thank everyone who has participated thus far.
Tucunare I do have a couple of questions for you though. Up the thread a ways you indicated that you don't agree with sending your flowsheets to a custom cam grinder to generate cam profiles.
I'm just curious in your testing that y'all did, if you saw no benfits in trying to match the characteristics of the lobes rate of opening/closing, etc... to the characteristics of the port itself?
Do you have a recommendation/formula/whatever for how you would determine the type of lobe to use, or the duration to use versus say desired RPM.
You mentioned you really only care about the flow sheets to look at I/E %. The same question applies do you have a recommnedation of a formula you use to make those determinations based on I/E%.
If you have any other info to share on cylinder heads I for one would certainly like to hear anything else you might have to add. I do agree with you and Brett and Tony that keeping velocity up is the way to make power by helping to fill those cylinders. It much the same with cams though, you can prop the valve open to help crutch a poor flowing head. In the same way you can open a valve for too long (or from what we see in the Ls world at the wrong time) and slow down airspeed thus effectively killing velocity again.
Just wondering what your thought are. Again, thanks to everyone for your input....
All I can say is there is some really good information in here. I'd like to thank everyone who has participated thus far.
Tucunare I do have a couple of questions for you though. Up the thread a ways you indicated that you don't agree with sending your flowsheets to a custom cam grinder to generate cam profiles.
I'm just curious in your testing that y'all did, if you saw no benfits in trying to match the characteristics of the lobes rate of opening/closing, etc... to the characteristics of the port itself?
Do you have a recommendation/formula/whatever for how you would determine the type of lobe to use, or the duration to use versus say desired RPM.
You mentioned you really only care about the flow sheets to look at I/E %. The same question applies do you have a recommnedation of a formula you use to make those determinations based on I/E%.
If you have any other info to share on cylinder heads I for one would certainly like to hear anything else you might have to add. I do agree with you and Brett and Tony that keeping velocity up is the way to make power by helping to fill those cylinders. It much the same with cams though, you can prop the valve open to help crutch a poor flowing head. In the same way you can open a valve for too long (or from what we see in the Ls world at the wrong time) and slow down airspeed thus effectively killing velocity again.
Just wondering what your thought are. Again, thanks to everyone for your input....
So is the application, the RPM range, power level and a host of other "items" that are not mentioned here...
Then again, I'm a bit biased on "that" viewpoint...
Ed
#95
Originally Posted by EDC
Cylinder head specs are very important for designing a correct camshaft profile...
So is the application, the RPM range, power level and a host of other "items" that are not mentioned here...
Then again, I'm a bit biased on "that" viewpoint...
Ed
So is the application, the RPM range, power level and a host of other "items" that are not mentioned here...
Then again, I'm a bit biased on "that" viewpoint...
Ed
#96
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Tucunare
I'll just be very brief here, if you've carefully read these posts without skipping through you'll have already seen my points. So I'll make one more example. The guy that works here has a 2002 vette, it's a stick car with an LS1. We re-worked his heads and changed his cam. He didn't want anything to lopey that would make it less driveable. I believe the cam is around 222 Int, 226 ex @ .050 and .585 lift. we already put in a cam in another car that was well in the 230's @ 590 lift but it was pretty radical sounding ( actually it sounded real sweet ) but it was a little much for what he wanted as this was a daily driver. Now can someone please tell me that with or without any porting work that the bigger cam would have worked for him, NO WAY ! and as far as the gentelman with the car with the big cam that just cared about the top end power and was willing to accept a little less driveability, would he have still put in the same cam for him if his heads were stock or ported, ABSOLUTLY ! Both Guys got the sound, driveability and power they were hoping for and are extremely happy. Had I sent the head specs to the cam grinder the characteristics of the cams for what they wanted would not of changed. Those flow numbers we all see are not what the head flows on a motor.....again ....a flow bench is a tool for measuring net gains and losses. We are simply measuring the restriction at 28" of water so we have a baseline to compare. Weather those two example cars had stock or ported heads , good low flow or bad low flow, good high numbers or weather the flow fell off the planet at ..500 lift, any of those flow disparities would not of changed the characteristics of either cam, the power curves would remain the same and the driveability would remain the same. Like I said before, Pick the cam for what you want the motor to react like for your driving needs, the flow numbers are NOT going to change that.
Matched parts will always perform better, meet and maybe even exceed a customer's goals all while providing less problems than something just bolted in...
Not eveyone wants all top end power in exchange for bad driveability. Not everyone is happy with "good enough" power levels. I've show it time and time again where a "matched" bill of goods will give the best results.
What this example you provided us reminds me of, is the drag racer that said he used all "mail order" parts and the car flies. No need to custom build anything.
I always ask, "How do you know if it wouldn't be even faster, if you chose the parts properly?"
I'm sure "Mr. Rousch" would expect the same.
Ed
#97
Originally Posted by EDC
I will respectfully disagree...
Matched parts will always perform better, meet and maybe even exceed a customer's goals all while providing less problems than something just bolted in...
Not eveyone wants all top end power in exchange for bad driveability. Not everyone is happy with "good enough" power levels. I've show it time and time again where a "matched" bill of goods will give the best results.
What this example you provided us reminds me of, is the drag racer that said he used all "mail order" parts and the car flies. No need to custom build anything.
I always ask, "How do you know if it wouldn't be even faster, if you chose the parts properly?"
I'm sure "Mr. Rousch" would expect the same.
Ed
Matched parts will always perform better, meet and maybe even exceed a customer's goals all while providing less problems than something just bolted in...
Not eveyone wants all top end power in exchange for bad driveability. Not everyone is happy with "good enough" power levels. I've show it time and time again where a "matched" bill of goods will give the best results.
What this example you provided us reminds me of, is the drag racer that said he used all "mail order" parts and the car flies. No need to custom build anything.
I always ask, "How do you know if it wouldn't be even faster, if you chose the parts properly?"
I'm sure "Mr. Rousch" would expect the same.
Ed
#98
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Apparanty you didn't read the post about the cam curves with differant heads , Your dead wrong....
Let me see if I have this is correct...
It's your opinion that cylinder head characteristics do not play a role in camshaft design or configuration? Only the overall pwer requirements of the engine.
Well, this is not what I have seen in the real world. Different cylinder head characteristics require different camshaft parameters just like different "applications" require different pieces. They go hand in hand.
I really didn't think this was that hard to follow...
Mr. Roush would agree with me, we saw it over and over. and please to group our cam selections with mail order engines. your only insulting yourself by by taking it to that leval.
Reread what "I" said and then you'll understand the analogy...
How many cam and head tests have you actually performed on the dyno. ????
Ed
#99
Originally Posted by EDC
OK... If you say so...
Let me see if I have this is correct...
It's your opinion that cylinder head characteristics do not play a role in camshaft design or configuration? Only the overall pwer requirements of the engine.
Well, this is not what I have seen in the real world. Different cylinder head characteristics require different camshaft parameters just like different "applications" require different pieces. They go hand in hand.
I really didn't think this was that hard to follow...
The "level" I was speaking of was in when "shelf parts" are being used in every application. Yes they do work to a point and the people running well with them will tell you this. If a person wants to optimize their particular combination over that point, is where a "designed" package will show it works better.
Reread what "I" said and then you'll understand the analogy...
Enough where I know the facts and can see trends in using certain combinations over others. That's why I do things that way, it works!
Ed
Let me see if I have this is correct...
It's your opinion that cylinder head characteristics do not play a role in camshaft design or configuration? Only the overall pwer requirements of the engine.
Well, this is not what I have seen in the real world. Different cylinder head characteristics require different camshaft parameters just like different "applications" require different pieces. They go hand in hand.
I really didn't think this was that hard to follow...
The "level" I was speaking of was in when "shelf parts" are being used in every application. Yes they do work to a point and the people running well with them will tell you this. If a person wants to optimize their particular combination over that point, is where a "designed" package will show it works better.
Reread what "I" said and then you'll understand the analogy...
Enough where I know the facts and can see trends in using certain combinations over others. That's why I do things that way, it works!
Ed
#100
TECH Resident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Working in the shop 24/7
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Boy, you sure can take things out of text and twist my words around. I never ever said that matched componants are not better. How do think we made 840 h.p. with a 358 cubes in craftsman truck. Why don't you soak in a little of what I'm posting instead of spouting off.
Let me quote you...
(2) this probably iritates me more than any other statement I hear, "Send the flow sheets to the cam grinder to match your heads", aaaahhhhhhhh !!!!
You allude to everyone that it is a waste of time (in another section of your post) to change the camshaft design in regards to ported vs unported heads...
Say you already have this awesome motor, 350 c.i. for example that's making 700 H.P. and you've been happy running low 9's. you know it's got great flowing heads and you have this .800 lift solid rollar grind in it and the motor seems happy, O.K. now comes this class that your car fit's into like a glove , cubes, weight, chassis and you really want to run this class but there is one problem, the class calls for un-ported heads. now you get your new heads and flow them but they're down 20 cfm down low and fifty cfm at .650 lift, What do you do for a camshaft ? and what is the cam grinder do when he sees your new horrible airflow numbers ? How is going to regrind or make a new cam to match these restrictive heads ? Do you now know what you will do...run the same cam !
I hope you would not believe that if they made a much smaller cam to match your heads that you would make more H.P. Does it make sense now ? the head is now more restricted so putting in a cam that opens less and for a shorter period of time certainly won't help you.
At least we can agree on this comment you made...
The only time the the flow numbers will help you with your cam selection is your exh. to int. ratio, you may want more ex. duration to make up for a poor flowing port.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
So let me get this straight, You send your specs to the cam grinder, say a mild ported LS1 heads. Now he's gonna grind you a cam matched to your specs without knowing what the hell you want to do.
Now who's actually twisting the facts???
I spoke of a properly MATCHED series of components. Each having their place in a camshaft design. Let me repeat what I posted for you...
Cylinder head specs are very important for designing a correct camshaft profile...
So is the application, the RPM range, power level and a host of other "items" that are not mentioned here...
So is the application, the RPM range, power level and a host of other "items" that are not mentioned here...
See.... You are just now stating what I had previously posted...
Originally Posted by Tucunare
I'll gaurantee the first thing they're going to ask is what are you doing with the car, is it a stick , automatic, street car, drag car, road race, truck pull, is it heavy or a lightweight chassis, maybe even hill climbing. there's an endless amount of camshafts out there that are perfect for the application for which the motor is being used, I mean drasticly differant,
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Your trying to tell me that matching the cam to the flow numbers is anywhere close to the importance of matching it to the rpm band.
If you have the extra time, look at just a few of the items asked before designing a profile..
Cam Form
Not just the "flow figures" are asked for... though they are one parameter requested.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Let's make this real, real, simple for you to understand.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Back 15-20 years ago when Super stock couldn't port heads the flow was miserable compared to what they can run today. The big Pontiacs of super stock L and K had friggin horrible heads that flowed less than 250 cfm and were all spent between .450-.500 lift still ran .780.-.820 lift cams. Now what cams would they have recommended to you if you sent them those specs.........Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
We ran NHRA Stock and Super Stock for many years before the "porting rules". Coincedentally with a 400 Pontiac. Got completely out of the rat race because of the whole NHRA "index" BS but that's another story...
We had run plenty of camshafts through those engines looking for more average power... And we DID flow test the heads and use the data to make decisions. before and after stealth work. It made a difference...
Too bad you choose to hide behind a screen name. Would have been fun to swap some stories but I think that time has passed since you feel you must be rude to be heard. I really think we're on the same page on this but it is that blanket statement that the cylinder head flow characteristics are meaningless is where I believe we will always totally disagree...
Ed