dissapointing head flow numbers
Teching In
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by EDC
Spouting off? Not even close...
Let me quote you...
Why does providing the flow numbers on a cylinder head iritate you so much that you post this??? Makes no sense!
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...
Well, anyone that runs in a restricted cylinder head class knows what to do and it sure isn't what you state later...
Like I said.... knowing what the heads flow will tell the designe the correct direction to follow. Sure "is not" going smaller in the example you expressed!
At least we can agree on this comment you made...
This appears you actually agree with me where the cylinder head "characterists" ARE important!
No.... I NEVER stated that...
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...
[/i]
See.... You are just now stating what I had previously posted...
If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I stated this FACT already. However, I am not the one who blindly stated that cylinder head flow numbers were not important, as you did.
Again... I NEVER said that so please re-read what was actually written.
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.
Boy... that's a bit condescending from someone who hides behind a screen name...
Sorry but you're preaching to the choir...
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
Let me quote you...
Why does providing the flow numbers on a cylinder head iritate you so much that you post this??? Makes no sense!
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...
Well, anyone that runs in a restricted cylinder head class knows what to do and it sure isn't what you state later...
Like I said.... knowing what the heads flow will tell the designe the correct direction to follow. Sure "is not" going smaller in the example you expressed!
At least we can agree on this comment you made...
This appears you actually agree with me where the cylinder head "characterists" ARE important!
No.... I NEVER stated that...
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...
[/i]
See.... You are just now stating what I had previously posted...
If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I stated this FACT already. However, I am not the one who blindly stated that cylinder head flow numbers were not important, as you did.
Again... I NEVER said that so please re-read what was actually written.
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.
Boy... that's a bit condescending from someone who hides behind a screen name...
Sorry but you're preaching to the choir...
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
Originally Posted by Tucunare
anything else you want to know ????
Just kidding, trying to keep a light side to this thread cause speaking for myself and many others on these boards I believe this thread has been very informational with a couple different views and as long as we keep the back and forth bantering out of it I think it can continue to be a very informative thread.
Also, I'd like to add I am currently going through this very issue with heads and chosing a cam to run. I will be keeping updated info in the thread I started @ https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...46#post3026546
TECH Resident
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 848
Likes: 1
From: Working in the shop 24/7
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Your not twisting quotes.?
Originally Posted by Tucunare
.....Your now saying that I said " that flow numbers are meaningless "
this probably iritates me more than any other statement I hear, "Send the flow sheets to the cam grinder to match your heads", aaaahhhhhhhh !!!!
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
Your not understanding anything about what .
Originally Posted by Tucunare
I've posted or even trying to use a little logic. I've been mearly pointing out facts based on thousands and thousands of head swaps, cam swaps, port changes, flow number changes and trying to inform the people who would never get to see this kind of valuable info. There's plenty who appreciate it, I know by the private e-mails I get.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
If you want to stay with your logic, so be it.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
And oh yeah....I blindly stated flow numbers are not important !!!! Where are you coming up with this crap !
Read your own posts! There's where it coming from!
Originally Posted by Tucunare
I've done more here to explain where and when the numbers are important and what numbers are not. If you can't see that I guess there's no help for you.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
Why are you the only person talking about me hiding behind a screen name, I don't need to hide from anything.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
I've done heads for 30 years and was in charge of Jacks cyl head R&D for 9 years, all through strohs, folgers and the valvoline years in cup. My name is Rick Swain and currently work for livernois motorsports because I chose not to move down South, I saw it coming in "98". anything else you want to know ????
There have been questions posed about your views about the relevance of cylinder head information. I'm not the only one asking why you have stated the heads are not an important part of the cam design. Go back and look. Then notice how your posts have changed to reflect what I had said in the very first post I placed in this thread.
Seems more and more like you are agreeing with my viewpoint more than your original...
Have fun Rick, say hi to Dan for me...
This "lesser-person" must leave this party and return to the real world...
Ed
Teching In
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by EDC
No, not at all... Just repeating your comments.
No "YOU" stated these tidbits...
Tell me, does it or does it not sound like you consider the cylinder head dynamics as irrelevent??
I understand more than you may imagine.
However, you are not the only one who has seen, built and even accomplished a few successful combinations. You are claiming your viewpoint as the only way to think. Sorry, but it is not.
And you with yours. However, at least attempt to open your eyes to what is happening outside of "Jack's World". Some "lesser knowns" have beaten his stuff.
Crap?
Read your own posts! There's where it coming from!
There you go with your attitude. You say you are a "pro" yet you stoop to comments like this? Livernois should look carefully at you!
Believe me, I'm not the only one that has questions about some of your viewpoints. You'd be very surprised about who reads the forums...
Again with the arrogance?
There have been questions posed about your views about the relevance of cylinder head information. I'm not the only one asking why you have stated the heads are not an important part of the cam design. Go back and look. Then notice how your posts have changed to reflect what I had said in the very first post I placed in this thread.
Seems more and more like you are agreeing with my viewpoint more than your original...
Have fun Rick, say hi to Dan for me...
This "lesser-person" must leave this party and return to the real world...
Ed
No "YOU" stated these tidbits...
Tell me, does it or does it not sound like you consider the cylinder head dynamics as irrelevent??
I understand more than you may imagine.
However, you are not the only one who has seen, built and even accomplished a few successful combinations. You are claiming your viewpoint as the only way to think. Sorry, but it is not.
And you with yours. However, at least attempt to open your eyes to what is happening outside of "Jack's World". Some "lesser knowns" have beaten his stuff.
Crap?
Read your own posts! There's where it coming from!
There you go with your attitude. You say you are a "pro" yet you stoop to comments like this? Livernois should look carefully at you!
Believe me, I'm not the only one that has questions about some of your viewpoints. You'd be very surprised about who reads the forums...
Again with the arrogance?
There have been questions posed about your views about the relevance of cylinder head information. I'm not the only one asking why you have stated the heads are not an important part of the cam design. Go back and look. Then notice how your posts have changed to reflect what I had said in the very first post I placed in this thread.
Seems more and more like you are agreeing with my viewpoint more than your original...
Have fun Rick, say hi to Dan for me...
This "lesser-person" must leave this party and return to the real world...
Ed
This post keeps going on and on and on....
Things I know
Bret Bauer knows his ****
Ed Curtis knows his ****
and both are probably the best cam designers we have available to us.
I think both of them have said a properly matched combo will beat a combo just thrown together and everyone says that's true. I don't get the disagreement?
Things I know
Bret Bauer knows his ****
Ed Curtis knows his ****
and both are probably the best cam designers we have available to us.
I think both of them have said a properly matched combo will beat a combo just thrown together and everyone says that's true. I don't get the disagreement?
Teching In
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by MUSTANGEATER
This post keeps going on and on and on....
Things I know
Bret Bauer knows his ****
Ed Curtis knows his ****
and both are probably the best cam designers we have available to us.
I think both of them have said a properly matched combo will beat a combo just thrown together and everyone says that's true. I don't get the disagreement?
Things I know
Bret Bauer knows his ****
Ed Curtis knows his ****
and both are probably the best cam designers we have available to us.
I think both of them have said a properly matched combo will beat a combo just thrown together and everyone says that's true. I don't get the disagreement?
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,983
Likes: 13
From: Texas
Tucunare - One of the things about the internet is sometimes you can post something and what you are saying is perfectly clear to you, but isn't always clear to your readers.
That was the reason for my asking you the questions I did. I read it pretty much the way Ed did. I apologize if you don't think that I read your post in the context in which it was intended. This was my reason for asking you questions I did. I wanted some clarification on exactly what you were saying. I just wanted to better understand your points that you were making.
I think the biggest issue I had with what you were saying was the same thing Ed pointed out which was your comments on flowsheets
Like I said, it may not have been your intent but the way it comes off along with some of your other comments is that cylinder head flow plays no part in camshaft selection when in my experience target HP numbers are directly realted to cylinder head flow. Thus knowing what a head flows assists you in determining what cam is right for that combo.
I and others may have misread what you are saying. Sometimes going from words and thought to characters on the screen you loose a bit in the translation. But I would ask you to bear with us, and continue the discussion. There is one thing I have learned in life the more I learn the less I realize that I know.
Obviously if you worked for Jack Roush and you have as much time in cylinder heads and dyno testing as you've related to us, you have a lot of knowledge that would benfit this community as a whole. I'd like to ask that you keep sharing that info as I think these types of discussions are invaluable to the community as a whole.
That was the reason for my asking you the questions I did. I read it pretty much the way Ed did. I apologize if you don't think that I read your post in the context in which it was intended. This was my reason for asking you questions I did. I wanted some clarification on exactly what you were saying. I just wanted to better understand your points that you were making.
I think the biggest issue I had with what you were saying was the same thing Ed pointed out which was your comments on flowsheets
(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 !!!!
I and others may have misread what you are saying. Sometimes going from words and thought to characters on the screen you loose a bit in the translation. But I would ask you to bear with us, and continue the discussion. There is one thing I have learned in life the more I learn the less I realize that I know.
Obviously if you worked for Jack Roush and you have as much time in cylinder heads and dyno testing as you've related to us, you have a lot of knowledge that would benfit this community as a whole. I'd like to ask that you keep sharing that info as I think these types of discussions are invaluable to the community as a whole.
Thread Starter
12 Second Club
iTrader: (55)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 0
From: Raymore, MO
Hate to bring this back from the dead 
but I just got my heads back from Cylinder Head Specialties. Basically just did a valve job and reflowed. I do know it was a 28"
Before:
.100 66.1/55.0
.200 138.7/103.2
.300 202.8/141.3
.400 258.3/170.6
.500 284.8/188.5
.550 295.2/195.7
.600 297.2/202.4
Now:
.100 69.3/56.6
.200 141.6/106.0
.300 210.1/142.9
.400 259.7/176.6
.500 284.2/195.1
.550 295.2/203.7
.600 297.2/210.6
I compared these to Anniversayz's thread regarding MTI 2R's and AFR 205's. Looks like I might want some AFR's!
but I just got my heads back from Cylinder Head Specialties. Basically just did a valve job and reflowed. I do know it was a 28"Before:
.100 66.1/55.0
.200 138.7/103.2
.300 202.8/141.3
.400 258.3/170.6
.500 284.8/188.5
.550 295.2/195.7
.600 297.2/202.4
Now:
.100 69.3/56.6
.200 141.6/106.0
.300 210.1/142.9
.400 259.7/176.6
.500 284.2/195.1
.550 295.2/203.7
.600 297.2/210.6
I compared these to Anniversayz's thread regarding MTI 2R's and AFR 205's. Looks like I might want some AFR's!
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo Teching In
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Derek98z
Hate to bring this back from the dead but I just got my heads back from Cylinder Head Specialties. Basically just did a valve job and reflowed. I do know it was a 28"
Before:
.100 66.1/55.0
.200 138.7/103.2
.300 202.8/141.3
.400 258.3/170.6
.500 284.8/188.5
.550 295.2/195.7
.600 297.2/202.4
Now:
.100 69.3/56.6
.200 141.6/106.0
.300 210.1/142.9
.400 259.7/176.6
.500 284.2/195.1
.550 295.2/203.7
.600 297.2/210.6
I compared these to Anniversayz's thread regarding MTI 2R's and AFR 205's. Looks like I might want some AFR's!
but I just got my heads back from Cylinder Head Specialties. Basically just did a valve job and reflowed. I do know it was a 28"Before:
.100 66.1/55.0
.200 138.7/103.2
.300 202.8/141.3
.400 258.3/170.6
.500 284.8/188.5
.550 295.2/195.7
.600 297.2/202.4
Now:
.100 69.3/56.6
.200 141.6/106.0
.300 210.1/142.9
.400 259.7/176.6
.500 284.2/195.1
.550 295.2/203.7
.600 297.2/210.6
I compared these to Anniversayz's thread regarding MTI 2R's and AFR 205's. Looks like I might want some AFR's!
Originally Posted by 66deuce
i will get a chance to test this theory after i install my new heads,if everything goes good i'll then dyno it this sat.i have good low-midlift nos. but they back up at .500 and above on the intake.here are the numbers:
int. exh.
.200 148 117
.300 210 152
.400 254 189
.450 269 197
.500 248 202
.550 251 207
.600 257 210
.650 263 212
like i said,barring any problems on the install i'll have some dyno nos. sat. night.
int. exh.
.200 148 117
.300 210 152
.400 254 189
.450 269 197
.500 248 202
.550 251 207
.600 257 210
.650 263 212
like i said,barring any problems on the install i'll have some dyno nos. sat. night.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Derek98z
Hate to bring this back from the dead but I just got my heads back from Cylinder Head Specialties. Basically just did a valve job and reflowed. I do know it was a 28"
Before:
.100 66.1/55.0
.200 138.7/103.2
.300 202.8/141.3
.400 258.3/170.6
.500 284.8/188.5
.550 295.2/195.7
.600 297.2/202.4
Now:
.100 69.3/56.6
.200 141.6/106.0
.300 210.1/142.9
.400 259.7/176.6
.500 284.2/195.1
.550 295.2/203.7
.600 297.2/210.6
I compared these to Anniversayz's thread regarding MTI 2R's and AFR 205's. Looks like I might want some AFR's!
but I just got my heads back from Cylinder Head Specialties. Basically just did a valve job and reflowed. I do know it was a 28"Before:
.100 66.1/55.0
.200 138.7/103.2
.300 202.8/141.3
.400 258.3/170.6
.500 284.8/188.5
.550 295.2/195.7
.600 297.2/202.4
Now:
.100 69.3/56.6
.200 141.6/106.0
.300 210.1/142.9
.400 259.7/176.6
.500 284.2/195.1
.550 295.2/203.7
.600 297.2/210.6
I compared these to Anniversayz's thread regarding MTI 2R's and AFR 205's. Looks like I might want some AFR's!
Teching In
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 66deuce
just thought i would give you guys an update,if anyone was interested.just got the car fired up this week,and back on the road today.no dyno nos. yet,but the car is definately more responsive,and the powerband seems to have moved up a little.before it was all done by around 5600,now it pulls hard to around 6000rpms.this is with a safe tune(22*max timing,and a little more fuel)until i get to a dyno and put a wideband on it.my old heads were the patriot stg.2s.i cc'd one of the intake ports of the patriots,and it came out to 230cc,as opposed to 213 from one of my new heads.bigger is not always better,it seems.
Originally Posted by Tucunare
66, where have I heard that before ? Isn't that what I've been trying to explain over these last few pages. What you experianced with the trade of high lift flow for the better low lift and the much smaller Intake port is the very direction that kept us making more power in winston cup, a 17 c.c. smaller int. runner is huge for building torque. as I stated before, even if you want to make bigger H.P.numbers at the higher rpm's you still have to make bigger torque numbers at the higher rpm's ( H.P. + Torque x RPM ) Bigger runners = Bigger High numbers= more sales, but unfortunatly as you decribed, less power. Your new flow curve is very typical of the smaller LS1 port but the smaller runner definatly has it's advantages, glad to see you made out well, Rick
Originally Posted by Derek98z
I am really happy of the increase mid lift! Exhaust is low to my buddy's AFR's though. But overall, I am happy.....and set to go
Tunecare..... this one is for you....
Not to get back on what we were talking about before, but I think this is put better than how I tried to say it....
Bret
Not to get back on what we were talking about before, but I think this is put better than how I tried to say it....
Originally Posted by Darrin Morgan
There are many proponents of the " flow curve must match the camshaft lift curve" theory but I am not one of them. Some people still believe that if the camshaft has a maximum of .700 lift that the area under the flow curve must be maximized in this area as well and anything that happens to the flow curve after .700 lift is of no consequence. Nothing could be more incorrect I assure you! Its like that old theory about 30 degree seats. They flow more down low ( .050 to .350 lift ) so they should make more power for cam profiles at or slightly above .400 lift because they maximize the area under the curve in that area,right? Wrong. You can put a properly designed 55 degree seat and chamber, decrease the flow at .050 to .400 lift and make more power with cams with only .400 lift. You have to design the thing correctly and its tricky. You cant just throw steep angle seats in any head and have this work. You must have convex chambers and good pressure recovery in the chamber or its disastrous. The steeper the seat angles and the larger the throat area, the more important the chamber design becomes.
You turn the air less, use less energy doing so.
You maximize the potential flow in an area more conducive to flow from a piston speed stand point.
You have proper pressure recovery in the chamber ( Equal exit velocity around the entire circumference of the valve head. A controlled deceleration of the air like a venturi divergent angle.)
You get more air fuel mixture in the cylinder.
It makes more power.
That's my theory and I am sticking with it until someone can come up with a better one.LOL
_________________
Darin Morgan
R&D-Cylinder Head Dept.
Reher-Morrison Racing Engines
You turn the air less, use less energy doing so.
You maximize the potential flow in an area more conducive to flow from a piston speed stand point.
You have proper pressure recovery in the chamber ( Equal exit velocity around the entire circumference of the valve head. A controlled deceleration of the air like a venturi divergent angle.)
You get more air fuel mixture in the cylinder.
It makes more power.
That's my theory and I am sticking with it until someone can come up with a better one.LOL
_________________
Darin Morgan
R&D-Cylinder Head Dept.
Reher-Morrison Racing Engines
Teching In
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Tunecare..... this one is for you....
Not to get back on what we were talking about before, but I think this is put better than how I tried to say it....
Bret
Not to get back on what we were talking about before, but I think this is put better than how I tried to say it....
Bret
i have no doubt that if my flow nos. kept going up to .600 or so instead of backing up at .500(assuming a proper cross section of the port)that i would gain power.i don't pretend to fully understand the dynamics of cylinder head flow,but i do have a rudimentry understanding.Bret,both you and Tucanare make some very valid points.in fact,i see some similarity in both of your posts.bottom line,flow nos. aren't everything.it's a combination of port flow and combustion chamber shape designed to work together.you hear a lot about flow nos. on this board,but not so much about the proper shaping of the chamber.
while my motor won't be breaking any dyno records,it's a lot better now than before.the biggest improvement now that i've driven it a few days is the drivability.the motor doesn't seem as "cammy"as it was before.
while my motor won't be breaking any dyno records,it's a lot better now than before.the biggest improvement now that i've driven it a few days is the drivability.the motor doesn't seem as "cammy"as it was before.
Teching In
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 66deuce
i have no doubt that if my flow nos. kept going up to .600 or so instead of backing up at .500(assuming a proper cross section of the port)that i would gain power.i don't pretend to fully understand the dynamics of cylinder head flow,but i do have a rudimentry understanding.Bret,both you and Tucanare make some very valid points.in fact,i see some similarity in both of your posts.bottom line,flow nos. aren't everything.it's a combination of port flow and combustion chamber shape designed to work together.you hear a lot about flow nos. on this board,but not so much about the proper shaping of the chamber.
while my motor won't be breaking any dyno records,it's a lot better now than before.the biggest improvement now that i've driven it a few days is the drivability.the motor doesn't seem as "cammy"as it was before.
while my motor won't be breaking any dyno records,it's a lot better now than before.the biggest improvement now that i've driven it a few days is the drivability.the motor doesn't seem as "cammy"as it was before.
the example I "consistantly" have used here is that in making H.P. gains with "ALL" styles of motors while I was at Roush over a 10 year period was the ports got smaller, the Low and mid lift airflow went up and the higher lifts not only came down but backed up as well. This was the trend for our best heads, I didn't make this up, thousands of dyno tests steered us in this direction, I have given examples of this over and over in my posts. One size motor has differant airflow requirments from another while the same size motor motor built for 2 differant applications can have totaly differant needs for heads and totaly differant cams. that's why you can't generalize the cam to the head. it has to be mated to the application first and foremost just as the head has to be mated to the application.. I've seen super stock motors making almost 700 H.P. with heads that don't flow over 250 cfm and the flow is dead at .500 lift. How would you mate a cam to those specs ??? well you could have a daily driver with a .450 lift hydraulic cam and be quite efficient while the exact same head needed an .800 lift solid rollar to be efficient. So tell me in these 2 drasticlly differant application using the same head what was the most important factor in choosing a cam, flow sheets or appliation ??
Oh yeah I forgot... NASCAR BOYS KNOW EVERYTHING!!!
Oh yeah BTW... the trend I have seen in Cup SB2.2 heads is a larger cross sectional area with a higher flowing port and they are also developing more HP and a better TQ curve.... hmmmm wonder what's up with that?
SB2.2 2.200 valve 4.200 bore. 38cc chamber around 3.5 sq/in MCA
.2 152
.3 226
.4 305
.5 375
.6 418
.7 429
.8 446
.9 453
1. 456
The smaller cup bore and 2.180 valve knock a few CFM off of those numbers for what is actually on the cars....
I'm not here to even care about the thread anymore or discuss this, it's just another point on the thread from someone who is very vocal, intelligent and knows his stuff.
Anyways on to our regular programing... I'm going back into hibernation ZZzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzz
Oh yeah BTW... the trend I have seen in Cup SB2.2 heads is a larger cross sectional area with a higher flowing port and they are also developing more HP and a better TQ curve.... hmmmm wonder what's up with that?
SB2.2 2.200 valve 4.200 bore. 38cc chamber around 3.5 sq/in MCA
.2 152
.3 226
.4 305
.5 375
.6 418
.7 429
.8 446
.9 453
1. 456
The smaller cup bore and 2.180 valve knock a few CFM off of those numbers for what is actually on the cars....
I'm not here to even care about the thread anymore or discuss this, it's just another point on the thread from someone who is very vocal, intelligent and knows his stuff.
Anyways on to our regular programing... I'm going back into hibernation ZZzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzz
Last edited by SStrokerAce; Jun 19, 2005 at 10:30 PM. Reason: screw it I don't care....