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

Originally Posted by Tucunare

anything else you want to know ????

Originally Posted by Tucunare

Your not twisting quotes.?

Originally Posted by Tucunare

.....Your now saying that I said " that flow numbers are meaningless "

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 !

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 ????

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

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?

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!

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.

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!

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

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

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

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.