[RAIV-Z]

Here is what we're currently looking at for intake flow number with a 2.270 valve using a 4.200 test fixture at 28".

[ponjohn]

380 cfm @ 600...nice!!

[dci]

Originally Posted by ponjohn

380 cfm @ 600...nice!!

Keep in mind too that this is on a 4.200" test fixture. Ed's bore is 4.350" so they will flow a little more we think on the bigger bore. The really good part is the port does not back up and is very clean sounding on the bench. I believe Ed is going to dyno his engine again with my heads when we get them done. So depending on how much more mine flow if they do flow better, and how much more efficient they are. We should see a horsepower increase I hope !!! I think Ed has the flow sheet for his McCarty heads as well. He may or may not want to share them that's up to him.

[RAIV-Z]

If we can get this together early enough, we'll head over to Lenny's for another dyno session with the new DCI V heads.

The McCarty RA-V flow sheet was posted awhile back so the information posted below is nothing new.

[ponjohn]

Originally Posted by RAIV-Z

If we can get this together early enough, we'll head over to Lenny's for another dyno session with the new DCI V heads.

The McCarty RA-V flow sheet was posted awhile back so the information posted below is nothing new.

LOL...where is the elusive 100cfm at .100 lift.

Any idea what the DCI heads would flow at 4.18x?

[Jack Gifford]

It's hard to imagine the McCarty heads having zero intake flow @ .100" lift...

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

It's hard to imagine the McCarty heads having zero intake flow @ .100" lift...

Jack,

McCarty/BES didn't provide the .100 lift flow numbers. If either one of them can supply it I'll update the spreadsheet. I do have 2 flow sheets from BES for 2 different sets of McCarty heads, neither of them include .100 flow numbers.

[johnta1]

I think what Jack is trying to say is why did you provide a false data point?
Should have extrapolated the .100" data if you needed that point?
Why not just show the graph with the McCarty graph starting at .200"?

[dci]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

It's hard to imagine the McCarty heads having zero intake flow @ .100" lift...

I'm sure they don't flow zero at .100". The information just was not provided apparently to Ed .So instead of making up a number he chose to use a zero. If I remember correctly I think Lynn's heads after Tony ported them flowed around 60 cfm at .100". I could be wrong ,but I think it's pretty close to that. Don't shoot the messenger, he can only state what he has been told LOL.

[dci]

ponjohn, we crowd the cylinder wall when we test. So I doubt it will have much if any effect. Remember I designed my heads to fit on a 4.150 bore with a 2.200 intake valve. You can put a 2.250 intake in and still fit it on the bore, but I don't recommend it. I think it would shroud the intake valve to much.

[dci]

ponjohn, I was just on my facebook page and I forgot I had posted some pic's of my heads on a factory block. This was a 4.181 bore 455 block and the valves in the head are 2.25 int and 1.700 exh. There is a pic there as well with a 2.300 int valve, and it gives you a good visual of the cylinder wall clearance even with the bigger valve.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by johnta1

I think what Jack is trying to say is why did you provide a false data point?
Should have extrapolated the .100" data if you needed that point?
Why not just show the graph with the McCarty graph starting at .200"?

You would think that is how it should have been handled. But maybe that is technically beyond him.

Stan

[67'7F6'Bird]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

You would think that is how it should have been handled. But maybe that is technically beyond him.

Stan

Considering all the misinformation supplied to Ed by Lynn who knows how accurate any of the MCcArty Numbers really are anyways, .1 Lift is Really a Moot Point. But continue if you want.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by 67'7F6'Bird

Considering all the misinformation supplied to Ed by Lynn who knows how accurate any of the MCcArty Numbers really are anyways, .1 Lift is Really a Moot Point. But continue if you want.

Since this is a clear example of Ed adding / fabricating data. How do we as outsiders know what data has come from Lynn or has been made up by Ed?

Stan

[67'7F6'Bird]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Since this is a clear example of Ed adding / fabricating data. How do we as outsiders know what data has come from Lynn or has been made up by Ed?

Stan

YAWN.

[RAIV-Z]

My apologies for confusing you 2 by posting ALL the “Raw” flow data I have. I assumed it would be obvious that “Zero” flow at any lift could be ignored. See what happens when you assume… Now if I did extrapolate the data point and it didn’t match the actual measured number, “If someone actually has it” wouldn’t that be considered fabricating numbers? Like I said, if someone can supple the actual measured number for .100 lift, I’ll be happy to add it. For those still confused, please use the following instructions when viewing the comparison chart.

1) When comparing the flow numbers between the 2 heads ignore .100 lift.

If anyone needs help following these instructions please feel free to send me a PM with a description of what’s confusing you and your number. If there are still a number of you still confused, I’ll write up more detailed instructions.

[Tom Vaught]

Normally a "Space" means that data was not taken at a given point.

I have seen flow sheets over the years where no flow numbers were reported below .300 lift, (and there were spaces in those data blocks, not zeros), so it is a simple error by a guy who posted the data without really understanding the whole flow process.

Ed was not a guy trying to falsify data, in my mind, but it is always better to post actual data given vs a "filling in the squares with a number approach".
A simple error. Why don't we leave it at that, (But Jack is right to question the posted data).

Tom V.

[Jim Robertson]

Ed, Thanks for posting the numbers. A large number of us are quietly encouraging you to take the time to dyno the beast. If engine performs as expected in the car, you will have the dyno numbers as a data reference and if for whatever reason the engine does not perform in the car...well...turn up the boost! ...you know what I mean.

Did any of that record snow melt yet?

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Jim Robertson

Ed, Thanks for posting the numbers. A large number of us are quietly encouraging you to take the time to dyno the beast. If engine performs as expected in the car, you will have the dyno numbers as a data reference and if for whatever reason the engine does not perform in the car...well...turn up the boost! ...you know what I mean.

Did any of that record snow melt yet?

Hey Jim,

We do plan on running this on Lenny's dyno NA with the DCI RAV heads, low compression and 93 octane pump gas.
Floor is just about complete along with the chrome moly drive shaft tunnel.

[Tom Vaught]

Explain this footer comment Ed: Twin 88M Turbo Rebuild.

That implies that there was something wrong with the Turbonetics T-88 Turbos.
You have never run the turbos, period on any engine.

I would change that to Twin 88M Turbo INSTALLATION Redo.

Just saying.

Tom V.