I thought I would share some interesting findings after flowing a couple sets of heads. Stock 6.0L & Stock LS1, radiused air inlet, no stub pipe on the exaust, on a Superflow bench.

Intake
.200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700
136 191 218 227 232 236 LS1
143 200 233 244 250 250 6.0L

Exaust
.200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700
103 140 165 179 185 187 LS1
103 138 165 179 184 186 6.0L

As I thought, the better runners & short side on the 6.0 intakes flowed better through out than the LS1 heads. I was anticipating better numbers on the exaust side, but it wasn't the case. I'm sure once they're ported, they'll show improvement over LS1 runners.

I'm curios how the LS6 runners will compare to the 6.0L.

 

How would these compare to the 5.3L heads?
thanks,
Chris

 

what test pressure????? It's like saying you need 5 to fill the sump.....five WHAT?

<small>[ June 21, 2002, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: HOWQUICK ]</small>

 

That is interesting... I am surprised by the exhaust numbers for sure.

Good work.

ERic

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by HOWQUICK:
<strong>what test pressure????? It's like saying you need 5 to fill the sump.....five WHAT?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What my learned Aussie friend said... At what pressure??

 

Not only what test pressure -- which Superflow bench and what scale where you flowing at? The 600 and the 1020 benches vary. And even more importantly what bore size did you flow the two heads on?

 

question, what does this mean, are the 6.0 heads an upgrade from the stock LS1 heads? What the compression ratio, with stock motor?

Ryan.

 

Who cares what pressure? You can't compare from one flow bench to the next anyway. Just look at the delta.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>Who cares what pressure? You can't compare from one flow bench to the next anyway. Just look at the delta.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well said Terry! It's not like saying it takes 5 to fill the sump... It's more like saying, look at 5 compared to 4. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> It doesn't matter what flow bench it was on, as long as the test pressure is high enough to give accurate, repeatable readings. As long as I know port A flows more than port B, I don't give a rats *** about the numbers saying 250 to 260 or 4562 to 4987. You can't compare between benches anyway, whether it's a 600,1020 or the same bench in different locations.

Chris:

The 5.3 heads would flow considerably less in stock configuration for obvious reasons, smaller valves, shrouded chamber etc.

The 6.0 heads have a little different runner design than the LS1. They are similar to the LS6 heads, but have larger chambers which will lower your compression in stock form.

I'm pretty surprised to see people respond like I'm stupid by what I posted. It seems to me that this information is pretty valuable and people would be a little more appreciative of such information. Anybody that knows enough about flow numbers and different benches knows that I gave enough information to draw a reasonable conclusion from the results. Superflow's almost always test at 25/28" so what difference does it make? Don't get hung up on the numbers, look at the results. And bore size wouldn't make that big a difference in this case anyway.

I'm in the process of building a new bench. Do you think slightly different numbers than the ones posted above will make the information invalid as long as the numbers are consistent & repeatable? If you're looking at the numbers, you're looking at data. If you see the big picture, you're seeing information. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

In my best Terry voice.... "5.00" bore, SF10000 bench, 1" test pressure, and underwater." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jantzer98SS:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>Who cares what pressure? You can't compare from one flow bench to the next anyway. Just look at the delta.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well said Terry! It's not like saying it takes 5 to fill the sump... It's more like saying, look at 5 compared to 4. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> It doesn't matter what flow bench it was on, as long as the test pressure is high enough to give accurate, repeatable readings. As long as I know port A flows more than port B, I don't give a rats *** about the numbers saying 250 to 260 or 4562 to 4987. You can't compare between benches anyway, whether it's a 600,1020 or the same bench in different locations.

Chris:

The 5.3 heads would flow considerably less in stock configuration for obvious reasons, smaller valves, shrouded chamber etc.

The 6.0 heads have a little different runner design than the LS1. They are similar to the LS6 heads, but have larger chambers which will lower your compression in stock form.

I'm pretty surprised to see people respond like I'm stupid by what I posted. It seems to me that this information is pretty valuable and people would be a little more appreciative of such information. Anybody that knows enough about flow numbers and different benches knows that I gave enough information to draw a reasonable conclusion from the results. Superflow's almost always test at 25/28" so what difference does it make? Don't get hung up on the numbers, look at the results. And bore size wouldn't make that big a difference in this case anyway.

I'm in the process of building a new bench. Do you think slightly different numbers than the ones posted above will make the information invalid as long as the numbers are consistent & repeatable? If you're looking at the numbers, you're looking at data. If you see the big picture, you're seeing information. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

In my best Terry voice.... "5.00" bore, SF10000 bench, 1" test pressure, and underwater." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">oh dear....now if one bench flows 10 cfm at a given pressure through the same fixed orifice than the next and being SF in manufacture....we would be able to see a trend line wouldn't we??

so many people come on the forum posting figures neglecting to give the necessary data to quantify their testing....now go away and do it scientifically in controlled conditions and post the results as such...have you tested that bore size make no difference?

if you don't care about what the bench reads....write it this way....the exhaust flowed pretty much the same and the truck head intake was significantly better...

I have been flow testing for over 15 years and get mighty sick of seeing the science abused!! I appreciate your results....just submit them correctly so some of us (who are interested) can see the trend....if your figures are 10% higher in base than what I see on my bench your resulting modified head figures will be high by the same amount...the way you have presented them we can't make the correlation between the two...

for what it's worth...
over here 5l of oil= 1.1 gallons
over there 5l of oil= 1.32 gallons
which everway it is only a sump full!!

<small>[ June 22, 2002, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: HOWQUICK ]</small>

 

Oh boo hoo, get over it. I appreciate the wealth of information that Scott brings to the ls1 community all the time and you are stupid not to as well. He posted more than enough detail to draw accurate conclusions about stock form flow figures for the heads...thats all he was trying to do.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by xssive:
<strong>Oh boo hoo, get over it. I appreciate the wealth of information that Scott brings to the ls1 community all the time and you are stupid not to as well. He posted more than enough detail to draw accurate conclusions about stock form flow figures for the heads...thats all he was trying to do.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">boo hoo to you too fella....I don't have a problem to get over EXCEPT that I like to translate the figures that other post onto my own work...is there enough imfo to do that???????????

now let's keep it civil... others like to quantify the imfo presented aswell...so you get over it! Far out you fellas are touchy....only asked the test pressure! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" />

<small>[ June 22, 2002, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: HOWQUICK ]</small>

 

Jantzer98SS ,
Your flow numbers seem reasonable to me. Did you flow one of each port or several? I've noticed that core shift can be a real problem for some castings. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" /> I've seen some core shifted castings that left the sharp edge of the bottom of the intake seat insert hanging in the wind. Needles to say, those castings get used for the big valve conversions! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
Lastly, what was the casting number of each head tested? Thanks much,

Richard

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jantzer98SS:
<strong>I thought I would share some interesting findings after flowing a couple sets of heads. Stock 6.0L & Stock LS1, radiused air inlet, no stub pipe on the exaust, on a Superflow bench.

Intake
.200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700
136 191 218 227 232 236 LS1
143 200 233 244 250 250 6.0L

Exaust
.200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700
103 140 165 179 185 187 LS1
103 138 165 179 184 186 6.0L

As I thought, the better runners & short side on the 6.0 intakes flowed better through out than the LS1 heads. I was anticipating better numbers on the exaust side, but it wasn't the case. I'm sure once they're ported, they'll show improvement over LS1 runners.

I'm curios how the LS6 runners will compare to the 6.0L.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Although Jantzer98SS did draw qualitative conclusions as to the magnitude of the exhaust numbers, the exercise was to COMPARE port flow capability, not to make an empirical statement about ALL LQ4/LS1 ports for adoption into the annals of the SAE. Apparently some on the other side of the equator would like to draw conclusions that CANNOT be made from your data.

If you, and YOU know who YOU are, have specific aims for flow testing, take your self-exalted person to the shop and set up your own testing. We would be pleased to see your results.

The conclusions drawn from the data given are reasonable, thank you Jantzer98SS! We can accurately draw a percentage number as to the greater capability of the stock intake ports in the LQ4 head versus the LS1, regardless of further statement of conditions. We can also see there is effectively no advantage with respect to the exhaust ports. One who is educated in scientific methods can see the value in these data.

Once again, if one sees no value in this exercise, then use the "Back" button, and come back when you have something constructive.

Thanks again, Jantzer98SS!

SC

<small>[ June 22, 2002, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>

 

I don't see what the argument is? His data is helpful and nice to see. We'd just like to know what the test pressure was.

 

Please don't discourage people from posting relevant technical info because it was not done at a NASA laboratory.
I can't take anymore "which cam is best" threads! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
I think we all knew the intake flowed better on the 6.0's but the exhaust data is surprising.
Good info Jantzer.
Steve

 

It sounds like most of you understand/appreciate the point of the post, to show a reasonable comparison between the LS1/6.0L ports. I thank you for that. Now when someone says they flow tested on a Superflow bench, it's probably safe to say the numbers are reasonable, repeatable, and at a pressure of 25/28" which is standard. Especially coming from somebody that knows what's going on. And the only purpose of the test pressure "for me" which is all that counted in this case, was to make sure the numbers WOULD be repeatable and consistent....

so many people come on the forum posting figures neglecting to give the necessary data to quantify their testing....now go away and do it scientifically in controlled conditions and post the results as such...have you tested that bore size make no difference?

You still don't understand do you? My purpose was not to show how the bench I used compares to yours, I could care less. And you say, go away and do it under scientific, controlled conditions? Give me a break, flow benches aren't perfect in and of themselves. And just how much do you want to know about the conditions because all of the following WILL affect the results:

Weather
Altitude
(or) correction equipment
Bench
Calibration of the Bench
Accuracy of Valve Opening Fixture
Test Pressure
Bore
EXACT Mold of the radiused inlet (picture?)
Length/Diameter of Exaust Stub
Variation from port to port
Spark Plug dimensions/none
Air Leaks
Water in the Air Supply
Conversion software
etc.

Now because I'm not going to the moon anytime soon, I didn't feel it was necessary to disclose all of the relevant data. Because it's useless for the point being made. The ONLY thing I made clear was that the test was done with ENOUGH pressure to make the tests valuable, consistent & repeatable. How it compares to anybody elses, I don't care.

Did I ever say bore size doesn't matter? Nope, I know it does but it won't be significant enough to draw a different conclusion from the results.

And I'm just another person on this board huh giving useless data? From what I can see, A) I'm one of the few in the 10's NA stock shortblock, B) I've shared information countless times about cylinder heads including pictures, C) I've given advice on head porting countless times, D) I've got the ONLY Home-Ported heads in the 10's, and E) I'm a sponser to boot.

Now who is more proven to be talking about cylinder heads on this board? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

I have been flow testing for over 15 years and get mighty sick of seeing the science abused!!

NO COMMENT!

if your figures are 10% higher in base than what I see on my bench your resulting modified head figures will be high by the same amount...the way you have presented them we can't make the correlation between the two...

That's exactly it, I don't care because you'll never be able to accurately compare! You're trying to make a correlation between the two. My point was to show a direct relationship, under the same conditions, on the same bench. That's the only data that can be used to draw good information.

for what it's worth...
over here 5l of oil= 1.1 gallons
over there 5l of oil= 1.32 gallons

WOW from that statement I almost think you're starting to understand. 5L on my bench isn't 5L's on yours. So why try to compare with all the variables? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

[b]oh dear....now if one bench flows 10 cfm at a given pressure through the same fixed orifice than the next and being SF in manufacture....we would be able to see a trend line wouldn't we??[b]

Ok, for the last time, we're not comparing between benches. You are so fixated on the actual numbers that you're looking past the conclusion drawn from the test. That's not my problem.

I guess for you I will post %increases from now on and you can extrapolate to your bench. Because if you can't compare the numbers to your bench down under, then it's just worthless data I guess. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

You tell him, Jantzer! <img border="0" alt="[fight]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_punch.gif" />

 

Scott if you're a sponsor I don't think you can have home ported heads. You have Jantzer motorsports heads. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

Scott your flow data was within 1-3 cfm of my own on my Superflow 600 bench. As for test pressure, i think any bench tester(professional know it all) could see from your results that 28 inches was your test pressure, maybe readings get screwed up below the equator, making some confused as to your data? Keep up the helpful info Scott, not many post the good stuff.