quote:

---

Originally posted by shade-tree:
velocity, CC volume, runner volume, valve angle (inline, twisted,etc.)

---

You listed the same thing here twice

Smaller runner volume gives you higher velocity.

Put it this way, on a boosted car, flow is pretty much all you care about since you're making your own velocity.

On a NA car, you want the highest flowing heads for a given runner volume. For example, a head that flows 300 cfm on the intake side with 240cc runners is not very efficient. A 205cc runner volume head that flows 300cfm is efficient.

In short, flow numbers with respect to runner volume are everything.
 

---

Posted by CustomFastbackCA (Member # 1369) on :
 
pretty sure my heads are 210cc intake ports, so I am guessing they are effecient? How do they compare to AFRs (I'll save someone the joke of saying "they don't compare" by calling you on it).
 

---

Posted by yellow67stang (Member # 903) on :
 
Who cares what they compare to AFR heads. You have a head now that can still pick up another 30cfm on the intake and 20 on the exhaust if you wanted to with very little work. If you build the combo right you could have a 700hp NA small block, easy. Non streetable though. So, there is a lot of potential with your heads.

Good luck with them

Eric
 

---

Posted by John91coupe (Member # 18) on :
 
That intake runner volume (210cc) seems a bit large for the amount of flow they have. Who did the porting? Another thing to consider is what the mid lift flow numbers are, maybe even more important than max flow numbers. As the saying goes, the valve see's .400" twice during an intake cycle, and only max lift once. BTW, my TFS TW intake runners are 195cc and max flow at .600" is 314 and 240 CFM. How are your heads at .400"? Mine are 272 and 197 CFM. Just for comparison sake.
 

---

Posted by yipnip5.0 (Member # 175) on :
 
there is a good article over on the muscle ford site that explains all the flow basics.
try this link
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2003/02/afr/index.shtml
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by st5150:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shade-tree:
velocity, CC volume, runner volume, valve angle (inline, twisted,etc.)

---

You listed the same thing here twice

Smaller runner volume gives you higher velocity.

Put it this way, on a boosted car, flow is pretty much all you care about since you're making your own velocity.

On a NA car, you want the highest flowing heads for a given runner volume. For example, a head that flows 300 cfm on the intake side with 240cc runners is not very efficient. A 205cc runner volume head that flows 300cfm is efficient.

In short, flow numbers with respect to runner volume are everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:

Let me just throw out one more thing.... Cross-section of the port also matters. This ties in with velocity.
EI, a smaller cross-section port that flows 300cfm is more efficient then a larger cross-section port that flows 300cfm. Even if the CC volume is the same.[/QB]

---

Yep, that is definitely true and I see your point, especially with the TW valve being rotated toward the intake port and having a shorter runner length. It is difficult to compare apples-to-apples in this case so as usual..."the devil is in the details". My intake port has a 1262 cross section so there are a lot of variables to consider.
 

---

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :
 
Different heads are going to flow differently based on their shape and porting, it's conceivable to have a low velocity for a given cross section/volume and a high velocity for the same.

But generally speaking you can say low volume=high velocity, I was just trying to point out a list of the variables involved.

[ April 08, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: shade-tree ]
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 
Actually 'cross section' alone gives you less info than just saying 'volume'. cross section = width X hight of the port. volume = length X hight width of the port. When you say volume, cross section is already accounted for.
For example, two heads could have the same hight and width ports, but one heads ports are longer than the other, thus having more volume and (probably) less velocity.

That Ford Muscle artical is pretty sweet.

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2003/02/afr/index2.shtml

I ever noticed how the GT40X heads out flow the Edel 6037's on the exhuast side.
 

---

Posted by CustomFastbackCA (Member # 1369) on :
 
Info that I got from Coast High where I got my heads: Stage 2 will flow 290cfm on the intake and 222 on the exhaust @ .700 lift-------at .500 lift they are 275cfm intake and 208cfm on the exhaust. They come with 2.05 intake valves and 1.600 exhaust valves. Here's my cam:
 

---

Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on :
 
The chebby NASCAR SB2 heads and the LS1 heads have tall skinny "Cathedral window" shaped intake ports that make a small cross section at the roof, where you want that big velocity. So by playing w/ the port shape, you can have velocity that is not directly tied to volume. Obviuosly that shape works pretty well. Ahh, to have a flowbench and stereo lithography at my disposal. I would love to play w/ empirical testing of all kinds of head and intake stuff.
 

---

Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by st5150:

For example, two heads could have the same hight and width ports, but one heads ports are longer than the other, thus having more volume and (probably) less velocity.

---

Well, not entirely. If you move the same mass of air thru a 1" diameter by 4" pipe at 14psi (differential w/ the output side of the pipe), and then do that w/ one that is 1/4" diameter by 16" at 14psi, which one will have the higher velocity at the exit?
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 
Either way, how does calculating the volume not take in to account the 'cross section' ?

I think we're getting off topic and nit picking over a trivial detial
 

---

Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by st5150:
Either way, how does calculating the volume not take in to account the 'cross section' ?

I think we're getting off topic and nit picking over a trivial detial

---

Becuase simply calculating the volume does not take into account the shape of the port. Until very recently, most intake ports were pretty close in their overall shape. But the examples I cited are a departure and show that if you simply knew the volume w/out knowing about the changes to the shape, you would not correctly predict the velocity, hence the mass of air able to flow thru the port.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
For a second there I actually thought st5150 'got it'.
Ah well.....guess I have to try harder...
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 
Jim- "simply calculating the volume does not take into account the shape of the port"..... volume = area of one surface multiplied by the length. I still don't see how this has nothing to do with the shape of the port. It actually has everything to do with the shape.

Shaun- I want to make a 450 rwhp beast out of my LX, can you show me how its suppose to be done "right"?
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Volume = length x height x width

TW's have (by far) shorter intake runner lengths. Given the same intake CC volume as a typical 20degree in-line head, the cross-section of the TW head will be larger. Get it?

BTW, your beast will NEVER hit 450.
 

---

Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by st5150:
Jim- "simply calculating the volume does not take into account the shape of the port"..... volume = area of one surface multiplied by the length. I still don't see how this has nothing to do with the shape of the port. It actually has everything to do with the shape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
Volume = length x height x width

---

really? your ports are perfect rectangles?

I would say in the real world a rectangle with eliptical edges is a better cross section.

nitpick all you want but cross section is simply one detail, it's not constant, and "volume" does not already include it because there are infinite possibilities for an intake runners shape given a specified volume.

and where do we calculate the cross section? entry? exit? short side radius? in the combustion chamber? lol.
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 
Actually volume does include the cross section regardless of shape. Triple intergrals.... its just the sum of the boundries set on the X and Y axis for Z length. 3-D stuff is just impossible to explain on a 2-D message board, I'm gonna forfeit the match and get some real work done

Of course this way of calculating volume takes a very long time for irregular shapes.

I'd say this is damn hard to explain online, but a very easy concept to explain with pen and paper in real life.

Joe brings up a good point about where you measure cross section.... that's the Newtonian way of looking at things. I likes

The real question is.... how much more RWHP is a 99 cent bag of ice worth compared to minor nit picking of port size?
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Good points guys.
I was just trying to make things simple & easy for the regular board folk.
 

---

Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by st5150:
Actually volume does include the cross section regardless of shape. Triple intergrals.... its just the sum of the boundries set on the X and Y axis for Z length. 3-D stuff is just impossible to explain on a 2-D message board, I'm gonna forfeit the match and get some real work done

Of course this way of calculating volume takes a very long time for irregular shapes.

I'd say this is damn hard to explain online, but a very easy concept to explain with pen and paper in real life.

Joe brings up a good point about where you measure cross section.... that's the Newtonian way of looking at things. I likes

The real question is.... how much more RWHP is a 99 cent bag of ice worth compared to minor nit picking of port size?

---

Why is it so hard to explain? Yes, integrate on all three axes, after you work out the equations for the complex curves involved. But then you have an equation describing a three dimensional shape. Just having the answer of the volume for two different shapes tells you nothing. Volume 1 equaling volume 2 does not mean that shape 1 works as well as shape 2. And if you can actually see the complex shape from the mathematical representation, you are far better at this than I am.
 

---

Posted by jmcclesk (Member # 1355) on :
 
Man you guys ARE way over my head
 

---

Posted by John91coupe (Member # 18) on :
 
I sure am glad that Brian Tooley at TEA understands all of this stuff
 

---

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :
 
Although cross section and volume are definitely interrelated, when it comes to an airflow discussion they still must be considered independant variables.

The classic example is the AFR vs TFS heads.

The cross section of the TFS head *is* larger if you account for it's twisted valve angle and measure it on that plane, otherwise it appears to have the same cross section as the AFR head. Very, very close runner volume, very similar CFM #'s, yet totally different runner length.

Unless we want to conclude that "volume=volume" when it comes to airflow I would keep the variables seperate.

[ April 09, 2003, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: shade-tree ]
 

---

Posted by 92coupe (Member # 1957) on :
 
so aww what kinda heads should i get with out needing porting??
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John91coupe:
I sure am glad that Brian Tooley at TEA understands all of this stuff

---

I agree After the 3rd or 4th post, the nit picking details don't matter and we (people on this post) simply don't have the real life data to back up our theory.
 

---

Posted by yellow67stang (Member # 903) on :
 
You guys are just like my very good friend Chad who is an aeronautical engineer. He analyzes the poop out of the way things are and when it comes down to applying his knowledge he cant do it! Thetas what this post reminds me of. A lot of theory. I wish I went to school for math so I can figure out how to make power.

Wait a minute....I don't need to be an engineer to make power. These air pumps that we all love are not even close to being rocket science and is very easy to make power with little knowledge.

And I would be willing to bet the the guys at TEA would not be able to discuss in detail what you guys are talking about. To a point they probably can but, you would soon reach a point where a head porter would just ask you to shut the fuck up and let them do there job.

Just my view point.

Eric
 

---

Posted by 67stang (Member # 549) on :
 

quote:

---

And I would be willing to bet the the guys at TEA would not be able to discuss in detail what you guys are talking about.
Eric[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 92coupe:
so aww what kinda heads should i get with out needing porting??

---

AFR's
165 for N/A 302, 185 for power adder 302 or stroker.

Twisted Wedge for 302, ported Twisted wedge for power adder 302 or stroker.

Wish I knew something about power so I could make some...
 

---

Posted by yellow67stang (Member # 903) on :
 
If you believe everything you read in magazines or even better the internet than I dont know what to tell you.

Inflation always occurs in articles like that to sell products. Thats why they are doing the article. Not saying that the article is wrong but he is not doing anything special with that head.

The Windsor heads are a great head for the money and can make some good power. So, I dont know why you think they are the worst aftermarket head out there. There are some Ford aftermarket head that are much worse than the windsors.

Still though, if the guys at TEA new what you were talk ing about they probably wouldnt say a damn thing because that's what they are selling.

Eric
 

---

Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellow67stang:
If you believe everything you read in magazines or even better the internet than I dont know what to tell you.

Inflation always occurs in articles like that to sell products. Thats why they are doing the article. Not saying that the article is wrong but he is not doing anything special with that head.

The Windsor heads are a great head for the money and can make some good power. So, I dont know why you think they are the worst aftermarket head out there. There are some Ford aftermarket head that are much worse than the windsors.

Still though, if the guys at TEA new what you were talk ing about they probably wouldnt say a damn thing because that's what they are selling.

Eric

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellow67stang:
I didn't say that you guys get paid. I meant that most of the "crap" that is in magazines like Car Craft, Hot Rod and stuff like those magazines do a really good job of fudging everything in efforts to sell the product that they are talking about.

If it was not for advertising then why mention the people who did the heads? You may not think it is a form of advertising but it most certainly is and I am sure TEA had no problem giving you information for the sole purpose of getting his name out there even more!!!

I Don't know a thing about your online magazine. So, I cannot challenge your online magazines integrity. But, I have seen it numerous times.

I have a good idea. If you are in charge of that online magazine lets do a "shot out" on Ford Cylinder heads. TEA against the small guys. I think that would be a great article and would finally show the world that places like TEA or Fox Lake are not the "end all" in cylinder head porting. Let me know.

Eric

---