Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

Doing some baseline testing and thought I’d share this. I tested 2 ports on a new OEM L92 head with new OEM valves. The head casting number is #12595364. The ports flowed as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.5_109.2_152.9_191.8_224.0_251.5_273.0_291.3_307 .9_319.7_325.6_326.0
Port 2_ 74.6_108.6_152.9_191.2_224.6_253.6_275.1_293.6_309 .4_320.1_326.6_326.6
Tested at 28” water.
4.030” test bore.
I retested the same ports with the intake bolted up. The manifold #12590124 flows as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.0_107.0_148.7_182.8_211.5_235.6_253.6_267.6_278 .7_288.1_294.0_298.5
Port 2_ 74.1_107.5_148.7_181.9_210.6_234.5_253.6_266.4_276 .9_284.7_290.4_295.8
All port runners and vacuum port taps were plugged to force all airflow through the ttb flange. The manifold ports tested were driver side #1 and #5 cylinders. The intake runners tested were not at the extreme ends of the plenum.

Richard

Big-DEN

Bad azz heads to .500" lift for sure and .650" numbers good for about 700HP N/A on extreme app.

Head and intake is very good, very very good. 300CFM with head bolted to the intake.

airflowdevelop

Richard,
What were you using for an ideal radius when flowing the head bare? I assume this is with the OE valve job.

Dennis

Rock_Daddy

iTrader: (8)

You don't happen to have the truck manifold around to test that do you? There was someone that looked to be in the "know" that was saying that not like truck intakes in the past, the stock L92 intake would flow awsome. I think it was said it was better then the car intakes. That is what I have an was woundering if it was true at all.

Phate

iTrader: (2)

Good info Richard, thanks!

383ss

iTrader: (14)

isn't that about the same as what a FAST 90 would so with comperably flowing heads?? I'd really love to see some ported L92's that flow 360 and see how much the intake knocks it down

CHarris

iTrader: (5)

Thanks for the baseline Richard. I really need to get one of these inhouse but am still less than enthusiastic about the $500 prices I've seen

Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

I'm using a 1/2" thick plate with a .250" radius. Perhaps I can post a pic of it.


Richard

NemeSS

iTrader: (127)

thanks much for the info
seems like that intake is not too restrictive, perhaps some light porting work will bring the flow back up some

JZ'sTA

iTrader: (23)

IMO there isn't a ton of porting that can be done of this manifold.
Its pretty good stock.
But even a 5% increase could be awsome.

Thanks for the test's. Great results.
Looks like we have a very top notch combo for a very good price.

WKMCD

iTrader: (2)

Thanks for the info Richard. How does this compare to an CNC LS1 or popular aftermarket casting setup with FAST intake?

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

Seems to be right in line with comparable heads and a FAST manifold, but much better on the pricing. Wonder what it flows by itself?

Sean Collins

What type of flow bench ? Just trying to compare data.

NBM2001z28

iTrader: (43)

Anyone trying HIGH boost with this thing and a set of L92's yet? I am wondering how it would work on a 404 LS2 with about 20PSI...

Rick@Synergy

iTrader: (5)

We were going to post up our numbers of our L92 heads and manifold tmr, but looks like you beat us to it. I just got them off the flow bench too. The only changes we made were cleaning up the bowl area because the stock L92's have a crappy little lip in the intake bowl area. And we added some porting to the exhaust of it too. I will post up in the morning.

Rick

Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

Here's a recent back to back of our Edelbrock 245 cathedral head. The first test is the port with flow plate and the second is with a box stock LSX 90mm manifold.
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 70.4_104.5_141.5_176.0_209.9_239.8_267.3_291.0_307 .0_319.2_328.2_337.1
Port 2_ 69.9_103.9_139.2_171.4_200.4_225.8_248.5_265.6_279 .3_289.3_296.0_293.5
__________________________________________________ __________________________

The test was done on a Superflow 600 with flowcom. I also retested on my JKM and saw within a 1% difference as usual.

__________________________________________________ __________________________

Sorry Rick. I wasn't sure if anyone else was persuing this info and since it's part of our development, I thought it would be of some interest here. My test head has no work. I felt it would be a better baseline for comparing against the other combinations, but I'm interested to see how your results compare.

Richard

Sean Collins

Just comparing sf600 to sf1020 always seems to be different although with results backing up with the JKM suggest that the sf1020 is somewhat different in its measuring there always seems to be some disparity between those 2 benchs

thanx for the info though. Look like the intake works alot better then the ls6 peice at least

Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

I could write a dissertation on my JKM bench but this forum doesn't have enough band width ................. The end result is the bench now mirrors a typical SF600. I've tested it with several in the area with very similar results. I've heard a number of SF1020 owners make similar statements to yours about the flow differences to other benches. Next week I'll be testing our new All Pro LSW head and will have the opportunity to compare the test head on a SF1020 while using the same fixturing. This should make an excellent apples to apples comparison.

Richard

Sean Collins

The sf1020 is not very friendly from what i have seen. what does that mean ??? since most engine math formulas were built around the sf600 data it throws the sf1020 out the door. I don't care what the number is as long as it tracks accurately. howeveri am interested to see the flow data if you don;t mind sounds like some intresting testing. don't forget to figure DA for the bench test.

Rick@Synergy

iTrader: (5)

I am glad you did it stock. I needed these heads on a car fast to drop a motor in and time was limited. So I opt'd for the test results after some touching up.

Maybe you found the same thing, but the bowl work needed big help in the intake seat area. After this, I think we ended up in the area of 328ish with the manifold bolted on. Nice really. The exhaust is where I told my porter to spend time on. 230's without a pipe is where we landed.

Rick