How are my Flow #s?
10-03-2002, 02:03 PM
#1
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Meffa, MA
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are my Flow #s? I trust MTI fully but just want to make sure my flow numbers are near where others' have been, since this is a lot of $!
Stage 2 LS1 milled as little as possible (.010 about). 28" of water, Cylinder 1.
I can't read the exhaust curve on the fax, just intake:
238 @ .400
252 @ .450
268 @ .500
280 @ .550
292 @ .600
297 @ .650
This seem reasonable? It sounded a tad low to me, but the proof is in the puddin' and not the flow bench I guess.
-Dave
Stage 2 LS1 milled as little as possible (.010 about). 28" of water, Cylinder 1.
I can't read the exhaust curve on the fax, just intake:
238 @ .400
252 @ .450
268 @ .500
280 @ .550
292 @ .600
297 @ .650
This seem reasonable? It sounded a tad low to me, but the proof is in the puddin' and not the flow bench I guess.
-Dave
10-03-2002, 03:23 PM
#3
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Meffa, MA
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How are my Flow #s? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 383ss:
<strong>honestly they look a little low, maybe 10cfm to me. They may perform though. CFM isn't everything by any means.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They faxed me over some comparisons on their bench with the same bore, etc., and now I'm happy, they outflow a 430RWHP car's heads, and they also faxed me a copy of ARE's flow on their bench and the stock head flow, and theirs are clearly superior. I understand completely that every bench is different, just wanted to make sure that nobody there was going "hmm those are a little low but no biggie".
We'll let the dyno and track tell the tale!
-Dave
<strong>honestly they look a little low, maybe 10cfm to me. They may perform though. CFM isn't everything by any means.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They faxed me over some comparisons on their bench with the same bore, etc., and now I'm happy, they outflow a 430RWHP car's heads, and they also faxed me a copy of ARE's flow on their bench and the stock head flow, and theirs are clearly superior. I understand completely that every bench is different, just wanted to make sure that nobody there was going "hmm those are a little low but no biggie".
We'll let the dyno and track tell the tale!
-Dave
10-03-2002, 04:35 PM
#4
Launching!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Warren, mi
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How are my Flow #s? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 2001 LS1 SS:
<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 383ss:
<strong>honestly they look a little low, maybe 10cfm to me. They may perform though. CFM isn't everything by any means.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They faxed me over some comparisons on their bench with the same bore, etc., and now I'm happy, they outflow a 430RWHP car's heads, and they also faxed me a copy of ARE's flow on their bench and the stock head flow, and theirs are clearly superior. I understand completely that every bench is different, just wanted to make sure that nobody there was going "hmm those are a little low but no biggie".
We'll let the dyno and track tell the tale!
-Dave</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dave flow benches sometimes mean little. My ARE Stage II heads actually flow better than yours, be it 1-2% at every lift its still more. It doesnt mean mine are any better tho. Different flow bench <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
They are fine, they look like real world #'s and not those 320cfm stage one hand ported heads all these people are posting about. they should perform fine! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />
<small>[ October 03, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Dave@Ramchargers ]</small>
<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 383ss:
<strong>honestly they look a little low, maybe 10cfm to me. They may perform though. CFM isn't everything by any means.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They faxed me over some comparisons on their bench with the same bore, etc., and now I'm happy, they outflow a 430RWHP car's heads, and they also faxed me a copy of ARE's flow on their bench and the stock head flow, and theirs are clearly superior. I understand completely that every bench is different, just wanted to make sure that nobody there was going "hmm those are a little low but no biggie".
We'll let the dyno and track tell the tale!
-Dave</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dave flow benches sometimes mean little. My ARE Stage II heads actually flow better than yours, be it 1-2% at every lift its still more. It doesnt mean mine are any better tho. Different flow bench <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
They are fine, they look like real world #'s and not those 320cfm stage one hand ported heads all these people are posting about. they should perform fine! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />
<small>[ October 03, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Dave@Ramchargers ]</small>
10-03-2002, 05:00 PM
#5
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Meffa, MA
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How are my Flow #s? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dave@Ramchargers:
<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 2001 LS1 SS:
<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 383ss:
<strong>honestly they look a little low, maybe 10cfm to me. They may perform though. CFM isn't everything by any means.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They faxed me over some comparisons on their bench with the same bore, etc., and now I'm happy, they outflow a 430RWHP car's heads, and they also faxed me a copy of ARE's flow on their bench and the stock head flow, and theirs are clearly superior. I understand completely that every bench is different, just wanted to make sure that nobody there was going "hmm those are a little low but no biggie".
We'll let the dyno and track tell the tale!
-Dave</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dave flow benches sometimes mean little. My ARE Stage II heads actually flow better than yours, be it 1-2% at every lift its still more. It doesnt mean mine are any better tho. Different flow bench <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
They are fine, they look like real world #'s and not those 320cfm stage one hand ported heads all these people are posting about. they should perform fine! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah I'm not freaking because they aren't 320, I know that every flow is different, I thought I had heard better numbers from MTI S2 heads, but I guess they seem right in line with others. They did say they've seen up to 10 higher and lower than mine, so I'm right in the middle, and I'll be satisfied with that.
-Dave
<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 2001 LS1 SS:
<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 383ss:
<strong>honestly they look a little low, maybe 10cfm to me. They may perform though. CFM isn't everything by any means.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They faxed me over some comparisons on their bench with the same bore, etc., and now I'm happy, they outflow a 430RWHP car's heads, and they also faxed me a copy of ARE's flow on their bench and the stock head flow, and theirs are clearly superior. I understand completely that every bench is different, just wanted to make sure that nobody there was going "hmm those are a little low but no biggie".
We'll let the dyno and track tell the tale!
-Dave</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dave flow benches sometimes mean little. My ARE Stage II heads actually flow better than yours, be it 1-2% at every lift its still more. It doesnt mean mine are any better tho. Different flow bench <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
They are fine, they look like real world #'s and not those 320cfm stage one hand ported heads all these people are posting about. they should perform fine! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah I'm not freaking because they aren't 320, I know that every flow is different, I thought I had heard better numbers from MTI S2 heads, but I guess they seem right in line with others. They did say they've seen up to 10 higher and lower than mine, so I'm right in the middle, and I'll be satisfied with that.
-Dave
10-03-2002, 05:34 PM
#6
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How are my Flow #s? To me, they look very decent!!
My ARE stage 2 flowed about 270 @ .600 (412 rwhp and 402 rwtq with a 227/227 cam)
My MTI stage 2 flowed about 295 @ .600 (450 rwhp and 446 rwtq with a 230/227 cam)
Both are the same set of heads and flow tested on the same flow bench. MTI did some work on the ARE heads that I have and got those newer #s. You know you can not really compare flow #s. You can compare them only if they are flow tested on the same flow bench. But, as a starting point they look good!
Good luck!
My ARE stage 2 flowed about 270 @ .600 (412 rwhp and 402 rwtq with a 227/227 cam)
My MTI stage 2 flowed about 295 @ .600 (450 rwhp and 446 rwtq with a 230/227 cam)
Both are the same set of heads and flow tested on the same flow bench. MTI did some work on the ARE heads that I have and got those newer #s. You know you can not really compare flow #s. You can compare them only if they are flow tested on the same flow bench. But, as a starting point they look good!
Good luck!
10-03-2002, 05:39 PM
#7
Teching In
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How are my Flow #s? One measure of the ports effeciency would be flow per port volume. Measure the port volume in cc and subtract 200 cc (LS1) or 210 cc (LS6) to determine how much material was remove to obtain those flow #'s. Some stage II ports are running in the 240 cc range. Also post your flow from .200" through .400" since this is a critical range for the intake closing/ramming effect. Peak #'s aren't the whole story.
Paul J.
<small>[ October 03, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: PAULJ99Z ]</small>
Paul J.
<small>[ October 03, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: PAULJ99Z ]</small>
Trending Topics
10-03-2002, 07:56 PM
#8
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Meffa, MA
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How are my Flow #s? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PAULJ99Z:
<strong>One measure of the ports effeciency would be flow per port volume. Measure the port volume in cc and subtract 200 cc (LS1) or 210 cc (LS6) to determine how much material was remove to obtain those flow #'s. Some stage II ports are running in the 240 cc range. Also post your flow from .200" through .400" since this is a critical range for the intake closing/ramming effect. Peak #'s aren't the whole story.
Paul J.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah I figured we mostly usually compare .500 to .600 so I'd toss those out there.
Keep in mind I'm reading off a faxed graph so these are plus/minus a couple CFM, I'm kinda overlaying the graphs to figure out the diffs. I can't see the exhaust side either, apparently that color doesn't fax well. All the following are off MTI's bench
Mine/Another MTI/ARE/Stock LS1
133 @ .200/133/133/133
165 @ .250/165/164/164
195 @ .300/200/193/193
218 @ .350/218/212/205
238 @ .400/238/232/213
252 @ .450/253/249/218
268 @ .500/272/263/224
280 @ .550/281/275/227
292 @ .600/288/272/230
297 @ .650/277/272/232
-Dave
<small>[ October 03, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: 2001 LS1 SS ]</small>
<strong>One measure of the ports effeciency would be flow per port volume. Measure the port volume in cc and subtract 200 cc (LS1) or 210 cc (LS6) to determine how much material was remove to obtain those flow #'s. Some stage II ports are running in the 240 cc range. Also post your flow from .200" through .400" since this is a critical range for the intake closing/ramming effect. Peak #'s aren't the whole story.
Paul J.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah I figured we mostly usually compare .500 to .600 so I'd toss those out there.
Keep in mind I'm reading off a faxed graph so these are plus/minus a couple CFM, I'm kinda overlaying the graphs to figure out the diffs. I can't see the exhaust side either, apparently that color doesn't fax well. All the following are off MTI's bench
Mine/Another MTI/ARE/Stock LS1
133 @ .200/133/133/133
165 @ .250/165/164/164
195 @ .300/200/193/193
218 @ .350/218/212/205
238 @ .400/238/232/213
252 @ .450/253/249/218
268 @ .500/272/263/224
280 @ .550/281/275/227
292 @ .600/288/272/230
297 @ .650/277/272/232
-Dave
<small>[ October 03, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: 2001 LS1 SS ]</small>