[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

Hey what did your heads flow?


GTO George

A couple hundred CFM.

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by mike leech

2 things come to mind.....

1. You are wrong. E heads were bashed shamelessly when they came out.
Results are what made them a success.

2. WE ARE STILL WAITING for the cv results. THEY ARE STILL SUCKING HIND T!T!

X2!

[Aaron Quinton]

x3 = 600 cfm at 28"?

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

A couple hundred CFM.

[GTOGEORGE]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

A couple hundred CFM.

If you aint giving up numbers don't ask someone else to give up numbers..........fair is fair!


GTO George

[GTOGEORGE]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

To be Polite (because it is Christmas Season) you need to do a bit more research on what real stock heads from Pontiac actually flowed. A stock D-port head was in the High 180 cfm range. A stock Ram Air IV head or 455 SD head was in the 230-240 cfm range.

A WELL PORTED Pontiac RA-IV or 455 SD head, (Butch Elkins, Nunzi, Whitmore ) was in the very low 300 cfm range. And finally a stock Edelbrock head was in the 285 cfm range out of the box. 100 CFM HIGHER FLOW VS A STOCK PONTIAC HEAD.

So now Edelbrock heads (not Pro Ports either) are typically in the 375 - 380 range cfm (when ported) or 200 cfm better than a stock cast iron Pontiac head.

Those are real numbers that can be verified by many.

Tom V.

E heads went 370-380 when they started moving the push rods!!



GTO George

[GTOGEORGE]

E Heads were not abused NO where near what YOU GUYS have done to the CV Heads!......Just Saying!


GTO George

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

If you aint giving up numbers don't ask someone else to give up numbers..........fair is fair!


GTO George

I didn't ask anyone what there heads flow. Please show me where I said this?

I honestly don't remeber exactly what they flow nor do I really car. ET and MPH is the only real numbers I care about.

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

E Heads were not abused NO where near what YOU GUYS have done to the CV Heads!......Just Saying!


GTO George

They had it coming!

Talk trash and don't back it up and you are going to get your balls busted!

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Tom,
Since the edelbrock is based on the RAIV head. Why did you not use the RAIV flow for the stock head? Plus edelbrock also has a 275 cfm version.

275 - 240 = 35 cfm difference

Stan

PS What stock heads with 2.11" intakes only flowed high 180's?

The ones that Pete McCarthy wrote about in his magazine articles years ago that were flowed on Jerry Goodall's laminar Flow Bench. Then you apply the correction factor from Superflow to correct from Jerry's Test Pressure to Superflow's Test Pressure and they were still less than 200 cfm. He sorted STOCK heads for guide clearances, untouched castings, proper valve shapes and angles, etc. It was not a half-assed deal Stan. The articles are out there somewhere. Course if you want to call Pete's work crap, go for it.

Tom V.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

E heads went 370-380 when they started moving the push rods!! GTO George

I agree George! Thought we were discussing stock pushrod location stuff.
Wide Port is a whole different subject. How much did you move the pushrod, etc?

Speaking of moving the pushrod, JC moved it completely out of the port on RA-V heads so do we use those numbers for moving a pushrod "a bit" too?

Tom V.

Flow bench is one tool, the dyno is another tool, the track is another tool, and some say you are a Tool George. Merry Christmas.

[Kevspontiacs@aol.com]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Thought we were discussing stock pushrod location stuff.
.

silly me I thought this was a thread about Kelvins engine.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

E Heads were not abused NO where near what YOU GUYS have done to the CV Heads!......Just Saying!


GTO George

Thats cuz they stepped up and ran. NA=truth. PA=whatever the PA is worth and tuning.

[Kevspontiacs@aol.com]

btw Kelvin your set up sounds like it will fly. congrats

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

The ones that Pete McCarthy wrote about in his magazine articles years ago that were flowed on Jerry Goodall's laminar Flow Bench. Then you apply the correction factor from Superflow to correct from Jerry's Test Pressure to Superflow's Test Pressure and they were still less than 200 cfm. He sorted STOCK heads for guide clearances, untouched castings, proper valve shapes and angles, etc. It was not a half-assed deal Stan. The articles are out there somewhere. Course if you want to call Pete's work crap, go for it.

Tom V.

Tom,

To rehash, all testing was done at 12 inches water, and airflow figures were taken at valve lift increments of .100 up to .600 inch (higher in some instances).

1969 NO. 722 (1969 Ram Air IV 400, round exhaust ports)
Date cast: none Grade: 1
Valve sizes: 2.11/1.77 (tuliped)
Intake port volume (2 ports): 182.6 & 183.6 cc's

Intake(MP) Flow (cfm) Exhaust(S) Flow (cfm) Exh./Int.
.100 63 71 62 70 .100 38 .57
.200 120 130 126 120 .200 79 .64
.300 156 172 164 158 .300 109 .67
.400 180 184 187 178 .400 131 .72
.500 194 193 195 190 .500 145 .75
.600 195 195 195 194 .600 151 .78
.700 197 195 197 194 .700 157 .80


http://www.wallaceracing.com/ultimatehead.htm

http://www.wallaceracing.com/ultimateflow.htm

This is what I had to say to someone about those number in a PM.

But, by looking at them against numbers from other source they still seem a little off. Since they were all done on the same bench I guess that they would be good to compare against each other.

Maybe you have a different method for converting from one depression to another than I do. But I get much higher numbers for those RAIV when I convert from 12 inches of water to 28 inches of water than you posted for RAIV heads.

.100 111.5
.200 183.3
.300 238.3
.400 274.9
.500 296.3
.600 297.9
.700 300.9

Stan

[Tom Vaught]

I agree but you were not taking into the allowance for the dead mouse that was found in the laminar element and skewed the test results quite a bit higher vs the real numbers Stan. You see, you guys read something in the magazine, do the corrections based on the numbers and then report it as gospel and do not know the real story. That is my point. The real story rarely gets out to the normal Pontiac guy. Pete M was trying to do a valid comparison, of the Pontiac Heads. He did not know about the dead mouse until later when jerry wanted to upgrade the bench with some Superflow type motors (I sold him) to get the test pressure more in the 25"-28" range. Not Pete's fault, he was reporting what he "saw" even thought the numbers were wrong.

Tom V.

But anyway, again, Merry Christmas.

ps the mice in the bench are not as uncommon as you would think: http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic...d1ae7be721b592

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

I agree but you were not taking into the allowance for the dead mouse that was found in the laminar element and skewed the test results quite a bit higher vs the real numbers Stan. You see, you guys read something in the magazine, do the corrections based on the numbers and then report it as gospel and do not know the real story. That is my point. The real story rarely gets out to the normal Pontiac guy. Pete M was trying to do a valid comparison, of the Pontiac Heads. He did not know about the dead mouse until later when jerry wanted to upgrade the bench with some Superflow type motors (I sold him) to get the test pressure more in the 25"-28" range. Not Pete's fault, he was reporting what he "saw" even thought the numbers were wrong.

Tom V.

But anyway, again, Merry Christmas.

ps the mice in the bench are not as uncommon as you would think: http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic...d1ae7be721b592

Tom,
I really appreciate all of the time and effort that Pete put into those tests. What frustrates me is not being able to use that data against other heads flowed at 28 inches of water. I tried a number of years ago and if my memory is still any good I come up with using 16.5 test pressure. Here are some of the heads with their highest flow number converted to different depressions.

Stan

48_Head_-_165_cfm_RA_III
Test_Depr_________CFM
____12.00000_____252.04
____12.50000_____246.95
____13.00000_____242.15
____13.50000_____237.63
____14.00000_____233.35
____14.50000_____229.29
____15.00000_____225.43
____15.50000_____221.77
____16.00000_____218.27
____16.50000_____214.94
____17.00000_____211.76
____17.50000_____208.71
____18.00000_____205.79
____18.50000_____202.99
____19.00000_____200.3

722_Head_-_197_cfm_RA_IV
Test_Depr_________CFM
____12.00000_____300.92
____12.50000_____294.84
____13.00000_____289.12
____13.50000_____283.71
____14.00000_____278.6
____14.50000_____273.75
____15.00000_____269.15
____15.50000_____264.78
____16.00000_____260.61
____16.50000_____256.63
____17.00000_____252.83
____17.50000_____249.19
____18.00000_____245.7
____18.50000_____242.36
____19.00000_____239.15

44_Head_-_253_cfm_RA_V
Test_Depr_________CFM
____12.00000_____386.46
____12.50000_____378.66
____13.00000_____371.3
____13.50000_____364.36
____14.00000_____357.8
____14.50000_____351.57
____15.00000_____345.66
____15.50000_____340.04
____16.00000_____334.69
____16.50000_____329.58
____17.00000_____324.69
____17.50000_____320.02
____18.00000_____315.55
____18.50000_____311.25
____19.00000_____307.13

093_Head_-_147_cfm
Test_Depr_________CFM
____12.00000_____227.6
____12.50000_____223
____13.00000_____218.67
____13.50000_____214.58
____14.00000_____210.72
____14.50000_____207.05
____15.00000_____203.57
____15.50000_____200.26
____16.00000_____197.11
____16.50000_____194.1
____17.00000_____191.22
____17.50000_____188.47
____18.00000_____185.84
____18.50000_____183.31
____19.00000_____180.88

670_Head_-_163_cfm
Test_Depr_________CFM
____12.00000_____248.99
____12.50000_____243.96
____13.00000_____239.22
____13.50000_____234.75
____14.00000_____230.52
____14.50000_____226.51
____15.00000_____222.7
____15.50000_____219.08
____16.00000_____215.63
____16.50000_____212.34
____17.00000_____209.19
____17.50000_____206.18
____18.00000_____203.3
____18.50000_____200.53
____19.00000_____197.87

[Tom Vaught]

Confused, your charts are saying you get more flow with LESS depression across the orifice or Laminar Flow element.

Example: your 722 head say that you would get 239 cfm at 19" depression and 300 cfm at 12" of depression. Doesn't make sense.

Tom V.

I have projects I have to do so good luck with your "corrections" of Pete's data.

Again, merry Christmas! I am done with this one.

[Aaron Quinton]

Originally Posted by mike leech

NA=truth. PA=whatever the PA is worth and tuning.

^^^^^QFT^^^^^

[slowbird]

Saw this vid on youtube http://youtu.be/_RzBMLDBfLI
It'll be interesting to see how he runs next yr

[PAUL K]

COOL!!! Thanks for posting the link.