Collective Head Flow Numbers Table
02-14-2006, 01:49 PM
#21
Rampant what series AllPro heads are they so i can include that as well.
Sponsors feel free to post up as well so long as theyre an actual setup you've flowed and not the advertised.Thanks
Sponsors feel free to post up as well so long as theyre an actual setup you've flowed and not the advertised.Thanks
Last edited by ddnspider; 02-15-2006 at 02:46 PM.
02-14-2006, 02:59 PM
#22
Originally Posted by ddnspider
Rampant what series AllPro heads are they so i can include that as well.
Sponsors feel free to post up as well so long as theyre an actual setup you've flowed and not the advertised.
Sponsors feel free to post up as well so long as theyre an actual setup you've flowed and not the advertised.
This link is what I have.
http://www.allproheads.com/new%20product.htm
Please delete if this link is not appropriate. Not sure if any of your sponsors sell these. They seem to be a rare head.
Rampant
02-14-2006, 08:06 PM
#24
Did you read the thread?Its because when people,including myself,get heads done they'd like something to compare then to.And advertised flow numbers are known to be doctored a bit on occasion.So this thread is make so people can post up their flow numbers from what company with what was used to flow them and im making an excel sheet so other and myself can see how peoples personal heads compare.
02-14-2006, 09:04 PM
#25
Originally Posted by Jason 98 TA
I've had older versions of the PRC heads well over 300cfm on Thunder's bench so I guess I can get in on this discussion.
Let me throw a little more fuel on this fire... I have a set of 215 ET heads that flowed under 300cfm & were claimed to be 320 on the site. I've also never seen a AFR 205 head go over 295 cfm on our bench. Would you guys like me to get some extra data for you?
As always if anyone is in the area feel free to come by & I will flow any cylinder heads we have in stock!
Let me throw a little more fuel on this fire... I have a set of 215 ET heads that flowed under 300cfm & were claimed to be 320 on the site. I've also never seen a AFR 205 head go over 295 cfm on our bench. Would you guys like me to get some extra data for you?
As always if anyone is in the area feel free to come by & I will flow any cylinder heads we have in stock!
sf1020, 3.900 bore, wooden radius inlet, 2.25 or 2.5 (dont remember off hand) exhaust pipe.
ddnspider, is this the table you were refering too?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-internal-engine/446379-head-flow-comparison-table.html
Last edited by jrp; 02-17-2006 at 09:20 PM.
02-14-2006, 09:47 PM
#26
10 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ddnspider
Did you read the thread?Its because when people,including myself,get heads done they'd like something to compare then to.And advertised flow numbers are known to be doctored a bit on occasion.So this thread is make so people can post up their flow numbers from what company with what was used to flow them and im making an excel sheet so other and myself can see how peoples personal heads compare.
Yes, I read it. For this spreadsheet to be close to being valid, you have to flow the heads on the same bench with the same "tools". Here is an example:
"Joe's Budget Head Porting"
243 casting, stock valves 223cc port 3.9 bore sf600 @ 28" pipe
I E
.100 137 104
.200 169 119
.300 237 166
.400 285 214
.500 324 239
.600 339 251
Now add this to your spreadsheet.
02-15-2006, 08:53 AM
#27
TECH Addict
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nevada, TX
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2c5s
Yes, I read it. For this spreadsheet to be close to being valid, you have to flow the heads on the same bench with the same "tools". Here is an example:
"Joe's Budget Head Porting"
243 casting, stock valves 223cc port 3.9 bore sf600 @ 28" pipe
I E
.100 137 104
.200 169 119
.300 237 166
.400 285 214
.500 324 239
.600 339 251
Now add this to your spreadsheet.
"Joe's Budget Head Porting"
243 casting, stock valves 223cc port 3.9 bore sf600 @ 28" pipe
I E
.100 137 104
.200 169 119
.300 237 166
.400 285 214
.500 324 239
.600 339 251
Now add this to your spreadsheet.
Brandon
02-15-2006, 09:19 AM
#28
10 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xfactor_pitbulls
Um............I would really like to see those on an independent bench. Your numbers border on fairy tale. No offense. Also just noticed port volume, your heads dont flow that well with that volume, period. Your .300 # is about 30cfm over a strong head, and 20cfm over a great head.
Brandon
Brandon
02-15-2006, 09:42 AM
#29
TECH Addict
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nevada, TX
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They might very well flow that, but not with a 223cc intake port, let me tell you why. To have numbers like that you are going to have to have a 2.08/2.1 intake valve. If you try and tell me that comes from a 2.02, I call bullshit real fast. You know what the stock volume of an LS6 head is? Its about 213cc. Take out the rocker arm boss, blend the larger seat, valve guide and valve job, you are already past your 223cc. That is without contouring the short turn or moving over the straight wall. My post didnt prove your point, it brought light to the fact something is inaccurate in your post. As said before, it may flow those numbers, doubtful, but not at that volume.
Brandon
Brandon
02-15-2006, 10:18 AM
#31
Yeah Jerami thats the table i was talking about but he said most were Sponsor advertised so im not a huge fan of that.Sure i did some comparisions but advertised and actual are 2 diff things as stated.Thats why i thought itd be nice to get a table with independantly flowed head numbers.And i cant see those numbers,there are just "X"'s there.please repost.
im adding things like company,valve size,if a pipe was used. and any other pertinent info thatll fit in the spreadsheet.
ttt....more numbers!
im adding things like company,valve size,if a pipe was used. and any other pertinent info thatll fit in the spreadsheet.
ttt....more numbers!
02-15-2006, 10:28 AM
#32
TECH Addict
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nevada, TX
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2c5s
Yes it did, sorry if you can't see it.
I am still kinda tired from staying up too late and missed a few things about your original post. No doubt you have some great heads and I am sure they flow just what you say they do.
Brandon
Last edited by xfactor_pitbulls; 02-15-2006 at 10:41 AM.
02-15-2006, 10:35 AM
#33
Hey guys take it easy.This isnt a "what head is better,this flows better, that flows better thread." Its just so members can see how their heads relate to others,or get them in the ballpark.
XFactor...maybe since you port heads you'd be willing to post up flow numbers for a couple set either youve done or somebody else or a company.
Id like to get as many flow numbers as possible.
XFactor...maybe since you port heads you'd be willing to post up flow numbers for a couple set either youve done or somebody else or a company.
Id like to get as many flow numbers as possible.
02-15-2006, 10:46 AM
#34
TECH Addict
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nevada, TX
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://ls1tech.com/forums/texas-members/449234-great-set-budget-big-cube-cam-heads.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=449234
I will have some new 241 stage 2 numbers in a week or two.
Brandon
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=449234
I will have some new 241 stage 2 numbers in a week or two.
Brandon
02-15-2006, 03:20 PM
#36
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
I'm the one who created the spreadsheet. Its old and out of date. It's alos dependant on verious benches. The only numbers I realy trust ar ethe ones from Thunder (and I have a few from there), the really only true good test is Tony Mamo its on the same bench, etc... I can post a link to mine if you want...
02-15-2006, 06:08 PM
#37
J-rod yes please give me a link to that.I thought it was either you or JRP but i couldnt find it.
RyneZ06...if thats the case then why even post flow numbers at all?I mean if theres so many variables then whats to point for any company to post numbers other than AFR?Why not just say they flow well or >300cfms?Because there has to be some merit in the numbers and how they were flowed.Thats why i want to make this excel file,because people can look and see how they were flowed and what were the numbers and circumstances.That way people can get a general idea.Remember im not looking to make anything spectacular precise shreadsheet.Just so its a guideline and can help folks out. i posted that i didnt want advertised numbers because i try not to go by them and neither should others.Ive already got a decent list,but i could always use more numbers and data.
RyneZ06...if thats the case then why even post flow numbers at all?I mean if theres so many variables then whats to point for any company to post numbers other than AFR?Why not just say they flow well or >300cfms?Because there has to be some merit in the numbers and how they were flowed.Thats why i want to make this excel file,because people can look and see how they were flowed and what were the numbers and circumstances.That way people can get a general idea.Remember im not looking to make anything spectacular precise shreadsheet.Just so its a guideline and can help folks out. i posted that i didnt want advertised numbers because i try not to go by them and neither should others.Ive already got a decent list,but i could always use more numbers and data.
02-15-2006, 06:25 PM
#39
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
"Advertised" numbers are usually just that....advertised flow numbers.
Independent testing is a must and if your going to round up comparitive data on a group of heads, they MUST be flowed on the same flow equipment with the same fixtures, opening tools, radiused entry for repeatability, flow pipe (the same) on the exhaust, etc. If not it is really just a pointless exercise IMO assuming you really want to compare data).
I just flowed a reworked, expensive "STG III" 243 casting and I'm quite sure the "advertised" numbers weren't even close (230 cc port only mustered 294 Int. CFM's / 200 on the exhaust WITH a pipe).
I also recently flowed another CNC head that was a very good flowing piece....I might add both of these to the "Flow Thread" I started propbably a year or so ago.
Just my .02 of course which you can call BS on or whatever you like
Independent testing is a must and if your going to round up comparitive data on a group of heads, they MUST be flowed on the same flow equipment with the same fixtures, opening tools, radiused entry for repeatability, flow pipe (the same) on the exhaust, etc. If not it is really just a pointless exercise IMO assuming you really want to compare data).
I just flowed a reworked, expensive "STG III" 243 casting and I'm quite sure the "advertised" numbers weren't even close (230 cc port only mustered 294 Int. CFM's / 200 on the exhaust WITH a pipe).
I also recently flowed another CNC head that was a very good flowing piece....I might add both of these to the "Flow Thread" I started propbably a year or so ago.
Just my .02 of course which you can call BS on or whatever you like
02-15-2006, 06:43 PM
#40
10 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShevrolayZ28
No offense intended toward anyone, but this thread should have gone no further than the above quoted post. Advertised data and data from different flow benchs performed on differtent days is nearly useless IMO.
Thats the point I was trying to make. No offense, but unless the heads are flowed on the same bench, same technique, same fixtures etc., the results are no better than the head porters own flow numbers, and as was said earlier, they are sometimes inflated.
Tony Mamo's flow spreadsheet is a really good tool packed with great info. Same bench, same operator, same fixtures, same technique. What he ended up with is a very fair comparision from one to another. Some heads were better than AFR's, some were worse. The only thing your missing is "who's head is it". To bad we live in an age of having to be politically correct. If Tony posted who's head was who's, the **** storm would be UGLY. I for one would love to see it, but I doubt it will happen.